Court Opinion

ID: 9683525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:30:39.555536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.499223
License: Public Domain

Beilfuss, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes the evidence is sufficient to raise a jury issue as to whether or not the door was as safe as the nature of the premises would reasonably permit. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff had not met her burden of proof in that the evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of the safe-place statute. I agree with the trial court.
Two significant quotations from recent' decisions on the burden of proof and the scope of the safe-place statute follow: ■
“The plaintiff stresses the words ‘absolute duty’ on the part of the employer which have been frequently used in our decisions. From this language he contends that the employer is an insurer and that negligence is not an issue *586in a safe-place case. The safe-place statutes do not make' an employer the insurer of the -safety of a frequenter. Boutin v. Cardinal Theatre Co. 267 Wis. 199, 64 N. W.. (2d) 848. The burden of proving all of the elements of liability under the safe-place statutes is upon the plaintiff in an action seeking recovery of damages for personal injuries. It has long been held that' the safe-place 'statutes lay down a- standard of care and if • those to whom, it applies violate the provisions thereof they are guilty of negligence. Holzworth v. State, 238 Wis. 63, 298 N. W. 163; Morrison v. Steinfort, 254 Wis. 89, 35 N. W. (2d) 335; Stellmacher v. Wisco Hardware Co. 259 Wis. 310, 48 N. W. (2d) 492. As in other negligence cases, contributory negligence is a defense.” Paluch v. Baldwin Plywood & Veneer Co. (1957), 1 Wis. (2d) 427, 432, 433, 85 N. W. (2d) 373.
“The safé-place statute, sec. 101.06, does not make an employer the insurer of the safety of a frequenter. Boutin v. Cardinal Theatre Co. (1954), 267 Wis. 199, 64 N. W. (2d) 848. The mere fact that an accident happens does not prove that the place was unsafe. Heckel v. Standard Gateway Theater (1938), 229 Wis. 80, 281 N. W. 640. The burden of proving all the elements of liability under the safe-place statute is upon the plaintiff in an action seeking recovery of dámages for personal injuries. Paluch v. Baldwin Plywood & Veneer Co. (1957), 1 Wis. (2d) 427, 85 N. W. (2d) 373. To create liability under the statute the injured party must show that a defect or hazardous condition existed, that such condition caused the injury, and that it had existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the owner or employer opportunity to discover and remedy the situation. Boutin v. Cardinal Theatre Co., supra.” Rosenthal v. Farmers Store Co. (1960), 10 Wis. (2d) 224, 227, 102 N. W. (2d) 222.
The door was constructed of wood with a glass view panel. The obvious purpose, of a view panel in a door that swings .both ways is to afford to the users a means of determining whether the door can be pushed open without *586astriking a person or object on the other side. The view panel was designed to enhance the safety of its use. It was not intended to be used as a means of opening the door. A metal push plate was attached to the door for that specific purpose. To effectively serve its purpose the view panel must necessarily be in close proximity to the push plate. I cannot agree that the school district should be required to reasonably anticipate the view panel would be used to open the door.
Further, I cannot agree that the mere proof that glass in the view panel was .118 inches thick is sufficient to allow an inference that it was not as safe as the nature of premises would reasonably permit. There is no proof as to the force necessary to break a panel of this size and thickness. In my opinion, an inference that it was unsafe must rest upon conjecture. I would affirm the order and judgment of the trial court.
I am authorized to state Mr. Chief Justice Currie and Mr. Justice Hallows join in this dissent.