Court Opinion

ID: 9696252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:42:36.712051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:20.246501
License: Public Domain

Robert W. Hansen, J.
(dissenting). Must an Eskimo warn a departing guest that he might slip on the ice on his way from the igloo to his dogsled ? Must a Wisconsin homeowner warn a social guest that, because it has rained, the grass may be quite wet? Must a Milwaukee dentist warn a houseguest upon departure that, since it has snowed, the steps or walk will likely be slippery? The answer in all three situations, this writer would submit, is No, because the condition outside the house is not so hidden or concealed that the guest cannot reason*252ably be expected to learn of it for himself.1 The majority opinion concedes that, to establish the homeowner’s liability, “. . . it is necessary to decide that the icy condition of defendants’ front steps constituted a trap.” A “trap” arises, as the majority states, when a condition constitutes “ ‘. . . a known but concealed danger.’ ” Is a natural accumulation of rain, ice or snow such hidden or “concealed” danger? This court has held that a garden hose left by a homeowner across a walk leading to the house was not concealed and not a trap, commenting that: “. . . One might very well expect to encounter a hose across a sidewalk under such circumstances. ...” 2 This court has held that a metal shoescraper partly obscured by untrimmed grass, on a concrete patio floor, was not a trap, because “the shoescraper here was not ‘concealed.’ ” “. . . [h]ad she looked she would have seen the scraper.” 3 What makes a natural accumulation of snow or ice following a snowstorm any more *253of a “concealed danger” than a garden hose across a walk or a metal scraper on a patio? Nor is the case of the plaintiff helped by the allegation of inadequate lighting of the premises. Where a plaintiff dove off the end of a pier into the shallow waters of a murky lake, this court held that: “. . . where the obvious, roiled, and muddy condition of the water made it impossible for a licensee to reasonably estimate the depth of the water, the observation of these conditions constituted notice that a potential hazard existed to one who wished to use the lake at that place for swimming or diving.” 4 Even if the area in front of the doctor’s home had been completely dark, that would be an added “clear warning” to exercise particular care — a “signal” to proceed with caution. We see no reason why the theory of law applicable to the case before us should differ from that applied to public sidewalks where ice and snow are considered “. . . merely a natural formation” and neither municipality nor adjoining property owner is held responsible for its presence.5 The writer would apply the same reasoning to the walkway and steps leading from the public side*254walk to the house, and would affirm. This, as the writer sees it, would follow the cases up to now in Wisconsin and the law as of now in other states.6 To permit a guest to recover damages from his host caused by snow or ice on the premises of the host places a new and uncalled-for burden on homeowners. For now the Wisconsin homeowner will surely need insurance coverage to protect against his failing to warn a departing guest that, when it rains, it will be wet, and, if it snows, it may be slippery.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Bruce F. Beilfuss and Mr. Justice Leo B. Hanley join in this dissent.

 “It has been generally recognized that, in so far as a duty to warn licensees of dangers on the premises is recognized at all, such a warning is required only where the condition causing injury, or the risk of danger therefrom, is so hidden that the licensee does not and cannot reasonably be expected to learn of it for himself.” 55 A. L. R. 2d 525, 533, Duty of a possessor of land to warn adult licensees of danger, sec. 3. (Citing cases from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virginia.)

 Cordula v. Dietrich (1960), 9 Wis. 2d 211, 213, 101 N. W. 2d 126, holding: “. . . Nor can it be said that the hose constituted a trap. ... In any event, even if it be considered a danger, respondent would have no duty to give warning of a condition which should be obvious to the licensee. . . .”

 Kaslo v. Hahn (1967), 36 Wis. 2d 87, 91, 153 N. W. 2d 33, holding: “Since a trap exists only if there is a ‘concealed’ danger, and since the shoescraper here was not ‘concealed’ from the view of the plaintiff, we agree with the trial court that the scraper was not a trap as a matter of law.”

 Scheeler v. Bahr (1969), 41 Wis. 2d 473, 477, 480, 164 N. W. 2d 310, holding: “. . . The plaintiff asserts that the danger was concealed because the mnrkiness of the water prevented a visual gauging of the depth. This assertion, we conclude, is pregnant with the conclusion that the opaqueness of the water was in itself a notice of danger. It appears to this court that the failure to see the bottom of a lake or other body of water constitutes an observable danger. For a nonswimmer, it should serve as a clear warning that he may be venturing into waters beyond his depth. For a diver, it is a signal that the water may be too shallow for safe diving.”

 On nonliability of municipality to frequenters of sidewalks for injuries due to natural accumulation of snow or ice, see: Griswold v. Camp (1912), 149 Wis. 399, 135 N. W. 754. For nonliability of owner of adjoining property to users of sidewalk based on icy condition of the walk, see: Johnson v. Prange-Geussenhainer Co. (1942), 240 Wis. 363, 368, 2 N. W. 2d 723.

 “Attempts by a social guest to recover against his host for injuries allegedly caused by slipping on ice or snow which had been allowed to accumulate upon the approaches to the host’s premises have been uniformly unsuccessful.” 25 A. L. R. 2d 598, 608, Liability for injury to guest in home or similar premises, sec. 5. (Citing cases from Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey.)