Baldwin v. St. Peter's Congregation

Citation60 N.W.2d 349,264 Wis. 626
PartiesBALDWIN et al. v. ST. PETER'S CONGREGATION.
Decision Date06 October 1953
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Action by Valerie Bladwin and M. D. Baldwin to recover damages for injury to the person of Valerie Baldwin, begun July 23, 1952.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was a religious charitable institution and therefore not liable for any alleged negligence. In addition to the pleadings, there was submitted an affidavit of the Rt. Rev. Msgr. Julius Chylinski setting up evidentiary facts showing the religious charitable nature of the defendant. The complaint contains allegations asserting a cause of action under the safe-place statute. The defendant filed a further affidavit with a photograph of the premises where the accident occurred, showing the absence of any structural defect in the premises. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, ruling that the accumulation of ice and snow referred to in the pleadings was temporary and due to climatic conditions; and that there was no structural defect which would result in liability of the owner.

The questions submitted on this appeal, as stated by appellant, are:

1. Did the court err in holding that the safe-place statute did not apply?

2. Did the court err in holding that the defendant was not liable for negligence in the maintenance of the approaches on its private property because said defendant was a religious organization?

3. Did the court err in granting separate costs in favor of the defendant against each plaintiff?

From the judgment accordingly entered, the plaintiffs appeal.

Atwell & Atwell, Stevens Point, for appellants.

Fisher, Reinholdt & Peickert, Stevens Point, Hiram D. Anderson, Jr., Stevens Point, of counsel, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

The respondent is the owner of the premises where appellant, Valerie Baldwin, was injured. She fell on the flat concrete approach extending from the entrance doors of respondent's parochial school to the public sidewalk in front of the building. The liability to appellants on the part of the respondent is controlled not only by certain limitations upon liability of a charitable corporation but also by the statute concerning the liability of an owner of a public building as distinguished from an owner of a place of employment.

The difference between obligations arising out of the relation of employer and employee and frequenters of the employer's place of employment as declared in the statutes and the obligations of the owner of a public building is plain and has long been recognized by the law in this state. The law is that the employer's duty to furnish safe employment includes the furnishing of a safe place of employment. The employer has a broad duty not only with respect to the structure which constitutes the place of employment but with reference to the devices and other property installed or placed in such place. Jaeger v. Evangelical Lutheran Holy Ghost Congregation, 219 Wis. 209, 262 N.W. 585, 586. However, section 101.06 of the statutes, defining the obligation with respect to the duty of an owner of a public building, provides that the owner of a public building shall so construct, repair, or maintain such public building as to render the same safe, and the obligation of the owner, as we said in Jaeger v. Evangelical Lutheran Holy Ghost Congregation, supra, 'plainly relates to the building and not to temporary conditions which may negligently be permitted to exist within the building.' Juul v. School District of City of Manitowoc, 168 Wis. 111, 169 N.W. 309, 99 L.R. 904; Holcomb v. Szymczyk, 186 Wis 99, 202 N.W. 188; Bent v. Jonet, 213 Wis. 635, 252 N.W. 290, 126 A.L.R. 1245.

The place where the injured appellant fell was located on the respondent's property between the public sidewalk and the entrance doors to the school. The area is covered with flat concrete. It may have the character of a sidewalk, for it serves that purpose and no other. The question of whether or not it rises to the dignity of a structure within the meaning of the safe-place statute must be answered in the negative under the authority of the statute and decisions in relation thereto. In Bauhs v. St. James Congregation, 255 Wis. 108, 37 N.W.2d 842, 843, where a person fell on a walk in front of the church, we said: 'The liability of the defendant, if any, under the safe-place statute would be limited to its duty as the owner of a public building as defined in ch. 101, Stats. A public building is there defined as a 'structure.' It is clear that a sidewalk is not a structure.' As we have pointed out, the duty under the statute with respect to the place of employment is very broad and is not merely concerned with the question of whether or not the place of employment is a structure, while the duty placed by statute on the owner of a public building is much narrower. The duty of the latter is to maintain the structure, and this relates to the structure and not to temporary condition which is not a part thereof. When a question of this nature has been raised and considered by this court, the conclusion reached has been 'that a building is safe with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Muller v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 29 d5 Abril d5 1955
    ...Felan v. Lucey, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W.2d 302; Meade v. St. Francis Hospital of Charleston, W.Va., 74 S.E.2d 405; Baldwin v. St. Peter's Congregation, 264 Wis. 626, 60 N.W.2d 349; Forrest v. Red Cross Hospital, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 80; Jensen v. Maine Eye & Ear Infirmary, 107 Me. 408, 78 A. 898, ......
  • Widell v. Holy Trinity Catholic Church
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 30 d2 Abril d2 1963
    ...to change the law, it would not in a proper case take it upon itself to do so. The trial court considered Baldwin v. St. Peter's Congregation (1953), 264 Wis. 626, 60 N.W.2d 349, and the other decisions of this court establishing religious immunity to be the law until this court ruled other......
  • Leitner v. Milwaukee County
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 7 d4 Fevereiro d4 1980
    ...the employer's duty to supply his Employees with both a safe place of employment and with safe employment. Baldwin v. St. Peter's Congregation, 264 Wis. 626, 60 N.W.2d 349 (1953). However, the duty to furnish safe employment does not extend to frequenters. Niedfelt v. Joint School Dist., 23......
  • Niedfelt v. Joint School Dist. No. 1 of City of Viroqua
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 28 d2 Abril d2 1964
    ...employer's duty is to supply his employees with both a safe place of employment and with safe employment. Baldwin v. St. Peter's Congregation (1953), 264 Wis. 626, 60 N.W.2d 349. The duty to furnish safe employment does not extend to frequenters. This is implicit in the language of sec. 101......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT