Hanlon v. St. Francis Seminary

• Decision Date: 06 October 1953
• Parties: HANLON et al. v. ST. FRANCIS SEMINARY.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 381

60 N.W.2d 381

264 Wis. 603

HANLON et al. v. ST. FRANCIS SEMINARY.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 6, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1953.

This is an action for the recovery of damages on account of injuries sustained by plaintiff on June 25, 1946. Violation of the provisions of the safe-place statute is claimed. The issues were submitted to a jury on a special verdict in which answers favorable to the plaintiff were found. Judgment for the plaintiff was entered upon the verdict on August 8, 1952. Defendant appeals.

The basic facts are as follows: The defendant is a religious corporation operating a seminary for persons studying for the priesthood. Upon the premises owned by it is an old building generally referred to as the 'workmen's building'. At the time in question it was occupied by workmen employed by defendant. Some time prior to the date of the accident the defendant built a garage to the rear of the workmen's building. Part of one of the outer walls of the workmen's building constitutes the rear wall of the garage. The garage has eight stalls and is used principally by resident priests.

A driveway leads from the east to the doors of the garage. The ground to the north of the garage is higher than the driveway and is held back by a retaining wall reaching immediately from the north wall of the garage to the east. The wall is about three feet, six inches, high at the point where it abuts the garage. About seven feet north of and parallel with the wall is a walk leading from east to west.

In the latter part of June, 1946, a retreat was being conducted at the seminary and was attended by a large number of priests. Vandals had caused damage upon the premises, and the authorities of the defendant asked the county sheriff to send deputies to protect the property upon the premises. The plaintiff and one Ray Andorfer, deputies, came to the seminary on June 25, 1946. At about 11 p.m. the plaintiff, while patrolling the grounds, walked from the north toward the driveway. He stepped upon the retaining wall, fell to the driveway below, and sustained serious injuries.

Lines, Spooner & Quarles, Charles B. Quarles, Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellant.

Arlo McKinnon, Robert P. Russell, Milwaukee, for respondents.

BROADFOOT, Justice.

If the judgment is to be affirmed it must appear that there has been a violation of the so-called safe-place statute. Section 101.06, Stats., provides:

'* * * Every employer and every owner of a place of employment or a public building now or hereafter constructed shall so construct, repair or maintain such place of employment or public building, * * * as to render the same safe.'

A public building is defined as 'any structure used in whole or in part as a place of resort, assemblage, lodging, trade, traffic, occupancy, or use by the public, or by three or more tenants.' Section 101.01(12), Stats.

The fact that plaintiff was invited to the premises and the nature of the duties which he was asked to perform are immaterial. He was not a trespasser. If the retaining wall is not a public building within the meaning of the statutes he is without remedy, regardless of his status and the nature of his duties. Flynn v. Chippewa County, 244 Wis. 455, 12 N.W.2d 683.

We do not consider it necessary to consider plaintiff's contention that the garage and the workmen's building are public buildings within the meaning of the statute. In our view of the case we need go no further than to ascertain whether the wall itself, from which the plaintiff fell, is a public building within its contemplation.

The duty of the owner to construct or maintain a building in safe condition extends only to such parts of the building as are used by the public or by three or more tenants in common. Grossenbach v. Devonshire Realty Co., 218 Wis. 633, 261 N.W. 742; Flynn v. Chippewa County, supra; Delaney v. Supreme Investment Co., 251 Wis. 374, 29 N.W.2d 754.

'It was the purpose of the Legislature to secure the safety of buildings where the public gathered or to which persons resorted in numbers. That was the dominant purpose. To this end, and to this end only, was included within the term 'public building' any structure used by three or more tenants.' Bewley v. Kipp, 202 Wis. 411, 233 N.W. 71, 72.

Plaintiff's...