Holland v. Watertown Mut. Ins. Co., 93-1742
| Decision Date | 19 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-1742,93-1742 |
| Citation | 522 N.W.2d 36,186 Wis.2d 576 |
| Parties | NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. Rebecca HOLLAND, a minor, by her Guardian ad Litem, Dean M. HORWITZ, Corey W. Holland and Therese Holland, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WATERTOWN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Merle Fischer and Sherry Fischer Randall d/b/a Fischer Brothers Farm, Def Insurance Company, Lawrence Dainert, Heritage Mutual Insurance Company, ABC Insurance Company, MNO Insurance Company, PQR Insurance Company, City of Milwaukee, STU Insurance Company and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendants, Greg PARKINSON, Estate of Robert L. PARKINSON, deceased, Dale Williams, Harold Burdick, Estate of Leonard Perkins, deceased, James Williams, Historic Sites Foundation, Inc. and Milwaukee County, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Before WEDEMEYER, P.J., SULLIVAN and SCHUDSON, JJ.
Rebecca A. Holland, by her guardian ad litem, appeals from a judgment dismissing her personal injury action. Holland argues the recreational use statute, § 895.52(2), STATS., does not apply to this case and that summary judgment is not appropriate because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Great Circus Parade and its surrounding activities were commercial or recreational. We reject both arguments and affirm.
On July 5, 1989, while visiting a public display of animals and historic circus wagons of the Great Circus Parade at the McKinley landfill, four-year-old Rebecca A. Holland was bitten by a horse, which was to take part in the parade. Milwaukee County is the landowner of the McKinley landfill and leased this area to the State of Wisconsin, who charged no fee to the public to enter it.
On December 6, 1991, Holland filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, claiming that they were entitled to immunity from liability under the recreational use statute, § 895.52, STATS. Holland opposed summary judgment, arguing that her activity was not among the activities covered by § 895.52 and that issues of fact existed regarding whether the Great Circus Parade display at the McKinley site had a commercial, as opposed to a recreational, purpose such that the recreational immunity statute was inapplicable.
The trial court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion concluding that Holland's conduct qualified as a recreational activity. The trial court stated that Holland came upon the premises for "the purpose of pleasure and sightseeing," and rejected the argument that Holland's purpose was instead "random wandering." See Shannon v. Shannon, 150 Wis.2d 434, 442 N.W.2d 25(1989) ().
We independently review a trial court's grant of summary judgment by applying the methodology...
To continue reading
Request your trial