Kowalczuk v. Rotter
| Decision Date | 07 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
| Citation | 63 Wis.2d 511,217 N.W.2d 332 |
| Parties | Fedor KOWALCZUK, Appellant, v. Harvey E. ROTTER, Individually and d/b/a Curley's Tavern, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Edward P. Rudolph, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Kluwin, Dunphy, Hankin & McNulty, Milwaukee, for respondent.
The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case against defendant tavern owner for the negligent failure of his employees to protect the plaintiff patron.
In granting the motion for nonsuit, the trial court stated:
This case is controlled by Weihert v. Piccione. 1 Weihert laid down the rule that the proprietor of a place of business who holds it out to the public for entry for his business purposes is liable to members of the public while on the premises for such purpose for harm caused by the accidental negligence or intentional acts of third persons, if the proprietor by the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered that such acts were being done or were about to be done and could have protected the members of the public by controlling the conduct of the third persons, or by giving a warning adequate to enable them to avoid harm. The rule of the Weihert case is now contained in Wisconsin Jury Instruction--Civil, 1374.
When the foregoing rule is applied to the facts in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the judgment of nonsuit cannot be affirmed. The plaintiff was in the tavern for the business purposes of the owner. He had ordered a beer. He was attacked while at the bar in the presence of a bartender. He was later discovered by a policeman, in a cruising squad car, being beaten by three people on a sidewalk near the tavern. The owner had instructed his employees to call the police in case of trouble, but there is no evidence that they did so. Under Weihert the tavern employees had a duty, when they became aware of the attack, to use such means of protection of the plaintiff as were available. While there is no evidence showing that the employees could have anticipated the attack, once the attack was made it was their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delvaux v. Vanden Langenberg
...originally numbered Wis. J I--Civil 1027.5, was read to the jury by Judge Grant. The plaintiffs rely on Kowalczuk v. Rotter, 63 Wis.2d 511, 217 N.W.2d 332 (1974), and Alonge v. Rodriquez, 89 Wis.2d 544, 279 N.W.2d 207 (1979), for their proposition that an owner's duty to his patrons extends......
-
Olson v. Ratzel, 77-637
...and superseding cause) (1965); Compare generally Weihert v. Piccione, 273 Wis. 448, 78 N.W. 757 (1956) with Kowalczuk v. Rotter, 63 Wis.2d 511, 217 N.W.2d 332 (1974) (proprietor's duty to foresee and act to prevent injury to his invitees by intentional acts of third parties, Wis. J I Civil ......
-
Korenak v. Curative Workshop Adult Rehabilitation Center
... ... National Food Stores (1963), 20 Wis.2d 224, 235, 121 N.W.2d 865, 123 N.W.2d 570 (grocery store); Kowalczuk v. Rotter (1974), 63 ... Wis.2d 511, 513, 217 N.W.2d 332 (tavern). The present case does not fall within this class because the student-school ... ...
-
Alonge v. Rodriquez
...was recognized in Weihert v. Piccione, 273 Wis. 448, 78 N.W.2d 757 (1956), and later dealt with more fully in Kowalczuk v. Rotter, 63 Wis.2d 511, 217 N.W.2d 332 (1974): ". . . (t)he proprietor of a place of business who holds it out to the public for entry for his business purposes is liabl......