Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Reformation of Milwaukee
| Decision Date | 29 April 1930 |
| Citation | 230 N.W. 708,202 Wis. 111 |
| Parties | WILSON v. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF REFORMATION OF MILWAUKEE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County; Edward T. Fairchild, Judge.
Action by Mary Wilson against the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Reformation of Milwaukee. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Reversed and remanded.
Action begun November 26, 1928; order dated November 9, 1929. Demurrer. The plaintiff is a married woman and brings this action to recover injuries sustained by her while upon the premises owned by the defendant.
After setting forth the description of the parties and the duty of the defendant to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, the complaint alleges:
“That on said 19th day of December, 1926, it became necessary for plaintiff to leave the said refreshment room and said church building before the luncheon provided by the members of said defendant church organization was concluded and after making known that fact and her excuses, she went up the stairway from said basement lunching part of defendant's church building to the landing in the hall or passageway leading to the outside doors of said building.
“That in passing along said hallway for the purpose of leaving defendants said church building on said 19th day of December, 1926, and because of the improper and insufficient lighting of said hallway, the plaintiff fell down the several stairs at or near to the outside doors of said church building, and as a result of said fall was severely injured,” etc.
The complaint was demurred to on the ground that it stated no cause of action for three reasons: (1) That the plaintiff was a mere licensee and cannot therefore recover, since the complaint does not allege that there was a trap upon the premises or that the defendant was guilty of any active negligence; (2) that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; and (3) that the rule of respondeat superior does not apply to the defendant, which is a religious corporation, and therefore a charitable corporation.
The demurrer was sustained, and, from the order sustaining the demurrer, the plaintiff appeals.Perry & Perry, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Emmet Horan, Jr., of Milwaukee, for respondent.
Upon the appeal the matter is argued here by the plaintiff on the theory that the complaint states a cause of action if it does not fall within the doctrine of Morrison v. Henke, 165 Wis. 166, 160 N. W. 173, or Bachman v. Young Women's Christian Association, 179 Wis. 178, 191 N. W. 751, 30 A. L. R. 448, relating to the liability of charitable corporations for negligence of servants.
No reference is made by either party to the so-called safe place statute (chapter 101). By that act the term “public building” means “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).
The term “owner” means and includes “every person, firm, corporation, state, county, town, city, village, manager, representative, officer, or other person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or public building,” etc.
Section 101.06 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.”
[1][2] If the complaint in this case states a cause of action, it is because the defendant failed to maintain a public building so as to render the same safe. The principle upon which charitable corporations were held not to be liable for acts of their servants involved considerations of public policy. It is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature to determine questions of public policy. The chapter referred to makes no exceptions of religious or charitable corporations, and there appears to us to be no reason why it does not apply to a place of worship maintained by a religious corporation. More appropriate language to express that intention could scarcely be employed.
[3] The sole defect in the premises here was the failure to maintain a properly lighted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
President and Dir. of Georgetown College v. Hughes
...625; (3) for failure to observe a statute requiring public buildings to be kept in safe condition, e. g., Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1930, 202 Wis. 111, 230 N. W. 708; (4) as employer under Workman's Compensation Act, Mo.R.S.A. § 3689 et seq., Hope v. Barnes Hospital, 1932, 227 ......
-
Widell v. Holy Trinity Catholic Church
...of care than common-law negligence under the safe-place statute or for public nuisances. In Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Reformation of Milwaukee (1932), 202 Wis. 111, 230 N.W. 708, we stated the safe-place statute made no exception for religious institutions and there were no r......
-
Heiden v. City of Milwaukee
...construed, but that does not mean that the court is to struggle to defeat the purpose of the Legislature.” In Wilson v. Evangelical Luthern Church, 202 Wis. 111, 230 N.W. 708, it was held that a church building was within the meaning of the words “public buildings” and that the doctrine of ......
-
Low v. Siewert
...to light the premises subject to the safe-place statutes represents a failure to properly maintain the area. Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church (1930), 202 Wis. 111, 230 N.W. 708; Heiden v. Milwaukee (1937), 22l Wis.2d 92, 275 N.W. 922; Merkley v. Schramm (1966), 31 Wis.2d 134, 142 N.W.2d ...