Soapy floors, banana peels create slippery safety issue

By Laure Rakvic-Farr

Advertisement
Pick up that banana peel and tack down that carpet.
Business and property owners beware: Wisconsin's Safe Place Statute imposes a high standard of care upon you to repair or maintain your property in "as safe a condition as the nature of the premises reasonably permits." While this phrase is rather vague, the purpose of the statute is apparent: Employers and owners of public buildings must take steps to protect their employees and the public from injury.

Prior to enactment of the statute, property owners were generally found liable to persons injured on their premises only if the owners were aware of a defect or problem with their property, or if the defect was so obvious that they should have been aware of the problem and the potential for injury.

Examples of obvious dangers include an open sump pit in the floor or a tenth-story porch without a guardrail.

Under the Safe Place Statute, a property owner will be held strictly liable (that is, liable even if they were completely unaware of a defect) if the defect is structural. This is in contrast to unsafe conditions, for which property owners are liable only if they had notice of the particular injury-causing condition.

The distinction is fairly straightforward: A structural defect is a defect in the original design or construction of a property. For example, the absence of a handrail or stairs that do not conform with the building code are structural defects.

In contrast, an unsafe condition results from a failure to keep the property maintained or in good repair. For example, spilled liquid soap on the floor and loose floorboards are unsafe conditions.

Owners of historic buildings that may not be up to code, take heart. There is a statute in Wisconsin that bars claims by injured parties from suing the property owner 10 years after the original construction is completed if the injury results from a structural defect (defect in the original design or construction).

For example, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that a woman who was injured in 2001 after falling on a recessed floor drain at a ski resort built in 1976 could not recover against the ski resort based upon this limitation.

The court classified the location and depth of the recessed floor drain a structural defect because it was undisputed that the floor drain was in the same condition it was in when the ski resort was originally built.

If wet towels strewn about the floor or a large crack in the floor tile would have caused the fall, the result would have been different and the ski resort may have been held liable. Of course, the ski resort's notice of the towels or crack would be required to hold the owner liable under this circumstance.

Note that notice does not mean actual knowledge of a condition. A business owner cannot avoid liability simply by stating that he or she was unaware of such a condition. Rather, "notice" includes knowledge the owner should have had if he or she acted reasonably.

The practical application of this rule imposes a duty upon the property owner to conduct inspections and take other proactive steps to protect customers and employees from injuries on business premises. For example, when considering whether a person should have been aware of a problem such as a banana peel on the floor of a grocery store, the court will consider how often employees swept or inspected the produce area.

Ultimately, the Safe Place Statute requires business owners to take necessary steps to maintain business property and buildings. A good business owner will have processes in place for the care and maintenance of the property to attract and perpetuate business, but also to keep their patrons and employees safe.


Laure Rakvic-Farr is an attorney with Corneille Law Group, LLC and practices civil litigation, including premises liability and medical malpractice defense.

Resources

Printable format

E-mail this story

Index of advertisers

Directory