 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mair v. Trollhaugen Ski Resort5/3/2005
Julie Mair appeals a summary judgment dismissing her safe place claim against Trollhaugen Ski Resort. The trial court concluded that injuries Mair sustained after falling in a bathroom arose from a structural defect, so her claim was barred by the ten-year builder's statute of repose, WIS. STAT.§ 893.89. Mair claims the statute of repose does not apply to claims brought under the safe place statute, WIS. STAT.§ 101.11. We affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2001, Mair was skiing at Trollhaugen. At some point, she went into the bathroom, where she stepped on a recessed floor drain, lost her footing and fell, breaking her leg. The resort was constructed in 1976 and there have been no modifications to the bathroom. Larry Seiberlich, an architect specializing in environmental behavior, testified at a deposition that, according to industry standards, the drain should be level with the floor.
Mair filed suit against Trollhaugen alleging common law negligence and violation of the safe place statute. Trollhaugen moved for summary judgment, arguing Mair's claims were barred by WIS. STAT.§ 893.89, which contains a ten-year statute of repose for claims arising out of a design or construction defect. Because the resort was constructed in 1976, Trollhaugen argued any claims relating to the design or construction of the bathroom were barred after 1986.
At the hearing on the motion, Mair conceded that her negligence claim was barred by the statute of repose. However, she argued that her safe place claim was not barred because the safe place statute imposes an ongoing duty to keep a structure safe. The circuit court agreed with Trollhaugen and granted its summary judgment motion.
DISCUSSION
Our review of a trial court's grant of summary judgment is independent. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315-17, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no material factual dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Germanotta v. National Indem. Co., 119 Wis. 2d 293, 296, 349 N.W.2d 733 (Ct. App. 1984). Summary judgment methodology is well established and need not be repeated here. See, e.g., Lambrecht v. Estate of Kaczmarczyk, 2001 WI 25, -24, 241 Wis. 2d 804, 623 N.W.2d 751. This case also involves interpretation of the statute of repose and safe place statute. We review questions of statutory interpretation independently. State v. Sveum, 2002 WI App 105, , 254 Wis. 2d 868, 648 N.W.2d 496.
Mair contends her safe place claim is not barred by the statute of repose. She argues that the statute of repose only applies to common law negligence, not to the safe place statute. She says the ten-year statute of repose is restricted to negligent acts at the time of construction. The safe place law, on the other hand, is not limited to the initial construction but imposes an ongoing duty to furnish a safe place.
We agree that the safe place law is not limited to initial construction. However, it does cover the initial construction. It covers both the construction and the ongoing duty to keep premises safe. We conclude that the construction is covered by the statute of repose. Any later safe place claims are not.
The statute of repose, WIS. STAT.§ 893.89, provides:
(1) In this section, "exposure period" means the 10 years immediately following the date of substantial completion of the improvement to real property.
(2) Except as provided in sub. (3), no cause of action may accrue and no action may be commenced, including an action for contribution or indemnity, against the owner or occupier of the proper
Page 1 2 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|