Legal Opinion

Scheeler v. Bahr

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1969No. 115PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

The plaintiff correctly asserts that a social guest has the legal status of a licensee when he goes on the property of his host. In Wisconsin the duty owed by the possessor of land to a licensee is a limited one. We have said in Szafranski v. Radetzky (1966), 31 Wis. 2d 119, 126, 141 N. W. 2d 902:

“. . . that the possessor or occupier of premises may be liable for injuries to the licensee in two situations. The licensor may be liable because the injury was caused by a ‘trap’ on the premises [citing cases]. He has, however, no obligation to the licensee in regard to dangers that are unknown to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Szafranski v. RadetzkyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Schilz v. Walter Kassuba, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Szep v. RobinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Estate of MayerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Coffey v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. A. E. Investment Corp. v. Link Builders, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Antoniewicz v. ReszczynskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Owen Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  5. Hass v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1970

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API