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
- Szafranski v. RadetzkyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Schilz v. Walter Kassuba, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Szep v. RobinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Estate of MayerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
3Cited by43 opinions
- Coffey v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- A. E. Investment Corp. v. Link Builders, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Antoniewicz v. ReszczynskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Owen Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Hass v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.