Legal Opinion · Dissent

Minnesota Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Paper Recycling of La Crosse

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 2001No. 99-0327, 99-0858Published

1DissentJon P. Wilcox, J.

¶ 46. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I would conclude that the boys' activity constituted a "recreational activity" under Wis. Stat. § 895.52 (1995-96)1 and, for this reason, § 895.52 immunizes Paper Recycling from liability. Therefore, I believe that this court should have ruled that summary judgment in favor of Paper Recycling is appropriate.

*318H

¶ 47. The legislature intended Wis. Stat. § 895.52 to "be liberally construed in favor of property owners to protect them from liability." Linville v. City of Janesville, 184 Wis. 2d 705, 715, 516 N.W.2d 427 (1994) (quoting 1983 Wis. Act 418,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Seider v. O'CONNELLWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Ervin v. City of KenoshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  3. LePoidevin Ex Rel. Dye v. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Linville v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Verdoljak v. Mosinee Paper Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1996

2 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