Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jackson v. Burczyk

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided January 9, 2019No. Appeal No. 2018AP65Published

1Dissent

REILLY, P.J. (dissenting).

¶27 I respectfully dissent as the known and present danger exception clearly applies. A kettle that holds boiling liquids and has been known for over a year to have defective gears and be prone to tipping is a known and present danger that creates a ministerial duty to repair or prevent injury. The fact that the injury occurred to a prisoner (as the majority highlights in the first line of its decision) is meaningless to our analysis. Let's change our outlook as to who was injured, but keep all other facts, dates, and times the same. The kitchen is now at the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lodl v. Progressive Northern InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Voss v. Elkhorn Area School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006
  3. Heuser Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Community InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2009
  4. Michael Engelhardt v. City of New BerlinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API