Lexplug logoLexplug

Heims v. Hanke

Wisconsin Supreme Court
93 N.W.2d 455, 5 Wis. 2d 465 (1958)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A principal is liable for the negligence of an unpaid volunteer acting as their agent when the principal has a duty to protect others from harm and confides the performance of that duty to the agent.


Facts:

  • The defendant was washing his car in freezing weather with the help of his nephew, William.
  • William was an unpaid volunteer assisting the defendant.
  • While carrying pails of water from a faucet to the car, William spilled water on the public sidewalk.
  • The spilled water froze, creating an artificial patch of ice on the otherwise clear sidewalk.
  • Neither the defendant nor William took any action to remove the ice, sand it, or warn pedestrians of the hazard.
  • The plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk and did not see the ice patch.
  • The plaintiff slipped on the ice, fell, and sustained injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff sued the defendant in a state trial court for negligence.
  • The trial court found the defendant 90% negligent and the plaintiff 10% comparatively negligent.
  • The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
  • The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a property owner liable for injuries caused by the negligence of an unpaid volunteer who, while assisting the owner, creates an artificial hazardous condition on a public sidewalk?


Opinions:

Majority - Wingert, J.

Yes, a property owner is liable for the negligence of a volunteer agent who creates a hazardous condition. The court found that William was negligent by spilling water on the sidewalk in freezing weather and failing to remedy the resulting hazard. This negligence is imputed to the defendant under the principle of respondeat superior, as William was acting as the defendant's servant or, at minimum, his agent. Even as an unpaid volunteer, William was performing a service subject to the defendant's control. A principal who has a duty to use care to protect others—in this case, users of the public sidewalk—and confides that duty to an agent is liable for the agent's negligence. The court distinguished this case from those involving natural accumulations of snow and ice, holding that one who negligently creates an artificial accumulation of ice on a public sidewalk may be held liable for resulting injuries.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies and expands the scope of vicarious liability under agency law, confirming that the principle applies to unpaid volunteers, not just paid employees. It establishes that accepting voluntary services can create a principal-agent or master-servant relationship, making the principal liable for the volunteer's torts committed within the scope of the service. The case reinforces the important legal distinction between liability for artificial versus natural hazards on public property, holding property owners accountable for dangerous conditions they or their agents create. This precedent impacts premises liability cases by broadening the range of individuals whose actions can be imputed to a property owner.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Heims v. Hanke (1958) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Heims v. Hanke