Raim v. Ventura
113 N.W.2d 827, 16 Wis. 2d 67 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner's duty under a safe-place statute to make premises as safe as their nature reasonably permits does not extend to protecting against unforeseeable, extraordinary uses of the property. Compliance with a widespread, non-negligent industry custom is persuasive evidence that the owner has met the standard of reasonable safety.
Facts:
- The defendant, Ventura, owned and maintained a building with a glass door.
- The door was constructed with quarter-inch plate glass.
- This type of glass was used in approximately 98 percent of all glass doors installed in the local area.
- The jury found that the glass door was adequately marked and not camouflaged.
- The plaintiff, Barbara Raim, walked or ran quickly for a distance of 12 feet before ramming the door with her head.
- This action constituted an extraordinary force applied to the door, causing the glass to break and injure Raim.
Procedural Posture:
- Barbara Raim (plaintiff) sued Ventura (defendant) in a Wisconsin trial court, alleging a violation of the state's safe-place statute.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, Ventura moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial judge concluded that Ventura's motion for a directed verdict should have been granted as a matter of law, and entered judgment in favor of Ventura.
- Raim (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the reviewing court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner violate Wisconsin's safe-place statute by using standard quarter-inch plate glass in a door when a person is injured after running into the door with extraordinary force, and where that type of glass is overwhelmingly customary in the community?
Opinions:
Majority - Gordon, J.
No. A property owner does not violate the safe-place statute under these circumstances. The statute requires an owner to make premises as safe as their nature reasonably permits, but it does not make the owner an insurer or guarantee absolute safety. An owner's duty is to guard against injuries from acts that can be reasonably foreseen. Raim's action of running into the door with her head was an extraordinary force that Ventura had no reason to anticipate. Had the glass broken under normal use, such as a slam or someone being pushed into it, a jury question might have been presented. Furthermore, while industry custom is not conclusive, the overwhelming usage of this type of glass is cogent evidence that it meets a reasonable standard of safety for all foreseeable uses.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a property owner's liability under Wisconsin's safe-place statute, establishing that the duty of care is bounded by foreseeability. It confirms that owners are not liable for injuries resulting from extraordinary and unpredictable actions by others. The case is significant for its treatment of industry custom, elevating it from mere evidence to a highly persuasive factor in determining reasonableness, provided the custom is not patently unsafe. This precedent provides a stronger defense for property owners who adhere to prevailing industry standards against claims arising from unusual accidents.
