High court reaffirms caveat emptor, finds former tenant not liable for worker’s injuries

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has declined to adopt a new rule that that would hold former tenants or owners of commercial property liable for injuries that occur on their premises.

The case before the court arose after Russell Brenner, an employee of Brookfield-based Hunzinger Construction Co., fell in 2011 through a hole in the floor of a building at 607 E. Polk St. The structure now belongs to Milwaukee World Festival Inc., the company that organizes Milwaukee’s annual Summerfest concert series, but was being rented at the time the accident occurred from a previous owner by Charter Manufacturing Co., a maker of wire.

Before vacating the the building and turning the premises over to the then-owner, Garland Brothers Joint Venture, Charter had removed furnaces from the northwest part of the building. The holes left behind from that work were covered only with plywood.

After his fall, Brenner sued Milwaukee World Festival, Garland Brothers and Charter in 2012, alleging that all three had been negligent and had violated the state’s safe-place statutes. That attempt at spreading the blame around did not fare well in lower courts. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Richard Sankovitz and the state Court of Appeals both ruled that Brenner could sue only one of those entities: Milwaukee World Festival.

Brenner’s contentions similarly failed before the state’s high court. In a unanimous decision Tuesday written by Justice Dan Kelly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that even though it was Charter that had left behind the holes that Brenner eventually fell through, Milwaukee World Festival should bear the legal liability because it had possession of the property when the accident took place. The justices found that Milwaukee World Festival should be responsible in part because it had failed to establish an exception to the legal doctrine of caveat emptor — “buyer beware.”

.The justices also noted that eliminating the doctrine of caveat emptor would, among other things, “dramatically” unsettle property interests and expose entities to unforeseeable risk and impose liability on former possessors.

“Imposing liability on unwitting former possessors who would have no means of insuring their exposure is injudicious,” wrote Kelly. Follow @erikastrebel