David Stroede v. Society Insurance, A Mutual Company, 959 N.W.2d 305

On Sept. 20, 2014, David Stroede became intoxicated at the Railroad Station bar, was escorted out, reentered, and then was approached by Jacob Tetting, a bar patron (and Railroad Station employee off-duty).
Tetting grabbed Stroede by the shoulders and walked him backward toward the entrance stairway; Tetting released him before the stairs, Stroede fell, and sustained serious injuries.
Stroede sued Tetting, the bar, and insurers alleging negligent excessive force; the bar and its insurer obtained summary judgment (Stroede was a trespasser), and Stroede later added Tetting’s homeowner insurer as a defendant.
Tetting and West Bend moved for summary judgment claiming statutory immunity under Wis. Stat. § 895.529 as a “possessor of real property” (defined to include an "owner, lessee, tenant, or other lawful occupant").
The circuit court denied Tetting’s motion, concluding a lawful occupant must have possession/control and the ability to give/withdraw consent; the court of appeals reversed, adopting a broader dictionary-based meaning of “lawful occupant.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that “other lawful occupant” is limited by the listed terms (owner/lessee/tenant) and requires some degree of possession or control; Tetting was not entitled to immunity and the case was remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tetting, a patron, is an "other lawful occupant of real property" under Wis. Stat. § 895.529(1)(a) and thus a "possessor of real property" entitled to immunity from a trespasser's negligence claim	Stroede contended Tetting was not a possessor and owed a duty because "other lawful occupant" requires some possessory control; the circuit court agreed	Tetting argued "other lawful occupant" means any person lawfully present on premises (patrons qualify), so he is immune under § 895.529	The Court held "other lawful occupant" must be read in context with owner/lessee/tenant (canons ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis) and requires some possession/control/right to give/withdraw consent; Tetting, as a mere patron, was not a possessor and not immune

State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (statutory interpretation principles: ordinary meaning and context)
Noffke ex rel. Swenson v. Bakke, 315 Wis. 2d 350, 760 N.W.2d 156 (2009) (use of dictionaries to guide ordinary meaning)
State v. Quintana, 308 Wis. 2d 615, 748 N.W.2d 447 (2008) (application of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis)
Pinter v. Village of Stetsonville, 387 Wis. 2d 475, 929 N.W.2d 547 (2019) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Stroede v. Society Ins., 390 Wis. 2d 817, 939 N.W.2d 614 (2020) (court of appeals decision adopting a broad dictionary definition of "occupant")
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 209 Wis. 2d 605, 563 N.W.2d 154 (1997) (discussing societal interest in deterring trespass)