*1 another, Merkley, Appellant, Schramm Respondents.* May April 1966. * denied, July 1, rehearing costs, Motion for on *5 appellant argument For the there brief oral Rudolph by Edward of Milwaukee. respondent
For the Maxine Schramm there was a brief byKluwin, Dunphy, Hayes Milwaukee, Hankin & argument by Bernard oral J. Hankin. respondent
For the Richard Schramm there was oral argument by Cady Dean S. of Milwaukee.
138 necessary begin consider it to with is Wilkie, J. To comply
appellant’s did court contention that the trial Stats.,1 270.33, he did provisions in that of with the sec. the cause not render and file his decision on the within Although by the sixty-day prescribed period the statute. against complaint dismissing plaintiff’s court’s decision at directly from the bench Richard was made Schramm 1964, testimony 10, his decision the close of on December plaintiff’s complaint dismissing was not made 10, findings May The of Maxine until 1965. Schramm there state- fact that were filed and is a mention briefs by were in the hands of the ment counsel the briefs apparent it this court before Christmas. Thus as to comply part of court did not with the the case trial provision concerning provisions The of sec. 270.33. sixty days a decision be filed has within which should only Accordingly, held to be directive.2 it was been Although tardy file court’s decision. error here to error, delay a under the circumstances was not for such justice, repeat sound of we what we administration 3 Kamuchey v. Trzesniewski: in said compliance great . . section is of “. strict this a 4 litigants appellate an help and to court.” to the decisions, findings and of and The trial court’s fact law, in a which were couched conclusions terms appellant proof, by meet her burden of failure will be 1 findings, by court; judgment. Except Trial in actions “270.33 299, upon a proceedings under trial of an and dh. issue of fact given court, writing and its decision in shall filed with days cause, submission of the shall within after and state clerk 60 thereon; separately the facts conclusions law found accordingly.” judgment shall be entered 2 703; 7, (2d) (1954), 16, Noe Wis. Galewski v. 266 N. W. (1959), (2d) 94, 101, Kamuchey W. v. Trzesniewski 8 Wis. N. (2d) 403. 3 Supra, 2. footnote supra, Kamuchey Trzesniewski, 2, 101, page at cit footnote (2d) ing (1952), Strand MacPherson v. 262 Wis. 55 W. N. interpreted, purposes opinion, positive for this as (1) determination under the Maxine circumstances regard negligent Schramm was not either in a safe- place law, (2) Richard violation or at common negligent. Thus, was not are two issues raised appeal. on this
First: Is the trial court’s determination that Maxine guilty negligence (1) Schramm was the not under safe-place statute, law, against (2) at common the great weight preponderance and clear of the evidence?
Second: Is the trial determination Richard court’s that negligent against great weight was not the preponderance clear of the evidence ? Negligence
Maxine Schramm’s Under Statute. Safe-Place light It properly is well settled the failure a building part subject safe-place or a thereof to the statute Any negligence constitutes a violation the statute.5 part safe-place the on of Maxine Schramm under the inadequate lighting hallway. law must arise out of in the searching following On the record the summarizes the testimony. pertinent policemen gone rooming
Two who had to the house to appellant fall, plaintiff, the aid after and the all testified dimly Dustin, that the hall was lit. consulting Thomas a light engineer, took point electrical a measurement at a light directly directly below the fixture and above the mishap spot the where occurred. The measurement was 2.9-foot candles with a 25-watt bulb. There was testi- mony by the that the bulb was either 25 or 40 Twelve feet down watts. the hall toward Richard reading room the Schramm’s was .097-foot candles. Dus- lighting the inadequate tin testified that was under the Hospital v. Francis Grabinski St. (1954), 339, 266 Wis. 693; Congregation (2d) Zimmers Sebastian’s St. W. N. (1951), 496, 820; (2d) Heiden v. W. 46 N. Milwaukee (1937), Wis. 92, 226 Wis. 275 N. W. hallway could be this how asked When
circumstances. say it “I is reasonably he would said: made safe standing at that someone reasonably He admitted safe.” room could hallway near beginning Schramm’s Meinel, Harry appellant’s room. person in front of see a department, health inspector the Milwaukee an department in re- complaints received noof knew Stanley rooming lighting house. gard in the although in- an inspector, stated Studer, another January 25, premises on spection made of the sanitary condi- particularly directed toward more was deficiency any lighting had noted tions, have he would one existed. hallway impliedly found that court
The trial per- reasonably premises nature of the as the as safe weight great finding mitted. That evidence, preponderance the situation unless clear light- finding a of the compels that there was violation ing Code of Ordinances provisions of the Milwaukee *8 provide: which buildings structures, except dwellings, “(1) and In all buildings, public dwellings multiple family all and
row stairways parts thereof, pathways be and all shall lighting having lighted an in- natural or artificial tensity the floor than and one-half foot candles at of not less two line. building every “(3) four or In which accommodates building persons, every thirty in more families or which transients, public pathways the accommodates lighted stairways at all with artificial shall be times lighting regulated paragraph one, except in as such lighting may artificial be omitted from to sunset sunrise 6 lighting provided.” adequate natural where Although requires parts” the ordinance “all of the buildings lighted subject prescribed intensity, to to the be (d), 20-8 Code of Ch. Milwaukee Ordinances. safe-place for to there be a an ordi violation based on infraction, nance the violation must be connected with inadequate lighting the accident and the at the must be place Rup time and the where accident In occurred. linger plaintiff v. Theiler the fell on a defective stair way, it injury but was determined that “the accident or place did occur not at the the where defect existed.” bar, Bussey
In case at the Dr. testified: looking straight “If he was ahead he wouldn’t see in him, what is front of him at all or the side near to see only would what was the above and side below degree lighting in this 15 central area and affect improve wouldn’t his blind at in area all no matter how bright light was, there is no vision to or the side in his above blind vision.” words, In other Richard Schramm did see plaintiff, lighting because insufficient but because tilting telescope of not way his in such a as to locate her scope 15-degree in the of his vision. The trial court concluded: testimony by on the Bussey “Based medical Dr. it is
quite though light evident that even there would be more hallway, point- in this that unless Richard Schramm was ing see eyes particular point, his at a he would be unable to degree range the 15 outside of his vision.” there support Thus evidence to the trial court’s determination that had failed to meet her proof safe-place Putting burden of under the law. it way, supports another the evidence a determination injury point court the accident occurred aat lighting where defective did not exist. This deter- great weight pre- is not mination and clear *9 ponderance of the evidence and be must affirmed.
7 (1959), (2d) 493, (2d) 6 Wis. 95 N. 254. W. 8 Supra, 7, page footnote at 496.
142 degree higher care re- of of
If there is no breach respondent safe-place matters, Maxine Schramm quired in negligence.9 ordinary guilty of cannot have been Negligence Richard Schramm. of handicapped, visually
Because Richard Schramm was ordinarily obliged as an he to conduct himself was disability under prudent person would with the same mean This does circumstances.10 same similar degree care, greater required a he to exercise was greater put forth more or rather that he must do but ordinary care.11 effort in order to attain standard moving his testimony at that he either There was was physical slightly speed. He knew normal or a brisker feeling guided layout hall, the west himself regard lookout, his left hand. In to his wall general hallway in the that he “tried to testified scan going. explained that he turned He direction” was “eyes up to to side and from side his from side down attempted to side.” Thus Schramm ascertain whether navigating path clear down the corridor. his before any prior he did not see her at time He admitted that Either he must looked and failed to the accident. have or he failed what was there must have to focus see precise spot at the time his tunnel vision where the partly doorway room, in the her low was bent clothing. in dark dressed
Considering majority entire record a of the court opinion supports finding of the that the evidence Quatsoe (1961), (2d) 128, 136, 15 Wis. Lealiou 112 N. W. (2d) 193. 10 Restatement, p. 18, (2d), Prosser, 283C; Torts see. Law (hornbook series, ed.), p. Neg 155, 32; Jur., Torts 3d 38 Am. sec. ligence, p. 895, sec. 210. (1962), Lisowski v. Milwaukee Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. (2d) (2d) 499, 506, 666; Negli Jur., Wis. 117 N. W. 38 Am. gence, p. 895, Civil, 210; I, sec. see also Part Wis J I — *10 this defendant exercised sufficient effort meet required of standard care of him and the trial court’s finding negligence part of no Richard on the of Schramm is, therefore, great weight and clear preponderance of evidence.
By Judgment affirmed. Court. — (dissenting). J. I think the owner Hallows, premises hallway did not maintain the as in safe a condi- permitted. only tion as its put nature She needed light greater bulb hall than 40 watts in the light premises pre- fixture. The nature of the did not light especially vent this. More in needed room- this ing people elderly particularly house where lived and partly Likewise, where one roomer was blind. the record is clear that Richard did ef- use sufficient fort within disability limitations his to see bumped injured. whom he into and authorized to state that Mr. Justice am I Fairchild join and Mr. Justice Gordon in this dissent. wife, Assignees, Appellants, Plaintiffs Welch others, Fiber Engineering, Inc., Glass Respondent: Defendants: Defendant and Middleton, Court, Clerk Circuit Garnishee Defend Kirley, ant.
April May 13, 1966.