Miller v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. McNeil v. Hansen

    2007 WI 56 (Wis. 2007)   Cited 59 times

    " 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 371 (2006). If a statute is liberally construed, "it follows that the exceptions must be narrowly construed." Miller v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 2003 WI App 58, ¶ 18, 260 Wis. 2d 581, 659 N.W.2d 494 (interpreting exceptions to the recreational immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.52, narrowly because the statute is liberally construed in favor of property owners). ¶ 11.

  2. Gielow v. Napiorkowski

    2003 WI App. 249 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 18 times
    Applying mutual-mistake doctrine to a release

    ¶ 12. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the circuit court. Miller ex rel. Fehring v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 2003 WI App 58, ¶ 10, 260 Wis. 2d 581, 659 N.W.2d 494. Summary judgment methodology is well known, and we will not repeat it here in detail. Suffice it to say that summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  3. Rintelman v. Boys Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee

    2005 WI App. 246 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that a chaperone was not engaged in a recreational activity when she fell moving from one building to another at a weekend retreat

    We apply these considerations here in an attempt to tack to the destination intended by the legislature — protection from liability of those who open up their property so others can enjoy the recreational benefits of our state's natural resources. See Miller ex rel. Fehring v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 2003 WI App 58, ¶ 11, 260 Wis. 2d 581, 586-587, 659 N.W.2d 494, 497. As both parties tell us, the facts here are not disputed. Accordingly, whether the defendants are entitled to immunity under the statute is a legal issue subject to our de novo review. See Urban, 2001 WI 63, ¶ 16, 243 Wis. 2d at 682, 627 N.W.2d at 517.

  4. Kautz v. Ozaukee County Agricultural Society

    2004 WI App. 203 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 8 times
    Explaining the policy behind the recreational immunity statute

    In order to achieve the goal of encouraging property owners to open their lands to public recreation by limiting the liability of property owners, courts must liberally construe the statute in favor of property owners. See Miller ex rel. Fehring v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 2003 WI App 58, ¶ 11, 260 Wis. 2d 581, 659 N.W.2d 494. ¶ 10. WISCONSIN STAT. § 895.52 states in pertinent part:

  5. Univ. of Tex. at Arlington v. Williams

    58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 514 (Tex. 2015)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding recreational use statute did not apply to competitive-sporting events or spectators

    Ambrose ex rel. Ambrose v. Buhl Joint Sch. Dist., 126 Idaho 581, 887 P.2d 1088, 1089 (Idaho Ct.App.1994) (playing baseball); Lowman ex. rel. Lowman v. Ind. Area Sch. Dist., 96 Pa.Cmwlth. 389, 507 A.2d 1270, 1273 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1986) (baseball spectator); Brooks v. Northwood Little League, Inc., 489 S.E.2d 647, 651 (S.C.Ct.App.1997) (baseball spectator); Miller ex rel. Fehring v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 260 Wis.2d 581, 659 N.W.2d 494, 497–98 (Wis.Ct.App.2003) (playing soccer). UTA submits that these cases “illustratethe way a recreational use statute is supposed to work.”