This section extends the coverage of OSHA to government employees. OSHA was meant to address tangible, measurable workplace hazards. The threat of on-the-job violence to a campus police officer is too abstract to be within the coverage afforded; the denial of a request for a hearing on a complaint seeking to require the provision of firearms to officers was proper. West v. Department of Commerce, 230 Wis. 2d 71
, 601 N.W.2d 307
(Ct. App. 1999).
Flushing devices for urinals.
The department shall not promulgate any rules which either directly or indirectly prohibit the use of manual flushing devices for urinals. The department shall take steps to encourage the use of manual flushing devices for urinals.
History: 1977 c. 418
Storage of flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids. 101.09(1)(a)
"Combustible liquid" means a liquid having a flash point at or above 100 degrees fahrenheit and below 200 degrees fahrenheit.
"Federally regulated hazardous substance" means a hazardous substance, as defined in 42 USC 9601
"Flammable liquid" means a liquid having a flash point below 100 degrees fahrenheit.
"Flash point" means the minimum temperature at which a flammable or combustible liquid will give off sufficient flammable vapors to form an ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid or within the vessel which contains the liquid.
Except as provided under pars. (b)
, every person who constructs, owns or controls a tank for the storage, handling or use of liquid that is flammable or combustible or a federally regulated hazardous substance shall comply with the standards adopted under sub. (3)
This section does not apply to storage tanks which require a hazardous waste license under s. 291.25
This section does not apply to storage tanks which are installed above ground level and which are less than 5,000 gallons in capacity.
Any rules promulgated under sub. (3)
requiring an owner to test the ability of a storage tank, connected piping or ancillary equipment to prevent an inadvertent release of a stored substance do not apply to storage tanks that satisfy all of the following:
Are used to store heating oil for residential, consumptive use on the premises where stored.
This section does not apply to a pressurized natural gas pipeline system regulated under 49 CFR 192
The department shall promulgate by rule construction, maintenance and abandonment standards applicable to tanks for the storage, handling or use of liquids that are flammable or combustible or are federally regulated hazardous substances, and to the property and facilities where the tanks are located, for the purpose of protecting the waters of the state from harm due to contamination by liquids that are flammable or combustible or are federally regulated hazardous substances. The rule shall comply with ch. 160
. The rule may include different standards for new and existing tanks, but all standards shall provide substantially similar protection for the waters of the state. The rule shall include maintenance requirements related to the detection and prevention of leaks. The rule may require any person supplying heating oil to any noncommercial storage tank for consumptive use on the premises to submit to the department, within 30 days after the department requests, the location, contents and size of any such tank.
The department may transfer any information which the department receives under par. (a)
to any other agency or governmental unit. The department and any such agency shall treat the name of the owner and the location of any noncommercial storage tank which stores heating oil for consumptive use on the premises, required to be submitted to the department under par. (a)
, as confidential and shall not permit inspection or copying under s. 19.35
of any record containing the information.
The rule promulgated under par. (a)
may require the certification or registration of persons who install, remove, clean, line, perform tightness testing on and inspect tanks and persons who perform site assessments. Any rule requiring certification or registration shall also authorize the revocation or suspension of the certification or registration.
The department shall issue orders directing and requiring compliance with the rules and standards of the department adopted under this section whenever, in the judgment of the department, the rules or standards are threatened with violation, are being violated or have been violated.
The circuit court for any county where violation of such an order occurs has jurisdiction to enforce the order by injunctive and other appropriate relief.
Any person who violates this section or any rule or order adopted under this section shall forfeit not less than $10 nor more than $1,000 for each violation. Each violation of this section or any rule or order under this section constitutes a separate offense and each day of continued violation is a separate offense.
Employer's duty to furnish safe employment and place. 101.11(1)(1)
Every employer shall furnish employment which shall be safe for the employees therein and shall furnish a place of employment which shall be safe for employees therein and for frequenters thereof and shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, and shall adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such employment and places of employment safe, and shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of such employees and frequenters. Every employer and every owner of a place of employment or a public building now or hereafter constructed shall so construct, repair or maintain such place of employment or public building as to render the same safe.
No employer shall require, permit or suffer any employee to go or be in any employment or place of employment which is not safe, and no such employer shall fail to furnish, provide and use safety devices and safeguards, or fail to adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe, and no such employer shall fail or neglect to do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety or welfare of such employees and frequenters; and no employer or owner, or other person shall hereafter construct or occupy or maintain any place of employment, or public building, that is not safe, nor prepare plans which shall fail to provide for making the same safe.
No employee shall remove, displace, damage, destroy or carry off any safety device or safeguard furnished and provided for use in any employment or place of employment, nor interfere in any way with the use thereof by any other person, nor shall any such employee interfere with the use of any method or process adopted for the protection of any employee in such employment or place of employment or frequenter of such place of employment, nor fail or neglect to do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety or welfare of such employees or frequenters.
This section applies to community-based residential facilities as defined in s. 50.01 (1g)
History: 1971 c. 185
; Stats. 1971 s. 101.11; 1975 c. 413
; 1987 a. 161
Ordinary negligence can be compared with negligence founded upon the safe place statute, and in making the comparison in a safe place case, a violation of the statute is not to be considered necessarily as contributing more than the common-law contributory negligence. Lovesee v. Allied Development Corp. 45 Wis. 2d 340
, 173 N.W.2d 196
When an apartment complex was managed for a fee by a management company, the company was carrying on a business there. Reduction of rent to one of the tenants for caretaking services constituted employment on the premises. A tenant who fell on the icy parking lot after the caretaker knew of the condition need only prove negligence in maintaining the premises. Wittka v. Hartnell, 46 Wis. 2d 374
, 175 N.W.2d 248
A public sidewalk is not made a place of employment merely because an employer constructed it and kept it free of ice and snow. Petroski v. Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc. 47 Wis. 2d 617
, 178 N.W.2d 53
The fact that a violation of the safe place statute is found puts the burden on the owner to rebut the presumption of causation but does not establish as a matter of law that the defendant's negligence was greater than the plaintiff's. Frederick v. Hotel Investments, Inc. 48 Wis. 2d 429
, 180 N.W.2d 562
A store must be held to have had constructive notice of a dangerous condition when it displayed shaving cream in spray cans on a counter and a 70-year old woman fell in cream sprayed on the white floor. Steinhorst v. H. C. Prange Co. 48 Wis. 2d 679
, 180 N.W.2d 525
The mere existence of a step up into a hospital lavatory is not an unsafe condition. Prelipp v. Wausau Memorial Hospital, 50 Wis. 2d 27
, 183 N.W.2d 24
Failure to light a parking lot can support a safe place action, but the evidence must show how long the light was burned out to constitute constructive notice. Low v. Siewert, 54 Wis. 2d 251
, 195 N.W.2d 451
A parking lot owned by a city that is a continuation of a store parking lot used by the public for attending the city zoo and the store, even though maintained by the private property owner, is not a place of employment. Gordon v. Schultz Savo Stores, Inc. 54 Wis. 2d 692
, 196 N.W.2d 633
Detailed construction specifications and the presence of engineers to insure compliance does not manifest control over the project so as to make the commission liable. Berger v. Metropolitan Sewerage Comm. 56 Wis. 2d 741
, 203 N.W.2d 87
In a safe place action the employee's contributory negligence is less when his act or omission has been committed in the performance of his duties. McCrossen v. Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. 59 Wis. 2d 245
, 208 N.W.2d 148
A pier at a beach open to the public for a fee constitutes a place of employment. Any distinction between licensees and invitees is irrelevant, and the statute imposes a higher duty as to safety than the common law. Gould v. Allstar Ins. Co. 59 Wis. 2d 355
, 208 N.W.2d 388
A private road on the ground of a private racetrack that connected the track and a parking lot is subject to this section as to frequenters. Gross v. Denow, 61 Wis. 2d 40
, 212 N.W.2d 2
A one-eighth-inch variance in elevation between the sides of a ramp joint was too slight, as a matter of law, to constitute a violation of the safe place statute. Balas v. St. Sebastian's Congregation, 66 Wis. 2d 421
, 225 N.W.2d 428
An employer may be held liable under the safe place statute, not only when he fails to construct or maintain safety-structures such as a fence, but also when he knowingly permits employees or frequenters to venture into a dangerous area. Kaiser v. Cook, 67 Wis. 2d 460
, 227 N.W.2d 50
The safe place statute applies only to unsafe physical conditions, not to activities conducted on a premises. Korenak v. Curative Workshop Adult Rehabil. Ctr. 71 Wis. 2d 77
, 237 N.W.2d 43
A contractor's liability under the safe place law for injury to a subcontractor's employee is discussed. Barth v. Downey Co., Inc. 71 Wis. 2d 775
, 239 N.W.2d 92
The time element of constructive notice of a safe place defect is discussed. Buerosse v. Dutchland Dairy Restaurants, 72 Wis. 2d 239
, 240 N.W.2d 176
Retention of control and supervision is required for recovery against a general contractor by a subcontractor's employee. Lemacher v. Circle Const. Co., Inc. 72 Wis. 2d 245
, 240 N.W.2d 179
The length of time a safe place defect must exist, in order to impose constructive notice of it on an owner, varies according to the nature of the business, the nature of the defect, and the public policy involved. May v. Skelley Oil Co. 83 Wis. 2d 30
, 264 N.W.2d 574
In safe place cases, comparative negligence instructions need not direct the jury to consider the defendant's higher duty of care. Brons v. Bischoff, 89 Wis. 2d 80
, 277 N.W.2d 854
Indemnity in safe place action creates an effect identical to that of contribution. Barrons v. J. H. Findorff & Sons, Inc. 89 Wis. 2d 444
, 278 N.W.2d 827
A non-negligent indemnitor was liable to an indemnitee whose breach of a safe place duty was solely responsible for damages, under the circumstances of the case. Dykstra v. Arthur G. McKee & Co. 92 Wis. 2d 17
, 284 N.W.2d 692
(Ct. App. 1979); (aff'd) 100 Wis. 2d 120
, 301 N.W.2d 201
"(S)afe employment" and "safe place of employment" are distinguished. There is a duty to provide safe employment to employees that does not extend to frequenters while the duty to provide a safe place of employment does. Leitner v. Milwaukee County, 94 Wis. 2d 186
, 287 N.W.2d 803
Evidence of a prior accident was admissible to prove notice of an unsafe condition. Callan v. Peters Construction Co. 94 Wis. 2d 225
, 288 N.W.2d 146
(Ct. App. 1979).
That a lease allocates safe place duties between an owner and an employer/tenant does not nullify mutually shared statutory duties. Hannebaum v. Dirienzo & Bomier, 162 Wis. 2d 488
, 469 N.W.2d 900
(Ct. App. 1991).
The safe place duty to keep a swimming pool in a condition to protect customers from injury is overcome when a person unreasonably dives into pool of unknown depth. Wisnicky v. Fox Hills Inn, 163 Wis. 2d 1023
, 473 N.W.2d 523
(Ct. App. 1991).
A county house of correction is subject to the safe place statute. Henderson v. Milwaukee County, 198 Wis. 2d 748
, 543 N.W.2d 544
(Ct. App. 1995).
An alarm system does not relate to the structure of a building and therefore does not relate to a safe place of employment. It is a safety device that is the responsibility of the employer and not the building owner. Naaj v. Aetna Insurance Co. 218 Wis. 2d 121
, 579 N.W.2d 875
(Ct. App. 1998).
The obligation of a lessor of a building is limited to structural or physical defects. A temporary condition maintained by the lessee does not impose safe place liability on the lessor. Powell v. Milwaukee Area Technical College District Bd. 225 Wis. 2d 794
, 594 N.W.2d 403
(Ct. App. 1999).
The safe place statute does not extend to vehicles. Hopkins v. Ros Stores, Inc. 750 F. Supp. 379
Excavations; protection of adjoining property and buildings. 101.111(1)(1)
In this section "excavator" means any owner of an interest in land making or causing to be made an excavation.
(2) Cave-in prevention.
Any excavator shall protect the excavation site in such a manner so as to prevent the soil of adjoining property from caving in or settling.
(3) Liability for underpinning and foundation extensions. 101.111(3)(a)(a)
If the excavation is made to a depth of 12 feet or less below grade, the excavator may not be held liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of buildings on adjoining properties.
If the excavation is made to a depth in excess of 12 feet below grade, the excavator shall be liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of any adjoining buildings below the depth of 12 feet below grade. The owners of adjoining buildings shall be liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of their buildings to the depth of 12 feet below grade.
Unless waived by adjoining owners, at least 30 days prior to commencing the excavation the excavator shall notify, in writing, all owners of adjoining buildings of his or her intention to excavate. The notice shall state that adjoining buildings may require permanent protection. The owners of adjoining property shall have access to the excavation site for the purpose of protecting their buildings.
(5) Employees not liable.
No worker who is an employee of an excavator may be held liable for his or her employer's failure to comply with this section.
(6) Failure to comply; injunction.
If any excavator fails to comply with this section, any aggrieved person may commence an action to obtain an order under ch. 813
directing such excavator to comply with this section and restraining the excavator from further violation thereof. If the aggrieved person prevails in the action, he or she shall be reimbursed for all his or her costs and disbursements together with such actual attorney fees as may be approved by the court.
Subject to par. (b)
, this section applies to any excavation made after January 1, 1978.
This section does not apply to any excavation made under a contract awarded on or before January 1, 1978.
History: 1977 c. 88
Approval and inspection of public buildings and places of employment and components. 101.12(1)
Except for plans that are reviewed by the department of health and family services under ss. 50.02 (2) (b)
and 50.36 (2)
, the department shall require the submission of essential drawings, calculations and specifications for public buildings, public structures and places of employment including the following components:
Heating, ventilation, air conditioning and fire detection, prevention or suppression systems.
Elevators, escalators, ski lift and towing devices and power dumbwaiters.
Plans of said buildings, structures and components shall be examined for compliance with the rules of the department and a statement of the examination returned to the designer and owner before construction is started. Nothing in this section shall relieve the designer of the responsibility for designing a safe building, structure or component.