In City of Stoughton v. Olson (2019AP1872), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld a circuit court decision dismissing citations leveled against a bartender and owner for allowing minors to enter a dedicated bar area within a bowling center. 

Facts

In 2017, a Stoughton police officer encountered an underage individual playing pool in the “bar area” within the Viking Lanes bowling center. Wisconsin law prohibits underage individuals from being on a premise  licensed to sell alcohol if unaccompanied by a parent or guardian. But the statute includes several exceptions—including for bowling centers. Wis. Stat.. § 125.07(3)(a). The police officer issued a citation to the owner of the bowling center and the bartender working at the time. 

The two men appealed the citations, pointing to the exception for bowling centers. The City of Stoughton responded by claiming it was the same fact situation as State v. Ludwig, a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion that interpreted an earlier version of the statute and concluded that an exemption for “bowling alleys” did not apply to a “barroom” that was under the same roof as a bowling alley. 

Decision

The Court of Appeals began by comparing the fact situation in the present case to State v. Ludwig and found they differed. In Ludwig, the barroom was a distinct and separate place from the bowling alley, even though they were under the same roof and owned by the same person. 

It then traced the changes in the statute since that case, including the legislature’s change in the statutory exception from “bowling alleys” to “bowling center.” Finally, it analyzed the exceptions within the statute and found the City of Stoughton’s reading would cause problems from a statutory interpretation perspective.

It concluded that Ludwig did not apply and the citations ran counter to the bowling center exception for minors being present where alcohol is served, affirming the circuit court and dismissing the citations against the bowling center owner and bartender.

Back in May, Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm held that the Wisconsin Department of Health Services had no explicit authority to extend a state of emergency. But as policies surrounding COVID-19 prevention continue full force, it looks like the Wisconsin Supreme Court will get two more cases challenging the authority of government officials: one touching on the governor’s powers, the other the authority of a county health department.

Lindoo v. Evers challenges Governor Ever’s ability to call two states of emergency for the same crisis. Both the present state of emergency (Executive Order #82, issued in July) and the March state of emergency (Executive Order #72) arise from the COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin. During a state of emergency, which only last 60 days if not extended by the legislature, the governor can access emergency powers, such as implementing a state-wide mask mandate. The complaint argues:

The Governor may not unilaterally extend the state of emergency beyond 60 days, nor may the Governor avoid the law setting a 60-day time limit as set forth in § 323.10 by declaring multiple emergencies arising from the same biological agent without abatement or substantial suppression. To interpret the law otherwise, would allow one person rule by the Governor for what could be a virtually unlimited amount of time whenever the capacious and vague statutory definition of a “public health emergency” or “disaster” can be said to be present.

The second case, presents an original action to the Wisconsin Supreme Court requesting review of Madison & Dane County’s public health department’s order indefinitely closing all in-person, public and private schools for grades 3-12. In particular, the lawsuit challenges Public Health Madison & Dane County’s authority to close private schools and calls the order an infringement on parents’ rights to direct the education of their children.

Najeh Davenport, a former Green Bay Packers running back, and Kevin Henry, a former Pittsburgh Steeler, are the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in concussion settlements paid out by the National Football League.

The NFL had a 2014 settlement agreement with players that paid out players who had suffered head trauma. Specifically, to receive a settlement payment, and determine the amount, a player must be evaluated for a “Qualifying Diagnoses of Neurocognitive Impairment.” The suit alleges that this process discriminates against Black players by assuming a lower cognitive starting point for Black players than for white players through a process called “race-norming.” In short, Black former players are assumed to have started with worse cognitive functioning than White former players, making Black former players less likely to qualify for compensation.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In Wahoske v. Mills Fleet Farm LLC (2019AP2036), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a hunting stand could be a “structure” for purposes of the recreational immunity statute. 

Facts

For about six months every year, Robert Stibb affixes a tree stand on a tree on his parents’ property. In 2017, Stibb’s friend, Jason Wahoske, was bow hunting from it when the tree stand broke and he fell and injured himself. Wahoske then sued Mills Fleet Farm LLC, who sold the tree stand to Stibb. Mills Fleet Farm LLC in turn sued Stibb and his insurance, alleging negligent maintenance and installation of the tree stand.

Decision

At this point, the case centers on whether Stibb was entitled to recreational immunity under Wis. Stat. § 895.52 (2017-18) (and so dismissal from the case.) The Court of Appeals held he was.

Recreational immunity states that no duty of care applies to owners when “any person…enters the owner’s property to engage in a recreational activity.” The statute defines “owner” as “a person…that owns, leases or occupies property.” Mills Fleet Farm LLC argued, among other things, that the tree stand was not a “structure” and so the statute did not apply. 

The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that a tree stand could be a “structure” that counted for purposes of the recreational immunity statute. 

On August 13th, the California Court of Appeals ruled Amazon strictly liable for for injuries sustained by a customer from a defective products purchased in “marketplace” sales on its site.