Section 895.52, Wisconsin Statutes, applies to all-terrain vehicles use on another's property. An owner or officer, employee, or agent of an owner owes no duty to keep the owner's property safe for recreational activities, to inspect the property, or to give warning of an unsafe condition, ise or activity on the property, unless the following exists:
a) The private property owner collects money, goods or services in paymentfor the use of the owner's property for the recreational activity during which the injury occurs, and the aggregate value of all payments received by the owner for the use of the owner's property for recreational activitys during the year in which the injury occurs exceeds $500.
b) The injury is caused by malicious failure of the private property owner or an employee or agent of the private property owner to warn against an unsafe condition on the property, of which the private property owner knew.
c) The injury is caused by a malicious act of the private property owner or an employee or agent of a private property owner.
d)The injury occurs on property owned by a private property owner to a social guest who has been expressly and individually invited by the private property owner for the specific occasion during which the injury occurs, if the injury occurs on any of the following:
1. Platted Land
2. Residential property
3. Property within 300 feet of a building or structure on land that is clasified as mercantile or manufacturing under s.70.32(2)(b)2 or 3, WI Statutes
e) The injury is sustained by an employee of a private property owner acting within scope of his or her duties. Except as expressly provided in this section, nothing in this section or s.01.11, WI Statutes, nor the common law attractive nuisance doctrine creates any duty of xcare or ground of liability toward any personwho uses another's property for a recreational activity.
Wisconsin "Good Samaritan Law"
Liability Exemption Wisconsin's Good Samaritan statute provides liability exemption if the person who offers emergency care complies with the law. The legislature has enacted many legal immunity statutes; compliance with the particular statute's terms is a requirement to be exempt from common law negligence. (See the accompanying sidebar for a list of other Wisconsin exemption statutes.) In 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court examined in detail the Good Samaritan law. In Mueller v. McMillian Warner Insurance Co.,1 the court held that "emergency care" refers to the initial evaluation and immediate assistance, treatment, and intervention rendered to an injured person during the period before care can be transferred to professional medical personnel.2 The Good Samaritan Statute One of the older legislated exemptions enacted to minimize liability of persons rendering emergency medical care often is referred to as the Good Samaritan statute. Its name is derived from the New Testament parable in which a Samaritan was the only passerby to aid a man left half-dead by thieves.3 Wisconsin's Good Samaritan statute for emergency medical care states the following: "Any person who renders emergency care at the scene of any emergency or accident in good faith shall be immune from civil liability for his or her acts or omissions in rendering such emergency care. This immunity does not extend when employees trained in health care or health care professionals render emergency care for compensation and within the scope of their usual and customary employment or practice at a hospital or other institution equipped with hospital facilities, at the scene of any emergency or accident, en route to a hospital or other institution equipped with hospital facilities or at a physician's office."4 In Mueller, the supreme court reviewed and affirmed a court of appeals decision5 that addressed the application of the Good Samaritan statute. The supreme court held that the current statute sets forth three elements: 1) Emergency care must be rendered at the scene of the emergency; 2) The care rendered must be emergency care; and 3) Any emergency care must be rendered in good faith.6 The court stated that if all three elements are met, the alleged tortfeasor shall be immune from civil liability for his or her acts or omissions in rendering such emergency care. If any element is not met, the alleged tortfeasor is not entitled to immunity under the Good Samaritan statute.7 The purpose of the current Good Samaritan statute, according to the supreme court, is to encourage individuals to provide emergency care to an injured person by immunizing the caregivers from common-law liability if they fail to exercise reasonable care when rendering emergency care in good faith.8
