Premises Liability: Minnesota vs. Wisconsin

Minnesota operates under a more modified comparative negligence standard, where the duty of care owed to a visitor varies based on their status (invitee, licensee, or trespasser). In Minnesota, property owners have a higher duty of care towards invitees, while the duty is reduced for licensees and further diminished for trespassers. Recent cases illustrate that property owners can be held liable for injuries caused by hazardous conditions that they either knew about or should have reasonably known about, which emphasizes the importance of regular inspections and maintenance. In addition, the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that a property owner’s negligence can arise from a failure to remedy a dangerous condition, even if that condition is not immediately visible or known to them at the time of the injury.

Wisconsin employs a slightly different framework for premises liability, primarily adhering to three categories of entrants: invitees, licensees, and trespassers. The fundamental duty of care in Wisconsin requires property owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees, while liability is substantially reduced for licensees and almost nonexistent for trespassers unless there was willful or wanton misconduct. Notably, the role of comparative negligence is also integral in Wisconsin, where damages awarded may be diminished based on the injured party’s own negligence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has reaffirmed that property owners are only liable for hazards that they knew or should have known about, similar to Minnesota, but nuances exist in how courts interpret the standard of care required.