Page 34
WisconsinChristianNews.com
Volume 26, Issue 9
Injured in a Slip-and-Fall Accident?
By Attorney Mike Bertling, McLario, Helm, Bertling & Spiegel Law Offices (See display ad on Page 40 of this issue of WCN) February 2026 People in Wisconsin are very used to cold and snowy win- ters. Many of us have grown
gence standards. This means that they must exercise that degree of care that would ordinarily be exercised by other private property owners under the same or similar circumstances. In other words, did the home- owner fail to do something that other homeowners would typically do under the circumstances?
business property. They have a higher standard than an ordinary homeowner. This higher standard comes from the fact that they are inviting customers onto their property. They make money from customers. There- fore, the law places a higher standard on them. If they
half of the puzzle. The conduct of the individual who fell must also be analyzed. A pedestrian in Wisconsin is required to exercise reasonable care for their own safety. This means they are to look around them to avoid dangerous conditions continually. This includes a condition caused by the accumulation of ice or snow. A pedestrian in Wiscon- sin is supposed to see the condition and either avoid it or walk carefully across it. If they fail to exercise this care for their own safety, they will be found negligent. Their negligence and the property owner's negligence will then be compared. The total negligence causing the injury will be considered 100%, and each party will be assigned their own percentage. If the injured party’s percentage is 51% or more, there is no recov- ery. If the injured party’s negligence is 50% or less, they will recover damages. However, their damages will be reduced by their percentage of negligence. How Slip-and-Fall Cases Are Decided We have never seen a case in which the injured party was completely free of negligence. It is more likely that the property owner will be found free of neg- ligence than the individual falling. In most cases, how- ever, both parties are found negligent. The primary question in most cases is whether the injured party will be found 51% or more responsible. That is the pri- mary focus of all slip-and-fall cases. Who will be found more negligent? Slip-and-fall cases in Wisconsin are very difficult. People in Wisconsin know that slippery conditions will exist. People in Wisconsin know that they need to be careful because they will encounter these conditions. They are unavoidable. When considering whether to pursue a slip-and-fall claim, the injured person should carefully analyze what happened. If it can be argued that they could have seen the slippery condition and then done something to either avoid it or walk across it more carefully, a claim probably should not be pursued. McLario.com
are in the business of invit- ing the public onto their property, part of that busi- ness is to make the prop- erty as safe as its nature would reasonably permit. Business owners are re- quired to conduct re- peated inspections of their property’s safety during winter. Their inspections must be more frequent during and after snowfalls. They must do what they can to have the snow and ice removed. Failure to do what they can creates lia- bility. Artificial Accumulations of Ice or Snow There is one common situation that creates liabil-
A commercial owner is required to do what is nec- essary to keep their prop- erty as safe as its nature would reasonably permit. In other words, they are held to a standard asking whether they could have done something more to prevent or remove the slippery conditions. Slip-and-Falls on Resi- dential Property Holding a homeowner li- able for a slippery condi- tion can prove difficult in Wisconsin. I have had ex- perience with many juries that ultimately find a homeowner not at fault in
up with them. Therefore, everyone knows, perhaps more than they would like, how difficult they can be. Outdoor activities and travel are affected. What would otherwise be a simple trip can turn into a major en- deavor. It seems like either the current weather or the weather forecast is on everybody’s mind. It is not surprising, therefore, that people can find themselves flat on the ground after slipping on snow or ice. Occasionally, these falls result in serious in- jury. Common Questions After a Fall One of the most common telephone calls we get at our office involves a recently injured fall victim. They are interested in determining whether they have legal recourse. This is not surprising. Serious falls can result in con- siderable medical expense, medical treatment, loss of earnings, and significant, ongoing pain. Many people rightly conclude that the ice or snow they fell on should have been dealt with by the property owner. As in most states, Wisconsin has laws requiring property owners to address slippery conditions. However, Wis- consin law does not make a property owner absolutely responsible for all falls. Each situation is unique. Each situation has its own set of facts. These facts will de- termine the success of a slip-and-fall claim. Who Owns the Property Matters The first important rule to consider is who owns the property. There are different standards of care for pri- vate owners and commercial owners. Owners of busi- nesses that are open to the public are held to a higher standard than the typical homeowner. A typical homeowner is held to the ordinary negli-
a slip-and-fall case. It is difficult for a member of the jury to hold a homeowner responsible for slippery con- ditions caused by normal winter conditions in Wiscon- sin. Many of the jurors are homeowners. They put themselves into the position of the homeowner being sued. Invariably, many of them have done exactly what the homeowner involved in the case has done. They understand how difficult it is to clear their prop- erty of ice and snow completely in winter. Therefore, they look at a case and consider whether they could find themselves in a similar situation as the home- owner involved. If so, they are reluctant to find that homeowner responsible. Slip-and-Falls on Business Property It is a slightly different story with slip-and-falls on
ity for both homeowners and business owners. If they do something on their property that creates an artificial accumulation of ice or snow, they will likely be found responsible for injury. A good example would be in- stalling a downspout that empties onto an area where pedestrians walk. It would surprise no one that this would create dangerous situations. The downspout funnels water away from the building. If the down- spout funnels onto a sidewalk or parking lot, the like- lihood of a dangerous condition is created. The thawing and refreezing cycle will go on throughout the winter months. Eventually, someone will encounter that patch of ice expectedly and probably fall. The Injured Person’s Responsibility Analyzing the property owner’s conduct is only one-
Reproof, Correction and Instruction By Bradlee Dean, Sons of Liberty February 2026
So, I ask, is reproof, correction, instruction oppo- site of edification? Not at all. In fact, just the oppo- site. Reproof and correction aren’t the opposite of edification. Rather, they are tools for it, aiming to build up or restore someone by pointing out error (Galatians 6:1-2).
SonsOfLibertyRadio.com
Yesterday, during my study time feeding on the Bread of Life (John 6:35), I had a question pop up in my mind, and here’s what the question was: Is reproof, correction or instruction opposite of edifi- cation? Of course, I already knew the answer to this, but I wanted to answer it for myself, as well.
While edification is the broader goal of spiritual building, even though harsh delivery can feel de-
Yet, I also knew the carnal mind was en- mity with God (Ro- mans 8:7), as did I know to make dis- tinction between the work of the Spirit and the work of the flesh (John 3:6).
structive (1 Timothy 5:20). Reproof identi- fies sin/error (Romans 3:20), correction aligns and fixes it, and instruction teaches us righteousness, all serving the ultimate purpose of spiritual growth (2 Peter 3:18).
King David said in Psalm 109:5, “And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.” Jesus said in John 7:7, “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me, because I testify that its works are evil.” Proverbs 12:2 tells us, “ Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.” Proverbs 1:23 tells us, “Turn you at My reproof: behold, I will pour out My spirit unto you, I will make known My words unto you.” In Hebrews 12:11, we find where Scripture tells us, “Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” In 2 Timothy 3:16, it makes clear that “ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
I went online and asked AI how it would answer, and it came back with the following: • Edification (Building Up): The overall goal of strengthening faith, character, and knowledge in righteousness, like building a house. Read 1 Corinthians 3:5-10. • Reproof (Pointing Out): Identifying what’s wrong, like pointing out a structural flaw in the house (Romans 3:20). • Correction (Fixing): Restoring something to a right state or improving it, like fixing the flaw (Titus 3:5). • Instruction (Training): Teaching the right way to build, like proper building techniques (Proverbs 22:6). The connection: When done in love (understand the definition of the love of God), reproof and cor- rection are vital for edification, as Scripture is prof- itable for all these things (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction).
Made with FlippingBook Converter PDF to HTML5