Pagelsdorf v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1979 · Torts

284 N.W.2d 55 (1979)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsLandlord liabilityPremises liabilityNegligencelandlord dutyordinary carepremises defectstenant's invitee

Facts

Mahnke owned a duplex and orally leased the upper unit to the Blattner family, with an agreement that he would make necessary repairs reported to him. While helping move Mrs. Blattner's furniture, Pagelsdorf went onto the rear upper balcony, leaned a box spring against the wooden railing, and the railing gave way, causing him to fall and suffer injuries. There was evidence that the railing had dry rot and that Mahnke had previously warned Mrs. Blattner about the railing's strength, although Mahnke disputed prior knowledge. The trial court instructed the jury under a limited duty applicable to a licensee, and the jury found Mahnke lacked knowledge of the defect.

Issue

Whether a landlord's duty to a tenant's visitor injured by defective premises is limited by the old common law rule of landlord nonliability absent an exception, or instead requires the landlord to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the premises. More specifically, whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that Mahnke owed Pagelsdorf a duty of ordinary care.

Rule

A landlord owes his tenant and anyone on the premises with the tenant's consent a duty to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of the premises. If a lawful entrant is injured as a result of the landlord's negligence in maintaining the premises, recovery is governed by general negligence principles; notice of the defect, obviousness, control, and similar facts are relevant only insofar as they bear on whether the landlord exercised ordinary care under all the circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Milwaukee, Nina Torres rented an apartment from Daniel Kerr. With Nina's permission, her friend Omar Reed came over to assemble a bookshelf and was injured when a rotted kitchen floorboard gave way. Daniel argues he owed Omar no duty because Omar was only Nina's social guest and not on any business with Daniel.

Which is the best statement of Daniel's duty?

Explanation. The majority abolished the landlord's general immunity and held that a landlord owes the tenant and anyone on the premises with the tenant's consent a duty to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the premises. The visitor's old status as invitee or licensee does not control. Control may be relevant to negligence, but not to whether a duty exists.