Background
Eric Stupak and two friends visited Mont du Lac, a Wisconsin resort, to play disc golf in June 2022. Afterward, a friend asked resort manager Devon Schultz whether they could use the tube slides, which were closed. Viewing the disputed evidence in Stupak’s favor, Schultz responded, “I’m not going to say anything.”
The slides were unattended, the conveyor was off, and the “Ride Closed” sign was set aside with its chain coiled. Tubes remained accessible, but the protective side bumpers had been deflated. After one friend descended without incident, Stupak’s tube left the slide, causing him to strike a tree and suffer serious injuries, including fractures to his spine, ribs, and hip.
Stupak sued Mont du Lac and its insurer, Nova Casualty Company, under Wisconsin tort law. The district court held that Stupak was a trespasser on the slides and that the evidence could not establish the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct required for liability to a trespasser. It granted summary judgment to the defendants without reaching their assumption-of-risk and proximate-cause arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit agreed that Stupak was a trespasser as a matter of law. Although he had permission to be at the resort, he lacked express or implied consent to use the closed slides. Schultz’s statement was not a specific invitation and, viewed objectively, indicated that the group lacked permission even if Schultz would not report or stop them.
The court nevertheless held that a reasonable jury could find Mont du Lac reckless. The resort had deflated safety bumpers, left tubes accessible, and failed to place the closure sign or another barrier across the slide. After learning that the group might use the slides, Schultz made a statement that could be understood as suggesting they could proceed without consequences. Taken together and viewed in Stupak’s favor, those facts could show conscious disregard of an unreasonable and substantial risk of serious bodily harm.
The Seventh Circuit therefore vacated the summary judgment and remanded. It left the district court to consider in the first instance whether assumption of inherent risk or lack of proximate cause supplies an alternative basis for summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A lawful visitor may become a trespasser by entering or using a particular area that is closed to the public without express or implied consent.
- Conduct insufficient to grant permission may still support recklessness when a landowner knows of a serious concealed danger and tacitly encourages or fails to discourage use.
- The decision permits Stupak’s claim to proceed but does not establish liability or resolve the defendants’ assumption-of-risk and proximate-cause defenses.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the consent inquiry from the recklessness inquiry under Wisconsin premises-liability law. A landowner’s ambiguous words may fail to transform a trespasser into an invitee while still contributing to a jury question about whether the landowner consciously disregarded a substantial risk.
For recreational-property operators, merely treating an attraction as closed internally may be insufficient when equipment remains accessible, safety features are disabled, closure warnings are not deployed, and staff know that visitors intend to proceed.