Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 101 — DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES —
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 101.111 (2026)

Excavations; protection of adjoining property and buildings

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
101.111101.111 Excavations; protection of adjoining property and buildings.
101.111(1)(1) Definition. In this section “excavator” means any owner of an interest in land making or causing to be made an excavation.
101.111(2)(2) Cave-in prevention. Any excavator shall protect the excavation site in such a manner so as to prevent the soil of adjoining property from caving in or settling.
101.111(3)(3) Liability for underpinning and foundation extensions.
101.111(3)(a)(a) If the excavation is made to a depth of 12 feet or less below grade, the excavator may not be held liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of buildings on adjoining properties.
Down
Up
101.111(3)(b)(b) If the excavation is made to a depth in excess of 12 feet below grade, the excavator shall be liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of any adjoining buildings below the depth of 12 feet below grade. The owners of adjoining buildings shall be liable for the expense of any necessary underpinning or extension of the foundations of their buildings to the depth of 12 feet below grade.
101.111(4)(4) Notice. Unless waived by adjoining owners, at least 30 days prior to commencing the excavation the excavator shall notify, in writing, all owners of adjoining buildings of his or her intention to excavate. The notice shall state that adjoining buildings may require permanent protection. The owners of adjoining property shall have access to the excavation site for the purpose of protecting their buildings.
101.111(5)(5) Employees not liable. No worker who is an employee of an excavator may be held liable for his or her employer’s failure to comply with this section.
101.111(6)(6) Failure to comply; injunction. If any excavator fails to comply with this section, any aggrieved person may commence an action to obtain an order under ch. 813 directing such excavator to comply with this section and restraining the excavator from further violation thereof. If the aggrieved person prevails in the action, he or she shall be reimbursed for all his or her costs and disbursements together with such actual attorney fees as may be approved by the court.
101.111 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 88; 2017 a. 365.
101.111 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See also s. SPS 362.3300, Wis. adm. code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2013 · leading case: Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 76 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 76 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 26× “Bostco's amended complaint against the District alleged four claims: (1) negligence; (2) continuing nuisance; (3) inverse condemnation; and (4) excavation protection under Wis. Stat. § 101.111 (2009-10). 1 The District filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging…”
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2013 WI 78 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 101.111 , setting forth safety standards for excavation projects.”
Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43 (Wis. 2005). “01-21, relating to physical injury to or interference with real property; § 101.111 relating to protection of adjoining property and buildings during excavation; and chapter 90 relating to fences.”
— Wis. Stat. § 101.111(1) — 1 case
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 76 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Bostco's amended complaint against the District alleged four claims: (1) negligence; (2) continuing nuisance; (3) inverse condemnation; and (4) excavation protection under Wis. Stat. § 101.111 (2009-10). 1 The District filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging…”
— Wis. Stat. § 101.111(2) — 1 case
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 76 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Bostco's amended complaint against the District alleged four claims: (1) negligence; (2) continuing nuisance; (3) inverse condemnation; and (4) excavation protection under Wis. Stat. § 101.111 (2009-10). 1 The District filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging…”
— Wis. Stat. § 101.111(3)(a) — 1 case
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 76 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Bostco's amended complaint against the District alleged four claims: (1) negligence; (2) continuing nuisance; (3) inverse condemnation; and (4) excavation protection under Wis. Stat. § 101.111 (2009-10). 1 The District filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging…”
— Wis. Stat. § 101.111(4) — 1 case
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 76 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Bostco's amended complaint against the District alleged four claims: (1) negligence; (2) continuing nuisance; (3) inverse condemnation; and (4) excavation protection under Wis. Stat. § 101.111 (2009-10). 1 The District filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging…”
— Wis. Stat. § 101.111(6) — 1 case
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 76 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Bostco's amended complaint against the District alleged four claims: (1) negligence; (2) continuing nuisance; (3) inverse condemnation; and (4) excavation protection under Wis. Stat. § 101.111 (2009-10). 1 The District filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.