Opinion ID: 1924343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: comparative negligence and strict responsibility

Text: [2] Frost argues that the trial court erred in not including special verdict questions concerning the negligence of the plaintiffs and comparing any negligence on their part to the strict responsibility of the defendants. [7] The court of appeals affirmed the trial court on this issue, reasoning that in strict responsibility, the loss is to fall on the innocent defendant rather than the innocent plaintiff, who justifiably relied on the representation. We agree. Our holding that there should be no inquiry about and comparison of the plaintiff buyer's negligence with the defendant broker's strict responsibility is based on the principle that if a plaintiff is justified in relying upon a representation of a defendant, the plaintiff is not required to make an independent investigation before acting on this reliance. Therefore, even though a plaintiff's conduct might in other circumstances be negligent, such conduct is not inquired into in a strict responsibility situation. The plaintiff is viewed as being innocent, because he justifiably relied on the representation of the defendant, who was supposed to possess complete knowledge of the facts. Since the plaintiff's reliance was justified, he was under no obligation to do anything else to protect himself. Wis. J.I.Civil No. 2402 states in pertinent part: The plaintiff is not required before relying upon the representation of fact to make an independent investigation. Further explanation is provided by Prosser, The Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971): It seems clear that, as in other cases of strict responsibility, there is a more or less conscious policy of placing the loss upon the innocent defendant rather than the innocent plaintiff who has been misled, in cases where public opinion seems to call for such a result. [8] . . . It is now held that assertions of fact as to the quantity or quality of land or goods sold, the financial status of corporations, and similar matters including commercial transactions, may justifiably be relied on without investigation, not only where such investigation would be burdensome or difficult, as where land which is sold lies at a distance, but likewise where the falsity of the representation might be discovered with little effort by means easily at hand. [At 712, 717-18.] We agree with the plaintiffs that in a case such as the one before us, where the jury has determined that the defendants are strictly responsible, the plaintiffs should not be penalized for reliance which was justified. Therefore, we hold that the trial court was correct in not including questions in the special verdict comparing the negligence of the plaintiffs to the defendants' strict responsibility.