Opinion ID: 2168718
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: general principles of negligence law in wisconsin

Text: ¶ 19. The Gritzners' claims invoke principles of common law negligence. To establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff's injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the injury. Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 250, 260, 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998) (quoting Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 418, 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995)). [6] ¶ 20. The first element, a duty of care, is established under Wisconsin law whenever it was foreseeable to the defendant that his or her act or omission to act might cause harm to some other person. Rockweit, 197 Wis. 2d at 420 (quoting Rolph v. EBI Cos., 159 Wis. 2d 518, 532, 464 N.W.2d 667 (1991)). [3] At the very least, every person is subject to a duty to exercise ordinary care in all of his or her activities. Rockweit, 197 Wis. 2d at 419. ¶ 21. The Gritzners' claims against Bubner are based on Bubner's duty to take certain affirmative actionsto warn Tara's parents about Michael and to control Michael's behavior. Bubner frames his response to the Gritzners' claims under the rules governing affirmative duties to act in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provide that in the absence of a special relationship, a person does not have a duty to take affirmative action to help or protect another person. Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 314-324 (1965). ¶ 22. This court has considered and relied on some of these Restatement provisions in evaluating negligence claims. However, this court has not expressly adopted this framework. See Schuster v. Altenberg, 144 Wis. 2d 223, 238 and n.3, 424 N.W.2d 159 (1988). Instead, the general framework governing the duty of care in Wisconsin negligence actions is that: A person is negligent when [he or she] fails to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary care is the care which a reasonable person would use in similar circumstances. A person is not using ordinary care and is negligent, if the person, without intending to do harm, does something (or fails to do something) that a reasonable person would recognize as creating an unreasonable risk of injury or damage to a person or property. Wis JICivil 1005. See also Rockweit, 197 Wis. 2d at 419 (`Each individual is held, at the very least, to a standard of ordinary care in all activities.') (citing Coffey v. Milwaukee, 74 Wis. 2d 526, 537, 247 N.W.2d 132 (1976)). [7] ¶ 23. In Wisconsin, although a person does not commit negligence simply by being present at the scene of an accident, McNeese v. Pier, 174 Wis. 2d 624, 632, 497 N.W.2d 124 (1993), failure to take an affirmative action may constitute negligence when it is inconsistent with the duty to exercise ordinary care. See Rockweit, 197 Wis. 2d at 423 (suggesting that during the time that a social guest was sitting at a campfire, her duty of ordinary care might include an affirmative duty to protect the child from the fire). [8] ¶ 24. Of course, even when a duty of care exists and the other elements of negligence have been established, public policy considerations may preclude liability. However, Wisconsin courts address public policy concerns directly, rather than asking whether the defendant owed a duty to the particular victim. [4] Thus, this court has observed: [W]ithin the framework of a negligence case the particular conduct of a defendant is not examined in terms of whether or not there is a duty to do a specific act, but rather whether the conduct satisfied the duty placed upon individuals to exercise that degree of care as would be exercised by a reasonable person under the circumstances. Walker v. Bignell, 100 Wis. 2d 256, 264, 301 N.W.2d 447 (1981). ¶ 25. In sum, the crucial question in evaluating the Gritzners' claims is not whether Bubner had any duty to take affirmative actions but whether Bubner's alleged failure to take certain actions was consistent with his duty to exercise a reasonable degree of care. [9] ¶ 26. Moreover, even if the plaintiff is able to establish a duty of care and the other elements of a negligence claim, the court may nonetheless determine that public policy considerations preclude liability. Sawyer v. Midelfort, 227 Wis. 2d 124, 141, 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999); Miller, 219 Wis. 2d at 264-265; Rockweit, 197 Wis. 2d at 425-26; Schuster, 144 Wis. 2d at 240. Before determining whether public policy considerations preclude liability, it is usually a better practice to submit the case to the jury. Sawyer, 227 Wis. 2d at 141; Miller, 219 Wis. 2d at 265; Schuster, 144 Wis. 2d at 241. However, when the facts are not complex and the relevant public policy questions have been fully presented, this court may determine whether public policy precludes liability before trial. Sawyer, 227 Wis. 2d at 141; Miller, 219 Wis. 2d at 265; Schuster, 144 Wis. 2d at 241. [10, 11] ¶ 27. The question of whether public policy considerations preclude liability is a question of law that this court determines without deference to any other court. Rockweit, 197 Wis. 2d at 425. The public policy reasons that may preclude liability include: (1) the injury is too remote from the negligence, (2) the injury is too wholly out of proportion to the tortfeasor's culpability, (3) in retrospect it appears too highly extraordinary that the negligence should have resulted in the harm, (4) allowing recovery would place too unreasonable a burden on the tortfeasor, (5) allowing recovery would be too likely to open the way for fraudulent claims, and (6) allowing recovery would enter a field that has no sensible or just stopping point. Id. at 426.