Opinion ID: 1822581
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Custody and Control Exception

Text: ¶ 45. The custody and control rule recognized in Jankee is a specific exception to the general standard of ordinary care. In Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995), this court recognized that `each individual is held, at the very least, to a standard of ordinary care in all activities.' Id. at 419 (quoting Coffey, 74 Wis. 2d at 537). We discussed the proper analysis of duty in Wisconsin as follows: The duty of any person is the obligation of due care to refrain from any act which will cause foreseeable harm to others even though the nature of that harm and the identity of the harmed person or harmed interest is unknown at the time of the act. Id. at 419-20 (citing A.E. Inv. Corp. v. Link Builders, Inc., 62 Wis. 2d 479, 483-84, 214 N.W.2d 764 (1974)). The concomitant principle is that every person in all situations has a duty to exercise ordinary care for his or her own safety. See Wis JICivil 1007. ¶ 46. The custody and control rule is an exception to standard negligence law because it contemplates the possibility of a heightened duty of care for a defendant and a lowered duty of self-care for a plaintiff. [13] ¶ 47. Nonfeasance torts, which entail a duty to do some act of commission to prevent harm, [14] are not usually within the duty of ordinary care that people hold towards each other. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 cmt. c; W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 56 (5th ed. 1984). Hence, the proposition that a defendant may be subject to a heightened duty of care must be understood as a special exception to the norm and be treated accordingly. The requirement that a defendant knew or should have foreseen a particular risk of harm should not be viewed as inconsistent with this court's adoption of the minority Palsgraff rule, see A.E. Inv. Corp., 62 Wis. 2d at 483, because this requirement comes in the context of a heightened duty of care to protect against the acts of others, not an ordinary duty of care in line with general tort principles.