Opinion ID: 2175707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Efforts to find employment.

Text: The appellants contest the efforts of Klingler to seek other employment during the period of his suspension between September 14, 1970, and January 1, 1971. Subsequent to January 1, 1971, it is conceded that Klingler was self-employed and the earnings from such employment were credited against his back pay pursuant to the stipulation previously mentioned. The period in question in regard to Schilling is from September 14, 1970, to March, 1971. Subsequent to March, 1971, Schilling was able to obtain employment in various locations in Wisconsin and in Arizona, to which he moved in June, 1971. The trial court reviewed the evidence and found that both Klingler and Schilling had made sufficiently diligent efforts to find other employment for the respective periods of time and denied the appellants any credits for those periods. As previously stated, the burden of proof on the issue of failure to mitigate damages is on the employer. This court stated the rule in Barker v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., supra, page 638, as follows: . . . The rule in such cases is, that although the damages may be so reduced, yet the burden is on the defendant to show affirmatively that the plaintiff might have had employment and compensation elsewhere. . . . The appellants introduced no evidence that any alternative employment was available to either Klingler or Schilling during the periods of time in question. It follows that the appellants have not sustained their burden of proof. It is a well-established rule that on appeal, this court will not disturb the findings of a trial court unless they are against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Precision Service Co. v. Schill (1973), 60 Wis. 2d 346, 348, 210 N. W. 2d 706. We have reviewed the record and deem it unnecessary to set forth the evidentiary facts therein contained. However, after such a review, we conclude that it cannot be said that the findings of the trial court are against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Appellants suggest that this court can take judicial notice of the fact that there are many types of employment available throughout Wisconsin, and particularly in the suburban area of Milwaukee, which are equal to or superior to a deputy sheriff's position. This court has held that it can and will take judicial notice of matters of common knowledge. Frederick v. Hotel Investments, Inc. (1970), 48 Wis. 2d 429, 433, 180 N. W. 2d 562. However, we decline to take judicial notice of the suggested fact that other employment of a like character, with similar and not inferior terms and conditions and in a place reasonably convenient, was available to these employees. Schiller v. Keuffel & Esser Co., supra, 553; State ex rel. Schmidt v. District No. 2, supra, 191.