Opinion ID: 1982051
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Construction of Sec. 893.80(3), Stats. 1979.

Text: Section 893.80(3), Stats. 1979, [2] limits the amount of damages recoverable from government subdivisions in tort actions. The statute provides in pertinent part: The amount recoverable by any person for any damages, injuries or death in any action founded on tort against any volunteer fire company organized under ch. 213, political corporation, governmental subdivision or agency thereof and against their officers, officials, agents or employes for acts done in their official capacity or in the course of their agency or employment, whether proceeded against jointly or severally, shall not exceed $25,000. The parties in this action offer substantially different interpretations of how this statute should be applied to joint tenant owners of property. King and Minesal begin with the assumption that husband and wife joint tenants, whose property has been damaged, are in legal contemplation one person asserting one claim or cause of action. Having characterized the two owners as one person having but one claim, they conclude that the any person language of sec. 893.80(3) permits only a single $25,000 recovery. Conversely, the Woods focus on the fact that they are separate persons, each with a distinct interest in the property. Therefore they argue that they are each a person with damages founded on tort under sec. 893.80(3), Stats., and are therefore entitled to recover separately up to the statutory limit. The statute provides that any person may recover for damages for any action founded on tort against any governmental subdivision or their employees. In this case, Elaine Wood and Walter Wood each own an equal interest in their home. This is based on sec. 700.17(2), Stats., which provides: Each of 2 or more joint tenants has an equal interest in the whole property for the duration of the tenancy, irrespective of unequal contributions at its creation. Furthermore, in Wisconsin owners of property in joint tenancy each enjoy numerous incidents of ownership. Joint tenants have the right to sell their individual interests and thereby sever the joint tenancy. Nelson v. Albrechtson, 93 Wis. 2d 552, 563, 287 N.W. 2d 811 (1980). Each is entitled to an equal share of rental income and profits from the property. See sec. 700.23. A joint tenant may mortgage his or her interest in the property. See sec. 700.24. These characteristics of joint tenancy lead us to conclude that Elaine and Walter Wood indeed have separate though related interests in the property. Their respective interests were damaged by the negligence of the Town of Vernon plumbing and building inspector. Essentially each has a cause of action for damages because the real interests of each have been damaged. The fact that Elaine and Walter Wood joined their claims in prosecuting this suit in no way affects the fact that they each have an interest which has been damaged. Cf. Gleason v. City of Oklahoma City, 666 P. 2d 786, 789 (Okl. App. 1983) (joinder of claims in wrongful death action brought by administratrix of estate did not deprive each claimant who suffered loss of right to recover up to the statutory liability limit). Elaine and Walter Wood each qualify as a person who has suffered damages ... in any action founded on tort ... as required by sec. 898.80(3). Therefore each is entitled to recover up to the $25,000 limit. This conclusion is in accord with the court's prior interpretation of sec. 893.80(3), Stats., set forth in Schwartz v. Milwaukee, 54 Wis. 2d 286, 195 N.W. 2d 480 (1972). In Schwartz, the court held that sec. 895.43(2), currently sec. 893.80(3), did not limit a husband's claim for loss of consortium and medical expenses despite the fact that the wife's claim of damages had exhausted the $25,000 limit. In Schwartz the court applied the $25,000 limitation to each person asserting a cause of action for damages regardless of whether the cause of action is separate and independent or separate but derivative.... Id. at 295. It is clear from this passage that separateness of the causes of action for damages was key to the court's interpretation of the statute. As previously discussed, Elaine and Walter Wood each have a distinct and separate interest in the property which has been damaged by the negligent acts of the municipal plumbing and building inspector. Thus, the separateness in causes of action required by Schwartz before separate limits are allowed under sec. 893.80(3), Stats., is present in this case. We note that our holding comports with the decision of the only other state supreme court to have considered whether joint tenants of property may each recover up to the maximum limit established by a governmental liability statute. See City of Colorado Springs v. Gladin, 599 P. 2d 907 (Colo. 1979). In Gladin a husband and wife were co-owners of property damaged by the city. The Gladins were awarded a total of $110,000 and the city appealed claiming that the maximum liability of the city under the applicable statute to both was $100,000 because the Gladin's damage was confined to a single tract of property. The applicable statute provided as follows: Limitations on judgments. (1) The maximum amount that may be recovered under this article shall be: (a) For any injury to one person in any single occurrence, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars; (b) For an injury to two or more persons in any single occurrence, the sum of three hundred thousand dollars; except in such instance, no person may recover in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Colorado Rev. Stats. sec. 24-10-114(1)(a) and (b) 1973. The court rejected the city's reasoning, stating: On the contrary, each of the Gladins owned an undivided one-half interest in the property and each was injured. An analogous situation would be if each of them owned the entire interest in one-half of the property. Therefore, subsection (1)(b), not (1)(a), applies. The limitation is $300,000 with the further limitation of $100,000 per injured person. Thus, where two persons own property which is damaged, the total statutory limitation on the amount recoverable is $200,000. Gladin, 599 P. 2d at 908. (Emphasis added.) Similarly we reject the argument of the Town of Vernon plumbing and building inspectors that husband and wife joint tenants are in effect one person asserting but one claim or cause of action. As long as the interest of each has been damaged, each has a cause of action founded on tort against the municipal building and plumbing inspectors. Thus, the statute provides a separate recovery up to the $25,000 limit for each.