Court Opinion

ID: 9707010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:58:37.328185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:26.885572
License: Public Domain

*299ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.
¶ 81. (dissenting). Two possible defenses — statute of limitations and contributory negligence — have not been considered by the jury even though the record contains competing evidence regarding those issues.
¶ 82. The majority opinion endorses the conclusion that the Gumzs were reasonably diligent in attempting to discover their injury and its cause and that no reasonable jury could have found otherwise. I respectfully disagree because competing inferences can be drawn from the record with regard to whether the Gumzs were reasonably diligent in attempting to discover their injury and its cause. A majority of this court further concludes that a comparative negligence question was unnecessary because special verdict questions were limited to inquiries regarding electricity. However, because the record contains facts that support both poor farm management and excess stray voltage' as causes of the herd's poor health, the circuit court should have asked a comparative negligence question, which was not limited to use of electricity, in order to allow the jury to assess cause and damages fairly.
HH
¶ 83. The relevant inquiry here pertains to whether the Gumzs, subject to a six-year statute of limitations, were reasonably diligent in discovering their injury and its cause, i.e., discovering excess stray voltage from Northern States, prior to December 21, 1995. In 1987, Northern States sent the Gumzs, as well as its other customers, general information about stray voltage including information about free investigation by Northern States, financial assistance from Northern States, and possible on and off-farm causes of stray voltage. In 1991, the Gumzs began to notice problems *300with their herd. In 1992, Mr. Gumz hired a nutritionist to evaluate his herd, and Mr. Gumz inquired with the nutritionist about possible stray voltage problems on his farm. In 1993, the nutritionist eliminated any nutrition-related problems, and he told the Gumzs that they had a stray voltage problem and thus referred them to an electrician. In 1994, an electrician wired the barn addition and concluded that the Gumzs' on-farm wiring was very good. However, they did not ask the utility to conduct stray voltage testing until 1996 and did not file suit until December 21, 2001, despite a six-year statute of limitations.
¶ 84. While a reasonable person could conclude that the Gumzs were reasonably diligent in their actions and did not discover their injury and its cause until after December 21, 1995, a reasonable person could also conclude that the Gumzs should have called the utility prior to December 21, 1995. A jury should have considered whether the Gumzs' chosen course was a reasonable process of elimination. A determination as a matter of law is not proper when reasonable inferences leading to conflicting results can be drawn from the undisputed facts. See Cameron v. City of Milwaukee, 102 Wis. 2d 448, 459, 307 N.W.2d 164 (1981).
¶ 85. Unlike the plaintiffs in previous stray voltage cases, the Gumzs failed to contact the utility until long after they had concerns about stray voltage. In Kolpin1 and Allen,2 the plaintiffs asked the utility to test for stray voltage as part of the process of elimination. In those cases, the utility's testing indicated the *301farmer had no excess stray voltage from off-farm sources. Thus, the farmers continued to look elsewhere for a solution. In the case now before the court, the Gumzs did consult with an electrician, a nutritionist, a veterinarian, and had suspicions about stray voltage; however, they did not make an inquiry with the utility before December 21, 1995. One can receive the benefit of the discovery rule only if that person has been reasonably diligent in discovering the injury and its cause. Spitler v. Dean, 148 Wis. 2d 630, 638, 436 N.W.2d 308 (1989). Whether the Gumzs exercised reasonable diligence depends on a jury's view of the strategy they pursued prior to December 21, 1995.
¶ 86. The majority asserts that the statute of limitations question falls squarely within the scope of Kolpin and Allen. See majority op., ¶ 28. This case, however, is distinguishable from those cases because the Gumzs did not ask the utility to test for stray voltage until long after they had concerns that stray voltage might be a problem on their farm. In Kolpin, the court determined that the plaintiffs did not know, nor should the plaintiffs have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, their injury and its cause prior to February 17, 1981. Kolpin, 162 Wis. 2d at 27. Prior to this date, the Kolpins read articles about stray voltage, called their veterinarian, had experts evaluate their equipment, conducted their own voltage testing, called an electrician to conduct stray voltage testing, and called the utility company to conduct stray voltage testing. Id. at 12-13. There was no doubt as to whether the Kolpins were reasonably diligent at that time. Unlike the Gumzs, the Kolpins pursued possible electrical (on and off-farm) and non-electrical causes to their problems.
¶ 87. In addition, information regarding stray voltage was not as prevalent in the 1980s, when the *302Kolpins undertook these efforts.3 We should recognize that the reasonable diligence analysis can change over time as the phenomenon of stray voltage becomes less elusive and more generally understood or recognized.4
¶ 88. In Allen, the plaintiff suspected stray voltage in 1988 but did not file a lawsuit until 2000. Unlike the Gumzs, when the Allens had concerns about stray voltage, they called the utility company to conduct testing. Allen, 279 Wis. 2d 488, ¶ 3. When the utility company found no stray voltage problem, Allen looked to other possible avenues for relief, such as the cows' nutrition, on-farm electrical problems, and off-farm electrical problems. Id., ¶ 13. Hence, Allen is distinguishable because, in Allen, the plaintiff promptly called the utility after there were indications and he had suspicions of stray voltage problems.
¶ 89. The majority asserts that declining to follow the advice of a single non-expert does not demonstrate *303a failure to exercise reasonable diligence. See majority op., ¶ 41. However, while a nutritionist alone may not be an expert in stray voltage, he or she may supply information worthy of consideration in the analysis.5 Moreover, the record indicates that the Gumzs had more than just a single non-expert pointing them towards a stray voltage problem from off-farm sources. Their herd was sick, Northern States reportedly sent them information regarding stray voltage, Mr. Gumz inquired about stray voltage with his nutritionist, and an electrician concluded that their on-farm wiring was in good condition. Nonetheless, they waited two years from the electrician's conclusion that their on-farm wiring was in good condition before they contacted the utility to do off-farm testing.
¶ 90. The majority asserts that the Gumzs undertook a process of elimination, which is not subject to question. See majority op., ¶ 41. The Gumzs' efforts may be commendable; however, it is a jury question as to whether they exercised reasonable diligence in the discovery of stray voltage when they did not contact the utility company for approximately two years after the electrician's conclusion, three years after the nutritionist’s conclusion, and four years after they became concerned about stray voltage.
*304¶ 91. The majority opinion seems to create or approve of a bright-line rule that discovery cannot occur in a stray voltage case until the farmer finds a remedy for the stray voltage problem. See majority op., ¶¶ 34, 37, 50-51. While in some stray voltage cases discovery may not occur until one finds a remedy, this is not always the case. A plaintiff need only have what a court would view as an objective basis as to the injury and its cause.6 Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 300, 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997).
¶ 92. Here, competing inferences can be drawn from the undisputed facts in the record about whether the Gumzs were reasonably diligent in discovering their injury and its cause. I make no determination as to whether the Gumzs were reasonably diligent or when discovery occurred; I merely conclude that the record does not support only one conclusion as a matter of law.
II
¶ 93. The majority also concludes that the circuit court correctly declined to ask a comparative negligence question, which would have included the jury's consideration of the testimony it heard with regard to poor farm management practices.7 The majority endorses the circuit court's limitation of the special verdict *305questions, which addressed only those damages arising out of electricity, rather than a question that would have addressed all of the evidence presented. See majority op., ¶ 68. The majority can only reach the result it sets forth by refusing to give the jury a question based upon the testimony presented. Because of the testimony in this case, I disagree with the majority and conclude that a circuit court must ask a comparative negligence question, which is not limited to use of electricity, unless it can determine as a matter of law that the plaintiff could not have contributed to the herd's condition. To conclude otherwise may lead to an economic windfall for the plaintiff because it could eliminate the jury's response to a significant defense.
¶ 94. The majority opinion approves of the circuit court's decision to withhold Wis. Stat. § 895.045(1) (2005-06), Contributory negligence — as it pertained to poor farming practices — from the jury's consideration. In the case at issue, the jury heard testimony about poor farm management, and it heard evidence that the Gumzs' farm practices contributed to the poor health of the herd.8 Despite that evidence, the majority opinion provides no reason for excluding those matters from the jury's consideration.
*306¶ 95. The jury heard evidence from Northern States' expert, Dr. Huston. He identified several problems on the Gumzs' farm, besides the alleged stray voltage, that caused poor milk production. Dr. Huston testified that the Gumzs were responsible for the herd's low milk production in the following ways: (1) poor bio-security in that the Gumz did not properly isolate new animals coming to the farm, used dirty needles, did not wear rubber gloves, and failed to disinfect milking equipment between cows; (2) poor feeding practices because of low relative feed value of hay, lack of food in front of cows, and no transition ration; (3) poor record keeping such as no reproduction records and no individual records for cows; (4) poor breeding practices because the Gumzs used inexpensive bulls, untested bulls, and a bull with physical defects that were not conducive to producing good animals; (5) poor cow comfort because the Gumzs used stanchion stalls instead of tie stalls, and no bedding such as sand or straw; and (6) inconsistent milking practices among workers. Based on the verdict submitted to the jury, we can only speculate as to what the jury may have done with this information.
*307¶ 96. The majority opinion assumes that a jury will appropriately focus only on "electrical" damages and thus reduce the total damages to only those due to electrical problems. However, to allow for appropriate judicial review and a fair verdict, it is a better practice for the jury to consider all relevant harms causing damages and then detail its findings in the special verdict. For example, in another stray voltage case, Vogel v. Grant-Lafayette Electric Cooperative, the defendant-utility argued the plaintiffs were negligent in design, maintenance, and operation of their electrical equipment. Vogel v. Grant-Lafayette Elec. Coop., 201 Wis. 2d 416, 420, 548 N.W.2d 829 (1996). The jury awarded $300,000 in damages and found the Vogels were one-third negligent. Id. at 421. The circuit court appropriately reduced the damage award by one-third to $200,000. Id.9
¶ 97. The outcome of the case at hand illustrates why a jury must consider both the plaintiff and defendant's conduct. Northern States claims the Gumzs *308were negligent in the management of their farm, which led to decreased milk production and poor herd health. Northern States produced evidence and testimony at trial to support its assertion. On the other hand, the Gumzs claimed their problems were due to stray voltage from Northern States. An agricultural economist testified that the total economic damages due to lost productivity were $901,183.
¶ 98. However, the jury awarded only about one-half of that requested figure, $532,336. Why? Did the jury conclude that the Gumzs' farm practices contributed to the herd's harm in that percentage? Did the jury award the entire amount for lost productivity that it thought was proven by the evidence? What did the jury do, if anything, with the information regarding poor herd management? We do not know why the jury awarded about half of what the Gumzs requested. This case illustrates that the respective responsibility for negligence may be close to that critical 51 percent threshold, which could result in Wis. Stat. § 895.045, Contributory negligence, barring or reducing the plaintiffs' damage award.
¶ 99. Consider the following hypothetical: A dairy herd is harmed because of both electricity — i.e., stray voltage from the utility — and poor farm practices by the farmer. Damages toted $100,000 and the plaintiff is 75 percent at fault due to poor farm management, while the defendant is 25 percent at fault for providing stray voltage. Under this scenario, if the comparative negligence question is not asked, the plaintiff recovers $100,000, but if the comparative negligence question is asked, the plaintiff recovers nothing.
¶ 100. One may argue that if the special verdict questions address only electricity, the jury awards damages only arising out of electricity. E.g., under the above *309hypothetical, $25,000. However, this may not be the appropriate legal outcome if a plaintiff is more responsible for the harm than the defendant. As a result, the circuit court should have given a comparative negligence question to the jury that was not limited to the use of electricity: an overall damages question and then calculate damages accordingly.
¶ 101. To allow for appropriate judicial review, a jury must consider the different causes and specify on the special verdict each party's responsibility, if any, for the harm. Allowing a jury to focus narrowly on electricity may create an economic windfall for the plaintiff, unless the court determines as a matter of law that the plaintiff could not have been negligent. Moreover, while a verdict limiting the inquiry to electricity does account for the utility's negligence with respect to stray voltage, it does not account for a defense relating to the owners' negligent treatment of the herd. Finally, it leaves the jury without an adequate accounting of its reaction to the testimony concerning the plaintiffs' farm practices. These issues directly relate to cause and damages; thus, they are important for a jury to assess.
¶ 102. The Gumzs' lawsuit is distinguishable from a medical malpractice lawsuit. In a medical malpractice suit, a jury must distinguish and separate the natural result in damages that flow from the plaintiffs' original injury from the damages that naturally resulted from the doctor's treatment. See Wis JI — Civil 1023. In a medical malpractice action, the court instructs the jury to "entirely exclude" from its consideration "all damages which resulted from the original injury" and consider only the damages plaintiff sustained because of the treatment by the doctor. Id. Here, we have no original injury to exclude. Rather, we have two competing, simultaneous causes for the same harm — lost milk production.
*310¶ 103. In medical malpractice, the jury is instructed to find that the doctor's negligence was a cause of the present condition if it concludes that the present condition was caused jointly by the doctor's negligence and the natural progression of the plaintiffs injury. Id. We have no "natural progression" of the plaintiffs injury in this case. Rather, the evidence seemingly supports two competing, simultaneous causes for the herd's health problems. The testimony in this case supported the possibility that both the farmer and the utility contributed to the injury The majority decision eliminates the traditional assessment of negligence and damage that has stood the test of time in tort law. I would not carve out such a niche in stray voltage cases.
HH J-H HH
¶ 104. Two possible defenses — statute of limitations and contributory negligence — have been taken from the jury's consideration. Because competing inferences can be drawn from the undisputed facts in the record about whether the Gumzs were reasonably diligent in discovering their injury and its cause, the statute of limitations issue should not have been determined as a matter of law. Moreover, because the record contains facts that could support both poor farm management and excess stray voltage as causes of the herd's poor health, the circuit court should have asked a comparative negligence question, which was not limited to electricity, in order to allow the jury to assess cause and damages fairly.
¶ 105. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
*311¶ 106. I am authorized to state that Justices DAVID T. PROSSER and PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK join this dissent.

 Kolpin v. Pioneer Power & Light Co. Inc., 162 Wis. 2d 1, 469 N.W.2d 595 (1991).

 Allen v. Wisconsin Public Serv. Corp., 2005 WI App 40, 279 Wis. 2d 488, 694 N.W.2d 420.

 The plaintiff in Kolpin undertook a diligent investigation to find the cause of his problem. It may be significant that the Kolpins did more than the Gumzs at a time when the stray voltage "phenomenon" may not have been as widely known. See Kolpin, 162 Wis. 2d at 12 (describing how neither the electrician nor the utility's representative knew how to test for stray voltage or how to read the measurements taken). See also R.D. Appleman and R.J. Gustafson, Sources of Stray Voltage and Effect on Cow Health and Performance, 68 J. Dairy Sci. 1554, 1554 (1985) (stating that "[a]bout 1980, problems from stray voltages were being identified throughout much of the U.S. and Canada")(emphasis added).

 See PSC Docket 05-EI-115, at 1-8 (updating the docket in 1996 in light of new research on stray voltage); see also R.D. Appleman and R.J. Gustafson, Sources of Stray Voltage and Effect on Cow Health and Performance, 68 J. Dairy Sci. 1554, 1565-66 (1985) (identifying several questions about stray voltage that remain unanswered).

 The majority opinion seems to assert that an expert opinion is required for discovery to occur and that failing to follow a non-expert's opinion cannot demonstrate a failure to exercise reasonable diligence. See majority op., ¶ 41. However, an expert opinion is not required for discovery to occur. See Fritz v. McGrath, 146 Wis. 2d 681, 690, 431 N.W.2d 751 (Ct. App. 1988) (concluding that an expert opinion is not a prerequisite to discovery). A farmer need only have what a court would conclude as an objective basis as to the injury and its cause. This may occur in a number of different ways, and it does not necessarily follow that an expert opinion is required.

 For example, if a farmer asks the utility to test for stray voltage and the utility finds excess stray voltage attributable to the utility, the plaintiff has likely discovered his or her injury and its cause. No reason exists for the exact remedy to be found, implemented, and successful before discovery could occur.

 The majority concludes that question three of the special verdict, which can be found in ¶ 59 of the majority opinion, is problematic — but not an error — because the circuit court was addressing only negligence in question three and not the statute of limitations. See majority op., ¶¶ 46-49. Because I conclude *305that the circuit court should have given a statute of limitations question, I conclude special verdict question three is deficient. However, I agree with the majority's conclusion in ¶¶ 46-49; circuit courts should separate questions addressing statute of limitations and negligence.

 Relevant testimony of Northern States' expert, Dr. Richard Huston:
Q: Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty as to whether or not this herd is adversely affected by electricity?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is your opinion?
*306A: That it was not.
Q: Why do you say that, Dr. Huston?
A: Well, for multiple reasons. First of all, what we're looking at up there, if you're going to have a stray voltage problem, you would expect things to get better, and they do. I've seen that many times, that things get better when you correct the problem. So that would be the purest and most simple answer.

In addition to that, there's a lot of management things that have gone on in this farm that are contributing to the production levels that are in place and have been in place throughout this entire period of time.

(Emphasis added.)

 The circuit court's action on contributory negligence was not called into question in Vogel. However, it is seemingly common practice to allow such apportionment. See Fox v. Interstate Power Co., 521 N.W.2d 762, 764 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (finding that the jury's apportionment of fault, 80 percent to plaintiff-farmer and 20 percent to defendant-utility, was supported by the record because the evidence showed poor bio-security such as failing to wash hands, sanitize milking equipment between cows, provide clean environment for cows, and the farmer failed to keep mastitis records); Case v. Consumers Power Co., 615 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Mich. 2000) (stating that the jury heard evidence on stray voltage and problems on the plaintiffs farm, and it found the plaintiff-farmer 55 percent at fault and thus the defendant-utility 45 percent at fault); Otte v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 523 N.E.2d 835, 837-38 (Ohio 1988) (stating that the jury found the plaintiff-farmer 49 percent at fault and the defendant-utility 51 percent at fault).