Court Opinion

ID: 9591743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:07:15.352792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:43.152301
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
(concurring). In light of the confusion that could result from the dissenting opinion, I write separately to offer what I hope will be some helpful clarification.
No authority supports the Dissent's extraordinary assertion that exposure of "a definable percentage of the population ... to the contaminated water," resulting in illness of "approximately 400,000 persons" establishes "actual notice," Dissent at 229-30. The "definable percentage" is dubious and, most certainly, the addition of approximately 398,500 unknown persons as actual-notice claimants is utterly astounding given that only about 1,500 actual claimants have been named.
Moreover, the City's brief and oral argument absolutely refute the Dissent's inexplicable statement that "[t]he City does not dispute that it had actual notice or that it was not prejudiced." Dissent at 230. Of course it does; otherwise these issues would not be here on appeal. The City, clearly and logically, has explained that it can not assess its liability or attempt to resolve the potential claims of approximately 398,500 people, each of whom may have been damaged differently, when it does not know who they are or what they say they suffered. Section 893.80, STATS., protects the City from doing so.
Quoting the trial court decision at length, the Dissent implies that we have rejected the trial court's discretionary determination of the class action criteria. We have not. Subject to the trial court's further evaluation of the issues involving the defendants' right *229to a jury trial, our decision renders: (1) consolidated actions by about 1,500 persons against the defendants; and (2) a potential class action on behalf of about 400,000 persons against the non-City defendants. Our decision requires the trial court to continue its good efforts to analyze challenging issues and determine whether and how this complex litigation may be pursued through class action.
I am authorized to state that Judge Ralph Adam Fine joins in this concurring opinion.