Court Opinion

ID: 9854901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:16:21.570302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:35.615543
License: Public Domain

JON E WILCOX, J.
¶ 35. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree with the majority's statement of the test by which to determine if the right to a jury trial is protected by Article I, Section 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution. However, I do not agree with the court's conclusion that a private action under the Unfair Sales Act, Wis. Stat. § 100.30 (1999-2000),1 is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a jury trial. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the judgment of the court.
¶ 36. The majority's interpretation of the first prong of its test is much broader than previous cases of this court have held it should be. In interpreting the first prong, our primary focus must be on the pre-1848 actions at law, because those are the actions for which the right to a jury trial must, according to our constitution, "remain inviolate." The logical interpretation of this language is that statutory causes of action that do not codify common law causes of action in a form substantially similar to causes of action as they existed, were known, or were recognized at common law before 1848 are not afforded such protection according to the plain language of the state constitution. Conversely, for the constitutional right to a jury trial to attach to a statutory cause of action, the modern statute must codify the pre-1848 cause of action substantially as it existed, as it was known, or as it was recognized at common law at the time the constitution was adopted.
*497¶ 37. Our previous decisions support such a narrow interpretation. For example, in General Drivers & Helpers Union v. WERB, 21 Wis. 2d 242, 124 N.W.2d 123 (1963), a labor union alleged that the employer had violated the collective bargaining agreement by refusing to make certain payments to employees. Id. at 247. This action could easily have been characterized as a contract dispute, and breach of contract actions were certainly known at law in 1848. See, e.g., Baxter v. Payne, 1 Pin. 501 (Wis. Terr. 1845). However, this court noted that the specific action in General Drivers arose under a claim of unfair labor practices, which was not a cause of action that existed at the time that the Wisconsin Constitution was adopted. Gen. Drivers, 21 Wis. 2d at 252. This court's decision rested partly on the premise that the relationship between the parties is different than that of simple parties to a contract. Id. at 252. Therefore, we concluded that the litigants did not have a constitutionally protected right to a jury trial.
¶ 38. In N.E. v. DHSS, 122 Wis. 2d 198, 361 N.W.2d 693 (1985), we found that there was no right to a jury trial in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, because that type of action simply did not exist prior to 1848. Id. at 203. Similarly, in Bekkedal v. City of Viroqua, 183 Wis. 176, 196 N.W. 879 (1924), we held that there was no constitutional right to a jury trial because special tax assessments, like the one at issue there, did not exist when the constitution was adopted. Id. at 192-93.
¶ 39. In the Ameritech case itself, the court of appeals noted, "there is no dispute that in 1848, the State had no right to commence a civil suit to collect forfeitures for deceptive advertising or violation of the [Wisconsin Consumer Act]," and thus the court found no constitutional right to a jury trial. State v. Ameritech, 185 Wis. 2d 686, 698, 517 N.W.2d 705 (Ct. App. *4981994). These cases make it clear that the first prong of our test should be interpreted narrowly, and the majority's decision goes against this history.
¶ 40. The majority correctly points out that none of the pre-1848 cases cited by H & S involves a cause of action that is codified in substantially the same form by the Unfair Sales Act. Majority op. at ¶¶ 24-26. However, unlike the majority, I do not find the causes of action listed in Blackstone's chapter on offences against public trade persuasive either.
¶ 41. The majority highlights three of Blackstone's causes of action — forestalling, regrating, and engrossing — and concludes that their character as examples of unfair trade practices makes them sufficiently similar to the Unfair Sales Act. I disagree. These offenses are certainly forerunners of modern antitrust and unfair trade practice statutes in general, as each involves the artificial manipulation of market factors by a market participant. However, they are only similar to the present cause of action in that general sense.
¶ 42. First, engrossing, regrating, and forestalling the market were criminal offenses under the common law, rather than private causes of action. As the majority notes, an aggrieved retailer such as Village Food would not have been able to bring a civil cause of action for engrossing, regrating, or forestalling under the common law. Majority op. at ¶ 28. This makes the old cause of action significantly different than the present one.
¶ 43. We addressed a similar issue in Bergren v. Staples, 263 Wis. 477, 57 N.W.2d 714 (1953). In Bergren, we held that there was no constitutional right to a jury trial when an employer's compensation insurer brought suit against the third-party tortfeasor in an attempt to be compensated for a worker's compensation claim. Id. at 482-83. Despite the various tort claims that could be *499brought in such a case, we recognized that the only way the employer's compensation insurer had a cause of action against the third-party tortfeasor was under Wis. Stat. § 102.29(1). Id. Because the claim was created solely by statute, we held that no constitutional right to a jury trial attached.
¶ 44. Here, the same reasoning applies. The sole reason that Village Food is able to bring the cause of action in this case is because of the existence of the statute. Therefore, the cause of action could not have existed, been known, or been recognized at common law prior to 1848. For that reason alone, I would hold that this cause of action does not meet the test adopted by the court.
¶ 45. Furthermore, the nature of each of the Blackstonian offenses cited by the majority is different enough from the civil cause of action under the Unfair Sales Act that I cannot reasonably say that they are substantially codified by the statute. Regrating and engrossing are more akin to modern anti-monopoly causes of action, as they each involved amassing goods in order to artificially raise market prices. Forestalling the market involved preventing goods from getting to market in order to artificially raise prices. Conversely, the present cause of action involves the violation of a minimum price requirement, statutorily set according to a complex formula, as it applies to the sale of a specific type of product. The Unfair Sales Act as a whole provides a detailed scheme for the regulation of commercial pricing practices in specific markets. The significant differences between a cause of action under this scheme and under Blackstone's causes of action are obvious.
¶ 46. The simple fact that the present cause of action involves behavior that affects market prices is, in my opinion, simply not sufficient to show that the *500pre-1848 claims were substantially codified in a form as they existed then. In essence, the majority's holding is that the mere classification of the cause action as an "unfair trade practice" is enough to constitutionally guarantee the right to a jury trial. This not only goes against our precedent, but essentially renders the test a nullity, as present causes of action of all sorts assessed under this test will only have to be compared generally to past causes of action in order to invoke the constitutional protection to a trial by jury. This result comports neither with the plain language nor the intent of the constitutional provision.
¶ 47. Because I would find that the Unfair Sales Act does not substantially codify a pre-1848 cause of action as it existed, was known, or was recognized at common law then, I would conclude that the first prong of the test adopted by the court has not been met. Therefore, I would not find it necessary to address the question of whether such an action was legal or equitable in 1848.
¶ 48. In sum, although I agree with the test adopted by the majority, I would conclude that H & S does not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial in a private cause of action under the Wisconsin Unfair Sales Act. Although it has not yet chosen to do so, I would also note that the legislature has the ability to amend the act to create a statutory right to a jury trial. See Bergren, 263 Wis. at 483.1 would affirm the ruling of the circuit court, and find that it properly granted Village Food's motion to strike H & S's demand for a jury trial in this case.
¶ 49. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
*501¶ 50. I am authorized to state that Justices N. PATRICK CROOKS and DIANE S. SYKES join this opinion.

 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise indicated.