Court Opinion

ID: 9687884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:52:32.288081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:32.656422
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed July 3, 1974.
Wilkie, J.
Supplemental Opinion (on motion for rehearing). Our original opinion overruled the decision of Huber v. Merkel (1903), 117 Wis. 355, 94 N. W. 354, and adopted the rule set forth in Tentative Draft No. 17 of the Eestatement of the Law Second, Torts, as proposed on April 26, 1971, and identified as “Sec. 858A. Nonliability for use of ground water — exceptions.”
*303bSince the filing of that opinion, this court has given further consideration to whether the overruling of the decision of Huber v. Merkel and the adoption of a new rule should be made prospective only. See: Kojis v. Doctors Hospital (1961), 12 Wis. 2d 367, 107 N. W. 2d 131, 107 N. W. 2d 292 (charitable immunity); Holytz v. Milwaukee (1962), 17 Wis. 2d 26, 115 N. W. 2d 618 (governmental immunity); Widell v. Holy Trinity Catholic Church (1963), 19 Wis. 2d 648, 121 N. W. 2d 249 (religious immunity); Goller v. White (1963), 20 Wis. 2d 402, 122 N. W. 2d 193 (parental immunity).
“The general rule adhered to by this court is the ‘Blackstonian Doctrine.’ This doctrine provides that a decision which overrules or repudiates an earlier decision is retrospective in operation.” Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc. (1968), 38 Wis. 2d 571, 575, 157 N. W. 2d 595.
However, this court has also recognized that various exceptions have been made to this doctrine and in so doing has stated:
“. . . Retroactive operation has been sometimes denied where there has been great reliance on an overruled decision by a substantial number of persons and considerable harm or detriment could result to them. It has also been denied where the purpose of the new ruling cannot be served by retroactivity, and where retroactivity would tend to thrust an excessive burden on the administration of justice. 10 A. L. R. 3d 1384.” Fitzgerald, supra, page 576.
We have concluded that there are compelling reasons for making the application of the rule adopted in the original opinion prospective only, except as to those individually named plaintiffs appearing as amici curiae, including others in the class in the related case of Dale Nolte, et al. v. Michels Pipeline Construction, Inc., Case #441-610, Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, whom they allege to represent, and further except as to causes of action arising on or after May 7, 1974, the date of the filing of our original opinion.