Court Opinion

ID: 9688133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:33:46.032394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:35.080737
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 41. (concurring). The first certified question is whether a court *78may use traditional public policy factors to limit liability under Wis. Stat. § 174.02.1 agree with the majority that the answer to the inquiry is "yes." Because the majority engages in an expansive discussion, I write separately to focus on two parts of the majority opinion that answer the inquiry.
¶ 42. I focus first on a part of paragraph 22. I agree with the majority that because § 174.02 uses the word "cause" and implicates negligence by providing for a defense of contributory negligence, public policy factors can limit liability here. Majority op., ¶ 22.
¶ 43. As it traces the paths of Wisconsin jurisprudence, the majority explains that "cause" refers to two distinct concepts: cause-in-fact and proximate cause. Id., ¶ 12. It expands the discussion to address the historic evolution of the six public policy factors and their relationship to proximate/legal cause. Id., ¶ 10.
¶ 44. The majority announces that "[wjhether public policy is conceptualized as the second step in the legal cause analysis, or a fifth step following the duty, breach, cause, damage inquiry, the fact remains that 'public policy' is inexorably tied to legal cause in Wisconsin." Id., ¶ 15. Finally, after using the terms "proximate cause" and "public policy" interchangeably, it ultimately concludes that public policy factors can limit liability. Id., ¶ 40. Lest the focus be lost, I emphasize that the answer as I see it lies in the above-referenced part of paragraph 22.
¶ 45. I focus next on footnote 7 of the majority opinion. The majority, at times, uses the terms "proximate cause" and "public policy" interchangeably. This may leave the reader wondering about the continued vitality of using proximate cause to limit liability. Foot*79note 7, however, provides the answer. Simply put, in Wisconsin we use. public policy factors, not proximate cause, to limit liability.
¶ 46. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully concur.
¶ 47. I am authorized to state that SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. joins this concurrence.