Court Opinion

ID: 9671241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:33:18.410386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:08.879594
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
(concurring). I reluctantly concur with the result. I feel the pretrial procedure was misused in this case by defendants’ counsel and agree with the trial court in its fining the attorney $200.
Pretrials in this modern day of congested calendars are a necessity. When this court first adopted the pretrial technique by rules of court in 1940, it was made optional. 282 Wis. vi, sec. 269.65, Stats. 1941. The benefits of pretrial have well been stated in Klitzke v. Herm (1943), 242 Wis. 456, 8 N. W. 2d 400. The importance of a thorough pretrial was again set out in Schneck v. Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. (1963), 18 Wis. 2d 566, 119 N. W. 2d 342.
We pointed out in Schneck the issues not considered at pretrial are waived and the order made at pretrial controlled the subsequent action of the case. In 1965 this court amended the rule to make pretrial mandatory in all cases under Titles XXV and XXVII excepting cases under chapter 299 and unless waived by the party with the approval of the court. 25 Wis. 2d vi. Only in exceptional cases should a court approve a waiver of a pretrial and then in cases where a pretrial would not attain its purposes.
*786I understand this statute is not uniformly followed and in many cases the pretrial is perfunctory and does not serve its worthy purpose. I think all trial judges should effectively pretrial civil cases and follow the statute with a comprehensive order. In a case where counsel states his client has no expert witness and the pretrial hearing is shortly before the trial, an order should be made to that effect and such party precluded from calling an expert witness at trial. Attorneys must cooperate or if necessary be made to cooperate with the court and the court should make comprehensive orders governing the trial; otherwise, this court will be obliged to hear appeals which could have been avoided by adherence to the pretrial statute.
I am authorized to state Mr. Justice Wilkie joins in this concurring opinion.