Court Opinion

ID: 9676767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:32:36.376409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:51.066761
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
¶ 103. (concurring). Despite the length of the trial, the submissions to this court, and the lead opinion, and despite the amount of money involved, this is a simple case. I join in the decision announced by the lead opinion, and in those parts of its rationale consistent with what follows.
¶ 104. 1. Mackenzie's intentional-misrepresentation tort claim against Miller. Jerold L. Mackenzie has no intentional-misrepresentation tort claim against Miller Brewing Company. Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99, 579 N.W.2d 217 (1998), recognizes that an employee complaining about something arising out of or related to the *74employer/employee relationship is relegated to whatever contract rights there might be between the parties — the employer has no tort duty to the employee in connection with the employer/employee relationship. See id., 219 Wis. 2d at 107-108, 579 N.W.2d at 220-221. Stated another way, an at-will employee, which Mackenzie concededly was, may not use tort-duty as a surrogate contract. See ibid.; see also Atkinson v. Everbrite, Inc., 224 Wis. 2d 724, 728-730, 592 N.W.2d 299, 301-302 (Ct. App. 1999). Accordingly, I agree that we must reverse the judgment founded upon Mackenzie's claim in tort.
¶ 105. 2. Mackenzie's tort claim against Smith. I join in the lead opinion's decision and analysis of this issue.
¶ 106. 3. Mackenzie's tort claim against Best. I join in the lead opinion's decision and analysis of this issue.
¶ 107. 4. Mackenzie's wrongful-termination claim against Miller. I join in the lead opinion's decision and analysis of this issue.