Alvarado v. Sersch
662 N.W.2d 350, 262 Wis. 2d 74, 2003 WI 55 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, a court should not grant summary judgment by applying public policy factors to preclude liability when genuine issues of material fact exist. A full factual resolution at trial is the better practice before a court undertakes a public policy analysis.
Facts:
- Meriter Retirement Services, Inc. owned student apartments that were managed by Oakbrook Corporation.
- On August 12, 1998, an Oakbrook property manager conducted a walk-through inspection of a vacated apartment but did not recall checking the kitchen cabinets.
- On August 13, a painting crew working in the apartment discovered a firework device in a kitchen cabinet, recognized it as a firework, moved it, and did not report it to Oakbrook or Meriter.
- On August 14, cleaner Dora Alvarado and her boss, Ron Boehm, entered the apartment. Boehm saw the device on a windowsill and remarked to Alvarado that it was a 'strange looking candle.'
- While cleaning a gas stove, Alvarado, having forgotten matches, decided to use what she thought was a candle to preserve the stove's pilot light.
- Alvarado lit the device on the pilot flame, and it exploded as she was setting it down, blowing off most of her right hand.
Procedural Posture:
- Dora Alvarado and her children filed a complaint in Dane County circuit court (a court of first instance) against Meriter, Oakbrook, and their insurers.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Oakbrook and Meriter, concluding they did not have a duty of care to Alvarado.
- Alvarado, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment, but on the alternate grounds that public policy factors barred the imposition of liability on Oakbrook and Meriter (appellees).
- Alvarado, as petitioner, sought review of the court of appeals' decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does public policy permit a court to grant summary judgment and preclude liability in a negligence case before a jury has resolved genuine issues of material fact?
Opinions:
Majority - Bradley, J.
No, public policy does not permit a court to preclude liability on summary judgment before material facts are resolved. In most cases, it is the better practice to have a full factual resolution at trial before a court determines whether public policy considerations should limit liability. Wisconsin law establishes that every person owes a duty of ordinary care to the world, and liability for a breach of that duty is limited by public policy, not by a lack of duty. While courts can apply these policy factors pre-trial in simple cases, this case is not simple. There are genuine issues of material fact, such as the proper standard of care for a property manager's inspection and whether Oakbrook was negligent. A jury's findings on negligence, causation, and damages provide a necessary factual basis for the court to fairly evaluate and apply the six public policy factors. Therefore, granting summary judgment was improper.
Dissenting - Sykes, J.
Yes, public policy does permit a court to preclude liability on summary judgment before trial in appropriate cases. While awaiting a trial verdict is often the better practice, courts are not required to do so, especially when the historical facts are undisputed and the case is not complex. This case is a prime example where a pre-trial application of public policy is warranted to serve the court's gate-keeping function. Even if Oakbrook was negligent, Alvarado's injury is, as a matter of law, too remote from the negligence, too extraordinary in retrospect, and too disproportionate to the defendant's culpability. The law allows courts to draw a line based on public policy, and refusing to do so here before trial will lead to unnecessary litigation and an expansion of liability.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle in Wisconsin negligence law that a judicial determination of public policy limitations on liability should generally occur only after a full factual development at trial. It restricts the use of summary judgment as a tool for defendants to dismiss negligence cases based on attenuated causation or foreseeability arguments framed as public policy. The ruling emphasizes the jury's primary role in determining negligence and causation, potentially leading to more negligence cases proceeding to trial and making it more difficult for defendants to obtain early dismissals on policy grounds.
