Lambrecht v. Estate of Kaczmarczyk
623 N.W.2d 751, 241 Wis.2d 804, 2001 WI 25 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action where the plaintiff relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a defendant's introduction of inconclusive evidence of an alternative, non-negligent cause does not negate the inference of negligence as a matter of law, particularly when the circumstances of the event create a strong initial inference of negligence.
Facts:
- On February 8, 1996, David D. Kaczmarczyk was driving his car westbound on a straight, dry road in the late afternoon while the sun was setting.
- A witness observed Kaczmarczyk's car approaching from behind 'very fast'.
- Kaczmarczyk's vehicle rear-ended a first car, brushed the bumper of a second car, skidded across a dividing median, and crashed directly into the side of Arlyne M. Lambrecht's vehicle.
- A police officer at the scene observed that Kaczmarczyk’s car visor was down and that the vehicle left skid marks after the first collision.
- Paramedics arrived to find Kaczmarczyk not breathing and without a pulse; he was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
- An autopsy determined that Kaczmarczyk's cause of death was a heart attack (arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease).
- Medical experts for both parties could not determine with certainty whether the heart attack occurred before the initial collision or as a result of it, agreeing that it was equally plausible that the heart attack occurred before, during, or after the first impact.
Procedural Posture:
- Arlyne M. Lambrecht sued the Estate of David D. Kaczmarczyk and its insurer in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County (a trial court) for negligence.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that allowing the case to go to a jury would permit a verdict based on conjecture.
- The plaintiff, Lambrecht, appealed the circuit court's order to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review.
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 a defendant's evidence that a driver suffered a heart attack at some point during a collision, without establishing whether it occurred before or after the initial impact, negate the inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a matter of law, thereby entitling the defendant to summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Shirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.
No, a defendant’s inconclusive evidence of an alternative cause does not negate a strong inference of negligence as a matter of law. When competing reasonable inferences of negligence and non-negligence can be drawn from the evidence, the question is one for the jury to decide. The circumstances of this collision—a vehicle driving fast on a straight, dry road, striking three other cars—create a strong inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The defendants’ evidence of the driver's heart attack is inconclusive as to its timing and therefore does not destroy this inference. Instead, it creates a competing inference of a non-negligent cause. A defendant is only entitled to summary judgment if their evidence so completely contradicts the inference of negligence that reasonable people could no longer accept it. Here, because the evidence of the heart attack is not conclusive, both inferences survive, and it is the function of the jury, not the court, to weigh the probabilities and determine whether the driver was negligent.
Dissenting - N. Patrick Crooks, J.
Yes, the defendant's evidence negates the inference of negligence as a matter of law. A key requirement for applying res ipsa loquitur is that the evidence must remove the question of causation from the realm of conjecture. Here, the evidence shows two equally plausible causes for the accident: the driver's negligence or a sudden, non-negligent heart attack. Because the circumstances are as consistent with a non-actionable cause as with an actionable one, allowing the case to proceed would force the jury to guess. The majority's creation of a 'strong' versus 'weak' inference test is an improper new standard that requires judges to weigh evidence on summary judgment, which is contrary to established procedure. Precedent holds that where an accident could have resulted from one of two causes, the reason for the res ipsa loquitur rule fails, and the defendant should be granted summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in negligence cases involving competing causal explanations. It establishes that a defendant cannot secure summary judgment merely by introducing a possible, but unproven, alternative non-negligent cause for an accident. The court's distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' initial inferences of negligence creates a more nuanced, fact-sensitive analysis, making it more difficult for defendants to defeat negligence claims at the pre-trial stage. This holding reinforces the jury's role as the ultimate fact-finder in cases where reasonable, competing inferences can be drawn from circumstantial evidence, thereby limiting the scope of summary judgment in such negligence actions.
