Osborne v. Montgomery
1931 Wisc. LEXIS 218, 234 N.W. 372, 203 Wis. 223 (1930)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Negligence is the failure to exercise the degree of care that the great mass of mankind exercises under similar circumstances. Foreseeability of an unreasonable risk of harm to another's interests is an element of establishing negligence, but once negligence is established, the actor is liable for all natural and consequent damages, regardless of whether those specific damages were foreseeable.
Facts:
- Lester Osborne was injured in an accident.
- As a result of the accident, Osborne sustained a double backward dislocation of the elbow joint and a fracture of the lower end of the humerus.
- The injuries caused significant pain and resulted in a permanent condition.
- Osborne has a permanent 10% loss of flexion and 5% loss of extension in the injured arm.
- Despite the permanent limitations, Osborne is still able to participate in numerous physical activities, including playing hockey, swimming, chinning himself, and playing catch with a baseball.
Procedural Posture:
- Lester Osborne sued the defendant, Montgomery, in a trial court for personal injuries.
- A jury heard the case and returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
- The jury assessed the plaintiff's damages at $2,500.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, arguing that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, the damages were excessive, and the jury instructions were erroneous.
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 jury instruction on negligence err when it defines negligence in terms of foreseeing that 'some injury or damage might probably result' from one's conduct, without sufficiently tying that foreseeability element to the objective standard of what an 'ordinarily prudent person' would do under the circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosenberry, C. J.
Yes. While the instruction given was not prejudicial error in this specific case because other parts of the charge mentioned ordinary care, an instruction on negligence must be measured against the objective standard of what an ordinarily prudent person would do. The court clarifies that foreseeability is a crucial element in determining whether conduct is negligent in the first place—that is, whether an ordinarily prudent person ought to reasonably foresee that their conduct will expose another to an unreasonable risk of harm. However, foreseeability does not limit the scope of liability for the consequences of a negligent act. Once an act is found to be negligent, the actor is liable for all natural consequences that follow, even if those specific consequences were not probable or foreseeable. The court also found the jury's damage award of $2,500 to be excessive and remanded the case, giving the plaintiff the option to accept a reduced award or face a new trial on the issue of damages.
Concurring - Fowler, J.
Yes, but for different reasons. Justice Fowler concurred in the judgment to reverse based on excessive damages but disagreed with the majority's criticism of the jury instruction from Hamus v. Weber. He argued that the Hamus instruction, which focuses on foreseeing harm, provides a practical and understandable standard for juries, as foreseeability is the very tool juries use to determine what an 'ordinarily prudent' person would have done. He also disagreed that the instruction confused the two roles of foreseeability. Justice Fowler expressed concern that the majority's detailed legal analysis would be more likely to confuse trial judges than to clarify the law for them.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its in-depth analysis and clarification of the foundational elements of negligence in Wisconsin jurisprudence. The court distinguishes the role of foreseeability in two key stages: first, as a component of determining the breach of duty (negligence), and second, as a non-factor in limiting the extent of liability for damages. By proposing a new, more precise standard jury instruction, the court sought to move away from the ambiguous and often confusing concept of 'proximate cause,' providing a clearer analytical framework that would influence how negligence cases were litigated and decided for years to come.
