Reque v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
7 Wis. 2d 111, 1959 Wisc. LEXIS 382, 95 N.W.2d 752 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complaint alleging negligence must plead specific facts demonstrating how the alleged negligent act proximately caused the plaintiff's injury, rather than merely stating conclusions of law regarding causation.
Facts:
- A bus operator parked a bus at an 'excess distance' from the curb of a sidewalk.
- The bus was parked more than 12 inches from the curb, in alleged violation of state statute sec. 85.19 (2) (a), Stats. 1955.
- The plaintiff attempted to alight from the center door of the bus.
- The plaintiff fell into the street between the bus door and the curb.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant (the bus operator/company) alleging negligence caused her fall.
- The defendant filed a demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, arguing it was legally insufficient.
- The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer, effectively ruling that the complaint did not state a valid cause of action.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer to 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 a complaint alleging that a bus operator parked a bus an 'excess distance' from the curb, 'thereby causing' the plaintiff to fall while alighting, sufficiently plead causation to withstand a demurrer?
Opinions:
Majority - Currie, J.
No, a complaint merely alleging negligent parking at an 'excess distance' from the curb and stating this 'thereby caused' the plaintiff to fall does not sufficiently plead causation. The court found that the allegation of the bus being parked an 'excess distance from the curb' was sufficient to allege a violation of sec. 85.19 (2) (a), Stats. 1955, which prohibits parking more than 12 inches from the curb, as this statute applies to temporary stops by buses (citing Jeffers v. Peoria-Rockford Bus Co.). However, the court held that the statement that the fall 'was caused as a direct and proximate result' of the bus operator’s negligence, 'thereby causing her to fall,' constituted a mere conclusion of law. It is elementary that a demurrer does not admit conclusions of law (citing Schmidt v. Wisconsin Sugar Co. and Zache v. West Bend). Citing Ludwig v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., the court reiterated that a complaint must allege facts of action or nonaction and all facts necessary to render the action proximately causal. The court explained that while some allegations might implicitly infer causation (e.g., failure to keep a lookout causing a collision), merely parking a bus more than 12 inches from the curb does not, by itself, provide such an inference of causation. Some other concurrent fact, such as a dangerous condition in the pavement or another vehicle striking the plaintiff, would need to be alleged to spell out causation. The most likely inference—that the plaintiff was forced to step down a greater distance—was previously deemed insufficient to state a cause of action in Schultz v. Kenosha Motor Coach Lines. The court modified the order to grant the plaintiff the privilege of serving an amended complaint, despite her initial election to appeal rather than plead over.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of specific factual pleading in negligence actions, particularly regarding the element of causation. It clarifies that merely asserting a statutory violation combined with a conclusory statement of causation is insufficient to withstand a demurrer. Litigants must provide concrete, underlying facts that bridge the gap between the alleged negligent act and the resulting injury, demonstrating a clear causal chain. This ensures that lawsuits are grounded in specific allegations rather than speculative claims, preventing potentially baseless litigation and providing a robust factual basis for judicial review.
