|
|
Vol. 73, No. 5, May 2000 |
Previous
Page
Court of Appeals
Digest
by Prof. Daniel D. Blinka & Prof. Thomas
J. Hammer
| Attorney Fees |
Civil Procedure | Criminal
Law |
| Criminal Procedure | Employment
Law | Family Law |
| Insurance | Property | Torts |
Employment Law
At-will Employees - Tort Action Against Employer for
Misrepresentation
Mackenzie v. Miller
Brewing Co., 2000 WI App 48 (filed 22 Feb. 2000) (ordered
published 22 March 2000)
The plaintiff sued his former employer seeking damages for
what he claimed was intentional misrepresentation leading him
to continue his employment at the company. He claimed that in
1987 the employer misinformed him that a company reorganization
did not affect his position's grade level at the company
and that in 1989 the employer failed to inform him that his position
had been downgraded to a lower level.
In a majority decision authored by Judge Schudson, the court
of appeals concluded that under Tatge
v. Chambers & Owen Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99, 579 N.W.2d
217 (1998), the plaintiff's claim for intentional misrepresentation
was not actionable in tort. Said the court, "we hold that
Tatge precludes an employee's tort claim against an employer
for alleged intentional misrepresentation that allegedly induced
continuation of employment."
The court further concluded that "the creation of an
employer's duty to disclose information potentially affecting
an employee's decision to continue employment would undermine
sound public policy. It would reduce the at-will employment flexibility
that is so valuable to both employers and employees. It would
be virtually impossible to implement and enforce. It would leave
both employers and employees forever guessing at the limits of
their responsibility and potential liability."
The court also held that, even if the decision in Tatge
did not preclude the plaintiff's claim as a matter of law,
the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of an intentional
misrepresentation claim.
Among the other issues considered by the court in this lengthy
opinion was whether false complaints of sexual harassment should
form the basis for an exception to the "firmly rooted"
principle precluding punitive damages in the absence of compensatory
damages. The court answered in the negative.
Judge Fine filed a concurring opinion. Judge Wedemeyer filed
an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Family Law
Termination of Parental Rights - Time Limitations -
Extensions for Good Cause - Loss of Competency
State v. April O.,
2000 WI App 70 (filed 15 Feb. 2000) (ordered published 22 March
2000)
The respondents appealed orders terminating their parental
rights. They argued that the circuit court lost competency to
proceed when it failed to hold their initial and dispositional
hearings within mandatory time limits. Wis. Stat. section
48.315(2) allowed the court to extend those time limits,
but only upon a showing of good cause in open court.
The issue before the court of appeals was whether the circuit
court lost competency in this TPR case when, although it found
that good cause existed to extend the time limits, it did not
make that finding until after the time limits had expired.
In a decision authored by Judge Peterson, the appellate court
concluded that the circuit court did lose its competency to proceed
in this case and therefore it reversed the orders terminating
the respondents' parental rights.
Insurance
Wrongful Death - Survivors - Parents
Bruflat v. Prudential
Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 69 (filed
2 Feb. 2000) (ordered published 22 March 2000)
Martin and Mary were divorced and lived in different residences.
Their son, Simon, lived with Martin although Mary had joint custody.
Simon was killed in 1998 while driving Martin's car. The
other driver was uninsured. Mary filed a claim for the proceeds
of the uninsured (UM) coverage. Martin asked the court for declaratory
relief. The court divided the proceeds between Martin and Mary.
On appeal Martin argued that since he was the named insured
and Simon resided with him, he was entitled to 100 percent of
the proceeds. The court of appeals, in a decision written by
Judge Snyder, rejected the argument and affirmed the circuit
court. Simon was not married and had no children; hence, his
lineal heirs were his parents pursuant to section
895.04(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The court was not persuaded
that the statutes regulating UM protection overrode the design
of the wrongful death statute.
Property
Deeds - Gifts - Equity - Retitling
Wynhoff v. Vogt,
2000 WI App 57 (filed 16 Feb. 2000) (ordered published 22 March
2000)
The prime issue on this appeal concerned the trial court's
power to reform a quitclaim deed. The parties disputed title
to land that had been "gifted with strings" in the
1970s. After a bench trial, the trial court canceled a 1974 quitclaim
deed based on its equitable powers under section
706.04 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
The court of appeals, in a decision written by Judge Snyder,
reversed. There was nothing deficient or ambiguous about the
1974 deed "in its own right." The trial court found
that there were "contingencies and reservations in the deed
that were not listed in any of the documents" and so it
read them into the deed by way of "reformation in equity."
By granting such equitable relief, the trial court's action
conflicted "with fundamental tenets of property law."
First, the law requires that parties who intend to retain an
interest in property "must expressly do so in the document
of conveyance." Second, once the deed is effective, the
grantor's later remarks or conduct cannot operate retroactively
to change the deed's effect. In short, deeds "should
not be rewritten by the court."
Torts
Dog Bites - Negligence - Statutory Claim
Fifer v. Dix,
2000 WI App 66 (filed 24 Feb. 2000) (ordered published 22 March
2000)
Fifer sued Dix for injuries stemming from a dog bite. The
trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Fifer's
claims sounding in negligence and in section
174.02 (1997-98).
The court of appeals, in a decision written by Judge Deininger,
affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial court erred
in granting summary judgment on the statutory dog-bite claim.
Dix, the dog's owner, had allowed another man and Fifer
to use the dog in preparation for bear season. Both were warned
that the dog had bitten a person on a prior occasion and should
be handled carefully. Dix argued that since he was not handling
the dog when Fifer was bitten, he was not liable to third parties
under the case law. The court disagreed. It held that section
174.02(1) "unambiguously imposes strict liability on
a dog owner whose dog injures a person who is neither its owner
nor its keeper."
No error occurred in the dismissal of the negligence claim.
The plaintiff Fifer provided no information contesting Dix's
evidence that he had warned Fifer and others about the dog's
propensity.
Prof. Daniel D. Blinka and Prof. Thomas
J. Hammer invite comments and questions about the digests. They
can be reached at the Marquette University Law School, 1103 W.
Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53233, (414) 288-7090.
|