Wisconsin Supreme Court term moves forward.

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

The Wisconsin Supreme Court term for 2008-09 just began this month, and some important cases have already been heard or are scheduled to be heard soon.

Torts

A case which the court just granted certiorari in, but has not scheduled for oral argument, is already generating a great deal of interest, Umansky v. ABC Ins. Co., No. 2007AP385.Umansky involves the governmental immunity distinction between ministerial duties (not immune from suit) and discretionary duties (immune).

Richard Umansky, a cameraman for ABC, fell from a platform while working during a football game at Camp Randall Stadium, and died from his injuries. His estate contended that the university was negligent for not having a railing on the platform, which could have prevented the fall.

The Court of Appeals held that a federal safety regulation, incorporated by the Wisconsin Administrative Code, created a ministerial duty to have a railing meeting the specifications of the regulation, and therefore, governmental immunity does not apply.

Lynn R. Laufenberg, a partner with Laufenberg & Hoefle S.C. in Milwaukee, is one of the co-chairs of the Wisconsin Association for Justice's Amicus Curiae Brief Committee.

Laufenberg said he expects to request permission to file an amicus curiae brief in the case.

Laufenberg said that, in the past several years, some justices have questioned whether governmental immunity has ceased being an exception to the general rule of liability, and has swallowed the general rule.

Laufenberg said, Governmental immunity has been expanded so much that almost nothing is ministerial.

Laufenberg said that WAJ will probably also seek permission to file an amicus curiae brief in another recently added product liability case, Horst v. Deere & Company, 2006AP2933.

In Horst, the court will be considering whether Wisconsin law includes a bystander contemplation test -- whether bystanders, in addition to users and consumers, are protected by the doctrine of strict liability.

The Supreme Court has already heard arguments in Godoy v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 2006AP2670, which addresses whether lead paint pigment can be considered defectively designed. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that, because lead paint could not be made without using lead paint pigment, therefore, the pigment cannot be deemed defective.

On Oct. 7, the court will hear oral arguments in Blunt v. Medtronic, Inc., 2006AP1506, to determine whether state tort actions...