Sub. (1) has 2 components: notice of injury and notice of claim. Both must be satisfied before an action is commenced. The notice of claim must state a specific dollar amount. Vanstone v. Town of Delafield, 191 W (2d) 587, 530 NW (2d) 16 (Ct. App. 1995).
An independent contractor is not an agent under sub. (3) and not protected by the liability limits under this section. Kettner v. Wausau Insurance Cos. 191 W (2d) 724, 530 NW (2d) 399 (Ct. App. 1995).
Intentional tort immunity granted to municipalities by sub. (4) does not extend to the municipality's representatives. Envirologix v. City of Waukesha, 192 W (2d) 277, 531 NW (2d) 357 (Ct. App. 1995).
Where action was mandatory under city ordinance, but permissive under state statute, the action was mandatory and therefore ministerial and not subject to immunity under sub. (4). Turner v. City of Milwaukee, 193 W (2d) 412, 535 NW (2d) 15 (Ct. App. 1995).
Statement by police that an action will be taken does not render that action ministerial. Failure to carry out that action does not remove the immunity granted by this section. Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 194 W (2d) 247, 533 NW (2d) 759 (1995).
The county had an absolute duty not to represent in an offer to purchase that it had no notice that a property it was selling was free of toxic materials unless it was true. An appraisal indicating contamination contained in the county's files was actual notice to the county. Under these circumstances there is no immunity under sub. (4). Major v. Milwaukee County, 196 W (2d) 939, 539 NW (2d) 472 (Ct. App. 1995).
The damage limitation under sub. (3) may be waived if not raised as an affirmative defense. Anderson v. City of Milwaukee, 199 W (2d) 479, 544 NW (2d) 630 (Ct. App. 1995).
Once the city exercised its discretion in deciding to construct a walkway, it had a ministerial duty to construct it in compliance with the safe-place statute and was not immune from liability under sub. (4). Anderson v. City of Milwaukee, 199 W (2d) 479, 544 NW (2d) 630 (Ct. App. 1995).
Actions brought under the open meetings and open records laws are exempt from the notice provisions of sub. (1). Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 200 W (2d) 585, 547 NW (2d) 587 (1996).
There is no discretion as to maintaining a sewer system so as not to cause injury to residents. Thus a municipality's operation and maintenance of a sewer system do not fall within the immunity provisions of this section. Menick v. City of Menasha, 200 W (2d) 737, 547 NW (2d) 778 (Ct. App. 1996).
Filing suit prior to expiration of 120-day period or denial of claim is not truly commenced and does not toll the statute of limitations when filed. Colby v. Columbia County, 202 W (2d) 342, 550 NW (2d) 124 (1996).
The interplay between s. 893.23 and s. 893.80 creates a statute of limitations equal to 3 years and 120 days when filing a claim under s. 893.80. Colby v. Columbia County, 202 W (2d) 342, 550 NW (2d) 124 (1996).
Liability of vocational, technical and adult education districts and of their officers and employes discussed. 77 Atty. Gen. 145
Monroe v. Pape, 367 US 167 (1961) is overruled insofar as it holds that local governments are wholly immune from suit under 42 USC 1983. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 US 658 (1978).
Defendant public official has burden to plead "good faith" as affirmative defense in 42 USC 1983 case. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980).
See note to art. VII, sec. 3, citing Supreme Court of VA. v. Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980).
Municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 USC 1983. Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. 453 US 247 (1981).
City ordinance regulating cable television was not exempt from antitrust scrutiny under Parker doctrine. Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, 455 US 40 (1982).
This section is pre-empted in federal 42 USC 1983 actions and may not be applied; it conflicts with purpose and effects of federal civil rights actions. Felder v. Casey, 487 US 131 (1988).
Sub. (4) bars direct suits against municipalities for the torts of their employes, it does not preclude suing the officer directly and using 895.46 to indirectly recover from the municipality. Graham v. Sauk Prairie Police Com'n. 915 F (2d) 1085 (1990).
Once deputy assumed a duty to protect person subsequently murdered in room adjacent to where deputy was present, his obligation was no longer discretionary and he was no longer entitled to immunity under (4) for decisions made at the murder site. Losinski v. County of Trempealeau, 946 F (2d) 544 (1991).
Immunity of elected officials under (4) is not defeated by possibility that the official's acts were malicious. Farr v. Gruber, 950 F (2d) 399 (1991).
State may not be sued by citizen under wrongful death statute. Pinon v. State of Wisconsin, 368 F Supp. 608.
Civil rights actions against municipalities discussed. Starstead v. City of Superior, 533 F Supp. 1365 (1982).
County was not vicariously liable for sheriff's alleged use of excessive force where complaint alleged intentional tort. Voie v. Flood, 589 F Supp. 746 (1984).
The discretionary function exception to government tort liability. 61 MLR 163.
Several police supervisor immunities from state court suit may be doomed. Fine, 1977 WBB 9.
Municipal liability: The failure to provide adequate police protection — the special duty doctrine should be discarded. 1984 WLR 499.
Wisconsin recovery limit for victims of municipal torts: A conflict of public interests. 1986 WLR 155.
Claims against state employes; notice of claim; limitation of damages. 893.82(1)
The purposes of this section are to:
Provide the attorney general with adequate time to investigate claims which might result in judgments to be paid by the state.
Provide the attorney general with an opportunity to effect a compromise without a civil action or civil proceeding.
Place a limit on the amounts recoverable in civil actions or civil proceedings against any state officer, employe or agent.
"Civil action or civil proceeding" includes a civil action or civil proceeding commenced or continued by counterclaim, cross claim or 3rd-party complaint.
"Claimant" means the person or entity sustaining the damage or injury or his or her agent, attorney or personal representative.
"Damage" or "injury" means any damage or injury of any nature which is caused or allegedly caused by the event. "Damage" or "injury" includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental damage or injury or financial damage or injury resulting from claims for contribution or indemnification.
"State officer, employe or agent" includes any of the following persons:
An officer, employe or agent of any nonprofit corporation operating a museum under a lease agreement with the state historical society.
A volunteer health care provider who provides services under s. 146.89
, for the provision of those services.
A member of the board of governors created under s. 619.04 (3)
, a member of a committee or subcommittee of that board of governors, a member of the patients compensation fund peer review council created under s. 655.275 (2)
and a person consulting with that council under s. 655.275 (5) (b)
No claimant may bring an action against a state officer, employe or agent unless the claimant complies strictly with the requirements of this section.
Except as provided in sub. (5m)
, no civil action or civil proceeding may be brought against any state officer, employe or agent for or on account of any act growing out of or committed in the course of the discharge of the officer's, employe's or agent's duties, and no civil action or civil proceeding may be brought against any nonprofit corporation operating a museum under a lease agreement with the state historical society, unless within 120 days of the event causing the injury, damage or death giving rise to the civil action or civil proceeding, the claimant in the action or proceeding serves upon the attorney general written notice of a claim stating the time, date, location and the circumstances of the event giving rise to the claim for the injury, damage or death and the names of persons involved, including the name of the state officer, employe or agent involved. A specific denial by the attorney general is not a condition precedent to bringing the civil action or civil proceeding.
Except as provided in par. (b)
, if the civil action or proceeding under sub. (3)
is based on contribution or indemnification, the event under sub. (3)
is the underlying cause of action, not the cause of action for contribution or indemnification, and, except as provided in sub. (5m)
, the 120-day limitation applies to that event.
If the claimant under par. (a)
establishes that he or she had no actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying cause of action at the time of the event under sub. (3)
, except as provided in sub. (5m)
, the 120-day limitation under sub. (3)
applies to the earlier of the following:
The date the cause of action for contribution or indemnification accrues.
The date the claimant acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying cause of action.
The claimant has the burden of proving he or she had no actual knowledge of the underlying cause of action under this paragraph.
The notice under sub. (3)
shall be sworn to by the claimant and shall be served upon the attorney general at his or her office in the capitol by certified mail. Notice shall be considered to be given upon mailing for the purpose of computing the time of giving notice.
With regard to a claim to recover damages for medical malpractice, the time periods under subs. (3)
shall be 180 days after discovery of the injury or the date on which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the injury should have been discovered, rather than 120 days after the event causing the injury.
The amount recoverable by any person or entity for any damages, injuries or death in any civil action or civil proceeding against a state officer, employe or agent, or against a nonprofit corporation operating a museum under a lease agreement with the state historical society, including any such action or proceeding based on contribution or indemnification, shall not exceed $250,000. No punitive damages may be allowed or recoverable in any such action.
With respect to a state officer, employe or agent described in sub. (2) (d) 3.
, this section applies to an event causing the injury, damage or death giving rise to an action against the state officer, employe or agent, which occurs before, on or after April 25, 1990.
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 895.45 renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893. The previous 90-day time period in which to file written notice of a claim against an employe of the state of Wisconsin has been increased to 120 days to make the time period consistent with the period for filing notice of claims with other governmental bodies allowed in s. 893.80. (See note following s. 893.80). [Bill 326-A]
Court had no jurisdiction over state employes alleged to have intentionally damaged plaintiff where complaint failed to comply with notice of claim statute. Elm Park Iowa, Inc. v. Denniston, 92 W (2d) 723, 286 NW (2d) 5 (Ct. App. 1979).
Notice provisions of this section do not apply to third-party complaints for contribution. Coulson v. Larsen, 94 W (2d) 56, 287 NW (2d) 754 (1980).
Non-compliance with notice of injury statute barred suit even though defendant failed to raise issue in responsive pleading. Mannino v. Davenport, 99 W (2d) 602, 299 NW (2d) 823 (1981).
Plaintiff was required to serve notice on attorney general as condition precedent to bringing claim. Doe v. Ellis, 103 W (2d) 581, 309 NW (2d) 375 (Ct. App. 1981).
Court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss since notice of claim of injury was not served upon attorney general within 120 day limit. Ibrahim v. Samore, 118 W (2d) 720, 348 NW (2d) 554 (1984).
Substantial compliance with requirements for content of notice under (3) is sufficient to meet legislative intent. Daily v. Wis. University, Whitewater, 145 W (2d) 756, 429 NW (2d) 83 (Ct. App. 1988).
Sub. (3) does not create an exception for a plaintiff who is unaware that a defendant is a state employee. Renner vs. Madison General Hospital, 151 W (2d) 885, 447 NW (2d) 97 (Ct. App. 1989).
Under administrative-services-only state group insurance contract, insurer is agent of state, and plaintiff must comply with notice provisions under this section to maintain action. Smith v. Wisconsin Physicians Services, 152 W (2d) 25, 447 NW (2d) 371 (Ct. App. 1989).
Possible finding that state employe was acting as apparent agent of non-state hospital does not permit maintenance of suit against state employe absent compliance with notice requirements. Kashishian v. Port, 167 W (2d) 24, 481 NW (2d) 227 (1992).
Actual notice and lack of prejudice to the state are not exceptions to 120 day notice requirement. Carlson v. Pepin County 167 W (2d) 345, 481 NW (2d) 498 (Ct. App. 1992).
Certified mail requirement under (5) is subject to strict construction. Kelley v. Reyes, 168 W (2d) 743, 484 NW (2d) 388 (Ct. App. 1992).
Records relating to pending claims need not be disclosed under 19.35; records of non-pending claims must be disclosed unless an in camera inspection reveals attorney client privilege would be violated. George v. Record Custodian, 169 W (2d) 573, 485 NW (2d) 460 (Ct. App. 1992).
Sub. (3) does not apply to claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Lewis v. Sullivan, 188 W (2d) 157, 524 NW (2d) 630 (1994).
Sub. (5) requires a notice of claim to be sworn to and to include evidence to show that an oath or affirmation occurred. Kellner v. Christian, 197 W (2d) 183, 539 NW (2d) 685 (1994).
The discovery rule does not apply to sub. (3). The failure to apply the discovery rule to sub. (3) is not unconstitutional. Oney v. Schrauth, 197 W (2d) 891, 541 NW (2d) 229 (Ct. App. 1995).
STATUTES OF LIMITATION; ACTIONS BY THE STATE, STATUTORY LIABILITY AND
Action concerning old-age assistance lien. 893.85(1)(1)
An action to collect an old-age assistance lien filed under s. 49.26
, 1971 stats., prior to August 5, 1973, must be commenced within 10 years after the date of filing of the required certificate under s. 49.26 (4)
, 1971 stats.
No claim under s. 49.25
, 1971 stats., may be presented more than 10 years after the date of the most recent old-age assistance payment covered by the claim.
History: 1977 c. 385
; 1979 c. 323
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.181 renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893. [Bill 326-A]
Action concerning recovery of legal fees paid for indigents.
An action under s. 757.66
to recover an amount paid by a county for legal representation of an indigent defendant shall be commenced within 10 years after the recording of the claim required under s. 757.66
or be barred.
History: 1979 c. 323
; 1993 a. 301
General limitation of action in favor of the state.
Any action in favor of the state, if no other limitation is prescribed in this chapter, shall be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred. No cause of action in favor of the state for relief on the ground of fraud shall be deemed to have accrued until discovery on the part of the state of the facts constituting the fraud.
History: 1979 c. 323
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.18 (6) renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893. [Bill 326-A]
See note to 893.43, citing State v. Holland Plastics Co. 111 W (2d) 497, 331 NW (2d) 320 (1983).
Notwithstanding s. 990.06
, an action for the establishment of the paternity of a child shall be commenced within 19 years of the date of the birth of the child or be barred.