893.80 Annotation
The interplay between ss. 893.23 and 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 Wis. 2d 342,
550 N.W.2d 124 (1996).
893.80 Annotation
Service of a disallowance of claim on a claimant's attorney does not meet the statutory requirement of service on the claimant. When there was never proper service under the statute, the general 3-year statute of limitations for personal injuries applied. Cary v. City of Madison,
203 Wis. 2d 261,
551 N.W.2d 596 (Ct. App. 1996).
893.80 Annotation
Class action procedure under s. 803.08 does not override the notice requirements of this section. Notice on behalf of named persons and others "similarly situated" does not satisfy the notice requirement for the unnamed persons. For the government entity to have actual knowledge it must have knowledge of the event for which liability is asserted, and also the identity of and damage alleged to have been suffered by the potential claimant.. Nothing in sub. (1p) makes the notice requirements inapplicable to claims under that subsection. Markweise v. Peck Foods Corp.
205 Wis. 2d 208,
556 N.W.2d 326 (Ct. App. 1996).
893.80 Annotation
Allowing the continuation of a "known present danger" is an exception to governmental immunity. To apply, the danger must be so clear and absolute that taking corrective action falls within the definition of a ministerial duty. Expert testimony of dangerousness is not sufficient to establish a "known present danger." Bauder v. Delevan-Darien School District,
207 Wis. 2d 312,
558 N.W.2d 881 (Ct. App. 1996).
893.80 Annotation
The immunity provisions of sub.(4), like the notice and claim provisions of sub. (1), are not limited to tort or money damage actions. Johnson v. City of Edgerton,
207 Wis. 2d 345,
558 N.W.2d 653 (Ct. App. 1996).
893.80 Annotation
Governmental immunity extends to private parties who act under directives from government authorities. Estate of Lyons v. CNA Insurance Cos.
207 Wis. 2d 448,
558 N.W.2d 658 (Ct. App. 1996).
893.80 Annotation
The damage limitation under sub. (3) is not an affirmative defense and may not be waived by omission, although it may be expressly waived. Discretionary immunity under sub. (4) is an affirmative defense and may be waived by omission. Anderson v. City of Milwaukee,
208 Wis. 2d 18,
559 N.W.2d 563 (1997).
893.80 Annotation
The filing of a federal lawsuit, subsequently dismissed, did not satisfy the notice and claim requirements of sub. (1) (b). Probst v. Winnebago County,
208 Wis. 2d 280,
560 N.W.2d 291 (Ct. App. 1997).
893.80 Annotation
Appeals of special assessments brought under s. 66.60 (12) (a) are exempt from the notice provisions of sub. (1). Gamroth v. Village of Jackson,
215 Wis. 2d 250,
571 N.W.2d 917 (Ct. App. 1997).
893.80 Annotation
For purposes of immunity under sub. (4), fulfilling the duties under the safe place statute is discretionary. Spencer v. County of Brown,
215 Wis. 2d 635,
573 N.W.2d 222 (Ct. App. 1997)
893.80 Annotation
Compliance with sub. (1) (b) is a prerequisite to all actions against listed entities, whether sounding in tort or not, and whether brought as an initial claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim. City of Racine v. Waste Facility Siting Board,
216 Wis. 2d 616 575 N.W.2d 712 (1998).
893.80 Annotation
Filing a notice of claim under sub. (1) (b) is not required when an injunction of a public nuisance is sought under s. 30.294, whether or not the injunction will be directed against the municipality. Gillen v. City of Neenah,
219 Wis. 2d 807,
580 N.W.2d 628 (1998).
893.80 Annotation
Lyons adopted a form of governmental contractor immunity applicable to parties who contract with municipal and state authorities and who are directed to perform certain tasks under the contract. That immunity extends to the contractor's subcontractors. Jankee v. Clark County,
222 Wis. 2d 151,
585 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1998).
893.80 Annotation
Sub. (1m) as amended in 1986 cannot be applied retroactively. Snopek v. Lakeland Medical Center,
223 Wis. 2d 288,
588 N.W.2d 19 (1999).
893.80 Annotation
A town contesting an annexation under sub. (10) is not required to file a notice of claim under s. 893.80 against the annexing municipality. Town of Burke v. City of Madison,
225 Wis. 2d 615,
593 N.W.2d 822 (Ct. App. 1999).
893.80 Annotation
Alleging an ongoing course of conduct without identifying a specific circumstance or example of that conduct that occurred within 120 days of the notice of claim does not satisfy the requirements of sub. (1) (a). Probst v. Winnebago County,
225 Wis. 2d 753,
593 N.W.2d 478 (Ct. App. 1999).
893.80 Annotation
This section does not apply to certiorari actions under s. 59.694 (10). Kapischke v. County of Walworth,
226 Wis. 2d 320,
595 N.W.2d 42 (Ct. App. 1999).
893.80 Annotation
A public officer is clothed in immunity when that officer applies statutes to a given set of facts. An unambiguous statute, negligently applied, that does not direct how to act in any manner does not create a ministerial duty that is not sheltered by immunity. Kierstyn v. Racine Unified School District,
228 Wis. 2d 81,
596 N.W.2d 417 (1999).
893.80 Annotation
Suits must be based in tort to garner immunity under sub. (4). There is no immunity from actions for declaratory relief. Willow Creek Ranch v. Town of Shelby, 2000 WI 56,
235 Wis. 2d 409,
611 N.W.2d 693.
893.80 Annotation
The notice provisions of this section do not apply to 3rd-party complaints for contribution. Dixson v. Wisconsin Health Organization Insurance Corporation, 2000 WI 95,
237 Wis. 2d 149,
612 N.W.2d 721.
893.80 Annotation
A governmental employee may have a ministerial duty to take some action, although how that act is performed is discretionary. Rolland v. County of Milwaukee, 2001 WI App 53,
241 Wis. 2d 215,
625 N.W.2d 590.
893.80 Annotation
Subsection (1g) is constitutional. There is a rational basis for restricting the opportunity to bring suit to 6 months for claimants who have been served with a notice of disallowance and to 3 years when claimants have not been served. That there are different time periods does not violate equal protection guarantees. Griffin v. Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc. 2001 WI App 125,
246 Wis. 2d 433,
630 N.W.2d 536.
893.80 Annotation
Sovereign immunity from suit can only be waived by express language and may not be implied. Anhalt v. City of Sheboygan, 2001 WI App 271,
249 Wis. 2d 62,
637 N.W.2d 422.
893.80 Annotation
The existence of a known present danger should not turn on the subjective impressions of a citizen-witness. A public officer's duty to act becomes absolute when the nature of the danger is compelling and known to the officer and is of such force that the officer has no discretion not to act. Hoskins v. Dodge County, 2002 WI App 40,
251 Wis. 2d 276,
642 N.W.2d 213.
893.80 Annotation
A proper application of the known danger exception to public officer immunity begins with the assumption that the officer was negligent in failing to perform, or in inadequately performing the act in question. To pierce immunity the circumstances must have been sufficiently dangerous so as to give rise to a ministerial duty not just to act generally but to perform the particular act upon which liability is premised. Lodl v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company, 2002 WI 71,
253 Wis. 2d 323,
646 N.W.2d 314.
893.80 Annotation
Nothing in Cords suggests that a ministerial duty is placed on the government to protect the public from every manifest danger. The Cords known and present danger exception to sub. (4) immunity did not apply to a pipe that was used as a footbridge over a creek when the public was not invited to so use it, a sidewalk was provided to cross the creek not far from the pipe, and the use as a footbridge presented an obvious danger. Caraher v. City of Menomonie, 2002 WI App 184,___ Wis. 2d ___,
649 N.W.2d 184.
893.80 Annotation
Liability of vocational, technical, and adult education districts and of their officers and employees is discussed.
77 Atty. Gen. 145.
893.80 Annotation
A town that responds to a Level B hazardous waste release in its own capacity, in the absence of a county wide agreement, does not receive immunity from civil liability under s. 895.483 (2), but other statutory and common law immunities apply.
OAG 1-99.
893.80 Annotation
Monroe v. Pape,
367 U.S. 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 U.S. 658 (1978).
893.80 Annotation
A defendant public official has the burden to plead "good faith" as an affirmative defense in a 42 USC 1983 case. Gomez v. Toledo,
446 U.S. 635 (1980).
893.80 Annotation
A municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 USC 1983. Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc.
453 U.S. 247 (1981).
893.80 Annotation
A city ordinance regulating cable television was not exempt from antitrust scrutiny under the Parker doctrine. Community Communications Co. v. Boulder,
455 U.S. 40 (1982).
893.80 Annotation
This section is preempted in 42 USC 1983 actions and may not be applied as it conflicts with purpose and effects of federal civil rights actions. Felder v. Casey,
487 U.S. 131 (1988).
893.80 Annotation
Sub. (4) bars direct suits against municipalities for the torts of their employees. It does not preclude suing the officer directly and using s. 895.46 to indirectly recover from the municipality. Graham v. Sauk Prairie Police Commission,
915 F.2d 1085 (1990).
893.80 Annotation
Once a deputy assumed a duty to protect a person subsequently murdered in a room adjacent to where the deputy was present, the deputy's obligation was no longer discretionary and he was no longer entitled to immunity under sub. (4) for decisions made at the murder site. Losinski v. County of Trempealeau,
946 F.2d 544 (1991).
893.80 Annotation
Immunity of elected officials under sub. (4) is not defeated by the possibility that the official's acts were malicious. Farr v. Gruber,
950 F.2d 399 (1991).
893.80 Annotation
The state may not be sued by a citizen under the wrongful death statute. Pinon v. State of Wisconsin,
368 F. Supp. 608.
893.80 Annotation
Civil rights actions against municipalities are discussed. Starstead v. City of Superior,
533 F. Supp. 1365 (1982).
893.80 Annotation
A county was not vicariously liable for its sheriff's alleged use of excessive force when the complaint alleged intentional tort. Voie v. Flood,
589 F. Supp. 746 (1984).
893.80 Annotation
Decisions by law enforcement officers concerning whether and how to arrest someone are discretionary for purposes of sub. (4). Wilson v. City of Milwaukee,
138 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (2001).
893.80 Annotation
The discretionary function exception to government tort liability. 61 MLR 163.
893.80 Annotation
Several police supervisor immunities from state court suit may be doomed. Fine, 1977 WBB 9.
893.80 Annotation
Municipal liability: The failure to provide adequate police protection — the special duty doctrine should be discarded. 1984 WLR 499.
893.80 Annotation
Wisconsin recovery limit for victims of municipal torts: A conflict of public interests. 1986 WLR 155.
893.80 Annotation
Government Immunity for Safe Place Statute Violations. Cabush. Wis. Law. Oct. 1999.
893.80 Annotation
Fighting City Hall: Municipal Immunity in Wisconsin. Pollack. Wis. Law. Dec. 2000.
893.81(1)(1) A county shall be liable for injury to person or property by a mob or riot therein except when cities are liable. Within a city, the city shall be liable for such injury except that within a 1st class city the city shall not be liable for any such injury occurring upon the interstate freeway system or in or upon grounds, buildings or other improvements owned by a county and designated for stadium or airport purposes and appurtenant uses. A 1st class city's immunity from liability in providing or failing to provide police services upon the freeway system or in or upon such grounds, buildings or other improvements shall be as provided under
s. 893.80 (6).
893.81(2)
(2) Claim therefor must be filed within 6 months thereafter. Such claim may be allowed in whole or in part, as other claims, and procedure to enforce shall be as for other claims.
893.81(3)
(3) The city or county may recover all such claims and costs paid by it, against any and all persons engaged in inflicting the injury.
893.81(4)
(4) No person shall recover hereunder when the injury was occasioned or in any manner aided, sanctioned, or permitted by that person or caused by that person's negligence, nor unless that person shall have used all reasonable diligence to prevent the same, and shall have immediately notified the mayor or sheriff after being apprised of any threat of or attempt at such injury. Every mayor or sheriff receiving such notice shall take all legal means to prevent injury, and if that officer shall refuse or neglect to do so, the party injured may elect to hold that officer liable by bringing action against that officer within 6 months of the injury.
893.81(5)
(5) This section shall not apply to property damage to houses of ill fame when the owner has notice that they are used as such.
893.81 History
History: 1979 c. 34;
1981 c. 314 s.
146;
1991 a. 316;
1999 a. 150 s.
259; Stats. 1999 s. 893.81.
893.81 Annotation
This section does not render a city a wrongdoer, since liability is imposed without fault, and an insurer who has paid for riot damage cannot recover on a theory of subrogation. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Milwaukee,
45 Wis. 2d 331,
173 N.W.2d 187 (1970).
893.81 Annotation
An insurer cannot recover against a city for money paid out for mob damage on a subrogation theory. American Insurance Co. v. Milwaukee,
51 Wis. 2d 346,
187 N.W.2d 142.
893.81 Annotation
Liability for riot damages; subrogation against municipalities for riot damage claims. 1971 WLR 1236.
893.82
893.82
Claims against state employees; notice of claim; limitation of damages. 893.82(1)
(1) The purposes of this section are to:
893.82(1)(a)
(a) Provide the attorney general with adequate time to investigate claims which might result in judgments to be paid by the state.
893.82(1)(b)
(b) Provide the attorney general with an opportunity to effect a compromise without a civil action or civil proceeding.
893.82(1)(c)
(c) Place a limit on the amounts recoverable in civil actions or civil proceedings against any state officer, employee or agent.
893.82(2)(a)
(a) "Civil action or civil proceeding" includes a civil action or civil proceeding commenced or continued by counterclaim, cross claim or 3rd-party complaint.
893.82(2)(b)
(b) "Claimant" means the person or entity sustaining the damage or injury or his or her agent, attorney or personal representative.
893.82(2)(c)
(c) "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.
893.82(2)(d)
(d) "State officer, employee or agent" includes any of the following persons:
893.82(2)(d)1.
1. An officer, employee or agent of any nonprofit corporation operating a museum under a lease agreement with the state historical society.
893.82(2)(d)1m.
1m. A volunteer health care provider who provides services under
s. 146.89, for the provision of those services.
893.82(2)(d)3.
3. 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).
893.82(2m)
(2m) No claimant may bring an action against a state officer, employee or agent unless the claimant complies strictly with the requirements of this section.
893.82(3)
(3) Except as provided in
sub. (5m), no civil action or civil proceeding may be brought against any state officer, employee or agent for or on account of any act growing out of or committed in the course of the discharge of the officer's, employee'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, employee or agent involved. Except as provided under
sub. (3m), a specific denial by the attorney general is not a condition precedent to bringing the civil action or civil proceeding.
893.82(3m)
(3m) If the claimant is a prisoner, as defined in
s. 801.02 (7) (a) 2., the prisoner may not commence the civil action or proceeding until the attorney general denies the claim or until 120 days after the written notice under
sub. (3) is served upon the attorney general, whichever is earlier. This subsection does not apply to a prisoner who commences an action seeking injunctive relief if the court finds that there is a substantial risk to the prisoner's health or safety.
893.82(4)(a)(a) 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.
893.82(4)(b)1.1. 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:
893.82(4)(b)1.a.
a. The date the cause of action for contribution or indemnification accrues.
893.82(4)(b)1.b.
b. The date the claimant acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying cause of action.
893.82(4)(b)2.
2. The claimant has the burden of proving he or she had no actual knowledge of the underlying cause of action under this paragraph.
893.82(5)
(5) 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.
893.82(5m)
(5m) With regard to a claim to recover damages for medical malpractice, the time periods under
subs. (3) and
(4) 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.
893.82(6)
(6) 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, employee 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.
893.82(7)
(7) With respect to a state officer, employee 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, employee or agent, which occurs before, on or after April 25, 1990.
893.82 Note
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 employee 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]
893.82 Annotation
The court had no jurisdiction over state employees alleged to have intentionally damaged the plaintiff when the complaint failed to comply with the notice of claim statute. Elm Park Iowa, Inc. v. Denniston,
92 Wis. 2d 723,
286 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1979).