Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
                                              DATED AND RELEASED
                                                                                                     NOTICE
                                              OCTOBER 7, 1997
                                              A  party  may  file  with  the  Supreme  Court  a      This opinion is subject to further editing. If
                                              petition  to  review  an  adverse  decision  by  the   published, the official version will appear in
                                              Court of Appeals.   See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62,      the bound volume of the Official Reports.
STATS.
No.                                           97-1478-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN                            IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
KATHLEEN K. WARD AND CHARLES W. WARD,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,
INTERVENING PLAINTIFF,
V.
EMPLOYERS HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY,
DEFENDANT,
COLONIAL VILLAGE OF GREEN BAY, INC. AND GRE
INSURANCE GROUP,
DEFENDANTS-
THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
V.
FLEMING COMPANIES, INC., S.W. FOODS, INC.,
D/B/A JUBILEE FOODS AND HERITAGE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,




NO. 97-1478-FT
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS-
RESPONDENTS.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown County:
JOHN D. MC KAY, Judge.  Reversed and cause remanded.
Before Cane, P.J., Myse and Hoover, JJ.
PER  CURIAM.    Kathleen  and  Charles  Ward  appeal  a  summary
judgment dismissing their personal injury action against S.W. Foods, Inc., d/b/a
Jubilee Foods and its insurers.1   The trial court concluded that the Wards’ action
alleging  negligence  and  violation  of  the  safe-place  statute  must  be  dismissed
because the Wards would not prove beyond speculation or conjecture that the
injuries Kathleen suffered in a fall were caused by a small patch of ice outside the
grocery store.   Because we conclude that the Wards have established sufficient
circumstantial evidence of causation to present the causation question to a jury, we
reverse the summary judgment and remand the matter for trial.
The parties’ supporting papers establish that Kathleen Ward was
injured when she slipped and fell as she approached the entrance door of Jubilee
Foods.   The store manager, Doug Jubert, assisted her after the fall and inspected
the area after Ward filled out an accident report and left the store.   On the report,
Jubert indicates that Ward fell on a small patch of ice injuring her right arm, elbow
and shoulder.   He observed a small patch of ice, approximately the size of a silver
dollar, which appeared to have been there for  “a while.”   Ward was unable to
testify as to the cause of her fall.   The trial court concluded that attributing her fall
1  This is an expedited appeal under RULE 809.17, STATS.
2




NO. 97-1478-FT
to  the  ice  would  constitute  speculation  and  conjecture  and  granted  summary
judgment dismissing the action for lack of proof of causation.
In order to make a prima facie case for summary judgment, the
moving party must show a defense that would defeat the plaintiffs’ claims.   See
Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis.2d 332, 338-39, 294 N.W.2d 473, 477 (1980).   Summary
judgment is not appropriate if the material presented on the motion is subject to
conflicting interpretations or reasonable people might differ as to its significance.
Id.   The inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the moving
party’s  materials  should  be  viewed  in  the  light  most  favorable  to  the  party
opposing the motion for summary judgment.   Id. at 339, 294 N.W.2d at 477.   An
inference is reasonable if it can fairly be drawn from the facts in evidence.   In re
Paternity of A.M.C.,  144 Wis.2d  621,  636,  424 N.W.2d  707,  713  (1988).    A
proper inference is one drawn from logic and proper deduction.   Id.   Speculation
and  conjecture,  on  the  other  hand,  apply  to  a  choice  between  liability  and
nonliability where there is no reasonable basis in the evidence upon which a
choice of liability can be made.   Merco Dist. Corp. v. Commercial Police Alarm
Co., Inc., 84 Wis.2d 455, 460, 267 N.W.2d 652, 655 (1978).   The small measure
of  speculation  required  for  a  jury  to  settle  a  dispute  by  choosing  the  more
reasonable  of  two  inferences does not constitute  impermissible  speculation  or
conjecture.   See Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653 (1946).
The Wards’ circumstantial evidence that Kathleen slipped on a patch
of ice is sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment.   Jubert observed
the small patch of ice that appeared to have been there for a while.    He told
Kathleen that she slipped on ice.   No other attributable cause has been identified.
Kathleen testified that she did not trip or stub her toe.   Under these circumstances,
the cause of Kathleen’s fall is an outstanding issue of material fact that precludes
3




NO. 97-1478-FT
summary judgment.   The Wards’ proof of causation consists not of speculation or
conjecture,  but  of  reasonable  inferences  that  could  be  drawn  from  the
circumstantial evidence.
By the Court.—Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
This opinion will not be published.  See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS.
4

Download 12510.pdf

Wisconsin Law