Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                  This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
November 30, 2004
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Cornelia G. Clark                                                                                                   petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                                                           Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                    and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                    Cir. Ct. No.   02CV000049
Appeal No.                                                       04-1248-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                  IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
PENNY HAHN AND RONALD HAHN,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
CIGNA HEALTHCARE, INC.,
SUBROGATED-PLAINTIFF,
V.
TRIG'S FOOD AND DRUG, INC. AND SOCIETY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Oneida County:
MARK A. MANGERSON, Judge.  Reversed and cause remanded.
Before Cane, C.J., Hoover, P.J., and Peterson, J.




No.   04-1248-FT
¶1                                                                                        PER  CURIAM.    Penny  and  Ronald  Hahn  appeal  a  summary
judgment dismissing their personal injury action against Trig’s Food & Drug, Inc.
and its insurers.1   The Hahns allege negligence and violation of the Safe Place
Statute2 based on an injury Penny suffered when an automatic door unexpectedly
closed, striking her elbow.   The trial court concluded that the action could not be
maintained because the Hahns’ expert witness, Russell Fote, could not establish
beyond  speculation  or  conjecture  that  Hahn’s  injuries  were  caused  by  Trig’s
failure  to  inspect  the  automatic  door.    Because  we  conclude  that  the  Hahns
presented  sufficient  evidence  to  preclude  summary  judgment,  we  reverse  the
judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings.
¶2                                                                                        Fote, a safety engineer, presented two theories concerning defects in
the automatic door:                                                                       (1) the presence sensor malfunctioned and the defect would
have  been  disclosed  if  the  store  manager  had  performed  the  daily inspection
recommended by the manufacturer; and (2) the door closed with too much speed
and force, a fact that Fote believes he can infer from the manager’s failure to
inspect.   Focusing primarily on the second theory, the trial court concluded that
Fote’s opinion amounted to impermissible speculation or conjecture and there was
no reason to believe inspection would have disclosed any defect.   The Hahns do
not address the ruling as to the second theory on appeal and we deem that theory
abandoned.    See McGivern v. Amasa Lumber Co.,  77 Wis.  2d  241,  245,  252
N.W.2d 371 (1977).
1  This is an expedited appeal under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.17 (2001-02).   All references
to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted.
2  WIS. STAT. § 101.11(1).
2




No.   04-1248-FT
¶3                                                                                     However,  the  Hahns  presented  sufficient  evidence  to  defeat
summary judgment on the first theory.   Summary judgment is not appropriate if
the material presented on the motion is subject to conflicting interpretations where
reasonable people might differ as to its significance.    See Grams v. Boss,  97
Wis. 2d 332, 338-39, 294 N.W.2d 473 (1980).   Every reasonable inference must
be drawn in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.   Id.   A
proper inference is one drawn from logic and 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 can be
made.   See Merco Dist. Corp. v. Commercial Police Alarm Co., Inc., 84 Wis. 2d
455, 460, 267 N.W.2d 652 (1978).
¶4                                                                                     Fote’s observation that the sensor mechanism failed is obvious from
the fact that the door closed while Hahn was standing in the doorway.   As an
expert on safety and automatic doors, Fote’s knowledge of the manner in which
malfunctions can occur and the nature of the inspection process entitle him to
express his opinion that daily inspection would have detected the defect.   From his
experience with similar doors, Fote stated that the manufacturer’s stickers on the
door called for daily inspection.   The trial court erroneously stated that Fote had
no proof that the safety sticker was on the door.    Trig’s manager’s deposition
established that fact and Fote was allowed to rely on his statement.
¶5                                                                                     Under the Safe Place Statute, Trig’s had a duty to make its premises
as safe as was reasonably permissible.   By failing to inspect the automatic door as
suggested by the manufacturer, Trig’s is deemed to have constructive notice of the
door’s defect.    See Karis v. Kroger,  26 Wis.  2d  277,  283-85,  132 N.W.2d  59
(1965).   When one owing a duty to make a place of employment safe fails to do so
and  an  accident  occurs  which  the  performance  of  the  duty  was  designed  to
3




No.   04-1248-FT
prevent, the law presumes the damage resulted from and was caused by the failure.
See Umnus v. Wisconsin Pub. Serv. Corp., 260 Wis. 433, 438, 51 N.W.2d 42
(1952).    The  combination  of  the  sensor’s  failure  to  hold  the  door  open,  the
manager’s concession that a safety sticker was on the door and that he did not
inspect  and  Fote’s  opinion  that  inspection  would  have  disclosed  the  defect
constitute sufficient basis for presenting the negligence and safe place issues to the
jury.
By the Court.—Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
                                                                                           This  opinion  will  not  be  published.     See  WIS.  STAT.  RULE
809.23(1)                                                                                  (b)5.
4

Download 7501.pdf

Wisconsin Law