13 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Megal v. VISITOR & CONVENTION BUREAUgreen2 sentences2010In support of his argument that the common law negligence claim should proceed, he cited to Megal v. Green Bay Area Visitor & Convention Bureau, Inc., 2004 WI 98, ¶ 23 , 274 Wis. 2d 162 , 682 N.W.2d 857 , in which our supreme court held that a common law negligence claim may survive where a safe place statute claim fails because the safe place statute addresses unsafe conditions and structural defects, whereas, common law negligence addresses negligent acts. ¶ 6. 2010In support of his argument that the common law negligence claim should proceed, he cited to Megal v. Green Bay Area Visitor & Convention Bureau, Inc., 2004 WI 98, ¶ 23 , 274 Wis. 2d 162 , 682 N.W.2d 857 , in which our supreme court held that a common law negligence claim may survive where a safe place statute claim fails because the safe place statute addresses unsafe conditions and structural defects, whereas, common law negligence addresses negligent acts. ¶ 6. | 1 | 3 |
Hoida, Inc. v. M & I MIDSTATE BANKgreen2 sentences2023See Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88, ¶19 , 351 Wis. 2d 1 , 838 N.W.2d 852 (statutory interpretation); see generally Hoida, Inc. v. M & I Midstate Bank, Inc., 2006 WI 69, ¶¶22-26 , 291 Wis. 2d 283 , 717 N.W.2d 17 (elements of negligence). 2023See Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88, ¶19 , 351 Wis. 2d 1 , 838 N.W.2d 852 (statutory interpretation); see generally Hoida, Inc. v. M & I Midstate Bank, Inc., 2006 WI 69, ¶¶22-26 , 291 Wis. 2d 283 , 717 N.W.2d 17 (elements of negligence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cabangreen2 sentences2023See State v. Caban, 210 Wis. 2d 597, 604 , 563 N.W.2d 501 (1997). 18 No. 2022AP738 ¶36 Acuity’s argument about notice fails because notice is not an element of a common law negligence claim. 2023See State v. Caban, 210 Wis. 2d 597, 604 , 563 N.W.2d 501 (1997). 18 No. 2022AP738 ¶36 Acuity’s argument about notice fails because notice is not an element of a common law negligence claim. | 1 | 1 |
Gritzner v. Michael R.green2 sentences2023Given our conclusion above, we need not resolve that dispute. 16 No. 2022AP738 ¶32 To prevail in a common law negligence claim, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty of care; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the injury.” Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68, ¶19 , 235 Wis. 2d 781 , 611 N.W.2d 906 (citing Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 250, 260 , 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998)). 2023Given our conclusion above, we need not resolve that dispute. 16 No. 2022AP738 ¶32 To prevail in a common law negligence claim, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty of care; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the injury.” Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68, ¶19 , 235 Wis. 2d 781 , 611 N.W.2d 906 (citing Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 250, 260 , 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998)). | 1 | 1 |
John Doe 56 v. Mayo Clinic Health System - Eau Claire Clinic, Inc.green2 sentences2023See Doe 56 v. Mayo Clinic Health Sys.—Eau Claire Clinic, Inc., 2016 WI 48, ¶14 , 369 Wis. 2d 351 , 880 N.W.2d 681 (we accept as true “any reasonable inferences arising” from the pled facts). 30 No. 2021AP989 toward Doe for purposes of a common law negligence claim. 2023See Doe 56 v. Mayo Clinic Health Sys.—Eau Claire Clinic, Inc., 2016 WI 48, ¶14 , 369 Wis. 2d 351 , 880 N.W.2d 681 (we accept as true “any reasonable inferences arising” from the pled facts). 30 No. 2021AP989 toward Doe for purposes of a common law negligence claim. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas D. Nowell v. City of Wausaugreen2 sentences2023See Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88, ¶19 , 351 Wis. 2d 1 , 838 N.W.2d 852 (statutory interpretation); see generally Hoida, Inc. v. M & I Midstate Bank, Inc., 2006 WI 69, ¶¶22-26 , 291 Wis. 2d 283 , 717 N.W.2d 17 (elements of negligence). 2023See Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88, ¶19 , 351 Wis. 2d 1 , 838 N.W.2d 852 (statutory interpretation); see generally Hoida, Inc. v. M & I Midstate Bank, Inc., 2006 WI 69, ¶¶22-26 , 291 Wis. 2d 283 , 717 N.W.2d 17 (elements of negligence). | 1 | 1 |
Nichols v. Progressive Northern Insurancegreen2 sentences2016Nichols, 308 Wis. 2d 17, ¶ 33 . 2016Nichols, 308 Wis. 2d 17, ¶¶ 30, 33 . | 1 | 1 |
Sampson v. Laskingreen2 sentences2014See Sampson v. Laskin, 66 Wis. 2d 318 , 224 N.W.2d 594 (1975) (which arose out of personal injuries to two men, one of whom died, causing his estate to own the claim). ¶58 The claim created by Wis. Stat. § 102.29 (1) is not the counterpart of a common law claim maintained to compensate an injured person for his injuries. 2014See Sampson v. Laskin, 66 Wis. 2d 318 , 224 N.W.2d 594 (1975) (which arose out of personal injuries to two men, one of whom died, causing his estate to own the claim). ¶58 The claim created by Wis. Stat. § 102.29 (1) is not the counterpart of a common law claim maintained to compensate an injured person for his injuries. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersongreen2 sentences2001See State v. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 459 , 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998). 2 Vonderhaar also sued Lodging Enterprises, Inc., alleging a common law negligence claim. 3 The Federal Employer's Liability Act is codified at 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (2000). 2001See State v. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 459 , 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998). 2 Vonderhaar also sued Lodging Enterprises, Inc., alleging a common law negligence claim. 3 The Federal Employer's Liability Act is codified at 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences1998Because we conclude that the holding enunciated in Gonzales v. Wilkinson, 68 Wis. 2d 154 , 227 N.W.2d 907 (1975), which held that a landlord is not an insurer for the acts of his tenant's dog in a common law negligence claim, controls; that Fons does not qualify as a "harborer" for § 174.001 purposes; that there was no contract to provide Garner with liability insurance, and that the Malones's third-party beneficiary of a "misrepresentation" theory is insufficiently developed, we affirm. 1998Because we conclude that the holding enunciated in Gonzales v. Wilkinson, 68 Wis. 2d 154 , 227 N.W.2d 907 (1975), which held that a landlord is not an insurer for the acts of his tenant's dog in a common law negligence claim, controls; that Fons does not qualify as a "harborer" for § 174.001 purposes; that there was no contract to provide Garner with liability insurance, and that the Malones's third-party beneficiary of a "misrepresentation" theory is insufficiently developed, we affirm. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James E. Kochanski v. Speedway Superamerica, LLC
green
2 sentences2025Megal v. Green Bay Area Visitor & Convention Bureau, Inc., 2004 WI 98, ¶22 , 274 Wis. 2d 162 , 682 N.W.2d 857 . “[I]n Wisconsin, everyone has a duty to everyone else to act with reasonable care,” id., and a defendant is negligent when the defendant breaches that duty of care, causing injury, Kochanski, 356 Wis. 2d 1, ¶31 . 2023Kochanski v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 2014 WI 72, ¶31 , 356 Wis. 2d 1 , 850 N.W.2d 160 . | 2 | 2023–2025 |
Enright v. Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences1984Due process is therefore not denied them.” 114 Wis. 2d at 129 . 1984Due process is therefore not denied them." 114 Wis. 2d at 129 . | 2 | 1984–1984 |
Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Given our conclusion above, we need not resolve that dispute. 16 No. 2022AP738 ¶32 To prevail in a common law negligence claim, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty of care; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the injury.” Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68, ¶19 , 235 Wis. 2d 781 , 611 N.W.2d 906 (citing Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 250, 260 , 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998)). 2023Given our conclusion above, we need not resolve that dispute. 16 No. 2022AP738 ¶32 To prevail in a common law negligence claim, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty of care; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the injury.” Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68, ¶19 , 235 Wis. 2d 781 , 611 N.W.2d 906 (citing Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 250, 260 , 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014Kerl, 273 Wis. 2d 106, ¶4 . ¶103 It is only the common law negligence claim for which there potentially could be coverage under the American Family policy. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Megal v. VISITOR & CONVENTION BUREAU
green
1 sentence2010The circuit court granted Grand Geneva's motion for summary judgment on the common law negligence claim by relying on the following statements in our opinion in Megal, 267 Wis. 2d 800 , ¶ 25: "A negligence claim cannot be maintained when a safe place violation cannot be established. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.
green
1 sentence2009Palsgraf, 162 N.E. at 103 . ¶ 108 A careful reading of the above cases, and many others that arise in the context of common law negligence, shows that the term "duty" has been used in two ways: (1) identifying duty as an element of a common law negligence claim and (2) identifying duty by describing an obligation to an injured person. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.