charitable immunity in Wisconsin

1983Rose (1953), 265 Wis. 393, 398 , 61 N.W.2d 896 , we stated dissatisfaction with the charitable immunity doctrine should be addressed to the legislature.

1983Rose (1953), 265 Wis. 393, 398 , 61 N.W.2d 896 , we stated dissatisfaction with the charitable immunity doctrine should be addressed to the legislature.

2005This conclusion would hold regardless of whether a fiduciary relationship existed, and therefore we may assume without deciding that one did. [12] In his brief, Doe cites conventional fraud cases such as Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., 2001 WI 23 , 241 Wis. 2d 700 , 623 N.W.2d 739 , which did not involve a fiduciary relationship. [13] We note in passing that this court did not abolish the doctrine of charitable immunity until 1961.

2005This conclusion would hold regardless of whether a fiduciary relationship existed, and therefore we may assume without deciding that one did. [12] In his brief, Doe cites conventional fraud cases such as Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., 2001 WI 23 , 241 Wis. 2d 700 , 623 N.W.2d 739 , which did not involve a fiduciary relationship. [13] We note in passing that this court did not abolish the doctrine of charitable immunity until 1961.

1994I next examine the proposition that the legislature meant to encourage the good works of non-profits by freeing them from the expense of buying liability insurance. *894 This argument seems to resurrect the longdiscredited doctrine of charitable immunity. [2] Wisconsin courts grounded charitable immunity on the public policy that charities should be free from liability because they perform the "quasi-public function in ministering to the poor and sick without any pecuniary profit to themselves." Morrison v. Henke, 165 Wis. 166, 170 , 160 N.W. 173 (1917).

1994I next examine the proposition that the legislature meant to encourage the good works of non-profits by freeing them from the expense of buying liability insurance. *894 This argument seems to resurrect the longdiscredited doctrine of charitable immunity. [2] Wisconsin courts grounded charitable immunity on the public policy that charities should be free from liability because they perform the "quasi-public function in ministering to the poor and sick without any pecuniary profit to themselves." Morrison v. Henke, 165 Wis. 166, 170 , 160 N.W. 173 (1917).

1983But in Kojis v. Doctors Hospital (1961), 12 Wis. 2d 367, 373 , 107 N.W.2d 131 , 107 N.W.2d 292 , this court changed its position and abolished the doctrine of immunity.” 57 Wis. 2d at 16 .

1967Counsel cites the cases of Holytz v. Milwaukee (1962), 17 Wis. (2d) 26, 115 N. W. (2d) 618 , in which we abandoned the doctrine of municipal immunity, and Kofis v. Doctors Hospital (1961), 12 Wis. (2d) 367, 107 N. W. (2d) 181 , 107 N. W. (2d) 292 , where we abandoned the doctrine of charitable immunity.

1967Counsel cites the cases of Holytz v. Milwaukee (1962), 17 Wis. (2d) 26, 115 N. W. (2d) 618 , in which we abandoned the doctrine of municipal immunity, and Kofis v. Doctors Hospital (1961), 12 Wis. (2d) 367, 107 N. W. (2d) 181 , 107 N. W. (2d) 292 , where we abandoned the doctrine of charitable immunity.

1964In Kojis v. Doctors Hospital, supra, the doctrine of charitable immunity was abrogated as defense to negligent acts of charitable organizations and institutions to all causes of action arising after January 10, 1961.

1964In Kojis v. Doctors Hospital, supra, the doctrine of charitable immunity was abrogated as defense to negligent acts of charitable organizations and institutions to all causes of action arising after January 10, 1961.

1962Respondents also place reliance upon our decision in Carlson v. Marinette County (1953), 264 Wis. 423 , 59 N. W. (2d) 486 , as interpreted in Kojis v. Doctors Hospital, supra, at page 370: “We held that the county was operating its hospital in a proprietary rather than a governmental capacity and since the rate charged the plaintiff was the standard sum fixed at such amount as, with the anticipated patient load, would return revenue in excess of operating expenses as calculated by the county, it was not entitled to the charitable immunity.” *237 This quoted statement was unfortunate and was a

1962Respondents also place reliance upon our decision in Carlson v. Marinette County (1953), 264 Wis. 423 , 59 N. W. (2d) 486 , as interpreted in Kojis v. Doctors Hospital, supra, at page 370: “We held that the county was operating its hospital in a proprietary rather than a governmental capacity and since the rate charged the plaintiff was the standard sum fixed at such amount as, with the anticipated patient load, would return revenue in excess of operating expenses as calculated by the county, it was not entitled to the charitable immunity.” *237 This quoted statement was unfortunate and was a

1953In pointing to the alteration of the rule in this respect, in the decision of Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church, 202 Wis. 111 , 230 N. W. 708 , we held that any changes to be made in the doctrine of charitable immunity for tort were to be made by the legislature alone, and not by the court.

1953In pointing to the alteration of the rule in this respect, in the decision of Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church, 202 Wis. 111 , 230 N. W. 708 , we held that any changes to be made in the doctrine of charitable immunity for tort were to be made by the legislature alone, and not by the court.