Nathan S. Heffernan

In Bittner v. American Honda Motor Co., plaintiff Russell Bittner sued Honda after suffering severe injuries when his 1983 three-wheel ATV overturned, alleging the vehicle was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous under theories of strict product liability and negligence. The trial court admitted Honda's evidence comparing injury risks from ATVs to those of dissimilar products and activities such as cars, bicycles, skiing, and aviation, which contributed to a defense verdict after a seven-week trial. On review, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that this comparative risk evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant to whether the ATV's specific design features created an unreasonable danger or violated the manufacturer's duty of care. The court reversed the lower courts' rulings, vacated the judgment, and ordered a new trial on all issues.

torts & liability

This case concerned whether Wisconsin municipal courts have statutory authority to suspend drivers' licenses as a means to compel payment of fines imposed for non-traffic municipal ordinance violations such as disorderly conduct or trespass, and whether such authority is constitutional. Petitioners, whose licenses were suspended after they failed to pay fines, challenged the practice under secs. 800.09 and 800.095, arguing it was barred by sec. 343.30(5) and violated due process and excessive fines protections. The circuit court agreed and enjoined the suspensions, but the court of appeals reversed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that the statutes provide authority for the suspensions, that any omission from sec. 343.30(5) was legislative inadvertence, that municipal courts have jurisdiction in this context, and that the grant of power is constitutional.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved adult children suing their deceased father's uninsured motorist insurer for pecuniary damages based on lost inheritance after he and his wife died in a car accident. The circuit court allowed admission of evidence regarding a $500,000 life insurance policy owned by the father, prompting a stipulated dismissal of the action while preserving the evidentiary issue for appeal. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that evidence of the life insurance policy is admissible at trial because it is relevant to the decedent's propensity for thrift and savings as well as his earnings in excess of expenses, but the death benefit proceeds actually received by the heirs are not relevant to the lost inheritance claim. The court reasoned that lost inheritance is measured by the pecuniary value of assets the decedent would likely have accumulated and left to heirs over a natural lifespan, and therefore the policy's relevance is limited to assessing savings habits rather than the proceeds themselves or any inference about disposition toward the plaintiffs.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether Wisconsin's statute allowing continued commitment of an insanity acquittee in a mental health facility after the person is no longer mentally ill, based solely on dangerousness to self or others, violates due process under the U.S. Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the scheme is constitutional, provided the commitment does not exceed the maximum prison term for the charged offense and includes treatment consistent with the commitment's purposes. The court reasoned that a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict establishes dangerousness beyond a reasonable doubt, creating a continuing inference that justifies confinement, and distinguished the Wisconsin procedures from the invalid Louisiana scheme in Foucha v. Louisiana by noting that the state bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and that treatment addresses behavioral issues. The defendant, Randall, had been found not guilty by reason of insanity on multiple charges including first-degree murder and burglary. The court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the constitutional challenge and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case concerned whether Katherine Christenson's 1966 recorded offer to dedicate Block 3 of her subdivision as a public park remained valid after her 1969 death, allowing the Town of East Troy to accept it in 1990, or whether the offer had been revoked either by her death or by her successor K.G.R. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the offer was not automatically revoked by Christenson's death and instead ran with the land, remaining subject to acceptance by the town unless all successors holding interests in the entire subdivision jointly revoked it. The court reasoned from principles of contract and property law that revocation requires unanimous action by all current owners with an interest in the dedicated property, and that the dedicator's death is irrelevant once she has conveyed away all interest during her lifetime. The case was remanded to address unresolved issues, including whether K.G.R. held sufficient interest in the full subdivision to effect a revocation.

property

This case concerned whether engaging in commercial clam shelling without a valid resident license, in violation of Wisconsin Statute section 29.38(3)(a)1, constitutes a felony punishable under section 29.99(1m)(c) or merely a forfeiture under section 29.99(1m)(a). The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings that treated it as a felony. The court reasoned that the felony penalties apply exclusively to violations involving the unlawful possession of clams exceeding certain values, whereas licensing violations are subject only to forfeiture penalties, based on the plain language distinguishing the penalty provisions.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory