02-2267 Masko v. City of Madison

Listen to this article

Plaintiff argues that issue preclusion should not apply, even though, in both actions, the parties and the issue were the same, and even though the burden of proof was higher in the first action, because she was not represented by counsel in the first action, and because she was not able to present her case to a jury.

Apart from asserting that an attorney would have conducted a more thorough cross-examination, plaintiff does not identify any particular facts or arguments that were not presented to the municipal court; there is no basis in the record for the conclusion that plaintiff failed to fully litigate the issue of whether she or the bus driver made the improper lane change.

After receiving the municipal court’s decision, plaintiff requested a de novo jury trial in circuit court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 800.14(4). But after obtaining counsel she withdrew the request. Plaintiff was not deprived of a jury trial; rather, she chose to forgo that opportunity.

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Higginbotham, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Ann M. Masko, Mazomanie

For Respondent: Edith F. Merila, Madison; Robert C. Procter III, Madison