Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2010AP577 Broome v. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 24, 2010//

2010AP577 Broome v. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 24, 2010//

Listen to this article

Torts
Governmental immunity

A claim that a probation agent negligently supervised a probationer was properly dismissed.

“[T]hese allegations cannot be reasonably construed to allege that, in allowing Weisenberger to frequent his sister’s residence or failing to take other measures to protect Broome, Thao violated a duty imposed by law that meets the criteria for a ministerial duty. There is nothing in the complaint, even with a liberal construction, to suggest that the negligent conduct or failure to act was anything other than the exercise of judgment or discretion. Cf. Umansky, ¶¶13, 18 (complaint alleged a ministerial duty because it alleged that a highly specific federal regulation required a railing on a platform and that the defendant was responsible for compliance with this regulation). Even if we assume the particular DOC manual provisions imposing the purported ministerial duties need not be alleged in the complaint, the complaint must nonetheless allege facts that show a violation of such provisions. Broome does not refer us to any manual provision imposing a ministerial duty violated by Thao’s conduct, as alleged in the complaint.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP577 Broome v. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections

Dist. IV, Dane County, Markson, J., Vergeront, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Kurth, James K., Wausau; For Respondent: Glinski, John J., Madison

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests