Torts — negligence

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Torts — negligence

Jane Doe appeals the grant of summary judgment to Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyds London, Sigma Chi Fraternity (Sigma Chi), and Sigma Chi Alpha Lambda Chapter (Alpha Lambda). She argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on public policy grounds because there are many material facts that are disputed. She also contends that the trial court erred in finding that Mitchell Holzman was not negligent, and that Alpha Lambda was not vicariously responsible for his negligence. We affirm the grant of summary judgment; however, we do so on slightly different grounds. See Mercado v. GE Money Bank, 2009 WI App 73, ¶2, 318 Wis. 2d 216, 768 N.W.2d 53 (We may affirm the trial court’s order on different grounds than those relied on by the trial court.). We conclude that: the material facts are not in dispute; Holzman was not negligent, therefore, there is no issue concerning vicarious liability; and, neither Sigma Chi nor Alpha Lambda was negligent. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP739 Jane Doe v. Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyds London, et al.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Dugan, J., Curley, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Elliott, Robert L., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Stanton, Marie A., Madison; Williams, Jack Donald, Madison; Burkhouse, Nolan, Burlington