Osborne, by Guardian Ad Litem, Respondent, vs. Montgomery, Appellant

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the jury's findings that the defendant was negligent in opening his car door and keeping an inadequate lookout, that his negligence caused the thirteen-year-old plaintiff's injuries, and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, but it reversed the judgment because the $2,500 damages award was excessive, indicating that $1,500 would be the maximum recovery and remanding with directions for the trial court to fix a minimum award with an option to the plaintiff or hold a new trial on damages only. Using the defendant's attack on the negligence instruction, the court re-examined Hamus v. Weber, holding the instruction given in this case sufficient because it included the ordinary-care standard, and announcing that foreseeability under Wisconsin law is an element of negligence only and does not limit liability for the natural consequences of a negligent act. Justice Fowler concurred in the disposition but disputed the majority's criticisms of the Hamus instruction, contending it supplies the foreseeability standard juries actually apply.