DeRuyter v. Wisconsin Elec. Power Co., 94-1991

Decision Date20 June 1997
Docket NumberNo. 94-1991,94-1991
Citation565 N.W.2d 118,211 Wis.2d 169
PartiesJane DeRUYTER, Jason DeRuyter and Travis DeRuyter, by Donald J. Jacquart, their Guardian Ad Litem and the Estate of Glenn R. DeRuyter, by Eric E. Eberhardt, Special Administrator of the Estate of Glenn R. DeRuyter, Plaintiffs-Respondents-Co-Petitioner, v. WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Great West Casualty Company, Inc., Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner, American Standard Insurance Company and Michael T. Schmaling, Defendants-Respondents, Employers Insurance of Wausau, A Mutual Company, Defendant. GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., JJ Transport, Inc., Power Transport, Inc., and Cedarland Trucking, Inc., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Co-Petitioners, d v. WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin and Michael T. Schmaling, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

REVIEW of a published decision of the Court of Appeals 1 reversing the decision of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, John E. McCormick, Judge. Affirmed.

For the defendant/plaintiff-respondent-petitioner/co-petitioner, Great West Casualty Company, Inc., there were briefs by Douglas J. Carroll, and O'Neill, Schimmel, Quirk & Carroll, S.C., Milwaukee.

For the plaintiffs-respondents-co-petitioners there were briefs by David P. Lowe, Donald J. Jacquart and Jacquart & Lowe, S.C., Milwaukee and Michael P. Crooks and Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C., Madison and oral argument by David P. Lowe and Michael P. Crooks.

For the defendant-appellant there was a brief by Jeffrey Morris and Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee and oral argument by Jeffrey Morris.

Amicus curiae brief was filed by Michael H. Gillick and Murphy, Gillick, Wicht & Prachthauser, Milwaukee for the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Amicus curiae brief was filed by Patrick K. Stevens, Werner E. Scherr, Jeffrey S. Meyer, Michael A. Greene, Jerome D. Okarma and Edwina A. Wilson for Manufacturers & Commerce, Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc., Harnischfeger Industries, Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Wisconsin Bell, Inc., and General Electric Medical Systems.

¶1 PER CURIAM.

This court is equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the decision of the court of appeals. Justice Donald W. Steinmetz, Justice Jon P. Wilcox, and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would affirm; Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice William A. Bablitch, and Justice Janine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Smith v. Kleynerman
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 21, 2017
    ...(on petition for review).72. State v. Watson , 209 Wis.2d 281, 562 N.W.2d 151 (1997) (on certification).73. DeRuyter v. Wis. Elec. Power Co. , 211 Wis.2d 169, 565 N.W.2d 118 (1997) (on petition for review).74. Moulas v. PBC Productions, Inc. , 217 Wis.2d 449, 576 N.W.2d 929 (1998) (on petit......
  • Spencer v. V.I.P., Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • October 25, 2006
    ...v. Wis. Elec. Power Co., 200 Wis.2d 349, 546 N.W.2d 534, 537, 540-42 (Ct.App.1996), aff'd by an equally divided court, 211 Wis.2d 169, 565 N.W.2d 118 (1997). [¶ 21] Although we need not reach as far as the Wisconsin Court, in my view, the RESTATEMENT'S principles of vicarious liability do n......
  • Brown v. ACUITY
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • May 30, 2012
    ...going” rule outlined in DeRuyter v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 200 Wis.2d 349, 361, 546 N.W.2d 534 (Ct.App.1996), aff'd,211 Wis.2d 169, 565 N.W.2d 118 (1997), which states that “only when the employer exercises control over the method or route of the employee's travel to or from work can......
  • Estate of Murray v. Travelers Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • August 10, 1999
    ...DeRuyter v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 200 Wis. 2d 349, 546 N.W.2d 534 (Ct. App. 1996),aff'd by an equally divided court,211 Wis. 2d 169, 565 N.W.2d 118 (1997), is inapplicable. Applying the general respondeat superior rules, we determine that Baritt was acting within the scope of her em......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT