Ibrahim v. Samore

• Decision Date: 24 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-2129,82-2129
• Citation: 348 N.W.2d 554,118 Wis.2d 720
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: , 17 Ed. Law Rep. 651 Saad IBRAHIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodore SAMORE, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner.

Page 554

348 N.W.2d 554

118 Wis.2d 720, 17 Ed. Law Rep. 651

Saad IBRAHIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodore SAMORE, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner.

No. 82-2129.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Argued April 24, 1984.

Decided May 30, 1984.

Motion for Reconsideration dismissed July 24, 1984.^*

Charles R. Larsen, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), for defendant-respondent-petitioner; Charles D. Hoornstra, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief.

Daniel R. McCormick, Milwaukee (argued), for plaintiff-appellant; Michael T. Sheedy and Techmeier, Sheedy & Associates, Milwaukee, on brief.

STEINMETZ, Justice.

The issue in this case is whether compliance with sec. 893.82(1), Stats., ¹ which requires that notice be given to the attorney general within 120 days of an alleged injury caused by a state officer, employee or agent for an act growing out of or committed in the course of the discharge of the officer's, employee's or agent's duties, is a condition precedent to commencing a civil action or proceeding against that officer, employee or agent.

This case involves a tort action in libel which was commenced by plaintiff Saad Ibrahim in the Milwaukee county circuit court, Honorable John E. McCormick. Defendant Theodore Samore moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the notice requirement of sec. 893.82(1), Stats. ^** The circuit court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals which, in a published decision, reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. ² Samore petitioned this court for review which was granted.

At all relevant times, plaintiff Ibrahim and defendant Samore were members of the faculty in the School of Library and Information Science (SLIS) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Ibrahim was a member of the executive committee of the SLIS and Samore was chairperson of that committee.

According to the affidavit of the defendant which was filed with his motion to dismiss, he, as chairperson, "regularly calls meetings of the Executive Committee, presides at these meetings, transmits minutes of the meetings to the Dean, to the Secretary of the University and to Executive Committee members, and maintains such minutes in School files." The affidavit of Mohammed Aman, dean of SLIS, which also was filed with the defendant's motion, states the same duties of the chairperson.

The SLIS executive committee met on February 25, 1981. One of the items of business was whether to recommend promotion of an individual to the tenured rank of associate professor. On February 27, 1981, Samore issued a memorandum to the members of the executive committee which stated in part: "Attached are the minutes of the meeting." The attached document provided in part:

"Ibrahim brought in a tape recorder to record the meeting. The remaining Committee members were indifferent to this display of paranoia.

"...

"Bartley moved and Sable seconded that the Executive Committee recommended to Dean Aman that Assistant Professor V. Stanton be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor beginning in the 1981-82 academic year. Ibrahim distributed copies of two documents that he requested be attached to the minutes. These refutable, appalling, unbelievable, bombastic and paranoic documents are entitled:

" 'Inapplicability of Procedures & Criteria Used by the SLS Executive Committee in Determining its Recommendation Concerning the Promotion of Assistant Professor Vida Stanton to Associate Professor.'

"and

" 'Reasons for my objection to Recommend the Promotion of Assistant Professor Vida Stanton to Associate Professor.'

"Ibrahim implored the Committee to address themselves to the details of the two memoranda.

"Samore pointed out that Ibrahim seems to be addressing the tape recorder not the Committee members. Samore spoke strongly in support of the motion.

"Bartley's motion carried. AYES-2 NAYS-1. (The Chairperson usually does not vote, except in the case of ties)."

On May 5, 1981, Samore wrote a note to the executive committee members asking them to bring the attached minutes of the February 25 meeting to the May 8, 1981, meeting for approval. Those new and different minutes of the same February 25 meeting read in pertinent part:

"Bartley moved and Sable seconded that the Executive Committee recommended to Dean Aman that Assistant Professor V. Stanton be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor beginning in the 1981-82 academic year. Discussion ensued.

"The motion carried. VOTE: Ayes-2 Nays-1 (Chairperson usually does not vote except to break ties and in other matters)."

Ibrahim filed with the trial court what he represented to be a transcript of the meeting of May 8, 1981. A material portion thereof reads:

"Samore: ... [T]he minutes from February 25, 1981, which you have a copy of.

"Ibrahim: Hold it here now. Hold it. Hold it. We had a different minutes for this.

"Samore: That is correct.

"Ibrahim: OK

"Samore: Now you have the minutes as

"Ibrahim: As what?

"Samore: Corrected.

"Ibrahim: How is it corrected?

"Samore: February 25 ... because the original minutes were done as a joke.

"Ibrahim: Were done as a joke?

"Samore: As a joke.

"Ibrahim: OK. That is interesting. Was done as a joke."

On January 20, 1982, ³ Ibrahim filed a notice of injury with the attorney general pursuant to sec. 893.82(1), Stats., almost eleven months after the alleged libel by the minutes of the meeting of February 25, 1981.

The court of appeals found an exception in this case for compliance with the notice requirements of sec. 893.82(1), Stats., and stated: "When a complaint alleges malicious, willful and intentional misconduct outside the scope of employment, it removes the action from the notice requirement." 114 Wis.2d at 535, 339 N.W.2d 354. Using the scope of employment test confuses sec. 895.46(1)(a), ⁴ the indemnity statute, with the relevant tests governing sec. 893.82, namely: "any act growing out of or committed in the course of the discharge of the officer's, employe's or agent's duties ...." The latter acts are broader than the former act of scope of employment.

Sec. 893.82, Stats., is a notice of injury statute. It applies to "any act" of a state officer, employee, or agent if "growing out of or committed in the course of the discharge of the officer's, employe's or agent's duties." No distinction is made for intentional or malicious acts. The statute requires that the notice of injury must be filed with the attorney general within 120 days of the event. It must be under oath and delivered to the attorney general at his capitol office by certified mail.

Failure to give the notice is fatal to the action. "No ... action ... may be brought" unless the notice is given. Sec 893.82(1), Stats. Failure to give such notice is jurisdictional and is not waived by a failure to plead it as an affirmative defense. As we stated in Mannino v. Davenport, 99 Wis.2d 602, 612, 299 N.W.2d 823 (1981):

"In light of our construction of other notice of injury statutes, we conclude that compliance with sec. 895.45(1) is necessary to warrant recovery against a state employee. Where a plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms of the statute and this defect is properly raised by a motion for summary judgment, the defendant is entitled to prevail whether or not he has raised the matter of noncompliance in his responsive pleading. This rule is in accord with the general view that notice of injury requirements cannot be waived." ⁵

The notice of injury statute "is not a statute of limitation but imposes a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action." Nelson v. American Employers' Ins. Co., 262 Wis. 271, 276, 55 N.W.2d 13 (1952).

The purpose of a notice of injury statute is to enable the attorney general to investigate fresh claims. Mannino, 99 Wis. at 609, 299 N.W.2d 823; Pattermann v. Whitewater, 32 Wis.2d 350, 357, 145 N.W.2d 705 (1966). In two cases the court of appeals consistently and correctly has held: " 'The purpose of sec. 895.45(1) [893.82(1) ], Stats., is to permit the attorney general to investigate a claim against an employee which might result in a judgment to be paid by the state under the indemnity statute, sec. 895.46.' " Doe v. Ellis, 103 Wis.2d 581, 589, 309 N.W.2d 375 (Ct.App.1981); Yotvat v. Roth, 95 Wis.2d 357, 367, 290 N.W.2d 524 (Ct.App.1980).

In Elm Park Iowa, Inc. v. Denniston, 92 Wis.2d 723, 286 N.W.2d 5 (Ct.App.1979), the complaint alleged intentional tortious conduct and therefore the plaintiff argued compliance with the notice of injury statute was unnecessary. The court correctly held that the notice of injury statute deals with " 'any act growing out of or committed in the course of the discharge of such ... employee's duties' " and that the statute "is broad enough to include any act of an employee that arises from intentional tortious conduct." Id. at 733, 734, 286 N.W.2d 5.

The doctrine of official immunity is an entirely different defense. It excuses public officials from liability for certain discretionary acts even if notice of injury is timely under sec. 893.82, Stats. "[P]ublic officers are immune from liability for damages resulting from their negligence or unintentional fault in the performance of discretionary functions." Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis.2d 282, 301, 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976). This rule is a common law substantive limitation on their personal liability for damages. Id. at 299, 240 N.W.2d 610. The reasons for official immunity are as follows:

"(1) The danger of influencing public officers in the performance of their functions by the threat of lawsuit; (2) the deterrent effect which the threat of personal liability might have on those who are considering entering public service; (3) the drain on valuable time caused by such actions; (4) the unfairness of subjecting officials to personal liability for the acts of their subordinates; and (5) the feeling that the ballot and removal procedures are more appropriate methods of...