|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED January 3, 1997 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-0141
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
KATHLEEN E. DOBRZNSKI
and
NORMAN L. SARACOFF, As
Guardian
Ad Litem for MOLLY E.
WELLS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LITTLE BLACK MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
and DEAN JARVIS,
Defendants-Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Clark County:
MICHAEL W. BRENNAN, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Dykman, P.J., and Vergeront, J.
PER
CURIAM. Kathleen E. Dobrzynski, and her minor daughter Molly
E. Wells, by her guardian ad litem, appeal from the trial court's grant of
summary judgment to respondents Little Black Mutual Insurance Company and its
insured, Dean Jarvis. Because we
conclude that the circuit court correctly entered summary judgment for the
respondents, we affirm.
On November 8, 1991,
Wells and her mother visited Jarvis's game farm. Wells placed her hand to the fence of a bear pen, and the bear drew
in her arm, biting and injuring her hand and arm. Wells sued, alleging that Jarvis failed to exercise ordinary care
in controlling the animal and that the bear was negligently unguarded and
improperly confined. The circuit court
granted Jarvis summary judgment, citing Hudson v. Janesville Conservation
Club, 168 Wis.2d 436, 484 N.W.2d 132 (1992).
On review of a summary
judgment, we adopt the same methodology as the trial court. Our review is therefore de novo. Reel Enters. v. City of La Crosse,
146 Wis.2d 662, 667, 431 N.W.2d 743, 746 (Ct. App. 1988).
Although the parties
disagree, we conclude that no material facts are in dispute. Everyone acknowledges that Wells put her
hand to the bear pen fence and that the bear bit her, injuring her arm. These facts are sufficient to a
determination of the case under Hudson, 168 Wis.2d at 441-43, 484
N.W.2d at 134-35.[1]
In Hudson,
the supreme court held that a wild animal held captive in a game park does not
cease to be a wild animal. The court
held that § 895.52(2)(b), Stats.,
therefore immunizes the landowner from liability. Id. at 443, 484 N.W.2d at 134.
Section 895.52(2)(b), Stats., reads in relevant part:
"[N]o owner and no officer, employe or agent of an owner is liable ... for
any ... injury resulting from an attack by a wild animal."
We are bound by prior
decisions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Livesey v. Copps Corp.,
90 Wis.2d 577, 581, 280 N.W.2d 339, 341 (Ct. App. 1979), and the supreme court
has decided that landowners in Jarvis's position are immunized from liability
under § 895.52(2)(b), Stats.,
for injuries incurred by wild animals.
We therefore affirm.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.