Adam R. Mayhugh v. State of Wisconsin
867 N.W.2d 754
Wis.2015Background
- Inmate Adam Mayhugh was struck in the head by a foul ball while seated in the bleachers at Redgranite Correctional Institution and suffered serious injuries.
- Mayhugh sued the State, the Department of Corrections (DOC), and others alleging negligence in the design/maintenance of the baseball facility and failure to protect spectators.
- The DOC moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity; the circuit court granted dismissal and found lack of consent to suit and insufficient notice for claims against individual state employees.
- The court of appeals summarily affirmed; Mayhugh appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on two main grounds: (1) DOC is an "independent going concern" and thus not immune; (2) Wis. Stat. §301.04 ("may sue and be sued") constitutes an express waiver of sovereign immunity for torts.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether DOC is an independent entity (exception to sovereign immunity) and whether the legislature expressly waived immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC is an "independent going concern" outside sovereign immunity | Mayhugh: DOC's broad statutory powers and authorities create budgetary and operational independence, so it is not an arm of the state | State/DOC: DOC lacks critical indicia of independence (no body corporate status, no budgetary autonomy, limitations on real estate/contracting, subject to DOA and appropriations) | Held: DOC is not an independent going concern; it is an arm of the state and entitled to sovereign immunity |
| Whether Wis. Stat. §301.04 ("may sue and be sued") is an express waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims | Mayhugh: The statutory grant to "sue and be sued" should be read as legislative consent to tort suit against DOC | State/DOC: "Sue and be sued" language addresses capacity to be named as a party, not waiver of tort immunity; express legislative waiver is required | Held: §301.04 does not expressly waive tort sovereign immunity; it confers capacity to be sued only where legislature otherwise permits suit |
| Whether prior case Lindas controls interpretation of "sue and be sued" for tort waiver | Mayhugh: Distinguish post-Holytz enactment of §301.04 and argue different context | State/DOC: Lindas (and related precedent) establishes that "sue and be sued" historically does not waive tort immunity; federal authorities are not controlling | Held: Lindas governs tort context here; §301.04 mirrors earlier language and does not constitute waiver |
| Whether applying sovereign immunity violates Art. I, §9 (right to remedy) | Mayhugh: Sovereign immunity leaves injured persons without remedy against the State, violating constitutional remedy clause | State/DOC: Sovereign immunity is a constitutional principle (Art. IV, §27) and waiver is for the legislature to enact; courts have rejected Art. I, §9 as creating a private right to sue the State | Held: No violation of Art. I, §9; precedent rejects a constitutional right to sue the State absent legislative consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Lister v. Bd. of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282 (court's framework for agency-as-arm analysis under sovereign immunity)
- Majerus v. State Armory Bd., 39 Wis. 2d 311 (identifying attributes supporting independent going concern)
- State ex rel. Warren v. Nusbaum, 59 Wis. 2d 391 (State Housing Finance Authority treated as independent going concern based on broad proprietary/fiscal powers)
- Bahr v. State Inv. Bd., 186 Wis. 2d 379 (State Investment Board held independent going concern)
- Lindas v. Cady, 142 Wis. 2d 857 (Ct. App.) ("sue and be sued" language in tort context does not waive sovereign immunity)
- Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26 (distinguishing abrogation of municipal governmental immunity from sovereign immunity; legislature must consent to suit)
- Sullivan v. Bd. of Regents, 209 Wis. 242 (early discussion of attributes indicating whether a board is an arm of the state)
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (federal presumption that "sue and be sued" clauses constitute waiver — discussed but found inapplicable to Wisconsin sovereign-immunity analysis)