Rabideau v. City of Racine
Wisconsin Supreme Court
627 N.W.2d 795 (2001)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Julie Rabideau’s (plaintiff) dog, Dakota, jumped out of her truck as she parked in her driveway and ran across the street where Jed, a dog owned by Thomas Jacobi, was sitting in the front yard of Jacobi’s home. Shortly thereafter, Jacobi, who worked as a police officer for the City of Racine, Wisconsin (the City) (defendant), shot Dakota. Dakota later died. Upon seeing the shooting and later learning of her dog’s death, Rabideau suffered emotional trauma. Rabideau filed suit against the City for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). The parties disputed the facts surrounding the shooting. The City argued that Dakota ran onto Jacobi’s property and attacked Jed and, fearing for the safety of his nearby wife and child, fired several shots from his service revolver in the vicinity of Dakota, but did not strike him. As Dakota moved toward the street, the City claims that the dog turned his head and began snarling at Jacobi and Jed. At that point, Jacobi shot Dakota believing he was about to charge. Conversely, Rabideau claimed that Dakota never attacked Jed and that Jacobi shot him as Dakota stepped off the curb toward her home. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Rabideau appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bablitch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
