## Facts

- Roland Monicken, institutionalized in a dementia unit, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and primary degenerative dementia and had documented delusions, disorientation, wandering, and occasional violence.
- Sheri Gould, a registered nurse and head nurse of the dementia unit, regularly cared for Monicken and knew his history of resisting care and sometimes acting combatively.
- Gould found Monicken in another patient’s room and attempted to redirect him by touching his elbow.
- Monicken pushed or struck Gould, knocking her to the floor and causing injury.
- Gould and her husband sued Monicken and his liability insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, alleging negligence; the insurer argued Monicken’s incapacity precluded negligence liability.

## Issues

1. Whether Wisconsin negligence law should recognize a subjective mental-incapacity defense that departs from the objective reasonable-person standard.
2. Whether, if the plaintiffs’ judgment was to be reversed, the case required a remand for fact-finding on Monicken’s capacity or instead required judgment for the insurer.
3. Whether public policy bars negligence liability when an institutionalized, severely mentally disabled patient injures a paid professional caregiver during care-related interactions.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of the plaintiffs’ judgment but on different grounds.
- The court declined to adopt a general mental-incapacity defense to negligence and did not abandon the objective reasonable-person standard as a general rule.
- The court announced a limited no-liability rule: an institutionalized mentally disabled person who lacks capacity to control or appreciate conduct is not liable for injuries to caretakers employed for financial compensation.
- The court reversed the court of appeals’ remand for a capacity determination and directed entry of judgment consistent with non-liability, concluding further fact-finding was unnecessary in light of the record and plaintiffs’ inability to rebut incapacity evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Wisconsin generally applies an objective reasonable-person standard in negligence; mental illness is not ordinarily a categorical defense.
- As a public-policy limitation, an institutionalized patient who lacks capacity to control or appreciate conduct is not liable in negligence to paid professional caregivers for injuries arising from disability-related behavior in the caregiving setting.
- Public policy may bar liability where the risk is foreseeable and part of compensated professional caregiving, where loss-spreading mechanisms such as workers’ compensation exist, and where imposing tort liability on incapacitated patients and their families is considered unfair and socially counterproductive.
- When the material facts and record render additional capacity proceedings unnecessary, an appellate court may direct entry of judgment rather than remand.

## Conclusion

The court carved out a narrow public-policy exception shielding severely incapacitated institutionalized patients from negligence liability to paid professional caregivers for illness-related conduct, while preserving the general objective negligence standard for other contexts.


Gould v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 198 Wis. 2d 450, 543 N.W.2d 282 (Wis. 1996)