Walter D. Giertsen Co. v. State
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; February 28, 1967; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court
The plaintiffs, contractors, entered into a contract with the state to build bridges that were subsequently flooded. They allege damages due to the state withholding material information regarding flood risks. The trial court found that the state did not disclose a geological survey report predicting a 50% chance of flooding, which the plaintiffs argue would have led them to adopt different construction techniques. The court emphasized that the contract required the contractors to conduct their own investigations, making them aware of the risks involved. The contract also stated that submitting a proposal indicated that the bidder had conducted necessary examinations. The court distinguished this case from others involving misrepresentation or nondisclosure of concrete facts. No affirmative misrepresentations were made by the state, and the withheld information was based on predictions rather than definitive facts. The testimony indicated that the state engineer deemed the geological survey unreliable, and there was no evidence of malice in the nondisclosure. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of flooding under their contractual obligations, and therefore, their claims were properly dismissed. The trial court's findings indicated that the report referenced flood frequencies and elevations of the Wisconsin River at the construction site, which were not reasonably obtainable through on-site investigation or normal channels. However, the court's conclusion suggested that a proper examination by the plaintiffs would have revealed essential facts, including the state's superior knowledge, indicating a breach of duty by the plaintiffs. This inconsistency between the finding of fact and the conclusion of law is addressed by prioritizing the court's judgment, which ordered the dismissal of the complaint. The court referenced Morgan v. Richter (1919) to support the presumption that the judgment is correct. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiffs could have discovered all critical facts with thorough scrutiny of the bridge site. The judgment was affirmed, with Justice Wilkie abstaining from participation.