On July 17, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found a director for facilities at Camp Randall to be the negligent party in the death of an ABC network cameraman six years ago.
This decision allows the estate of Richard Umansky to pursue a wrongful death suit against Barry Fox, which otherwise would not have been possible due to certain immunities granted to individual public employees.
The findings of the Supreme Court showed that Fox unquestionably had a responsibility to ensure that the platform from which Umansky fell had safety railings.
The incident took place on Nov. 22, 2003, while Umansky was setting up a camera alone on an entry ramp to the stadium in preparation for the Wisconsin-Iowa football game. Umansky was rushed to the hospital but died two days later from his injuries.
Umansky, 48, had been an employee of ABC Sports for nearly 20 years. ABC has already been fined by federal safety regulators and has agreed to make sure safety precautions, like railings and harnesses, would be ensured for employees in the future.
The negligence case was first tried in Dane County Circuit Court in 2006, where a judge decided that, as an employer, the University of Wisconsin had the duty of safety, not Fox. As a state agency, however, UW is protected from lawsuits.
The case was then appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeals, which overturned the circuit court’s decision. According to the panel of judges, Fox was responsible for making sure Camp Randall had adequate safety measures that were up to regulation.
The Supreme Court just narrowly upheld the same views as the court of appeals, with three of the seven justices, including Annette Ziegler, dissenting. According to the court, Fox had ministerial duties of safety which he failed to perform, and thus is accountable for Umansky’s death.
Fox was defended by the Wisconsin Department of Justice. John Glinski, the attorney defending Fox, said the Supreme Court’s decision broke no new ground in precedence. According to Glinski, the immunity has never been granted when ministerial obligations are evident.
Glinski also said that if the case is not settled out of court, then it will be retried in circuit court. The date for trial, Glinski added, is yet to be determined and may not be set for a long time.
Jason Knutson, one of attorneys representing Umansky’s estate, praised the Supreme Court for upholding the appeals court’s decision. Knutson said that although the state has made numerous attempts to get the case dismissed, the Supreme Court has finally allowed them to move forward.
Knutson agreed that a precise date for retrial in circuit court would most likely not be any time soon and said that a complete resolution of the case could possibly take years.
Knutson added that because the Supreme Court found Fox, not UW, to be accountable for negligence, the focus of the new trial will be narrower and more helpful for their side.
“I think that what at one point seemed like it may have been an uphill battle for us appears more to be a downhill one,” Knutson said.
