Watts, William v. Construction Company et al

Filing 135

ORDER denying 131 plaintiff William M. Watts's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 12/9/2020. (lam),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

WILLIAM M. WATTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK KIDMAN and BRAZOS URETHANE, INC.,

ORDER
18-cv-49-jdp

Defendants.
In a previous order, I granted the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants
Dr. Mark Kidman and Brazos Urethane, Inc. on plaintiff William Watts’s claims that
defendants’ negligence caused him to be sprayed in the face with a roof-priming chemical and
suffer serious eye injury. Dkt. 129. Before the court is Watts’s motion under Rule 59 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend that decision. Dkt. 131. Watts argues that
a reasonable jury could conclude that Brazos Urethane failed to conduct its roofing work safely
and that Kidman failed to exercise the standard of care that an average optometrist would have
exercised when treating Watts.
A Rule 59(e) motion is successful only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that
the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence
precluded entry of judgment. Cincinnati Life Insurance Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir.
2013). Watts’s argument does not fit into either category. Instead, he raises the same
arguments and evidence that I considered and rejected in granting defendants’ motions for
summary judgment. As I explained previously, the undisputed evidence did not support a
conclusion that Brazos Urethane’s or Kidman’s actions fell below the standard of care and
injured Watts. The only way that Watts could have overcome the evidence presented by

defendants would have been to introduce expert testimony in support of his claim. And as I
explained previously, the excerpts from Johns Hopkins Family Health Book, Wisconsin statutes,
and the material safety data sheet for GreenBlock Prime 100 cannot substitute for expert
evidence.
Because Watts has identified no errors of law or fact and no newly discovered evidence,
I will deny his motion.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff William M. Watts’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt.
131, is DENIED.
Entered December 9, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2