Do you like to ski in Wisconsin? Do you like going to the waterparks and attractions in the Wisconsin Dells? We all do. So why would Governor Doyle want to end all of that?

Major business liability expansions are buried deep in the 1743-page Wisconsin State budget bill Assembly Bill 75 (AB 75). These policy changes will dramatically change Wisconsin’s regulatory climate, tilting the scales of justice away from judicial fairness toward more litigation, more damages awards and ultimately to a less competitive Wisconsin business climate. (WMC Radio Ads Oppose Liability Expansion in State Budget www.wmc.org)

Here are details on this:

• Anyone with equal or greater fault than the plaintiff can be held 100% responsible “jointly and severally liable,” even if the defendant is only 20% at fault. (AB 75, page 1605) Existing law requires a person to be at least 51% at fault before he or she can be held responsible for 100% of damages.
• A person or business that is less at fault than the plaintiff can be sued so long as the “combined” fault of all persons sued is equal to or greater than the plaintiff. (AB 75, page 1605) Existing law requires the plaintiff to be less at fault than each defendant he or she is suing. For example, under the budget language a plaintiff fifty percent at fault for his own injury could recover damages from five defendants, in combination, who were each ten percent at fault.
• Under the budget bill, the court must inform the jury how the jury’s findings on fault affect responsibility for damages, and the parties’ legal counsel may also instruct the jury regarding the consequences of their determination of fault. These instructions will allow juries to adjust fault determinations to maximize awards. (AB 75, page 1588) Existing law limits a jury’s duty to fact finding, consistent with over a hundred-year rule of jurisprudence.
• These budget bill provisions repeal the reforms passed in 1995 intended to match liability more closely to fault and fairness. Those changes had public hearings with the full deliberation of the legislative process, and passed with wide, bi-partisan support.
• The Governor’s budget not only abolishes these bipartisan reforms, it sets forth a system even more radical than existed prior to 1995, and does so without meaningful public input, and buried deep in the 1743-page budget.
• Virtually every Wisconsin business and anyone with financial resources will potentially be a target under these provisions. At a minimum, these provisions should be removed from the budget and debated as separate legislation, with public hearings and the full deliberation of the Legislature.

My email / letter:

Subject: Eliminate Joint & Several Liability Changes and Jury Instructions in State Budget

Dear Senator Mark Miller and Representative Joe Parisi,

I love Wisconsin because of all it offers. We get to enjoy all 4 seasons even though winter seems to last forever. This last winter was cold! Brrr!

Actually, I used to hate winter but now I love it. I became a ski instructor up at Cascade Mountain. This next winter will be my 4th year and I'm going for my Level 2 exam, which I'm studying for now - in the summer.

This bill could easily end all that fun. Places like ski hills will have a tough time staying in business if their insurance goes sky high. All the people coming up from Chicago every weekend will end up going to another state. Literally every group lesson I give has people from Illinois in it. I ask. We'll lose that income and tax revenue. That's not smart for the kind of economy that we're in right now.

This bill CANNOT go through. This is not what we need. I urge you to please vote against it.

I know you can't do anything about how cold it gets here but you can help us take care of the businesses that give us something fun to do in the winter (or summer - Wisconsin Dells), which also greatly support our economy.

Do the right thing.

If the Wisconsin economy is important to you, I invite you to also send an email. Please do.

-Tony

And I got a response already. I'm not sure if this is a canned repsonse or not. Either way, it's a good response - here it is:

June 1, 2009

Dear Mr. Herman:

Thank you for your e-mail expressing your opposition to a budget proposal which would require an individual or business found to be 1% negligent to pay 100% of damages in an accident and the other regarding an increase in auto insurance. I heard from a number of constituents who believe the proposal is unfair and would negatively impact families and small businesses already struggling in the slowed economy. I appreciate you sharing your opinions with me about this.

The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee, which works on the budget, finished its work last week. The Committee did change the liability item. The original proposal for 1% causal negligence will be raised to 20% (the current percentage is 51%). In legal terms, it will also specify that the court compare the negligence of the plaintiff with the negligence of any party against whom recovery is sought, the negligence of third party defendants, and the negligence of any person with whom the claimant has settled. Except for persons who have settled with the plaintiff, there is no comparison of negligence with any person who is not a party to the action to recover damages.

As I am not a member of the Joint Finance Committee, I will likely only have an up or down vote on the entire budget when it reaches the Assembly later in June. I assure you I will carefully review the document as a whole when considering whether to support or oppose it. I will also be mindful of your concerns and those of others who have written on this issue when voting on the budget package. That should occur in late June.

Once again, thank you for contacting me with your opinion. If I can be of any further assistance to you on this, a different item in the budget, or any other legislative matter, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,

JOE PARISI
State Representative
48th Assembly District

-Tony

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)