Tort reform for business passes the Wisconsin Assembly

Walker will sign it, and Wisconsin will have a new law.

Ok, I’ve been hard on Scott Walker in the past, but this is exactly the work effort I’d hope to see. Now do it again on a dozen other issues. 🙂

It will soon be harder to sue just because your feelings got hurt.

Here’s the bill.


  1. Not to re-open old wounds, but is your enthusiasm for this bill in any way related to your legal troubles from a year or two ago?

  2. Odd, giving up our freedom to address your grievances in court to business interests.

    As much as I try to understand the effort to trust business and downsize your ability to control your countries destiny, it will always be a mystery to me.

    Kleefisch is a bimbo, (noticing you blogs on Sly).

    Government health care for her, nothing for us. Freedom.

  3. Won’t apply, so no, Capper, it’s not.

  4. Demodude: You aren’t giving up anything. You just need to be sure you are in court for a legitimate reason with this new legislation.

    It would be “country’s destiny” – and actually this one is just about the state of Wisconsin.

    Kleefisch is not a bimbo, she’s a lieutenant governor, and Sly apologized. Plus, I didn’t blog it, I just linked it in a reader.

  5. Randy in Richmond says:

    As someone who doesn’t live in Wisconsin could you please explain how your Lt. Governor has ‘government health care’ ?

  6. cindy. much thanx for blogging the actual bill/law. it is more complex than the news stories say. it may also have some good provisions if only to clarify some of the laws. problem is that the old laws have prevailed so long the transition will take time. it will also be the subject of many legal seminars for both sides of litigation to sort out and explain. it may also be the subject of appeals. that being said my comments after a cursory no-expert reading are: in products liability cases new law manufacturer is only liable if distributor or seller assumes duty to manufacture, design or provide warnings . defendants not subject to service of process within WI. (huge change. where do you serve them a lawsuit and be assured it is done right ?). court must dismiss if insurer and defendant agree to jurisdiction of court. (of course they will not). court must dismiss if damage was caused by an INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC of product known by injured person. (an inherent characteristic !). the limits on pain and suffering, although not unfair, places a limit on the loss of a limb, mental capacity and ability to function normally. a dead adult is the lowest value at $350,000 . the injured party must prove acted with INTENT

  7. continued……..the defendant must have acted with INTENT to injure. (so you must prove a state of mind of a CEO, scientist, architect, etc. no can do). damages for frivolous claims against the plantiff and his/her lawyer but not against the defendant or their lawyer for a frivolous defense, which can happen). no it is called IMPROPER CONDUCT. (law professors will have a field day around the country writing articles so i leave it to those who are legal experts to interepret. thanx again Cindy for printing the actual law.

  8. Randy in Richmond says:

    When I first heard the reference to “Sly” I did not know who he is or specifically what he said. Having just read his actual on-air comments my question is, how is he still on the air ? Yea, I know he apologized but I hope no one brings up what Rush or Hannity or O’Reilly says until this loose cannon (can I say that) is fired. This wasn’t a slip of the tongue or a mis-speak, this was 100% smut.

  9. Sadly, I believe smut is Sly’s draw. The demographic to which he plays would enjoy such.

  10. Randy in Richmond says:

    To my knowledge there is no such demographic here. For a community that debated the opening of a Hooters’ I can’t believe there isn’t an outcry for his outster.

  11. It was actually the tiny blue demographic island of Madison, affectionately known as Madistan, and not here.