On Tuesday the state Senate approved a bill that if signed into law will provide businesses with strong protections against lawsuits. The bill limits non-economic damages – payments for loss of companionship, mental distress and pain and suffering – to $750,000 in medical malpractice cases at nursing homes, and it also limits punitive damages to $200,000 or double the amount of compensatory damages.
However, not content to limit the amount of financial exposure companies or businesses would face in a lawsuit, the bill also raises the standard for winning punitive damages, a standard that currently requires plaintiffs prove that defendants acted maliciously or with intentional disregard for the rights of victims. The new standard put into place by the bill would require plaintiffs to prove that defendants acted “with intent to cause injury to a particular person” or with a knowledge that their action would lead to that result.
As if limits on damages and making it harder to win a lawsuit aren’t a big enough handout to businesses, the bill passed by the state Senate would also prevent reports required by state regulators, or statements from employees of a health care provider, from being used as evidence in civil and criminal actions.
The message to take away from the passage of S.B. 1? If you’re a business that produces lead paint or pointy toys (or better yet, pointy toys painted with lead paint), Republicans want you to know Wisconsin is “Open for Business,” but if you’re a consumer who’s been harmed in some way by a faulty product or negligence on the part of a company, you might as well drop dead, because you’re highly unlikely to win a lawsuit, and even if you do, you won’t get much for your trouble.
It’ll encourage the more litigious workers to leave the state, which is good for business, which means they’ll create more good-paying jobs. That’s what business always wants to do – create good-paying jobs. They hate finding people who will work for less.
“It’ll encourage the more litigious workers to leave the state…”
Huh?
“That’s what business always wants to do – create good-paying jobs.”
Double ‘Huh’?
Sarcasm doesn’t always come across well. Did you mean what you wrote?
Yeah, it was sarcasm.
Sometimes sarcasm doesn’t come off well because of the receiving end.
Yes,that is true. I am not as versed in sarcasm as you may be.
it doesnt address companies suing other companies which is what a vast majority of the cases in the courts are.
The bill also impacts families in the disability community in 3 ways
1. The bill will no longer allow families to use incident reports or
investigative reports in court. These reports may prove that abuse or
neglect occurred.
2. The bill adds limits for awarding punitive damages, the type of
damages that punish a facility for wrongdoing.
3. In certain cases, even when a death or serious injury occurs, a
negligent care provider will be protected from criminal charges.
The bill will no longer allow families to use incident reports or
investigative reports in court. These reports may prove that abuse or
neglect occurred.
The reports are hearsay. I would say that prohibition is a good thing. I note you already can’t use accident reports or traffic citations to establish liability in a civil case.
The punitive damage reform is silly in my opinion, it’s already a difficult standard.
If they wanted to accomplish a true reform they should have considered a statute of repose for manufacturers.
Where was this headline in 2009 and 2010? How many bills did the Senate Democrats in charge have that did or did not create jobs? Sure they named that one “Clean Energy Jobs Act” but that didn’t make it so — only drive jobs out of state!
The Clean Energy Jobs Act didn’t drive a single job out of the state.
That’s only because it didn’t pass!
How did this act drive jobs out of state? Is it too much to ask that you support your assertions with facts?
CEJA didn’t drive jobs out of the state; forgot’s just assuming it would have, based on his opposition to renewable energy.
Interesting that I don’t think you’ve ever asked anyone else on here to back up their arguments with facts. My assumption is based in that not too many businesses or people would have been able to weather the skyrocketing of energy bills that would have resulted had the legislation passed. Farmers, manfucturers, and consumers would have been hurt.
By the way, I don’t oppose renewable energy. I think it can be promoted, along with allowing nuclear power, in a way that doesn’t create an arbitrary mandate that can’t/won’t be met.