HolyCoast: The Product Liability Capital of the USA
Follow RickMoore on Twitter

Thursday, January 19, 2006

The Product Liability Capital of the USA

Welcome to Wisconsin - a veritable petri dish of liberal ideas which, thanks to the Dem governor, may be the most dangerous place in America to do business (from the Wall Street Journal).
In 2004, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked Wisconsin one of the top 10 states for its fair litigation atmosphere. Unfortunately two forces converged in 2005 to destroy all that.

First, the balance of power in the closely divided Wisconsin Supreme Court shifted after Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle appointed a liberal to a vacant seat on the bench. The reconstituted court quickly handed down several rulings that alarmed the business and medical communities. Second, while the Republican-controlled state Legislature passed a number of bills to temper the effects of these rulings, the governor vetoed three such measures in the past few months, and Republicans don't have the votes to override these vetoes.

On Jan. 6, Gov. Doyle vetoed a bill that would have held manufacturers liable for damages caused only by products they'd made, in most cases. Without the bill, manufacturers that once produced lead paint, for example, can be held liable in Wisconsin for virtually any lead poisoning--a plaintiff doesn't need to prove that the paint was made by the manufacturer, or even that his lead poisoning was caused by paint, as opposed to, say, lead-contaminated soil or lead pipes.

"These vetoes will negate all of these legislative efforts and will make Wisconsin the litigation capital of America," said Ted Kanavas, a state senator who chairs the committee aimed at economic development in Wisconsin.

And just how bad has it gotten? Check out this case:
The product-liability veto, though, caused the most consternation in business circles. It started with the case of J. Steven Thomas, who claimed to have eaten paint chips containing lead pigment in the early 1990s. At that time, he lived in rental housing built in the early 1900s, when the use of lead-based paint was common. Wisconsin did not ban lead-based paint until 1980.

Mr. Thomas, who had already recovered about $324,000 from his landlords' insurers nevertheless sued seven lead pigment manufacturers for more damages. The case was brought despite his admission that he could not identify which companies manufactured the lead pigment used in the paint he allegedly ingested, and that he could not even identify whether any of the seven defendants ever manufactured the pigments involved.

Historically, plaintiffs in personal injury cases have almost always had to prove a specific product manufactured by a specific defendant actually caused an injury. But the Wisconsin Supreme Court did away with this rule in another July 2005 opinion written by a liberal Doyle appointee, which held that Mr. Thomas could prevail if he could prove that the defendants manufactured and marketed lead pigments, even if the pigments were not in the paint chips he allegedly ate. The premise for this liability is that the defendants participated in the industry that contributed to the risk to the plaintiff.

"The end result of the majority opinion," argued one dissenting justice, is that "the defendants . . . can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced, which may or may not have caused the plaintiff's injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred over 100 years ago when some of the defendants were not even part of the relevant market." Another dissenter wrote that the case "created a remedy for lead paint poisoning so sweeping and draconian that it will be nearly impossible for paint companies to defend themselves or, frankly, for plaintiffs to lose."
In typical liberal fashion, the lefties have managed to remove all person responsibility from the plaintiffs in tort cases, and have made others responsible who may have had no connection to the case whatsoever. It's a typical anti-big business or anti-capitalism approach.

This is why it's so important to elect conservative governors and presidents who will appoint conservative judges.

No comments: