Opinion ID: 2329816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Wisconsin Statute

Text: The Wisconsin Comparative Negligence Statute, heavily relied upon by the appellant, provides as follows: Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action by any person or his legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in the proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering. Wis.Stat.Ann. § 895.045. Initially, it is to be noted that the Wisconsin statute provides that contributory negligence on the part of a plaintiff shall not bar recovery if such negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought. The Pennsylvania statute, on the other hand, provides that recovery shall not be barred where plaintiff's negligence was not greater than the negligence of the defendant or defendants against whom recovery is sought. This difference in the statutory language is enough to distinguish the two statutes and to render meritless appellant's claim the Pennsylvania statute was patterned after the Wisconsin Act. [11] Moreover, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has indicated some dissatisfaction with the individual negligence comparison. In May v. Skelley Oil Co., 83 Wis.2d 30, 264 N.W.2d 574 (1978) it was observed: This case is one of many cases which have come before this court involving multiple party tortfeasors. [Plaintiff] urges the court to reexamine its interpretation of the comparative negligence statute. The majority of the court has become convinced that comparing the negligence of the individual plaintiff to that of each individual tortfeasor  rather than comparing the negligence of the individual plaintiff to that of the combined negligence of the several tortfeasors who have collectively contributed to plaintiff's injuries  leads to harsh and unjust results; . . . . Although the court in May v. Skelley Oil Co., supra believed the better rule was one that compared the negligence of the plaintiff to the combined negligence of all defendants, it declined to change the individual rule, concluding that the case before it was not an appropriate one for such action. [12]