Court Opinion

ID: 9703344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:52:45.856702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:47.685911
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). The rule applied by the majority in this case began as a judicial construction of statutory language relating to accrual of the cause of action. I believe the court erred in its interpretation of the statutory language and should now correct the erroneous statutory construction. State ex rel. Chobot v. Circuit Court, 61 Wis.2d 354, 366, 212 N.W.2d 690 (1973).
Chief Justice Hallows, in his dissenting opinion in Peterson v. Roloff, 57 Wis.2d 1, 7, 203 N.W.2d 699 (1973), wisely urged the court to adopt a more realistic view of what constitutes an injury and to adopt the “discovery rule.” I agree with Chief Justice Hallows’ observation that this court:
“ ‘closed our courtroom doors without legislative help, and we can likewise open them.’ Our courts should be *361alive to the demands of justice. Here, the legislature has not defined accrual of a cause of action and this case calls for the exercise of our judicial duty to interpret the statutory language ‘after the cause of action has accrued’ so as to offer reasonable protection to the innocent victim of [alleged] medical malpractice.” Peterson v. Roloff, supra, 57 Wis.2d at 16-17.
The circuit court was correct. I dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Roland B. Day joins me in this dissent.