Court Opinion

ID: 9689221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:25:01.870157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.184619
License: Public Domain

HEFFERNAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
(concurring). I concur only for the purpose of again stating my dissatisfaction with this court’s continued adherence to Waube v. Warrington, 216 Wis. 603, 258 N.W. 497 (1935). We have tried to explain the Waube holding away in Garrett v. City of New Berlin, 122 Wis. 2d 223, 362 N.W.2d 137 (1985), and in LaFleur v. Mosher, 109 Wis. 2d 112, 325 N.W.2d 314 (1982). The results *34reached in those cases were correct, but it should not have been necessary to have found reasons why the Waube rule was bad law if applied in those circumstances. It is bad law in any circumstance. As explained in my concurrence to Garrett, at 239 ff., Waube is in itself contrary to accepted Wisconsin tort jurisprudence. I repeat what I wrote then, at 242:
It is time we dispense with the automatic and irrational application of the liability limiting formulations that the majority attempts to distinguish but at the same time fervently embraces.
I am authorized to state that Justice William A. Bablitch joins in this concurrence.