Court Opinion

ID: 9675401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:52:37.242079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.240666
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
¶ 32. (dissenting). The statute here, Wis. Stat. § 895.045(2), is plain. As material, it reads: "[I]f 2 or more parties act in accordance with a common scheme or plan, those parties are jointly and severally liable for all damages resulting from that action." The statute has two parts:
(1) two or more persons "act in accordance with a common scheme or plan," with
(2) resulting damage to someone.
Those "2 or more parties" are then "jointly and severally liable for all damages resulting from that action." Ibid. (emphasis added).
¶ 33. No one disputes that Tomakia Pratchet, David Schrimpf, and Robert Zimmerlee acted in accordance with a common scheme or plan to buy alcohol for Zimmerlee, who could not lawfully buy it himself. Also, no one disputes, that as a result of Zimmerlee's drink*723ing the alcohol bought for him by Pratchet, he killed Christopher Richards by ramming Richards's car.
¶ 34. Richards would not have been killed by Zimmerlee if Zimmerlee had not been drunk as a result of drinking the alcohol bought for him by Pratchet. Under the unambiguous language of Wis. Stat. § 895.045(2), set out above, that ends our analysis. See State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 44, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 662, 681 N.W.2d 110, 123-124 (unless there is a constitutional infirmity or a lack of clarity, we take and apply statutes as they are written).
¶ 35. In my view, the Majority has overly complicated a simple matter by attempting to read the tea leaves of cases and concepts that are not on point because they pre-date what the legislature did in 1995, and thus, in my view, are inapplicable. As Kalal reminds us, "[o]urs is 'a government of laws not men,' and 'it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawgiver promulgated.' " Id., 2004 WI 58, ¶ 52, 271 Wis. 2d at 667, 681 N.W.2d at 126 (quoted source omitted). Wisconsin Stat. § 895.045(2) is plain and applies here.
¶ 36. I respectfully dissent and would affirm.