Court Opinion

ID: 9690282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:02:29.277668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:54.886645
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.

(concurring).

¶ 250. The constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 895.04(4) is jeopardized by the extreme interpretation advanced by the majority. It is with good cause that no party or amici argued such an interpretation. No one argued it be*142cause it is clearly wrong. Moreover, the defense bar does not want to jeopardize the constitutionality of the caps.
¶ 251. Although I join the concurrence of Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Crooks as to the issues of statutory interpretation and remittitur, I write separately because I am not prepared to join its constitutional discussion. The concurrence correctly notes the impediment it faces in addressing the constitutional implications of the majority's position: the briefs and arguments in this case were framed to address a less radical approach. The concurrence offers a discussion of the constitutional implications of the majority's decisions and reviews authority from other jurisdictions. It recognizes that the discussion of constitutionality is being offered without the benefit of briefs. I prefer to wait until the arguments are fully developed and briefed before I address the constitutional questions. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.