Key Defenses Used in Wisconsin Personal Injury Lawsuits

When it comes to personal injury lawsuits in Wisconsin, defendants often employ various legal defenses to counter the claims made against them. Understanding these defenses can be crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants alike. Below are some of the key defenses commonly used in Wisconsin personal injury cases.

1. Comparative Negligence

Wisconsin follows a modified comparative negligence law, which means that if the injured party is found to be partially at fault for the accident, their compensation can be reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 but found to be 30% responsible, they would only receive $70,000. This defense is frequently utilized by defendants to lessen their financial liability.

2. Assumption of Risk

Another common defense in personal injury lawsuits is the assumption of risk. This occurs when the injured party voluntarily exposes themselves to a known risk, potentially absolving the defendant of liability. For instance, if someone is injured while participating in an inherently dangerous activity, such as bungee jumping or skateboarding, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk by choosing to engage in that activity.

3. Statute of Limitations

Wisconsin law imposes a statute of limitations on personal injury claims, typically allowing only three years from the date of the injury to file a lawsuit. If a plaintiff fails to initiate legal action within this timeframe, the defendant can use this as a defense to have the case dismissed. Therefore, being aware of the timelines is critical for plaintiffs.

4. Lack of Causation

Defendants may also argue a lack of causation, asserting that their actions or negligence did not directly result in the plaintiff’s injuries. This defense requires the defendant to provide evidence or expert testimony that links the plaintiff's injuries to an alternative source or incident, rather than the defendant's actions. Successfully establishing this defense can lead to a dismissal of the case.

5. Independent Intervening Cause

This defense revolves around the idea that an independent intervening cause—such as a third party’s actions—was responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. If the defendant can prove that an intervening event occurred after their alleged negligent act and was the direct cause of the injury, they may avoid liability. For example, if a car crash was exacerbated by another vehicle hitting the plaintiff's car afterward, the defendant might argue that they are not solely responsible.

6. Consent

In situations involving certain activities (like sports or recreational events), defendants may assert that the plaintiff consented to participate and, therefore, cannot claim damages. The consent defense is often employed in cases of contact sports and recreational activities, where participants recognize the inherent risks involved.

7. Preexisting Condition

If the defendant can provide evidence that the plaintiff's injuries were a result of a preexisting condition rather than the incident in question, they may be able to avoid liability. This defense emphasizes the importance of medical records and history in personal injury cases. For example, if someone sustained a back injury that was previously documented before an accident occurred, the defendant might argue that the injury was not caused by their actions.

Conclusion

Understanding the defenses commonly used in Wisconsin personal injury lawsuits can help both plaintiffs and defendants navigate the complexities of the legal system. Awareness of defenses such as comparative negligence, assumption of risk, and causation underlines the importance of thorough legal representation and strategic planning for anyone involved in such cases.