893.50 Note
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.26 renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893. [Bill 326-A]
TORT ACTIONS
893.51
893.51
Action for wrongful taking of personal property. 893.51(1)(1) Except as provided in
sub. (2), an action to recover damages for the wrongful taking, conversion or detention of personal property shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred. The cause of action accrues at the time the wrongful taking or conversion occurs, or the wrongful detention begins.
893.51(2)
(2) An action under
s. 134.90 shall be commenced within 3 years after the misappropriation of a trade secret is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. A continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.
893.51 History
History: 1979 c. 323;
1985 a. 236.
893.51 Note
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is based on previous s. 893.19 (6), without change in substance, but with some expansion of language to make clear that accrual of the cause of action is not delayed until the person bringing the action learns of the wrongful taking or detention. An action for recovery of the personal property is subject to s. 893.35 which is also based on previous s. 893.19 (6). [Bill 326-A]
893.52
893.52
Action for damages for injury to property. An action, not arising on contract, to recover damages for an injury to real or personal property shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred, except in the case where a different period is expressly prescribed.
893.52 History
History: 1979 c. 323.
893.52 Note
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is based upon previous s. 893.19 (5) which is split into 2 separate provisions. See s. 893.53 for the other provision. [Bill 326-A]
893.52 Annotation
Section 893.19 (5), 1973 stats., applied to actions based on negligent construction of dwellings; statute begins to run when plaintiff suffered injury. Abramowski v. Wm. Kilps Sons Realty, Inc. 80 W (2d) 468, 259 NW (2d) 306.
893.52 Annotation
Limitation period begins when evidence of resultant injury is sufficiently significant to alert injured party to the possibility of a defect. Tallmadge v. Skyline Construction, Inc. 86 W (2d) 356, 272 NW (2d) 404 (Ct. App. 1978).
893.52 Annotation
See note to 893.43, citing State v. Holland Plastics Co. 111 W (2d) 497, 331 NW (2d) 320 (1983).
893.52 Annotation
In actions for legal malpractice, date of injury rather than date of negligent act commences period of limitations. Auric v. Continental Cas. Co. 111 W (2d) 507, 331 NW (2d) 325 (1983).
893.52 Annotation
Cause of action accrues when negligent act occurs, or last in continuum of negligent acts occur, and plaintiff has basis for objectively concluding defendant caused injuries and damages. Koplin v. Pioneer Power & Light, 162 W (2d) 1, 469 NW (2d) 595 (1991).
893.52 Annotation
This section permits parties to contract for lesser limitations periods and to specify the day the period begins to run. In such case the "discovery rule" does not apply. Keiting v. Skauge, 198 W (2d) 887, 543 NW (2d) 565 (Ct. App. 1995).
893.52 Annotation
A claim for asbestos property damage accrues when the plaintiff is informed of the presence of asbestos and that precautions are necessary. Banc One Building Management Corp. v. W.R. Grace Co., 210 W (2d) 62, 565 NW (2d) 154 (Ct. App. 1997).
893.52 Annotation
In the case of a claim for faulty workmanship, a builder's representation can result in a justifiable delay in discovering the cause of an injury. Whether the plaintiff's course of conduct is reasonable is a question of fact. Williams v. Kaerek Builders, Inc. 212 W (2d) 150, 568 NW (2d) 313 (Ct. App. 1997).
893.52 Annotation
A plaintiff can rely on the discovery rule only if he or she has exercised reasonable diligence. Jacobs v. Nor-Lake, 217 W (2d) 625, 579 NW (2d) 254 (Ct. App. 1998).
893.53
893.53
Action for injury to character or other rights. An action to recover damages for an injury to the character or rights of another, not arising on contract, shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues, except where a different period is expressly prescribed, or be barred.
893.53 History
History: 1979 c. 323.
893.53 Note
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is based upon previous s. 893.19 (5) which is split into 2 provisions. See s. 893.52 for the other provision. [Bill 326]
893.53 Annotation
This section applies to legal malpractice actions. Acharya v. Carroll, 152 W (2d) 330, 448 NW (2d) 275 (Ct. App. 1989).
893.53 Annotation
Application of discovery rule to legal malpractice action. Hennekens v. Hoerl, 160 W (2d) 144, 465 NW (2d) 812 (1991).
893.53 Annotation
This section and the discovery rule apply to engineering malpractice actions. Milwaukee Partners v. Collins Engineers, 169 W (2d) 355, 485 NW (2d) 274 (Ct. App. 1992).
893.53 Annotation
This section is the state's general and residual personal injury statute of limitations and is applicable to 42 USC 1983 actions. Hemberger v. Bitzer, 216 W (2d) 508, 574 NW (2d) 656 (1998).
893.53 Annotation
This section applies to actions under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Doe v. Milwaukee County, 871 F Supp. 1072 (1995).
893.53 Annotation
See also notes to 893.54 for additional treatments of 42 USC 1983.
893.54
893.54
Injury to the person. The following actions shall be commenced within 3 years or be barred:
893.54(1)
(1) An action to recover damages for injuries to the person.
893.54(2)
(2) An action brought to recover damages for death caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of another.
893.54 History
History: 1979 c. 323.
893.54 Note
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is derived from previous s. 893.205 but was amended to eliminate language now covered by newly created s. 893.07. (See note to s. 893.07). [Bill 326-A]
893.54 Annotation
See note to 893.18, citing Korth v. American Family Ins. Co. 115 W (2d) 326, 340 NW (2d) 494 (1983).
893.54 Annotation
See note to 893.12, citing Abraham v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 115 W (2d) 678, 341 NW (2d) 414 (Ct. App. 1983).
893.54 Annotation
This section applies to actions under 42 USC 1983. Hanson v. Madison Service Corp. 125 W (2d) 138, 370 NW (2d) 586 (Ct. App. 1985).
893.54 Annotation
See note to 893.80, citing Schwetz v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 126 W (2d) 32, 374 NW (2d) 241 (Ct. App. 1985).
893.54 Annotation
Where plaintiff's early subjective lay person's belief that furnace caused injury was contradicted by examining physicians, cause of action against furnace company did not accrue until plaintiff's suspicion was confirmed by later medical diagnosis. Borello v. U.S. Oil Co. 130 W (2d) 397, 388 NW (2d) 140 (1986).
893.54 Annotation
While adoptive parents were aware of possibility that child might develop disease in future, cause of action did not accrue until child was diagnosed as having disease. Meracle v. Children's Serv. Soc. 149 W (2d) 19, 437 NW (2d) 532 (1989).
893.54 Annotation
Where doctor initially diagnosed a defective prosthesis, but advised surgery as only way to determine what exactly was wrong, plaintiff's cause of action against prosthesis manufacturer accrued when diagnosis was confirmed by surgery. S.J.D. v. Mentor Corp., 159 W (2d) 261, 463 NW (2d) 873 (Ct. App. 1990).
893.54 Annotation
Brain damaged accident victim's cause of action accrued when he discovered, or when a person of the same degree of mental and physical handicap and under the same or similar circumstances should have discovered, the injury, its cause and nature and the defendants' identities. Carlson v. Pepin County, 167 W (2d) 345, 481 NW (2d) 498 (Ct. App. 1992).
893.54 Annotation
The discovery rule does not allow a plaintiff to delay the statute of limitations until the extent of the injury is known, but provides that the statute begins to run when the plaintiff has sufficient evidence that a wrong has been committed by an identified person. Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 W (2d) 303, 533 NW (2d) 780 (1995).
893.54 Annotation
A claim of repressed memory does not indefinitely toll the statute of limitations. A claim of repressed memory of past sexual assault does not delay the accrual of a cause of action regardless of the victim's minority or the position of trust occupied by the alleged perpetrator. Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 211 W (2d) 312, 565 NW (2d) 94 (1997).
893.54 Annotation
Parent's claims for injury resulting from the sexual assault of their child accrues when the child's claims accrue regardless of when the parents learn of their claim. Joseph W. v. Catholic Diocese of Madison, 212 W (2d) 925, 569 NW (2d) 795 (Ct. App. 1997).
893.54 Annotation
Federal civil rights actions under 42 USC 1983 are best characterized as personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 US 261 (1985).
893.54 Annotation
Residual or general personal injury statute of limitations applies to 42 USC 1983 actions. Owens v. Okure, 488 US 235, 102 LEd 2d 594 (1989).
893.54 Annotation
See also notes to 893.53 for additional treatments of 42 USC 1983.
893.55
893.55
Medical malpractice; limitation of actions; limitation of damages; itemization of damages. 893.55(1)
(1) Except as provided by
subs. (2) and
(3), an action to recover damages for injury arising from any treatment or operation performed by, or from any omission by, a person who is a health care provider, regardless of the theory on which the action is based, shall be commenced within the later of:
893.55(1)(a)
(a) Three years from the date of the injury, or
893.55(1)(b)
(b) One year from the date the injury was discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered, except that an action may not be commenced under this paragraph more than 5 years from the date of the act or omission.
893.55(2)
(2) If a health care provider conceals from a patient a prior act or omission of the provider which has resulted in injury to the patient, an action shall be commenced within one year from the date the patient discovers the concealment or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the concealment or within the time limitation provided by
sub. (1), whichever is later.
893.55(3)
(3) When a foreign object which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect has been left in a patient's body, an action shall be commenced within one year after the patient is aware or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have been aware of the presence of the object or within the time limitation provided by
sub. (1), whichever is later.
893.55(4)(a)(a) In this subsection, "noneconomic damages" means moneys intended to compensate for pain and suffering; humiliation; embarrassment; worry; mental distress; noneconomic effects of disability including loss of enjoyment of the normal activities, benefits and pleasures of life and loss of mental or physical health, well-being or bodily functions; loss of consortium, society and companionship; or loss of love and affection.
893.55(4)(b)
(b) The total noneconomic damages recoverable for bodily injury or death, including any action or proceeding based on contribution or indemnification, may not exceed the limit under
par. (d) for each occurrence on or after May 25, 1995, from all health care providers and all employes of health care providers acting within the scope of their employment and providing health care services who are found negligent and from the patients compensation fund.
893.55(4)(c)
(c) A court in an action tried without a jury shall make a finding as to noneconomic damages without regard to the limit under
par. (d). If noneconomic damages in excess of the limit are found, the court shall make any reduction required under
s. 895.045 and shall award as noneconomic damages the lesser of the reduced amount or the limit. If an action is before a jury, the jury shall make a finding as to noneconomic damages without regard to the limit under
par. (d). If the jury finds that noneconomic damages exceed the limit, the jury shall make any reduction required under
s. 895.045 and the court shall award as noneconomic damages the lesser of the reduced amount or the limit.
893.55(4)(d)
(d) The limit on total noneconomic damages for each occurrence under
par. (b) on or after May 25, 1995, shall be $350,000 and shall be adjusted by the director of state courts to reflect changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers, U.S. city average, as determined by the U.S. department of labor, at least annually thereafter, with the adjusted limit to apply to awards subsequent to such adjustments.
893.55(4)(e)
(e) Economic damages recovered under
ch. 655 for bodily injury or death, including any action or proceeding based on contribution or indemnification, shall be determined for the period during which the damages are expected to accrue, taking into account the estimated life expectancy of the person, then reduced to present value, taking into account the effects of inflation.
893.55(4)(f)
(f) Notwithstanding the limits on noneconomic damages under this subsection, damages recoverable against health care providers and an employe of a health care provider, acting within the scope of his or her employment and providing health care services, for wrongful death are subject to the limit under
s. 895.04 (4). If damages in excess of the limit under
s. 895.04 (4) are found, the court shall make any reduction required under
s. 895.045 and shall award the lesser of the reduced amount or the limit under
s. 895.04 (4).
893.55(5)
(5) Every award of damages under
ch. 655 shall specify the sum of money, if any, awarded for each of the following for each claimant for the period from the date of injury to the date of award and for the period after the date of award, without regard to the limit under
sub. (4) (d):
893.55(5)(a)
(a) Pain, suffering and noneconomic effects of disability.
893.55(5)(b)
(b) Loss of consortium, society and companionship or loss of love and affection.
893.55(6)
(6) Damages recoverable under this section against health care providers and an employe of a health care provider, acting within the scope of his or her employment and providing health care services, are subject to the provisions of
s. 895.045.
893.55(7)
(7) Evidence of any compensation for bodily injury received from sources other than the defendant to compensate the claimant for the injury is admissible in an action to recover damages for medical malpractice. This section does not limit the substantive or procedural rights of persons who have claims based upon subrogation.
893.55 Note
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section has been created to precisely set out the time periods within which an action to recover damages for medical malpractice must be commenced. The time provisions apply to any health care provider in Wisconsin.
893.55 Annotation
Sub. (1) contains the general time limitations for commencing a malpractice action. The subsection requires that such an action be commenced not later than 3 years from the event constituting the malpractice or not more than one year from the time the malpractice is discovered by the patient or should have been discovered by the patient. The patient has either the 3-year general time period or the one-year time period from the date of discovery, whichever is later. Subsection (1) further provides that in no event may a malpractice action be commenced later than 6 [5] years from the time of the alleged act or omission.
893.55 Annotation
Subs. (2) and (3) provide 2 exceptions to the one-, three-, and six-year time limitations contained in subsection (1). Subsection (2) provides that when a health care provider becomes aware of an act or omission constituting possible malpractice and intentionally conceals the act or omission from the patient, the patient has one year from the time he or she discovers the concealment or should have discovered the concealment to commence a malpractice action.
893.55 Annotation
Sub. (3) gives a patient one year from the time of discovery of a foreign object left in the patient's body or the time in which discovery should have occurred to commence a malpractice action. The subsection also contains a definition of a foreign object similar to the definition recently enacted by the state of California. [Bill 326-A]
893.55 Annotation
Under s. 893.205, 1975 stats., cause of action for medical malpractice occurred at time of misdiagnosis, not when the report transcribing the medical findings was furnished to plaintiff. Koschnik v. Smejkal, 96 W (2d) 145, 291 NW (2d) 574 (1980).
893.55 Annotation
"Continuum of negligent treatment" doctrine is not limited to single negligent actor. Robinson v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center, 137 W (2d) 1, 402 NW (2d) 711 (1987).
893.55 Annotation
While unsubstantiated lay belief of injury is not sufficient for discovery under sub. (1) (b), if plaintiff has information that constitutes basis for an objective belief of the injury and its cause, whether or not that belief resulted from "official" diagnosis from expert, the injury and its cause are discovered. Clark v. Erdmann, 161 W (2d) 428, 468 NW (2d) 18 (1991).
893.55 Annotation
Podiatrist is "health care provider" under 893.55. Clark v. Erdmann, 161 W (2d) 428, 468 NW (2d) 18 (1991).
893.55 Annotation
Physician's intentional improper sexual touching of patient was subject to s. 893.57 governing intentional torts not s. 893.55 governing medical malpractice. Deborah S.S. v. Yogesh N.G. 175 W (2d) 436, 499 NW (2d) 272 (Ct. App. 1993).
893.55 Annotation
A blood bank is not a "health care provider". Doe v. Nat. Red Cross, 176 W (2d) 610, 500 NW (2d) 264 (1993).
893.55 Annotation
Parents who did not obtain a medical opinion until more than three years after their child's death did not exercise reasonable diligence as required by the discovery rule under sub. (1) (b). Awve v. Physicians Ins. Co. 181 W (2d) 815, 512 NW (2d) 216 (Ct. App. 1994).
893.55 Annotation
After January 1, 1991 recovery for loss of society and companionship for death in a medical malpractice case is unlimited; minors may bring separate actions for loss of companionship when malpractice causes a parent's death, including when the decedent is survived by a spouse. Jelinik v. St. Paul Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. 182 W (2d) 1, 512 NW (2d) 764 (1994).
893.55 Annotation
When continuous negligent treatment occurs, the statute begins to run from the date of last negligent conduct. The amount of time which passes between each allegedly negligent act is a primary factor in determining whether there has been a continuum of negligent care. Westphal v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 192 W(2d) 347, 531 NW (2d) 361 (Ct. App. 1995).
893.55 Annotation
Punitive damages in malpractice actions are not authorized by sub. (5) (e). Lund v. Kokemoor, 195 W (2d) 727, 537 NW (2d) 21 (Ct. App. 1995).
893.55 Annotation
Dentists are health care providers under this section. Ritt v. Dental Care Associates, S.C. 199 W (2d) 48, 543 NW (2d) 852 (Ct. App. 1995).
893.55 Annotation
A valid legal opinion is not necessary for discovery of an injury to occur. Once a person discovers or should have discovered an injury, nothing, including a misleading legal opinion, can cause the injury to become "undiscovered". Claypool v. Levin, 209 W (2d) 284, 562 NW (2d) 584 (1997).
893.55 Annotation
The 5 year statute of repose in sub. (1) was found to be unconstitutional as applied to a case where a misdiagnosis occurred more than five years before it was discovered. Estate of Makos v. Masons Health Care Fund, 211 W (2d) 41, 564 NW (2d) 662 (1997).
893.55 Annotation
The date of injury under sub. (1) (a) from a failed tubal ligation was the date on which the plaintiff became pregnant. Fojut v. Stafl, 212 W (2d) 827, 569 NW (2d) 737 (Ct. App. 1997).
893.55 Annotation
Constitutionality of Wisconsin's Noneconomic Damage Limitation. 72 MLR 235 (1989).
