While the enforcement project is an attempt to curb Milwaukee County drunk driving accidents along I-94, it comes just days after Wisconsin’s new operating while intoxicated laws went into effect. There are four main areas of emphasis in Wisconsin new OWI law changes:

• A fourth offense Operating While Intoxicated will be a felony if it occurs within five years of an earlier offense.

• Ignition interlocks devices will be required for repeat offenders and first-time offenders at or above a 0.15 blood alcohol level.

• A greater emphasis will be placed on treatment for drunk drivers, helping reduce repeat offenses.

• Increases first offense OWI to a misdemeanor if a child under 16 is in the vehicle.

It is too early to determine if Wisconsin’s law changes will actually deter any drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel, but prior to the law change, Wisconsin was one of only two states that punished 1st time drunk drivers with a traffic citations as opposed to a misdemeanor criminal offense.

_______________________________________________

If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of someone operating while intoxicated, or for more information, contact an experienced Milwaukee Drunk Driving Accident Attorney.

Share On:

Wisconsin has also become the 49th state to enact mandatory automobile insurance and that has many scooter riders upset. It seems that the legislature has not done anything to exempt scooters from the mandatory insurance coverage law.

Wisconsin law considers scooters vehicles. This obviously means scooters in Wisconsin are subject to the same rules of the road as all other motor vehicles, but it also means they are required to carry the same amount of minimum insurance, which is now $50,000 of liability coverage and $15,000 of property damage coverage per scooter.

Some lawmakers have admitted they failed to create an exception to the mandatory insurance coverage laws for scooters. Hopefully, they will act soon to at least adjust the property damage limit of liability downward.

Share On:

QUESTION 1: Was The Defendant Negligent?

This question is usually relatively easy to answer. Personal injury attorneys rarely take cases unless they can prove the defendant was negligent. Negligence is simply the failure of the defendant to use ordinary care under the particular circumstances. Negligence is NOT the intentional harming of someone else. The jury, however, is not told is that if they answer “No” to this question, then the plaintiff recovers zero dollars, regardless of how the jurors may have answered Question 6. No Negligence on the Defendant = No Recovery for the Plaintiff.

QUESTION 2: Was The Negligence Of The Defendant A Cause Of Plaintiff’s Injuries?

This also should be easy to answer, but many times the jury is confused by this question and incorrectly answers it “no,” when in fact they should have answered it “yes.” Rarely will personal injury lawyers take cases where the negligence of the defendant didn’t cause at least one of the plaintiff’s injuries, but many insurance company attorneys have made a very nice living by confusing jurors on this question.

When answering this question, jurors must pay careful attention to the exact language of the question. The key word in the question is actually one simple letter “A.” The question does not ask if the negligence of the defendant was the sole cause of all of plaintiff’s injuries. Instead, the question simply asks whether the defendant’s negligence was “A” cause of any of the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff’s injuries may have many causes, but if the negligence of the defendant was one such cause, then this question must be answered “Yes.” Under Wisconsin law if the negligence of the defendant was a “substantial factor” in producing any of the plaintiff’s injuries, then it can be said the defendant’s negligence “caused” the injuries. Again, there may be countless “substantial factors,” but if the defendant’s negligence was one such factor, then this question must be answered affirmatively.

What the jury is not told is that if they answer “No” to this question, then the plaintiff recovers no money, regardless of how the jurors may have answered Question 6. No Cause = No Recovery for the Plaintiff.

QUESTION 3: Was The Plaintiff Negligent?

In a manner similar to Question 1, the jury must decide whether the Plaintiff was negligent. Many times jurors are confused by this question, because they have heard that someone is partially negligent for just being involved in an accident. This is not true and this is not the law in Wisconsin. The defendant must actually present evidence that shows the Plaintiff was negligent. Driving down the road in a car and following the rules of the road does not, by itself, establish that a Plaintiff was negligent.

QUESTION 4: Was The Negligence Of The Plaintiff A Cause Of Her Injuries?

If the jury answers Question 3 “yes,” then they must answer this question. The same considerations should be taken into account as when answering Question 2. If the Plaintiff was actually negligent, then the jury must determine if the Plaintiff’s negligence actually caused any of her injuries. If the jury answers Question 3 and Question 4 “yes,” then they must attribute percentages to each party.

QUESTION 5: Assign to each party such percentage, or part of 100%, which you find is attributable to each party.

Jurors often complain that this question calls for nothing more than speculation on their part, but nevertheless Wisconsin law requires the jury to answer it. The jury must allocate a percentage to each party, and that percentage must equal 100%. The jury is not told the ramifications of their answer.

Wisconsin follows the modified comparative fault rule, which means that a Plaintiff’s damages, as determined in Question 6, will be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the Plaintiff in the jury’s answer to Question 5. This rule also means that if a Plaintiff is determined to be 51% at fault or more, then they recover nothing, regardless of the damages awarded in Question 6.

For example, if a Plaintiff is injured when entering an intersection on a green light and making a left hand turn on a yellow light, while the defendant driver entered the intersection on a yellow light and striking the Plaintiff once the light had turned read, a jury could apportion percentage of fault to each driver. A typical fault determination in such a case could be 10% fault on the Plaintiff and 90% of fault on the Defendant who had entered on yellow and struck the Plaintiff on red. The injured Plaintiff’s total damage award would be reduced by 10% by the judge after the jury was dismissed. The jury is never told of this reduction during the case and many times jurors mistakenly reduce damages on their own in answering Question 6.

QUESTION 6: What Sum Will Reasonably Compensate The Plaintiff For Her Injuries?

This question must be answered by the jury regardless of how they answered any of the other questions. The question of reasonableness of the compensation should be answered in a manner that makes the Plaintiff whole for ALL of their harms and losses suffered as a result of the incident. Jurors should not reduce these damages by any portion of fault they believe is attributable to the Plaintiff, because the judge will do this automatically after the jurors are dismissed. Jurors get frustrated because they take the Plaintiff’s own negligence into account when calculating damages, then they learn that the judge had further reduced the juror’s award of damages and they are outraged. Unfortunately, our legislature and court system has decided that jurors should not be told of the effect of their verdict.

Recently, the legislature attempted to introduce a bill that would allow for transparency of jury verdicts, but the Wisconsin big business and insurance lobby successfully prevented the passage of this legislation. This begs the question, why wouldn’t big businesses and insurance companies want jurors to know the ramifications of their decisions?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

For more legal information, contact a Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorney.

Share On:

The patients were monitored closely with the researchers studying their behavior including sleep, daily activity, emotions, and quality of life. The researchers concluded that the largest common factor between the fatigued brain injured individuals was their low vitamin D levels. Over 80% of the brain injured individuals that suffered from chronic fatigue had a vitamin D deficiency, in contrast to the 40% of brain injured individuals without chronic fatigue.

All patients who had been identified as having a vitamin D deficiency were given a supplement and reported they felt much better (less tired) after taking the vitamin.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

For more information on traumatic brain injury.

Share On:

The rationale behind subrogation is that if an injured person is allowed to recover all of his/her health care expenses from the at-fault insurance company, but those bills have already been paid by the injured person’s health insurance carrier, they are getting paid twice for the medical bills incurred in the accident, once by the at-fault insurance company and once by their health insurance company via payment of the medical bills.

Many states do not allow reimbursement to the health insurance carrier from injury victim’s settlements; however, Wisconsin law allows it. I strongly disagree with the concept that the health insurance be reimbursed. After all, why do we pay health insurance premiums? Wouldn’t this process just make the original payment by the health insurer a loan to the customer?

Luckily, there is an exception to subrogation in Wisconsin. If the injured person has not been made 100% whole from the settlement with the at-fault insurance company or from a jury verdict, then the health insurance company gets nothing. A good Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorney will be able to get the subrogated health insurance carriers to take substantial reductions with  the promise that they will receive nothing if the judge is convinced that the client did not recover 100% of their damages. These reductions always result in more recovery for the injury victim.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

For more information on Wisconsin Personal Injury Claims

Share On: