Wisconsin considering new law...

[James H. Bushart]

Imagine this.

A law that would allow a home buyer sue a seller who lied to him about the condition of a house.

Any surprise that the used house salesmen of Wisconsin object to such a terrible, raw deal as that?

[Michael Larson]

The proposed new law would would remove the restriction on imposing punitive damages.

“If it turns out that the only real effect of the ruling is that trial lawyers can’t run up huge punitive damages, then we may be satisfied that home buyers are still protected by current law to recover economic damages,” said Ryan Murray, a spokesman for state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, the Senate minority leader. “If, on the other hand, it turns out that this ruling is having a real and adverse effect on buyers, then corrective legislation may be needed.”

Those defrauded can currently only sue for actual damages because the WI supreme court disallowed punitive damages in real estate cases.

I find punitive damages a terrible idea meant to enrich the lawyers.

Might as well call the new bill the Lawyer full employment act.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The proposed new law would would remove the restriction on imposing punitive damages.

“If it turns out that the only real effect of the ruling is that trial lawyers can’t run up huge punitive damages, then we may be satisfied that home buyers are still protected by current law to recover economic damages,” said Ryan Murray, a spokesman for state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, the Senate minority leader. “If, on the other hand, it turns out that this ruling is having a real and adverse effect on buyers, then corrective legislation may be needed.”

Those defrauded can currently only sue for actual damages because the WI supreme court disallowed punitive damages in real estate cases.

I find punitive damages a terrible idea meant to enrich the lawyers.

Might as well call the new bill the Lawyer full employment act.

But a home inspector can be sued for negligence, which carries punitive damages.

Does your law only protect the seller and his agent?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

But a home inspector can be sued for negligence, which carries punitive damages.

Does your law only protect the seller and his agent?

You missed the point Jim(I know you know beter).

Regardless of the status of a HI in a negligence suit this proposed law is little more than a sop to the lawyers lobby.

Punitive awards are an instrument of government.

No one should be allowed to sue to reclaim anything but actual damages.

Anything above that and the litigation lottery continues.

[James H. Bushart]

Mike,

Your law will allow the buyer to sue a home inspector for $1,000,000.00 for failing to detect that there was a fire in the attic....and will limit a suit to only the cost of replacing the rafters for the owner and his agent who lied to conceal it.

You find that to be fair?

I am all for the limitations...but they should be applied, equally, IMO.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Mike,

Your law will allow the buyer to sue a home inspector for $1,000,000.00 for failing to detect that there was a fire in the attic....and will limit a suit to only the cost of replacing the rafters for the owner and his agent who lied to conceal it.

You find that to be fair?

I am all for the limitations...but they should be applied, equally, IMO.

Proof please.

So you're fine with punitive damages?