Changes to product liability law and the law governing remedies against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters of a product

RISK CONTRIBUTION THEORY: Remedies against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters of a product Under Act 2, a manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product who is a defendant in a civil action generally may be held liable for damages only if an injured party proves, in addition to causation, damages, and other elements of the claim, that the specific product that caused the injury was manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted by the defendant. Also under Act 2, in cases in which an injured party cannot prove that the defendant manufactured, distributed, sold or promoted the specific product that caused the injury, the defendant may be held liable under risk contribution theory if: 1) the injured party names as defendants in the action those manufacturers who, collectively, during the relevant production period, manufactured at least 80 percent of all products sold in this state that are chemically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant's injury and 2) the injured party proves certain other elements related to the cause of the injury and the right of the injured party to a recovery. These provisions of Act 2 were made applicable to actions or special proceedings commenced on or after the effective date of the Act.

This bill provides that the provisions of Act 2 governing remedies against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters of a product apply to all actions in law or equity, whenever filed or accrued. The bill includes a statement of legislative findings and intent which states, in part, that the portions of Act 2 governing remedies against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters of a product under risk contribution theory were enacted in response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Thomas v. Mallett , 2005 WI 129. The bill also explicitly abrogates common law doctrines governing product liability claims that conflict with the elements, requirements, and defenses established under Act 2.