Introduced by Rep. Terry Katsma (R-Oostburg) and Sen. Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), Assembly Bill 508/Senate Bill 383 would create immunity from civil and criminal liability to a physician, physician assistant, or registered nurse, and to their employer or the health care facility, who performs a body cavity search under circumstances allowed under current law. Governor Walker signed the legislation into law as 2015 Wisconsin Act 238 on March 2, 2016.

Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) introduced Senate Bill 286 to reform Wisconsin’s long standing “dog bite” statute. The legislation, supported by WCJC, was signed into law on November 11, 2015, as 2015 Wisconsin Act 112.

Under prior law, Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(b) dog owners were liable for double damages for dogs that cause injury to people, domestic animals, or property if they have previously done so. The prior law did not take into account the severity or type of the damage done. For instance, a dog could cause minor property damage, which would count as the first bite, and then cause physical damage to an individual on the second bite. The owner would be liable for double damages for the second incident despite the innocuous nature of the “first bite.”

The most important change in this act is to the double damages provisions. Now, an owner may only be liable for double damages for injuries caused by their dog if a dog bites a person with “sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring or disfigurement” if the owner knew the dog had previously done so. That is, both bites must break the skin and cause permanent scarring or disfigurement and the owner must have known of the first bite.

Act 112 also increases the monetary forfeitures (i.e., penalties imposed by a governmental entity) for dog owners. Under current law, for first time damage to “a person, domestic property, deer, game birds or the nests of eggs of game birds” the maximum forfeiture is $500. The act allows for $2,500. Under current law, the maximum penalty for subsequent injuries for owner with notice of the first injury is $1,000. Under the Act, it is raised to $5,000.

Act 112 also changes who can request a court to order that a dog be killed. Under prior law only the state or a municipality may ask a court to order a dog be killed if the dog caused serious injury to a person or domestic animal on at least two separate occasions. Under Act 112, in addition to the state and municipality being able to make this request, a person injured by the dog or whose child was injured by the dog, or whose domestic animal was injured by the dog may also make this request.

Under Assembly Bill 672/Senate Bill 495, introduced by Rep. Nancy VanderMeer (R-Tomah) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), would allow a vehicle rental company to hold a renter or driver of a rented vehicle liable for loss of use of the vehicle under certain circumstances. Under these bills, a rental company may hold a renter or driver of a rented private passenger vehicle liable for loss of use that results from an accident for which the renter or driver is cited or charged with inattentive driving, reckless driving, operating while intoxicated, homicide by negligent operation or intoxicated use of a vehicle, or a failure to yield violation that resulted in bodily harm or death. Loss of use would be calculated using the daily rental rate stated in the rental agreement for the vehicle, multiplied by the number of loss-of-use days, not to exceed 30 days.

Little action was taken on these bills this session. SB 495 only received a public hearing before dying in the Senate, and there was no hearing or committee action on AB 672.

Governor Scott Walker signed Assembly Bill 596/Senate Bill 463 into law as 2015 Wisconsin Act 168 on March 1, 2016. The new statute, introduced by Rep. Adam Jarchow (R-Balsam Lake) and Sen. Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville), changes the term “snow sport” to “alpine sport” and adds “biking” to the list of activities included in the term. WCJC supported these limits on liability for ski area operators from biking accidents.

Previous law imposed proportional liability for an injury or death resulting from participation in a “recreational activity,” including riding a bicycle, on a premises that is open to the public for such purposes. However, under certain circumstances, ski area operators have immunity from liability for injury or death resulting from participation in a “snow sport” within a ski area. Among other changes, the new law reconciles these requirements for bicycling within ski areas.

An individual who participates in a recreational activity assumes the “risks inherent in the recreational activity of which the ordinary prudent person is or should be aware” and must satisfy certain behavioral duties. [s. 895.525, Stats.] If a participant is injured or killed, the owner of the premises may be liable, but the damages that may be collected from the owner are reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the participant.

An individual who participates in a snow sport within a ski area assumes certain risks and must satisfy certain duties. Likewise, ski area operators must satisfy certain duties related to safety and to give notice of assumed risks. A ski area operator that satisfies all of the required duties owes no further duty of care to a participant and is immune from liability for an injury or death sustained by a participant that results from the assumed risks of participation in a snow sport.

The act removes biking from the definition of “recreational activity,” defines the risks assumed by individuals who participate in biking, and establishes the duties participants must satisfy. It also establishes the duties of ski area operators related to biking. Under the act, a ski area operator that satisfies all of the required duties owes no further duty of care to a participant who engages in biking and is immune from liability for an injury or death sustained by a participant that results from the assumed risks of participation in an alpine sport.