Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitliabilitystatuteappealproduct liability
lawsuitliabilitystatuteappealproduct liability

Related Cases

Young v. Masci, 289 U.S. 253, 53 S.Ct. 599, 77 L.Ed. 1158, 88 A.L.R. 170
View Case »
Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S., 318 U.S. 363, 318 U.S. 744, 63 S.Ct. 573, 87 L.Ed. 838, 43-1 USTC P 10,051
View Case »
City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 96 L.Ed.2d 398, 55 USLW 4823
View Case »
DeLoach v. Alfred, 192 Ariz. 28, 960 P.2d 628, 271 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3
View Case »
Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith, 349 U.S. 1, 75 S.Ct. 553, 99 L.Ed. 773, 3 V.I. 701
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wenke v. Gehl Co., 274 Wis.2d 220, 2004 WI 103, 682 N.W.2d 405

Facts

Martin Wenke was injured in Iowa in September 1997 while using a Gehl Model RB1450 baler. The baler had been sold to another Iowa resident in 1981 and was later acquired by Wenke. An Iowa statute limited product liability actions to 15 years after the product was purchased, which barred Wenke from bringing a claim in Iowa. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin in August 1999, but Gehl Company argued that Iowa's statute of repose should be applied under Wisconsin's borrowing statute to bar the action.

Martin Wenke was injured in Iowa in September 1997 while using a Gehl Model RB1450 baler. The baler had been sold to another Iowa resident in 1981 and was later acquired by Wenke. An Iowa statute limited product liability actions to 15 years after the product was purchased, which barred Wenke from bringing a claim in Iowa. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin in August 1999, but Gehl Company argued that Iowa's statute of repose should be applied under Wisconsin's borrowing statute to bar the action.

Issue

Whether the phrase 'foreign period of limitation' in Wisconsin's borrowing statute applies to foreign statutes of repose as well as foreign statutes of limitation.

Whether the phrase 'foreign period of limitation' in Wisconsin's borrowing statute applies to foreign statutes of repose as well as foreign statutes of limitation.

Rule

The Wisconsin borrowing statute, Wis. Stat. § 893.07, applies to both foreign statutes of limitation and foreign statutes of repose.

The Wisconsin borrowing statute, Wis. Stat. § 893.07, applies to both foreign statutes of limitation and foreign statutes of repose.

Analysis

The court analyzed the ambiguity of the phrase 'period of limitation' in the borrowing statute and concluded that it encompasses both statutes of limitation and statutes of repose. The court found that the legislature did not distinguish between these types of limitation periods when enacting the statute, and thus, the borrowing statute should apply to Wenke's claim, which was barred by Iowa's statute of repose.

The court analyzed the ambiguity of the phrase 'period of limitation' in the borrowing statute and concluded that it encompasses both statutes of limitation and statutes of repose. The court found that the legislature did not distinguish between these types of limitation periods when enacting the statute, and thus, the borrowing statute should apply to Wenke's claim, which was barred by Iowa's statute of repose.

Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding that Wenke's action was properly dismissed based on the application of Iowa's statute of repose under Wisconsin's borrowing statute.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding that Wenke's action was properly dismissed based on the application of Iowa's statute of repose under Wisconsin's borrowing statute.

Who won?

Gehl Company prevailed in the case because the court found that Iowa's statute of repose barred Wenke's claim, which was correctly applied under Wisconsin's borrowing statute.

Gehl Company prevailed in the case because the court found that Iowa's statute of repose barred Wenke's claim, which was correctly applied under Wisconsin's borrowing statute.

You must be