Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 895.046 (2026)
Remedies against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters of products
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
895.046(1g)(1g) Legislative findings and intent. The legislature finds that it is in the public interest to clarify product liability law, generally, and the application of the risk contribution theory of liability first announced by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Collins v. Eli Lilly Company, 116 Wis. 2d 166 (1984), specifically, in order to return tort law to its historical, common law roots. This return both protects the rights of citizens to pursue legitimate and timely claims of injury resulting from defective products, and assures that businesses may conduct activities in this state without fear of being sued for indefinite claims of harm from products which businesses may never have manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted, or which were made and sold decades ago. The legislature finds that the application of risk contribution to former white lead carbonate manufacturers in Thomas v. Mallett, 285 Wis. 2d 236 (2005), was an improperly expansive application of the risk contribution theory of liability announced in Collins, and that application raised substantial questions of deprivation of due process, equal protection, and right to jury trial under the federal and Wisconsin constitutions. The legislature finds that this section protects the right to a remedy found in article I, section 9, of the Wisconsin Constitution, by preserving the narrow and limited application of the risk contribution theory of liability announced in Collins.
895.046(1r)(a)(a) “Claimant” means a person seeking damages or other relief for injury or harm to a person or property caused by or arising from a product, or a person on whose behalf a claim for such damages or other relief is asserted.
895.046(1r)(b)(b) “Relevant production period” means the time period during which the specific product that allegedly caused a claimant’s injury or harm was manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted.
895.046(2)(2) Applicability. This section applies to all actions in law or equity, whenever filed or accrued, in which a claimant alleges that the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product is liable for an injury or harm to a person or property, including actions based on allegations that the design, manufacture, distribution, sale, or promotion of, or instructions or warnings about, a product caused or contributed to a personal injury or harm to a person or property, a private nuisance, or a public nuisance, and to all related or independent claims, including unjust enrichment, restitution, or indemnification.
895.046(3)(3) Remedy with specific product identification. Except as provided in sub. (4), the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product may be held liable in an action under sub. (2) only if the claimant proves, in addition to any other elements required to prove his or her claim, that the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted the specific product alleged to have caused the claimant’s injury or harm.
895.046(4)(4) Remedy without specific product identification. Subject to sub. (5), if a claimant cannot meet the burden of proof under sub. (3), the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product may be held liable for an action under sub. (2) only if all of the following apply:
895.046(4)(a)1.1. That no other lawful process exists for the claimant to seek any redress from any other person for the injury or harm.
895.046(4)(a)2.2. That the claimant has suffered an injury or harm that can be caused only by a manufactured product chemically and physically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm.
895.046(4)(a)3.3. That the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted a complete integrated product, in the form used by the claimant or to which the claimant was exposed, and that meets all of the following criteria:
895.046(4)(a)3.a.a. Is chemically and physically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm.
895.046(4)(a)3.b.b. Was manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted in the geographic market where the injury or harm is alleged to have occurred during the time period in which the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm was manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted.
895.046(4)(a)3.c.c. Was distributed or sold without labeling or any distinctive characteristic that identified the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter.
895.046(4)(b)(b) The action names, as defendants, those manufacturers of a product who collectively manufactured at least 80 percent of all products sold in this state during the relevant production period by all manufacturers of the product in existence during the relevant production period that are chemically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm.
895.046(5)(5) Limitation on liability. No manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product is liable under sub. (4) if more than 25 years have passed between the date that the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product last manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted the specific product chemically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury and the date that the claimant’s cause of action accrued.
895.046(6)(6) Apportionment of liability. If more than one manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product is found liable for the claimant’s injury or harm under subs. (4) and (5), the court shall apportion liability among those manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters, but that liability shall be several and not joint.
895.046 AnnotationArticle I, section 1, of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits retroactive application of this section. Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent demands holding that this section violates state due-process principles by trying to extinguish the plaintiff’s vested right in the plaintiff’s negligence and strict-liability causes of action. Gibson v. American Cyanamid Co., 760 F.3d 600 (2014).
895.046 AnnotationThis section reinstates ordinary causation principles in all products liability cases, while carving out a narrow exception for plaintiffs like Collins, 116 Wis. 2d 166 (1984), who have no other remedy and whose injuries stem from a completely integrated product produced in chemically and physically identical forms and sold in generic packaging. The net effect of this section, Thomas, 2005 WI 129, and Gibson, 760 F.3d 600 (2014), is a six-year window (2005-2011) in which plaintiffs in Wisconsin can rely on the risk-contribution theory to sue white lead carbonate manufacturers for injuries arising from their ingestion of white lead carbonate as children. Burton v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 994 F.3d 791 (2021).
895.046 AnnotationAlthough this section may not retroactively extinguish the cause of action that Thomas, 2005 WI 129, recognized, the plaintiffs’ claims in this case went beyond Thomas, and this section forbade the district court’s extension of Thomas. The district court improperly extended Thomas by allowing the plaintiffs to hold the defendants liable in their capacity as manufacturers of finished paint products, and not just in their capacity as manufacturers of white lead carbonate. Burton v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 994 F.3d 791 (2021).
895.046 AnnotationWisconsin Is Open for Business or Business Just as Usual? The Practical Effects and Implications of 2011 Wisconsin Act 2. Irgens. 2012 WLR 1245.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 3d 964 (W.D. Wis. 2019).
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 3d 964 (W.D. Wis. 2019). “A related statutory section, Wis. Stat. § 895.046 , also suggests that Wisconsin product liability law is broadly remedial, and not limited to a narrow, specially defined class of defendants.”
Matthew W. Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 2022 WI 109 (Wis. 2022). “§ 895.046 , which also was created under Act 2.”
City of Wyoming v. Procter & Gamble Co., 210 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Minnesota 2016). “Wis. Stat. § 895.046 (1g). The new statute accomplishes its objective by imposing a “burden of proof’ on a plaintiff alleging a product liability claim to prove that the defendant is associated with “the specific product alleged to have caused the claimant’s injury or harm.”
Ernest Gibson v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 760 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 895.046 (lg) (describing legislative findings and intent).”
Latonya Cannon v. Armstrong Containers Inc., 92 F.4th 688 (7th Cir. 2024). “at 806; Wis. Stat. § 895.046 . The Wisconsin legislature also attempted to make its statute retroactive, but we rejected that effort after finding that retroactivity would violate the state’s due process guar- antees.”
Janusz v. Symmetry Med. Inc., 256 F. Supp. 3d 995 (E.D. Wis. 2017). “” Wis. Stat. § 895.046 (1g). That certainly suggests that, to the extent it is not inconsistent with the statute, the common law survived the codification.”
Matthew W. Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 2021 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 895.046(1g) (enacted as part of the 2013 budget bill, 2013 Wis.”
R.S.B. v. Merck & Co Inc (E.D. Wis. 2021). “” But the Court need not reach the question of whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court would adopt this theory because Plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claim for injury caused by a product it did not manufacture or sell is barred by Wisconsin’s product liability statute, Wis.…”
Frase, Dewane v. Ashland Chem. Co. Div. of Ashland, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2020). “Failure to Identify the Product Although defendants proffer numerous arguments as to the complaint’s legal deficiencies, the court begins with defendants’ broadest -- that none of plaintiffs’ claims meet the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 895.046 , and accordingly should be…”
Nelson v. Johnson & Johnson (E.D. Wis. 2019). “While the plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the Wisconsin legislature enacted Wis. Stat. § 895.046 , which extinguished risk-contribution theory in Wisconsin state courts.”
Ravon Owens v. Sherwin Williams Co. (7th Cir. 2021). “The statute reinstates ordinary causation princi- ples in all products liability cases, while carving out a narrow exception for plaintiffs like Collins who have no other remedy and whose injuries stem from a “complete[ly] integrated product” produced in “chemically and…”
Burton v. Cyanamid, 334 F. Supp. 3d 949 (2018). “046 Armstrong argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs' use of risk contribution theory is barred by Wis Stat. § 895.046. I previously considered this issue in the context of a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Sherwin Williams, and…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.046(1g) — 4 cases
Matthew W. Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 2022 WI 109 (Wis. 2022). “§ 895.046 , which also was created under Act 2.”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 3d 964 (W.D. Wis. 2019). “A related statutory section, Wis. Stat. § 895.046 , also suggests that Wisconsin product liability law is broadly remedial, and not limited to a narrow, specially defined class of defendants.”
Matthew W. Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 2021 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 895.046(1g) (enacted as part of the 2013 budget bill, 2013 Wis.”
Frase, Dewane v. Ashland Chem. Co. Div. of Ashland, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2020). “Failure to Identify the Product Although defendants proffer numerous arguments as to the complaint’s legal deficiencies, the court begins with defendants’ broadest -- that none of plaintiffs’ claims meet the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 895.046 , and accordingly should be…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.046(2) — 1 case
Frase, Dewane v. Ashland Chem. Co. Div. of Ashland, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2020). “Failure to Identify the Product Although defendants proffer numerous arguments as to the complaint’s legal deficiencies, the court begins with defendants’ broadest -- that none of plaintiffs’ claims meet the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 895.046 , and accordingly should be…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.046(3) — 2 cases
R.S.B. v. Merck & Co Inc (E.D. Wis. 2021). “” But the Court need not reach the question of whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court would adopt this theory because Plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claim for injury caused by a product it did not manufacture or sell is barred by Wisconsin’s product liability statute, Wis.…”
Frase, Dewane v. Ashland Chem. Co. Div. of Ashland, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2020). “Failure to Identify the Product Although defendants proffer numerous arguments as to the complaint’s legal deficiencies, the court begins with defendants’ broadest -- that none of plaintiffs’ claims meet the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 895.046 , and accordingly should be…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.046(4) — 1 case
R.S.B. v. Merck & Co Inc (E.D. Wis. 2021). “” But the Court need not reach the question of whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court would adopt this theory because Plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claim for injury caused by a product it did not manufacture or sell is barred by Wisconsin’s product liability statute, Wis.…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.