Hoida, Inc. v. M & I MIDSTATE BANK

¶ 53. (dissenting).

f — <

¶ 54. I begin with a simple premise: ourjobisto clarify, not to confuse the law.

¶ 55. Thus, I am perplexed by the majority's approach here. It is as though the majority initially wrote the opinion limiting liability based on duty. See majority op., ¶¶ 20-40. Then, recognizing that such an approach is inconsistent with Wisconsin law, it reworded some things and tagged on an ending that limits liability based on public policy, without deleting the initial duty analysis. See id., ¶¶ 41-43.

¶ 56. Today's majority inexplicably seems to cloud what this court recently…