With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". N.W.2d 393 (1960) (concluding that a circuit court has the right to reduce excessive damage awards), and therefore the legislature, at will, can limit the amount of noneconomic damages they may recover. We disagree with Dr. Richards and the Fund that the Martins never had a right, vested or otherwise, to a particular measure of damages. The Martins, at the time of the injury, had a substantive right to unlimited damages given to them by statute. In 1985 when the Martins' rights accrued, chapter 655, Stats., (to which the Martins were presumed to be bound, see sec. 655.005) implicitly provided the Martins with that right. Wisconsin law provides that the amount of recovery, when set by a statute is fixed on the date of injury, see State ex rel. Briggs & Stratton, 100 Wis. 2d at 655-56 (<HOLDING>); Bradley v. Knutson, 62 Wis. 2d at 436-37

A: holding that the proper measure of damages to repair defects for a building contract that has not been substantially performed is the contractually agreed upon measure of damages
B: holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure
C: holding that the fixed measure of damages may not be retroactively amended simply for the purpose of offsetting the late adoption of a law
D: holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury
D.