Bedward v. Trempealeau County Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2304,88-2304 |
| Citation | 447 N.W.2d 395,151 Wis.2d 785 |
| Parties | NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. Scott BEDWARD, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. TREMPEALEAU COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Wisconsin Reinsurance Corporation, and Richard Guse and Dorothy Guse, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Circuit Court, Trempealeau County.
AFFIRMED.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Trempealeau county: RICHARD D. GALSTAD, Judge.
Before CANE, P.J., and LAROCQUE and MYSE, JJ.
Scott Bedward appeals a judgment that found Richard and Dorothy Guse not negligent in causing Bedward's injuries. Bedward asserts that the trial court erred when it refused to submit to the jury a modified version of Wis J I--Civil 1900.2 (1987) and that sec. 101.11, Stats., the safe place statute, denies persons employed in farming equal protection under the statute and is therefore unconstitutional. We conclude that the trial court properly instructed the jury in light of the presented evidence. Moreover, because Bedward failed to preserve the issue surrounding sec. 101.11's constitutionality, we do not address it. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.
Richard and Dorothy Guse employed Scott Bedward on their farm. On January 2, 1986, another employee, Matt Giese, decided to remove a tractor's cab window. As Giese handed the window to Bedward, it exploded in Bedward's face, striking his face and injuring his left eye. The jury found that the Guses were not negligent in causing Bedward's injuries.
Bedward filed a postverdict motion asserting that the trial court erred when it refused to submit Bedward's suggested jury instruction. He also asserted that sec. 101.11's 1 farming exclusion violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. We note Bedward did not raise this latter issue before or during trial.
It is undisputed that a trial court has broad discretion when instructing a jury. State v. Vick, 104 Wis.2d 678, 690, 312 N.W.2d 489, 495 (1981). A trial court instructs the jury on the applicable law and assists the jury in making a reasonable analysis of the evidence. The appropriateness of a particular instruction, however, turns on a case-by-case review of the evidence. Id. at 690-91, 312 N.W.2d at 495. No grounds for reversal exist if the overall meaning communicated by the instructions is a correct statement of the law. State v. Paulson, 106 Wis.2d 96, 108, 315 N.W.2d 350, 356 (1982).
At trial, Bedward proposed a modified version of Wis J I--Civil 1900.2. The standard instruction provides in part:
The immediate employer of the plaintiff has a duty under the safe-place law to provide safe employment for his employees.
Safe employment is broader in scope than a safe place of employment and may require something more than a safe place to work in the physical sense.
In lieu of the language regarding an employer's duty under the safe place law, Bedward requested language stating that the employer has a common-law duty to provide a safe place of employment. The trial court rejected this modified version of instruction 1900.2, and instead submitted the standard instructions on negligence and causation. In addition, the trial court submitted an instruction stating that the employer has a duty to provide and maintain a safe motor vehicle (tractor) 2 as well as to repair it and that failure to exercise ordinary care in maintaining or repairing the tractor constituted negligence.
The trial court declined to give the requested modified safe place instruction, 1900.2, because it reasoned that farming employees are excluded from the safe place statute and because common-law requires farmers to provide reasonably safe working conditions. See sec. 101.11, Stats.,; see also Haile v. Ellis, 5 Wis.2d 221, 230, 92 N.W.2d 863, 867 (1958); Venden v. Meisel, 2 Wis.2d 253, 260, 85 N.W.2d 766, 770 (1957). Additionally, it reasoned that the proposed modified instruction would only confuse the jury because all the evidence focused on the tractor and its maintenance instead of the farm as a safe place of employment.
Bedward asserts that common-law imposes a duty on farmers to furnish a reasonably safe place of employment and, therefore, the trial court erroneously declined Bedward's modified version of jury instruction 1900.2. We conclude that the overall meaning communicated by the instructions submitted to the jury is a correct statement of law in light of the evidence adduced at...
To continue reading
Request your trial