Dakter v. Cavallino
| Decision Date | 07 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013AP1750.,2013AP1750. |
| Citation | 866 N.W.2d 656,363 Wis.2d 738 |
| Parties | Ronald J. DAKTER and Kathleen M. Dakter, Plaintiffs–Respondents–Cross–Appellants, v. Dale L. CAVALLINO, Hillsboro Transportation Company, LLC and Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants–Appellants–Cross–Respondents–Petitioners. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendants-appellants-cross-respondents-petitioners, there were briefs by Paul D. Curtis, Timothy M. Barber and Axley Brynelson, LLP, Madison. Oral argument by Paul D. Curtis.
For the plaintiffs-respondents-cross-appellants, there was a brief by John R. Orton and Curran, Hollenbeck & Orton, S.C., Mauston. Oral argument by John R. Orton.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by William C. Gleisner, III and Pitman, Kalkhoff, Sicula & Dentice, Milwaukee and Lynn R. Laufenberg, and Laufenberg, Jassack & Laufenberg, Milwaukee, on behalf of The Wisconsin Association for Justice. Oral argument by William C. Gleisner.
¶ 1 This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals affirming a judgment and order of the Circuit Court for Juneau County, John P. Roemer, Judge.1
¶ 2 This case arises from the collision of a passenger automobile driven by Ronald J. Dakter, the plaintiff,2 and a 65–foot semi-trailer truck operated by Dale Cavallino, the defendant.3 After a 10–day trial, the jury found the defendant 65 percent causally negligent and the plaintiff 35 percent causally negligent and assessed damages at $1,097,955.86 for the plaintiff and $63,366 for the plaintiff's wife.
¶ 3 The defendant raises only one question of law for our consideration: Was the truck driver negligence instruction given to the jury on the standard of care applicable to the defendant as the operator of a semi-trailer truck erroneous, such that the defendant is entitled to a new trial?
¶ 4 The truck driver negligence instruction that is the subject of the defendant's challenge provided in relevant part as follows:
At the time of the accident, the defendant, Dale Cavallino was a professional truck driver operating a semi tractor-trailer pursuant to a commercial driver's license issued by the State of Wisconsin. As the operator of a semi tractor-trailer, it was [the defendant's] duty to use the degree of care, skill, and judgment which a reasonable semi truck driver would exercise in the same or similar circumstances having due regard for the state of learning, education, experience, and knowledge possessed by semi truck drivers holding commercial driver's licenses. A semi truck driver who fails to conform to the standard is negligent. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that [the defendant] was negligent.
¶ 5 The defendant asserts that the truck driver negligence instruction was erroneous because it directed the jury to consider the defendant's special knowledge and skill as a semi-trailer truck driver when determining whether the defendant was negligent. According to the defendant, an instruction regarding an actor's special knowledge and skill should not be given in “mine-run” motor vehicle negligence cases like the instant case; it should be given only in professional negligence cases. The defendant contends that by giving an instruction regarding the defendant's special knowledge and skill, the circuit court imposed a heightened standard of care on him. This, says the defendant, was prejudicial error entitling him to a new trial.
¶ 6 In contrast, the plaintiff contends that the truck driver negligence instruction directed the jury to take the special knowledge and skill possessed by professional semi-trailer truck drivers into account only in order to determine whether the defendant met the standard of ordinary care. In the plaintiff's view, the truck driver negligence instruction did not impose a heightened standard of care on the defendant and was not erroneous.
¶ 7 The circuit court sided with the plaintiff, entering a judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and denying the defendant's post-verdict motions.
¶ 8 The court of appeals affirmed the judgment and order of the circuit court. The court of appeals explained that it did not consider the challenged jury instruction a misstatement of the law:
[I]n evaluating whether an actor has acted as a reasonable person would, jurors may consider the actor's superior knowledge or skills when the knowledge or skills give the actor an ability to avoid injury or damage to others. If someone “has skills or knowledge that exceed those possessed by most others, these skills or knowledge are circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether the actor has behaved as a reasonable careful person.”4
¶ 9 The court of appeals further explained that although the truck driver negligence instruction was not incorrect, a jury could possibly have misinterpreted the instruction as imposing a higher standard of care on semi-trailer truck drivers than that applied to other drivers:
[W]e see at least some danger that the truck driver instruction could have been interpreted by the jury to suggest that [the defendant] should be held to a different, higher standard of care than other drivers because he is a professional truck driver.... If understood this way, it would state the legal doctrine incorrectly.5
¶ 10 The court of appeals ultimately concluded that it was “at least as likely as not that jurors aiming to apply the [truck driver negligence] instruction would have hit the mark by focusing on evidence of [the defendant's] superior knowledge and skills, and not missed the mark by holding him to a separate, higher truck driver standard of care.”6
¶ 11 Nevertheless, the court of appeals opted to assume, without deciding, that the truck driver negligence instruction was erroneous. It then denied the defendant relief, concluding that any error in the challenged jury instruction was not prejudicial.
¶ 12 We conclude that the circuit court did not err in giving the truck driver negligence instruction. The truck driver negligence instruction did not misstate the law and was not misleading. The defendant's arguments to the contrary are not persuasive, and the defendant is not entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, although our reasoning differs, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
¶ 13 Many details about the collision that spawned the instant litigation remain in dispute. The following description of the collision focuses on the uncontested facts.
¶ 14 The collision took place on May 29, 2008, at the intersection of State Trunk Highway 80 (running north/south) and State Trunk Highway 82 (running east/west). This intersection is located in Elroy, Juneau County, Wisconsin.
¶ 15 The plaintiff was driving a passenger automobile northbound on Highway 80. He intended to turn left onto Tilmar Street, which is the portion of Highway 82 running west of Highway 80. He approached the intersection with his turn signal on and stopped.
¶ 16 Wyman Hoiland, who is not a party to this lawsuit, was driving a van southbound on Highway 80 and intended to turn left onto Highway 82. Hoiland approached the intersection with his turn signal on and stopped. His vehicle was opposite the plaintiff's vehicle in the intersection and was in front of the defendant's semi-trailer truck.
¶ 17 The defendant, who had a commercial driver's license issued by the State of Wisconsin and had driven a semi-trailer truck for 31 years, was driving a 65–foot semi-trailer truck southbound on Highway 80. The defendant intended to continue straight on Highway 80.
¶ 18 As the defendant approached the intersection, Hoiland may have turned left, permitting the defendant to remain in his lane and continue straight. Alternatively, Hoiland may have remained in the intersection waiting to turn left, leading the defendant to switch into the right-hand lane in order to drive around Hoiland and continue straight.
¶ 19 In any event, it is undisputed that the plaintiff attempted to execute a left turn onto Tilmar Street and collided with the defendant's semi-trailer truck. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries.
¶ 20 The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, asserting that the defendant's negligence caused the collision.
¶ 21 Before trial, the parties agreed that the usual standard of ordinary care applies to semi-trailer truck drivers. They disagreed, however, about whether the jury should hear expert testimony regarding the special knowledge and skill possessed by semi-trailer truck drivers.
¶ 22 The circuit court agreed with the position of both parties that the standard of ordinary care applies to semi-trailer truck drivers, stating as follows:
¶ 23 The circuit court went on to explain that with regard to semi-trailer truck drivers, ordinary care means the care “a reasonable and prudent truck driver would use under the same or similar circumstances.”
Accordingly, the circuit court ruled that expert testimony regarding the knowledge and skill possessed by semi-trailer truck drivers was admissible.
¶ 24 Three expert witnesses testified regarding the safety standards and practices that govern semi-trailer truck drivers.
¶ 25 The plaintiff called Charles Collins, a retired truck driving safety instructor for a driver training program at a technical college, as an expert witness. Collins explained, among other things, that the defendant was driving his semi-trailer truck with an empty trailer and that “[i]t takes longer to stop with an empty trailer.” Collins also explained that the pavement was wet and that “[w]hen the pavement is wet, it is accepted in all literature, textbooks, [and] videos that you must reduce your speed by a third,” which the defendant did not do.
¶ 26 The plaintiff also called Andrew Sievers, a safety consultant, as an expert witness....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pinder
...to some latitude in crafting jury instructions to comport with the evidence of the case. Dakter v. Cavallino, 2015 WI 67, ¶31, 363 Wis. 2d 738, 866 N.W.2d 656. While the circuit court could have used the phrase "a room within a building" instead of the words "office" or "building," the fact......
-
State v. Langlois, 2016AP1409-CR
...the overall meaning communicated by the instructions was a correct statement of the law." Dakter v. Cavallino, 2015 WI 67, ¶32, 363 Wis. 2d 738, 866 N.W.2d 656 ; see also State v. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92, ¶27, 313 Wis. 2d 1, 752 N.W.2d 839 ("Jury instructions are not to be judged in artificial ......
-
State v. Lasecki
...overall meaning communicated by the instructions was a correct statement of the law.’ " Dakter v. Cavallino , 2015 WI 67, ¶32, 363 Wis. 2d 738, 866 N.W.2d 656 (quoting Fischer v. Ganju , 168 Wis. 2d 834, 850, 485 N.W.2d 10 (1992) ). Although the circuit court has "broad discretion" in craft......
-
Knott v. Timothy O'Brien, LLC
... ... case," which "assist[s] the jury in making a ... reasonable analysis of the evidence." Dakter v ... Cavallino, 2015 WI 67, ¶31, 363 Wis.2d 738, 768, ... 866 N.W.2d 656. Instructions are erroneous if they misstate ... the ... ...
-
Third-party Retaliation Problems
...(discussing the standard to which a professional driver is held, as well as professionals in general); see also Dakter v. Cavallino, 866 N.W.2d 656, 668-69 (Wis. 2015) (discussing the standard to which a professional truck driver is held).285. See, e.g., Grams v. Milk Prod., Inc., 699 N.W.2......