Sachse v. Mayer
Decision Date | 08 January 1963 |
Citation | 118 N.W.2d 914,18 Wis.2d 457 |
Parties | Frederick G. SACHSE, Appellant, v. Alex D. MAYER, Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Gerold & Huiras, Port Washington, Ralph E. Houseman, Grafton, for appellant.
Richard C. Bonner, Grafton, for respondent.
Appellant submits that by the opinion in Sachse v. Mayer, supra, we determined that Mayer was causally negligent as a matter of law. We are unable to agree with appellant. In that case we held, only, that an issue was presented for determination by the trier of the fact, and such issue was whether Sachse might or might not reasonably understand that Mayer's order 'to clean out the woods' included the operation which Sachse was undertaking when he was hurt. By its verdict the jury found that Sachse might so understand it and, therefore, Sachse was injured in the course of his employment.
In our former opinion we expressly recognized that such a jury finding might raise other questions but we refrained from consideration of any of them. Our previous decision does not foreclose the parties in raising or in attempting to resolve the other issues so raised.
Those questions, as answered by the jury, resulted as follows: Mayer should have anticipated that Sachse might use the power saw when he was up a tree and Mayer was causally negligent in not warning Sachse against the danger of doing so. (The trial court changed this answer, stating that there was no evidence to support the causation part of the finding.)
The jury also found that Sachse was negligent in not telling Mayer that he planned to use the power saw while he was up in the tree but that such negligence was not causal, and that Sachse was not negligent in the manner in which he attempted to use the power saw. Thereby, the jury absolved Sachse of all causal negligence and attributed 100 percent thereof to Mayer.
On stipulation by the parties the trial court found $2,088 as the cost of the past medical services incurred by Sachse. The jury awarded $50,000 for pain, suffering and disability, and $10,000 for future medical and hospital expense. No proof was offered in support of the $10,000, as the learned trial court said in its memorandum decision.
The verdict contained a question on the assumption of risk by Sachse. We consider the safe-place statute, sec. 101.06, Stats., applies to the facts and circumstances of this accident, and assumption of risk is not properly in this case. That defense was abolished in safe-place cases by Rosholt v. Worden-Allen Co. (1913), 155 Wis. 168, 178, 144 N.W. 650; Mennetti v. West Side Businessmen's Ass'n (1945), 246 Wis. 586, 591, 18 N.W.2d 487. However, the inclusion of the question in the verdic did not prejudice the plaintiff because the jury answered that the risk was not assumed. Both question and answer are disregarded now.
Although appellant was protected by the safe-place law he still had the duty to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, and if he failed to do so he is guilty of contributory negligence. Filipiak v. Plombon (1962), 15 Wis.2d 484, 489, 113 N.W.2d 365. See Neitzke v. Kraft-Phenix Dairies, Inc. (1934), 214 Wis. 441, 448, 253 N.W. 579; Paluch v. Baldwin Plywood & Veneer Co. (1957), 1 Wis.2d 427, 435, 85 N.W.2d 373; Vogelsburg v. Mason & Hanger Co. (1947), 250 Wis. 242, 246, 26 N.W.2d 678. See also Klein v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1953), 263 Wis. 317, 321, 57 N.W.2d 188; Gupton v. City of Wauwatosa (1960), 9 Wis.2d 217, 224a, 101 N.W.2d 104, 102 N.W.2d 401; and Deaton v. Unit Crane & Shovel Corp. (1953), 265 Wis. 349, 354, 61 N.W.2d 552.
The jury found that Sachse was not negligent in the manner in which he attempted to use the power saw. As a matter of law, the attempt to climb the tree while the saw was running and then to saw off the top of the tree, which required him to use both hands in guiding the saw into the cut until the saw was about two inches deep, during which he employed no safeguards against falling, was causal negligence to a very serious extent. It could well be found that Sachse's causal negligence contributed to the accident in excess of anything which the record will support to sustain the finding of causal negligence on the part of Mayer. Although the jury could, and did, find that Mayer's order 'to clean out the woods' could be construed as including this task by Sachse there was no direction to Sachse to employ so foolhardy a procedure in cleaning out the woods. The instruction to him was a general one and he had never before climbed trees in performance of his duties. The present interpretation and the present method used was the choice of Mr. Sachse.
We do not hold as a matter of law that the causal negligence of Sachse exceeded that of Mayer. We do hold that as a matter of law such negligence of Sachse existed to a very substantial degree. As a rule the comparison of causal negligence is a matter for the jury.
In the course of its memorandum decision the trial court wrote:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ozzello v. Peterson Builders, Inc.
...reasonable care for his own safety, and if he fails to do so, he is guilty of contributory negligence. See Sachse v. Mayer, 18 Wis.2d 457, 463, 118 N.W.2d 914, 917 (1963). 45. A frequenter has a duty to use ordinary care for his own safety and protection and to observe the immediate surroun......
-
Jagmin v. Simonds Abrasive Co.
... ... v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1970), 48 Wis.2d 472, 180 N.W.2d 750, 182 N.W.2d 241 ... 29 Sachses.2d 472, 180 N.W.2d 750, 182 N.W.2d 241 ... 29 Sachse v. Mayer ... ...
-
Kaiser v. Cook
... ... 8 (1953), 173 Pa.Super. 27, 95 A.2d 360 ... 9 (1958), 163 Cal.App.2d 685, 329 P.2d 967 ... 10 Sachse v. Mayer (1963), 18 Wis.2d 457, 463, 118 N.W.2d 914 ... 11 E.g., Altantic Rural Exposition, Inc. v. Fagan (1953), 195 Va. 13, 77 S.E.2d 368; ... ...
- Hibner v. Lindauer