Wis J I-Civil 1056. The trial court concluded that it was not necessary to instruct the jury twice as to the effect of camouflage. The court instructed the jury at length on the driver's lookout duty including the driver's negligence for failing to see an object in plain sight, but never informed the jury that a driver using ordinary care as to lookout might not see an object until it is too late when it blends with the road so that it cannot be seen. The camouflage instruction given, relating to speed, does not adequately inform the jury on lookout. While the court can reasonably choose to give the camouflage instruction only once, the instruction must then be modified to specifically alert the jury to the effect of camouflage on both speed and lookout duties.
Sufficient evidence supports the jury's findings on damages.
We must sustain the jury's verdict if it is supported by any credible evidence. After the accident, Hagenbucher went home and later drove himself to a clinic where X-rays disclosed no injury. His personal physician treated him for one month. He began landscaping work two months later at the start of the landscaping season and continued for an additional month before seeing another physician. He saw that physician on the same day he filed the complaint in this action.