Opinion ID: 2196733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: and accompanying testimony of arlo sommervold)

Text: Sommervold offered Exhibit 21 to show where the collision occurred. The photo was taken the day after the collision by an insurance adjustor who was with Arlo Sommervold, Jon's father. The photo shows a very faint black mark on the street together with a tape measure in the vicinity of the collision. The trial court granted Grevlos' motion in limine made at the beginning of the trial, denied admission of the photo and precluded Arlo Sommervold from testifying to the length, width, color or location of the mark on the road or that he picked pieces of a rubber-like substance from the mark. The trial court also denied Sommervold's offer of proof during the trial. The trial court held that the foundation was inadequate and that the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect because no one could say how or when the mark was made or what made the mark. [10] Sommervold appeals this ruling by notice of review. Photographs were admitted without proving the skid marks came from the plaintiff's automobile in Zinda v. Pavloski, 139 N.W.2d 563, 566-67 (Wis.1966). In Zinda, the trial court decided that the foundation was adequate. Here the trial court did not and observed: There is no foundation that it came from either of the bicycles ... and there is no direct evidence foundation that the mark was left by a bicycle at all let alone a bicycle involved in the accident. In Zinda, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the skid marks were probative. Here the trial court did not, stating: But those facts don't prove anything unless the inference is is [sic] that that black line and the rubber or rubber-like substance that was found on the black line was left by one of the bicycles left in the accident. Finally, the trial court found the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed any probative value: [I]t would be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant to allow the jury to speculate that that mark was left by one of the bicycles involved in the accident. A judicial mind could reasonably reach this conclusion. Therefore, the trial court exercised proper discretion in excluding the photograph of a black mark in the road and the accompanying testimony of Arlo Sommervold.