Opinion ID: 2181445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury's finding of negligence.

Text: Defendant claims the trial court committed error in refusing to grant a new trial on the grounds that the jury's finding absolving Krause of causal negligence was against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Defendant argues that plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law as to both speed and management and control. Considering first the question of speed, defendant relies heavily on his argument on the length of the skid marks and the fact that plaintiff, during adverse examination, stated he could bring the truck to a stop within a city block. Other than this evidence, there is nothing upon which to base the claim that skid marks show excessive speed. No experts testified as to what, if anything, could be concluded from them and on appeal defendant compares the skid marks to the stopping distances shown in defendant's Exhibits 16 and 17, which were not received in evidence at the trial. Therefore, defendant did not provide the jury, nor this court, with sufficient evidence to find the plaintiff negligent as to speed. Defendant also claims plaintiff was traveling at an excessive rate of speed in that sec. 346.57 (2) and (3), Stats., [5] applied and plaintiff did not drive at an appropriate reduced speed. Whether or not this section is applicable, there is again very little, if any, evidence to support the fact or permit the inference that plaintiff was driving at an excessive rate of speed as he approached the intersection. On the other hand, there is more than sufficient credible evidence to establish that the negligence of the defendant's insured was causal of the accident. Therefore, this court has no power to change the jury's verdict in this regard. Mainz v. Lund (1963), 18 Wis. 2d 633, 119 N. W. 2d 334. Also we find no prejudicial error committed when the trial court refused to give instructions based on sec. 346.57 (2), when the jury was given full and complete instructions on the speed of plaintiff. Next considering the question of management and control, testimony indicated the skid marks of the truck were 390 feet long and started in the northbound lane of Highway 140, went over into the southbound lane for about 70 feet, and then back to the northbound lane to the point of impact. Defendant argues this indicates lack of control and that if plaintiff had gone into the southbound lane of Highway 140 he could have avoided the accident. As already indicated, the emergency instruction was properly given and therefore the jury could have found that the plaintiff was confronted with an emergency and excused his acts which otherwise might have constituted negligence. See Edeler v. O'Brien, supra . Moreover, it must be remembered that plaintiff was not driving a car but a semitrailer with a partial load of fuel oil. Whether or not plaintiff should have let up on the brakes and attempted to steer clear of the car is exclusively a jury determination, and their findings on this question should not be disturbed.