Opinion ID: 1968980
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Instructions to the Jury.

Text: As previously stated, the claim of negligence on the part of the defendant Egtvedt is grounded upon a claimed violation of sec. 346.51 (1), Stats. [1] In instructing the jury with respect to the application of this statute, the trial court charged: You are instructed that a safety statute provides that no person shall stop any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the roadway of any highway outside of a business or residence district when it is practicable to stop such vehicle standing off the roadway. By `roadway' is meant the hard surface or traveled portion of the highway. In determining whether or not it was practicable to move the vehicle to a place off the roadway you may consider the physical conditions adjacent to the place where the vehicle was stopped, and any other parking spaces, in any direction, to which the vehicle might reasonably have been taken, as well as the reason for stopping. Having these circumstances in mind, along with all other evidence, you should then consider whether or not William Egtvedt exercised reasonable judgment and discretion in view of all the circumstances, and if you find that he did not exercise reasonable judgment and proper discretion, then you may find him negligent in that respect. Another provision of the safety statute provides that the stopping of a vehicle off the roadway is unlawful unless there is an unobstructed width of at least fifteen feet upon the roadway left opposite such standing vehicle for free passage of other vehicles. If you find that the semi-trailer was stopped off the roadway, or partly on or off the roadway, you will then determine whether or not in that position there was left an unobstructed width of at least fifteen feet on the roadway opposite the truck. If you find that it was stopped without leaving fifteen feet of the roadway opposite it, then you may find William Egtvedt negligent in that respect. (Emphasis supplied.) The claimed error is the use of the word may in two places when will should have been used. Cf. Wis J ICivil, Part I, 1115. It is contended that this use of the word may had the effect of informing the jury that, even though they might find that Egtvedt violated sec. 346.51 (1), Stats., it was nevertheless discretionary with the jury as to whether they were to find him negligent. This quoted portion of the charge standing alone is subject to such interpretation, and, therefore, we concur with the view expressed by plaintiffs' counsel that the word will should have been used in the two indicated places where the word may was employed. We are unable, however, to agree that this inadvertent error was prejudicial. In determining whether an error in instructions is prejudicial, the instructions must be considered as a whole. Field v. Vinograd (1960), 10 Wis. (2d) 500, 103 N. W. (2d) 671; 5 Am. Jur. (2d), Appeal and Error, p. 333, sec. 894. Earlier in the charge the trial court defined negligence and then followed such definition by this statement: In addition to this general rule of negligence there are other rules of law, as well as statutes enacted by the legislature, for the safe operation of motor vehicles and for the exercise of due care for a person's own safety. A person who fails to comply with such rules of law or statutes is negligent, as that term is used in the verdict and in the instructions of the court. Thus the jury were told that a violation of a safety statute, such as sec. 346.51 (1), Stats., constituted negligence. When this instruction is read in connection with the attacked instruction we deem there was little likelihood of the jury's coming to the conclusion that, even if Egtvedt violated a requirement of sec. 346.51 (1), the jury nevertheless had the discretion to find him not negligent. In passing on the prejudicial effect of an erroneous instruction the test is not the possibility of the jury's being misled, but the probability thereof. Ide v. Wamser (1964), 22 Wis. (2d) 325, 333, 126 N. W. (2d) 59; Lisowski v. Milwaukee Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. (1962), 17 Wis. (2d) 499, 503, 117 N. W. (2d) 666.