Opinion ID: 1693062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: absence of credible evidence

Text: [4] ¶ 26. The plaintiffs attack the jury verdict for the defendants as lacking any credible evidence. Jury verdicts will be sustained on appeal if there is any credible evidence to support the verdict. See Meurer v. ITT General Controls, 90 Wis. 2d 438, 449, 280 N.W.2d 156 (1979). Upon review, appellate courts must look for evidence to support the verdict, while accepting any reasonable inferences favorable to the verdict that the jury could have drawn from that evidence. Staehler v. Beuthin, 206 Wis. 2d 609, 616, 557 N.W.2d 487 (Ct. App. 1996). Our presumption in favor of the jury verdict is particularly applicable where the circuit court has indicated its agreement with the verdict. See Herro v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 67 Wis. 2d 407, 413, 227 N.W.2d 456 (1975); McGuire v. Stein's Gift and Garden Center, Inc., 178 Wis. 2d 379, 397, 504 N.W.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1993). ¶ 27. The trial record indicates that the parties presented conflicting evidence on the issue of Achter's negligence in allowing the gasoline leak to occur and in failing to report the offending leak to the DNR. Achter presented evidence that he installed the gas tank following the regular procedures of the time and that he consulted with several members of the farming community who had previously installed similar USTs. He testified that he regularly checked the level of gasoline in the underground storage tank. When he discovered the leak, Achter arranged to have the tank emptied. He further presented evidence that other farmers and the DNR operated under the belief (now known to be mistaken) that there was no danger of groundwater contamination arising from petroleum products being introduced into the soil. [5] ¶ 28. Based on the evidence reflected above, we find that there was sufficient credible evidence to support the jury's finding that Achter was not negligent. In so doing, we also acknowledge the added weight to be given to the verdict in light of the circuit court's finding in this case that: I think there's ample evidence from the jury to support the findings of the verdict, particularly as in question one, was Louis Achter negligent in respect, possession of an underground gasoline tank, they answered that no. . . . The jury could easily find that Louis Achter was not negligent and the Court so upholds. See Herro, 67 Wis. 2d at 413. Accordingly, we sustain the jury verdict.