Opinion ID: 1693062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence of common law negligence

Text: ¶ 14. The plaintiffs' most vigorous challenge on appeal attacks the circuit court's repeated refusal to allow evidence of Achter's violation of Wis. Stat. § 144.76 [5] to be admitted as evidence of a standard of care for common law negligence purposes. Evidentiary questions are properly resolved at the circuit court's discretion. See State v. Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d 334, 342, 340 N.W.2d 498 (1983). Where this court is asked to review such rulings, we look not to see if we agree with the circuit court's determination, but rather whether the trial court exercised its discretion in accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of record. State v. Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d at 342 (quoting State v. Wollman, 86 Wis. 2d 459, 464, 273 N.W.2d 225 (1979)). If a reasonable basis for the circuit court's ruling exists, we will not disturb it. See State v. Harris, 123 Wis. 2d 231, 365 N.W.2d 922 (Ct. App. 1985). Our review of the trial record indicates that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion. ¶ 15. At trial, plaintiffs' counsel repeatedly insisted that it was the plaintiffs'right to enter evidence of Achter's violation of Wis. Stat. § 144.76 to show a standard of care for common law negligence since the statute was the law of the land. However, absent a safety statute or an established private right of action, this court has never held that parties have an absolute right to admit evidence of violation of a civil statute to show a standard of care. Even were this court inclined to adopt the plaintiffs' position that a violation of a civil statute can be generally admitted for such purposes, a question we decline to address on this appeal, the circuit court's discretionary refusal to admit the evidence in this case had a rational basis in the law and facts of the case. ¶ 16. The record reflects that counsel for the defendants strongly objected to admission of Wis. Stat. § 144.76 as a standard of care. Counsel based his objection on the grounds that application of Wis. Stat. § 144.76, a mandatory DNR reporting requirement, was irrelevant to a third-party common law action based on Achter's possession and control of a UST. Counsel further objected to admission of the statute on the grounds that the plaintiffs effectively sought to use the statute to create a back door private right of action or negligence per se claima result unduly prejudicial to the defense. [1] ¶ 17. Responding to defense counsel's objections, after hearing oral arguments on the issue at least seven times prior to and during the course of the trial, the circuit court barred evidence pertaining to the existence or violation of Wis. Stat. § 144.76. In doing so, we believe the circuit court properly exercised its discretion to bar evidence with questionable relevancy that might also be unduly prejudicial under the facts of this case. See Wis. Stat. § 904.03.