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

Heading: Evidence as to who was driving.

Text: Defendant claims it was error for the trial court to admit evidence tending to establish Mrs. Arntz was driving the insured car at the time of the accident. Defendant argues such evidence was inadmissible, indirect, and any finding made by the jury in this regard was speculative and conjectural. The trial court permitted Hazel Siebarth, an aunt of Janice O'Leary, to testify that to her knowledge Janice did not have a driver's license. The court allowed Porter, the fiance of Janice, to testify that from 1959 until 1967 (except for a few years that she was previously married), to his knowledge, Janice O'Leary did not have a driver's license. The trial court also admitted plaintiff's Exhibit 15, a certification from the Wisconsin Motor Vehicle Department to the effect that for the four years prior to May 22, 1968, Janice O'Leary did not have a Wisconsin driver's license. All of this evidence was admitted over defendant's objections. Defendant argues that any evidence concerning a driver's license is inadmissible in that Wisconsin cases have only allowed such evidence to establish the host's lack of experience and a guest's knowledge of it. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Phoenix Indemnity Co. (1953), 263 Wis. 171, 56 N. W. 2d 777; Held v. Draeger (1951), 260 Wis. 70, 49 N. W. 2d 750; Canzoneri v. Heckert (1936), 223 Wis. 25, 269 N. W. 716. However, no Wisconsin case has precluded such evidence for the purpose of identifying who was driving. This case is similar to London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Phoenix Indemnity Co., supra, page 176, in that the evidence was not admitted to establish any lack of due care. Plaintiff contends that it was error to receive evidence of the fact that Miss Bloom had no driver's license and in support of its contention cites a number of cases decided by this court. They are not in point. The evidence of a violation of a statute in all of them was offered upon the theory that the failure to have the license might bear upon the question of the negligence of the violator, and in all of them it was rejected upon the ground that the violation was not shown to have had any causal relation to the accident. The testimony was offered and received in this case not for that purpose, but for the purpose of establishing the fact of the inexperience of the driver and that her guests knew of such lack. If the failure to have a license were the only circumstance proved for the purpose of establishing inexperience it would be insufficient and, if at the time of the offer of proof of that a fact the court were aware that there was nothing else, we should have a different question than is presented. There was other evidence, however, as we have pointed out. On the issue of experience, or the lack of it, proper inferences are deducible from the fact that she had no licensefor instance, that the violator, who should be presumed to have sought to comply with the law, might have been refused a license because of her inexperience, and that her guest should have considered that possibility along with the other facts of which they were aware. . . . In like manner, it can be presumed that Janice O'Leary sought to comply with the law [1] and the jury could have considered that fact when making a determination of whether or not Mrs. Arntz was driving at the time of the accident. The trial court also allowed into testimony, over objections, the testimony of Goldie Wenger, an aunt, who testified that she had never seen her niece, Janice O'Leary, drive a car, although she did not know if Janice knew how to drive or not. Porter also testified that he had not seen Janice drive, although he did not know whether she could drive or not. Defendant claims such proof is inadmissible to show that at the time of the accident Janice O'Leary was not driving. Both women lived in Walworth, Wisconsin, and had apparently driven to Beloit and were on their way back to Walworth when the accident occurred. Testimony was admitted over objection which established that on the day of the accident, when the two women left Walworth at about 10 or 10:30 a. m., Mrs. Arntz was driving. Defendant argues this evidence is too remote to be of any probative value, and cites a number of cases which have held various observations inapplicable. Rausch v. Buisse (1966), 33 Wis. 2d 154, 146 N. W. 2d 801 (evidence of skid mark observed six hours after accident); Neumann v. Evans (1956), 272 Wis. 579, 76 N. W. 2d 322 (observation of speed one-fourth mile from the accident); Ronning v. State (1924), 184 Wis. 651, 200 N. W. 394 (observation of speed one mile from accident). However, these cases also held that the determination of whether evidence is too remote to be relevant is a matter peculiar to the trial court's discretion. It is settled law that: Rejection of evidence because of remoteness rests in the trial court's discretion. Rausch v. Buisse, supra, page 166. See also Neider v. Spoehr (1969), 41 Wis. 2d 610, 165 N. W. 2d 171. All of the cases cited by defendant reflect this rule in that the trial court's discretion was upheld in ruling on the admissibility of the particular evidence involved. Defendant suggests this court held inadmissible the testimony of a witness in Ronning v. State, supra , as to his observation of speed one mile from the scene of the accident. However, the case holds that the testimony allowed by the trial court was admissible, but that this evidence, along with the rest of the state's case, was insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. The witness Krippner was not in a very advantageous position at the time he made his estimate of an approximate speed of seventy miles per hour. However, we are of the opinion that such evidence, under the authorities above cited, was admissible, but that the same did not create a prima facie case on the subject of speed or a presumption that the speed law was violated at or immediately prior to the accident, but that such testimony merely raised an inference of fact. . . . Ronning v. State, supra, pages 657, 658. This court has adopted Rule 303 of the Model Code of Evidence: . . . We have in the recent cases of Whitty v. State (1967), 34 Wis. 2d 278, 149 N. W. 2d 557, and in Price v. State (1967), 37 Wis. 2d 117, 154 N. W. 2d 222, quoted with approval and have adopted the principles of Rule 303 of the Model Code of Evidence. . . . Nevertheless, we have by our approval of Rule 303 concluded that, `The judge may in his discretion exclude evidence if he finds that its probative value is outweighed' by risks incident to its admission. State v. Hutnik (1968), 39 Wis. 2d 754, 763, 159 N. W. 2d 733. Rule 303 of the Model Code of Evidence is as follows: (1) The judge may in his discretion exclude evidence if he finds that its probative value is outweighed by the risk that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time, or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice or of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury, or (c) unfairly surprise a party who has not had reasonable ground to anticipate that such evidence would be offered. (2) All Rules stating evidence to be admissible are subject to this Rule unless the contrary is expressly stated. Defendant has not made any claim that the evidence submitted by plaintiff necessitated undue consumption of time; that it prejudiced or confused the jury; or that defendant was unfairly surprised by such evidence being offered. There is, therefore, no reason why this court should now hold inadmissible the evidence allowed by the trial court tending to establish that Mrs. Arntz was driving at the time of the accident. Turning its argument around, defendant claims that in allowing plaintiff's indirect evidence to show who was driving, the trial court should also have allowed Donald Arntz's testimony that his wife knew there was an arterial stop sign governing Highway Wthe inference being that Mrs. Arntz was not driving since she was aware of the stop sign and would not have ignored it. Again, the question of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial judge, and it cannot be said that failure to admit this testimony was an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff argues that he should be given the benefit of a presumption of continuing situation [2] and since Mrs. Arntz was seen driving the car at 10:30 a. m. it can be presumed that she was still the driver when the accident occurred about three and one-half hours later. Plaintiff further contends that defendant failed to submit proof which would rebut the presumption, and the trial court should have ruled, as a matter of law, that Mrs. Arntz was driving. Defendant argues that lapse of time, together with evidence found in the car indicating the two women had been shopping in Beloit, [3] was sufficient to rebut any presumption that the situation at 10:30 a. m. continued up until the time of the accident. Whether or not this case requires application of a presumption of continuation, it is clear the time lapse from 10:30 a. m. until 2 p. m. and the fact that the two women were returning from Beloit where they had gotten out of the car to go shopping was sufficient to rebut any presumption that Mrs. Arntz was driving at the time of the accident. . . . The limits of time within which the inference of continuance possesses sufficient probative force to be relevant vary with each case. Always strongest in the beginning the inference steadily diminishes in force with lapse of time, at a rate proportionate to the quality of permanence belonging to the fact in question, until it ceases or perhaps is supplanted by a directly opposite inference. In other words, it will be inferred that a given fact or set of facts, the existence of which at a particular time is once established in evidence, continues to exist as long as such facts usually do exist. The force of the inference is subject to the tendency of the fact toward change. The inference is extremely faint in connection with matters of intrinsic impermanency, and where a fact or condition is not reasonably continuous in its nature, there is no presumption of its continuance. Moreover, the presumption does not apply where there has been a change in conditions, or where the likelihood of a change is inherent in the thing itself. The more volatile the situation, the less reliable is the presumption of the continuous state. 31A C. J. S., Evidence, pp. 223-225, sec. 124 (1). However, even though certain facts do not have the dignity of a presumption, they still have evidentiary consequence upon which a jury could base its findings. . . . So, proof of insanity or insolvency at a particular time, is not competent to prove, on the principle of natural and probable relation, the same condition a considerable period prior thereto. But the question of whether a circumstance is of sufficient probative force to have the dignity of a legal presumption of fact, establishing the matter in controversy, prima facie, as in case of the rule stated, is one thing, and that of whether it is so utterly void of probative power as to be outside the realms of competency and so irrelevant, is quite another. It must be conceded that, while evidence of the character of that in question might not establish a condition which would raise a legal presumption running backward, if the condition were not too remote it would not be entirely without evidentiary consequence. Such consequence might be considerable under some circumstances . . . . Ellis v. State (1909), 138 Wis. 513, 524, 525, 119 N. W. 1110. The issue then becomes whether the inference of continuation along with the rest of plaintiff's evidence, is sufficient credible evidence to support the jury's finding. However, under the rule we constantly cite, if there is any credible evidence, either facts or inferences which may be reasonable drawn from such evidence, which under any reasonable view supports the verdict of the jury, it must be upheld. Vasselos v. Greek Orthodox Community (1964), 24 Wis. (2d) 376, 377, 129 N. W. (2d) 243. On review, this court must accept the credible evidence most favorable to sustain the verdict. Burlison v. Janssen (1966), 30 Wis. (2d) 495, 141 N. W. (2d) 274. Rath v. Doerfler (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 494, 497, 151 N. W. 2d 151. Plaintiff's proof included: (1) Janice O'Leary did not have a valid driver's license and Mrs. Arntz did; (2) only on one occasion had Janice O'Leary been seen driving a car; [4] and (3) Mrs. Arntz was driving the car when the women were last seen, about three and one-half hours before the accident. From these facts, a jury could reasonably infer that Mrs. Arntz was driving the car at the time of the accident.