Opinion ID: 2169049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of evidence to support jury verdict

Text: [1, 2] ¶ 38. We begin our analysis of the first issue, namely whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict in the negligence claim, by addressing the standard of review. Our review of a jury's verdict is narrow. Appellate courts in Wisconsin will sustain a jury verdict if there is any credible evidence to support it. Meurer v. ITT Gen. Controls, 90 Wis. 2d 438, 450, 280 N.W.2d 156 (1979); Giese, 111 Wis. 2d at 408. Moreover, if there is any credible evidence, under any reasonable view, that leads to an inference supporting the jury's finding, we will not overturn that finding. Ferraro v. Koelsch, 119 Wis. 2d 407, 410-11, 350 N.W.2d 735 (Ct. App. 1984), aff'd, 124 Wis. 2d 154, 368 N.W.2d 666 (1985); Wis. Stat. § 805.14(1). [8] [3-5] ¶ 39. In applying this narrow standard of review, this court considers the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury's determination. Meurer, 90 Wis. 2d at 450; Stunkel v. Price Elec. Coop., 229 Wis. 2d 664, 668, 599 N.W.2d 919 (Ct. App. 1999). We do so because it is the role of the jury, not an appellate court, to balance the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to the testimony of those witnesses. Meurer, 90 Wis. 2d at 450. To that end, appellate courts search the record for credible evidence that sustains the jury's verdict, not for evidence to support a verdict that the jury could have reached but did not. Wheeler v. General Tire & Rubber Co., 142 Wis. 2d 798, 809, 419 N.W.2d 331 (Ct. App. 1987) (citing Gonzales v. City of Franklin, 137 Wis. 2d 109, 134, 403 N.W.2d 747 (1987)). If we find that there is any credible evidence in the record on which the jury could have based its decision, we will affirm that verdict. Lundin v. Shimanski, 124 Wis. 2d 175, 184, 368 N.W.2d 676 (1985). Similarly, if the evidence gives rise to more than one reasonable inference, we accept the particular inference reached by the jury. Meurer, 90 Wis. 2d at 450; Ferraro, 119 Wis. 2d at 410-11. This court will uphold the jury verdict even though [the evidence] be contradicted and the contradictory evidence be stronger and more convincing. Weiss v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 197 Wis. 2d 365, 390, 541 N.W.2d 753 (1995). [6] ¶ 40. The standard of review in this case is even more stringent because the circuit court approved the jury's verdict. We afford special deference to a jury determination in those situations in which the trial court approves the finding of a jury. Kuklinski v. Rodriguez, 203 Wis. 2d 324, 331, 552 N.W.2d 869 (1996). In such cases, this court will not overturn the jury's verdict unless there is such a complete failure of proof that the verdict must be based on speculation. Coryell v. Conn, 88 Wis. 2d 310, 315, 276 N.W.2d 723 (1979). ¶ 41. Having addressed the standard of review, we now turn to the heart of the negligence issue by examining whether there is credible evidence in the record to support the jury's determination. Given the narrow standard of review in this case, we undertake our analysis by viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury verdict and by accepting the particular inferences drawn by the jury. [7] ¶ 42. Wisconsin case law allows plaintiffs to seek recovery from a manufacturer for the defective design of a product under a strict liability theory and/or a negligence theory. Sharp v. Case Corp., 227 Wis. 2d 1, 16, 595 N.W.2d 382 (1999) (citing Greiten v. LaDow, 70 Wis. 2d 589, 235 N.W.2d 677 (1975) (Heffernan, J., concurring)). The coexistence of the two theories has sparked confusion and criticism because both rely on an underlying product defect. See id. at 19; see also Erik J. Pless, Wisconsin's Comparative Negligence Statute: Applying It To Liability Cases Brought Under A Strict Liability Theory, Wisconsin Lawyer (August, 1998). Nonetheless, negligence and strict liability continue to offer separate avenues to recovery: This court recently declined to overrule Greiten, the case in which Justice Heffernan's controlling concurrence set forth the key distinctions that separate the two types of claims. See Sharp, 227 Wis. 2d at 16-17. [8] ¶ 43. The proof required in a strict liability claim differs from the quantum of proof in a negligence claim. Under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff must prove the five elements set forth in Dippel v. Sciano, 37 Wis. 2d 443, 460, 155 N.W.2d 55 (1967). [9] In Greiten, this court summarized these elements to the effect that, It is sufficient for the plaintiff to show that the product reached him in a dangerously defective condition. Greiten, 70 Wis. 2d at 601. Claims brought under a strict liability theory thus focus on the condition of the product. Tanner v. Shoupe, 228 Wis. 2d 357, 365 n.3, 596 N.W.2d 805 (Ct. App. 1999) (citing Schuh v. Fox River Tractor Co., 63 Wis. 2d 728, 734-35, 218 N.W.2d 279 (1974)). Strict liability requires a showing that the condition of the product was unreasonably dangerous or otherwise posed an extraordinary form of danger. Sharp, 227 Wis. 2d at 19. [9, 10] ¶ 44. In a negligence action, by contrast, it is not necessary to show that the condition of the product reached the level of unreasonable dangerousness. Id. at 7, 16-17; Greiten, 70 Wis. 2d at 603. In that respect, the plaintiff's required proof appears less onerous at first glance. On the other hand, under a negligence theory, a plaintiff will not prevail by showing only that a product was defective. The principles of negligence law hinge on a defendant's conduct, and therefore the plaintiff must show that the defendant was at fault. D.L. v. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d 581, 610, 329 N.W.2d 890 (1983); see also Greiten, 70 Wis. 2d at 603. [11] ¶ 45. A negligence action requires the proof of four elements: (1) A duty of care on the part of the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the injury; and (4) an actual loss or damage as a result of the injury. Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 418, 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995). ¶ 46. Working under this standard of proof, the first question we ask is whether the Mordens satisfied the first element by showing that Continental owed a duty of care to them. See id. at 419. Wisconsin has long recognized that each individual owes a duty of care to others: The duty of any person is the obligation of due care to refrain from any act which will cause foreseeable harm to others even though the nature of that harm and the identity of the harmed person or harmed interest is unknown at the time of the act. Id. at 419-20 (citing Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 162 N.E. 99 (1928) (Andrews, J., dissenting)). The duty of care of a defendant is established when we can state that it was foreseeable that the defendant's act or omission could harm or injure another person. Antwaun A. v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 228 Wis. 2d 44, 55, 996 N.W.2d 456 (1999). The first element, duty of care, therefore pivots on foreseeability. Id. at 55-56. ¶ 47. When assessing foreseeability, our courts do not require the plaintiff to prove that a particular injury is foreseeable; rather, it is sufficient to show that some injury could reasonably have been foreseen. Fischer v. Cleveland Punch & Shear Works Co., 91 Wis. 2d 85, 97, 280 N.W.2d 280 (1979). Moreover, the test of foreseeability expects manufacturers to anticipate the environment which is normal for the use of his product. Tanner, 228 Wis. 2d at 367 (quoting Kozlowski v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 87 Wis. 2d 882, 896, 275 N.W.2d 915 (1979)). Consequently, the duty of care requires manufacturers to foresee all reasonable uses and misuses and the consequent foreseeable dangers, id. at 368 (citing Schuh, 63 Wis. 2d at 742-43), and to act accordingly. [12] ¶ 48. To establish that Continental owed a duty of care to the Mordens, we therefore must determine whether there was any credible evidence or inference therefrom to support the finding that Continental knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, that the tires posed a foreseeable risk of injury. This analysis requires us also to consider whether Continental could have foreseen that dangers would result if the Mordens misused the tires. ¶ 49. The court of appeals in this case held that the Mordens failed to prove that Continental owed a duty of care to the Mordens because they did not present evidence that Continental knew or should have known that the tires were unsafe. We respectfully disagree. Credible evidence presented at trial suggests that the Continental tires evinced a belt separation problem that made a rupture possible. Tire expert Taylor testified that manufacturers do not install cap plies in tires unless they are likely to experience belt separation: [T]he existence of the cap ply indicates that they were using that to overcome the problems of keeping the steel belts together. Taylor explained that, Normally you don't see a cap ply in a normal passenger tire except if it's needed in order to keep the separation resistance of the tire at acceptable levels. The cap ply functions as a Band-Aid to fix a problem and keeps the belts together to reduce separations. Based on this testimony, the jury could have concluded that the presence of the cap ply in the tire design indicates that Continental had actual knowledge of a belt separation problem, and that Continental could have foreseen that a belt separation was possible. The rupture of the tires on the Mordens' vehicle was not a most unusual and highly coincidental circumstance[] that had to be present for somebody to be injured. Greiten, 70 Wis. 2d at 598; see also Fischer, 91 Wis. 2d at 95. It is not unusual to foresee that if tires are inclined to rupture, they are more likely to rupture and cause injury when a vehicle is traveling at high speeds. ¶ 50. The jury in this case also could have concluded reasonably that Continental foresaw misuse of the tires. Continental's 1988 Tire Guide alerts owners to refer to the tire information placard for the correct tire size and inflation pressure. The Guide also notes that replacement tires must have adequate load carrying capacity, and it outlines the proper load/inflation ratios for popular American automobile tire sizes. Continental's inclusion of this information relating to load and tire inflation, designed to assure satisfactory tire performance, reveals that the manufacturer foresaw at least some types of consumer misuse. [13] ¶ 51. From the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the jury could have inferred that Continental knew or should have known that the tires foreseeably were prone to belt separations and that misuse of the tires would pose a risk of foreseeable injury. Under the deferential standard of this review, we find that it was reasonable for the jury to infer that Continental owed a duty of care to the Mordens. ¶ 52. Having established that Continental owed a duty of care, we now apply our standard of review to the second element of the negligence analysis by considering whether the jury reasonably could have inferred that Continental breached its duty of care. [14] ¶ 53. In determining whether a defendant breached the duty of care, we hold the defendant to the standard of ordinary care: Ordinary care is the degree of care which the great mass of mankind ordinarily exercises under the same or similar circumstances. A person fails to exercise ordinary care when, without intending to do any harm, he does an act or omits a precaution under circumstances in which a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence ought reasonably to foresee that such act or omission will subject the person of another to an unreasonable risk of injury. State v. Bodoh, 226 Wis. 2d 718, 732, 595 N.W.2d 330 (1999) (quoting Wis JICriminal 1260); see also Wis JICivil 1005. [15-17] ¶ 54. Product manufacturers are held to this same standard of ordinary care. Smith v. Atco. Co., 6 Wis. 2d 371, 383, 94 N.W.2d 697 (1959). In gauging the liability of a manufacturer, we ask whether a reasonably prudent person in the shoes of the defendant manufacturer would exercise the same degree of care. Id. In a negligence claim against a manufacturer, the plaintiff is simply required to prove that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care and the act or omission complained of was the cause, in the legal sense, of the plaintiff's injury. Greiten, 70 Wis. 2d at 601; see also Fischer, 91 Wis. 2d at 92. ¶ 55. To date, our courts have held that a showing by a plaintiff that better methods of manufacture exist does not conclusively prove that a defendant created the product with a lack of ordinary care. Morden v. Continental AG, No. 98-0073 unpublished slip op. at 4; Greiten, 70 Wis. 2d at 602; Locicero, 83 Wis. 2d at 890. Under this approach, negligence usually attaches only when the plaintiff can prove that the defendant selected the more dangerous route of manufacture knowing that it was unsafe. Locicero, 83 Wis. 2d at 890. [18-20] ¶ 56. Manufacturers nonetheless are held to the reasonable person standard of customary methods of manufacture in a similar industry. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d at 616-17. Although nonconformance with industry custom is not conclusive proof of a failure to exercise ordinary care, it does provide evidence to the jury about whether the defendant reasonably could have done something to prevent the harm. Id. at 619; see also Fischer, 91 Wis. 2d at 97. Evidence of the custom in the industry (what the industry was doing) and the state of the art (what the industry feasibly could have done) at the time of the design or manufacture is relevant to the jury's determination of negligence. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d at 616-17. Given evidence of industry practices, the jury can make the determination whether the manufacturer reasonably and economically could have chosen an alternative course of conduct. Id. at 619. ¶ 57. The jury in this case reasonably could have concluded that Continental's failure to take the available precaution of using a double-wrap cap splice constituted a lack of ordinary care, even if the record is silent about whether Continental conducted tests on the single-wrap cap splice. Existing technology addressed the danger of belt separation in the manufacture of radial tires. A 1974 steel-belted radial tire patent states that: It is known that many types of tires, especially radial ply carcass tires. . .often fail at high speeds because separations occur in the shoulder zones of the tires where the edges of the belt plies are located. Taylor testified that the single-wrap cap splice was not effective in preventing the underlying adhesion problem, adding that the double-wrap technology designed to eliminate belt separation had been known and generally used in the tire industry since the 1960s and 1970s. The patent acknowledges that single-wrap cap splices are known in the art but adds that such a design does not, however, disclose a structure which overcomes either the problem of tire distortion and ply separation at high speeds. The patent alone may not establish the standard in the tire industry. Taken together, however, the patent and Taylor's testimony illustrate industry knowledge and address what feasibly could have been done at the time of the tire's manufacture. [21] ¶ 58. From this evidence, the jury could have reasoned that Continental should have chosen an alternative design to prevent the harm caused by belt separation. Consequently, credible evidence exists that could have led the jury to infer that Continental breached its duty of ordinary care. The inference is not the only one that a jury could reach from the evidence; nonetheless, an appellate court reviewing a jury verdict must accept the particular inference drawn by the jury. Meurer, 90 Wis. 2d at 450; Ferraro, 119 Wis. 2d at 410-11. ¶ 59. We next apply our standard of review to the third element of the negligence analysis by determining whether there is credible evidence to support the jury's conclusion that there was a causal connection between Continental's manufacture of the tires and Christine Morden's injuries. [22-24] ¶ 60. The element of causation turns on whether the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in producing the injury. Nieuwendorp v. American Family Ins. Co., 191 Wis. 2d 462, 475, 529 N.W.2d 594 (1995). Our inquiry into causation focuses on the nexus between the design or manufacture of the tires and Christine Morden's injuries. To discern whether such a nexus exists, we must determine whether the defendant's actions were a cause-in-fact of the injuries. If they were, we explore whether the conduct of the defendant was a proximate cause of the harm sustained by the plaintiff. Proximate cause involves public policy considerations for the court that may preclude the imposition of liability. See Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 250, 264, 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998). After the determination of the cause-in-fact of an injury, a court still may deny recovery after addressing policy considerations, or legal cause. Coffey v. Milwaukee, 74 Wis. 2d 526, 541, 247 N.W.2d 132 (1976). This case, however, does not turn on proximate cause. Because legal cause is not at issue in this case, we focus our attention on the question of cause-in-fact. ¶ 61. In this case, the jury found that the design or manufacture of the tires was a cause-in-fact of the accident. In addition, 10 members of the jury concluded that the tires left the possession of Continental in such defective condition as to be unreasonably dangerous to a prospective user and that the defective condition was a cause of the accident. Although the circuit court discarded the strict liability verdict in this case, the jury's answers to Questions 3 and 4 of the Special Verdict prevent Continental from now relying upon the kind of inconsistency in the jury verdicts at issue in Sharp, 227 Wis. 2d at 18-19. ¶ 62. Trooper Fouraker testified that the two rear tires of the Morden vehicle had drawn his attention. The failed tires were the unique thing he saw in his investigation. Accident reconstruction expert Shaw concluded that the two failed tires had undergone a belt separation. According to tire expert Taylor, a degeneration of the adhesion between the radial belts caused the separation. ¶ 63. Taylor hypothesized that the adhesion problems occurred either in the manufacturing process or in the operation of the tires. He described potential manufacturing difficulties ranging from excessive heat to inadequate materials, to dust. [10] Taylor acknowledged that post-manufacturing problems, including the operation and maintenance of the tires, also could have affected adhesion. These problems included heat, age, speed, and overinflation of the tires. More than one factor could have affected adhesion. These problems were foreseeable, whether the adhesion problems began before or after the tires left the Continental plant. Taylor stated that each tire was defective because the adhesive stem splice wasn't sufficient to take care of the tire during its life. ¶ 64. The two failed tires were made in the same plant at the same time. They were identical in design. The tires failed at the same time in exactly the same waythe cap ply around each tire split at the same spot, the cap ply splice. ¶ 65. Taylor testified that the belt separations in the two tires were of long-term duration. Hence, the jury could have concluded that the separations did not occur on the date of the accident because of speed or the dip in the highway. The speed of the Vanagon, the weight it was carrying, the highway dip, and other factors simply exacerbated the intense pressure that the already separated belts were putting on the only structure[s] that [were] really left holding the tire[s] together, namely, the single wrap cap plies. As a result, they came apart, and the tires ruptured. ¶ 66. Taylor attributed the belt separation to Continental's use of the single-wrap cap splice. The tires blew out because the cap ply splice was not strong enough to hold the tire together. Taylor therefore concluded that tires would not have failed had Continental used the double-wrap cap splice. [11] ¶ 67. Similarly, the deposition of a Continental employee, read to the jury at trial, could have led the jury to infer that the tires would not have ruptured but for the failure of the single-wrap cap splice and the ensuing belt separations. Continental's quality control engineer, Victor Bleumel, observed that both tires split open at the weak juncture of the cap ply splice. Bleumel inspected the tires by way of physical and x-ray examination, and he found bubbles inside the tires that coincided with the area of the belt separation. He stated that the belt separation was a cause, one factor, contributing to the failure of both rear tires and agreed that the tires probably would not have failed absent the separation. ¶ 68. The failure of both rear tires simultaneously at exactly the same points within the tires buttressed tire expert Taylor's belief that a design or manufacturing defect caused the tire failure. Morrie Shaw, the Mordens' accident reconstruction expert, also testified that the simultaneous rupture of the tires precipitated the vehicle's loss of control. Similarly, the director of quality assurance for Continental, Dr. Rainer Stark, indicated that belt separations lead to tire failure, and the sudden failure of two tires simultaneously posed an increased risk of danger. ¶ 69. Mr. P's tire consultant, Donald Avila, presented conflicting testimony. He stated that the tires had nothing to do with the Mordens' accident, arguing that the driver did something improper that caused the driver to lose control of the vehicle. Notwithstanding this testimony, we usually uphold a jury verdict when credible evidence supports that verdict, even if that evidence is contradicted by stronger and more convincing evidence. Weiss, 197 Wis. 2d at 388-90. ¶ 70. Continental contends that a claim for negligent manufacture or design cannot prevail solely on the failure of the tires when the plaintiff failed to exclude other potential causes. It argues that the design of the tires does not give rise to an inference of negligence because other factors, such as the age of the tires and their misuse, were not eliminated as causes of the accident. For instance, Continental maintains that the manner in which the Mordens loaded the vehicle, overinflated its tires, and drove the vehicle caused the Vanagon to bottom out and led the tires to fail simultaneously. ¶ 71. We disagree for two reasons. First, the standard of review in this case requires us to accept the inferences drawn by the jury unless those inferences are completely speculative and unfounded. They are not. The jury heard ample evidence that the Mordens may have misused the Vanagon. The Mordens' own experts, Taylor and Shaw, testified that Thomas Morden purchased the wrong tires for the Vanagon, and Taylor conceded that this constituted misuse of the tires. The Tech Lube employee who serviced the vehicle explained that the tires were overinflated three months before the Mordens departed on their vacation, and Thomas Morden himself conceded that he did not check the tire pressure personally. Taylor agreed that overinflation could contribute significantly to the loss of adhesion between the belts. But the jury also heard expert testimony that minimized the effect of these factors. ¶ 72. The jury's answers to the two Special Verdict questions about Thomas Morden's negligence suggest that the jury did not exclude other factors leading to the accident. To answer those questions, the jury must have pondered testimony that the Continental tires were not the proper ones for the Vanagon, that the tires may have been overinflated, that Thomas may have overloaded the vehicle, and, perhaps, that he did not secure the Hobie Craft well enough to prevent the trailer from swaying. The jury factored this evidence into the equation because it determined that Thomas Morden was negligent in the selection or maintenance of the tires. The jury did not conclude, however, that his negligence was a cause of the accident. These conclusions contradict the suggestion that the jury failed to consider causes other than the negligent design and manufacture of the tires. [25] ¶ 73. Second, product misuse, whether in the maintenance or operation of a vehicle, speaks to the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. Schuh, 63 Wis. 2d at 740-41. A negligence claim does not turn on a plaintiff's ability to exclude other possible causes, and a finding of negligence does not necessarily address the only cause of an accident. Accidents, as Judge Wasielewski remarked, can have more than one cause, and plaintiffs are not required to show freedom from their own negligence as part of their own case. Instead, If they were negligent, it's the job of the defendant to allege contributory negligence and to prove it. ¶ 74. The jury in this case did not attribute the sole cause of the accident to Continental's negligence. Rather, it discerned that more than one cause led to Christine Morden's injuries. The jury found Christine Morden negligent with respect to her operation of the vehicle and determined that her negligence was a cause of the accident. Thus, the jury apparently considered witness Leonhard's testimony that the Vanagon was traveling at a speed of about 72 miles per hour and changing lanes abruptly, and it may have taken into account tire consultant Avila's opinion that the driver of the vehicle did something improper that caused the Vanagon to lose control. [26, 27] ¶ 75. The jury is free, as it did here, to assign a percentage of responsibility to the plaintiff for the harm he or she sustained because apportionment of negligence usually is a question of fact for the jury. See Peters v. Menard, Inc., 224 Wis. 2d 174, 193, 589 N.W.2d 395 (1999). The contributory negligence statute does not bar recovery to a plaintiff whose percentage of causal negligence is less than 51 percent. Wis. Stat. § 895.045. The jury apportioned 50 percent of the negligence to Continental and the other 50 percent to Christine Morden. Consequently, the statute does not preclude Christine Morden from recovering damages. ¶ 76. The jury was unanimous in its decision that Continental's negligence was a cause of the accident. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we believe that a jury could infer that Continental's failure to implement the double-wrap cap splice design was a substantial factor in the accident and constituted a cause-in-fact of Christine Morden's injuries. ¶ 77. Our review of the negligence claim concludes by addressing briefly the fourth element of the analysis, namely proof that an actual loss or damage resulted from the accident. The Mordens presented abundant evidence of the actual losses they sustained. As the trial court observed, [t]he damages here could be fairly termed as catastrophic. A good share of the testimony by Thomas and Christine Morden focused on the debilitating nature of Christine's injuries and the care she requires. We have no doubt that the record supports the jury's finding that Christine, a quadriplegic, sustained an actual loss. [28] ¶ 78. Considering the evidence in a manner that is most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that the record reveals credible evidence to sustain the jury's determination that Continental was negligent in the design or manufacture of the tires. Under any reasonable view of the evidence, the jury could have inferred that the Mordens satisfied the burden of proving each of the four elements of the negligence claim. This is not a case in which there was a complete failure of proof that would lead us to find that the jury must have based its verdict on impermissible speculation or conjecture. We therefore uphold the judgment of the circuit court that approved the verdict of the jury and reverse the court of appeals. ¶ 79. Because we reverse the court of appeals on this first issue, we do not reach the Mordens' second alternative issue, namely the finding of the circuit court that the strict liability verdict was defective. Similarly, we do not address the third issue presented by the Mordens that asked us to consider the situations in which the court of appeals may file unpublished, per curiam opinions.