Opinion ID: 2064572
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [1, 2] Plaintiff contends that there was no evidence supporting a finding of her causal negligence. The standard of appellate review of a judgment entered on a jury verdict was stated in Roach v. Keane, 73 Wis.2d 524 536, 243 N.W.2d 508 (1976), as follows: In general, of course, this court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and affirm if there is any credible evidence on which the jury could have based its decision, particularly where the verdict has the approval of the trial court. Toulon v. Nagle (1975), 67 Wis.2d 233, 242, 226 N.W.2d 480. The credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their testimony are matters left to the jury's judgment, and where more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence, this court must accept the inference drawn by the jury. Valiga v. National Food Co. (1973), 58 Wis.2d 232, 244, 206 N.W.2d 377; Calero v. Del Chemical Corp., supra, 68 Wis.2d at 508. A review of the testimony discloses credible evidence to support the jury's attribution of 60 percent of the negligence to the plaintiff. [3] Plaintiff is 5'9 tall and weighed about 240 pounds on the date of the accident. About three weeks before the accident her foot slipped off a floor mat in the office, and she sprained her foot. She used two crutches for a period of time, then one, and during the week of the accident she gave up the crutch because it made her so sore all over she did not want to use it anymore. She said she walked in an upright rather than stooped position, but her foot was tender. In a statement made to her employer's Worker's Compensation insurance carrier, she said: `I was limping with my foot wrapped, but not on crutches, and I was walking very carefully because the foot was very sore and I was being very careful because two weeks, I think it was two weeks on crutches was an awful strain on me, my arms, my legs, everything was aching, and I was walking very gingerly. So when I stepped into that hole it caught me completely by surprise and it kind of scared me, and maybe part of it was panic, I don't know.' She stated the reason she came to work in that condition was because she was alone at home. In reviewing the evidence, we conclude the jury could have found the plaintiff negligent in coming to work and walking about in her condition. [4] The jury could also have concluded the plaintiff was negligent in not avoiding the area of depression as she had been clearly aware of its existence for quite a long time. Finally, the jury could have rested its finding in part on the plaintiff's account of her fall:  A. Well, I was standing on Russ'es [sic] floor mat and being careful of my foot and knowing that I had tripped off of it once before, I looked down at my feet to see where I was positioned, and I stepped off of the mat onto the carpeting and then I stepped forward with my left foot and that's when I stepped into the depression.  Q. And what happened as your left foot came down onto the carpeting?  A. There was no solid flooring as I expected it to be. My foot went into this  it was no longer a giving. It was an actual depression or a hole in the floor. It threw me off balance. It startled me terribly. I was falling to the left into the two desks, and I was afraid I was going to break my hip and to avoid that, I twisted to the right and I fell on my knees and then toppled over onto my right side. [5, 6] Plaintiff argues that the verdict is unsupportable in view of the safe-place statute presumption that the injury was caused by the violation of the statute. See: Umnus v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp., 260 Wis. 433, 438, 51 N.W.2d 42 (1952). The safe-place statute's presumption of causation does not establish as a matter of law that the defendant's negligence was greater than the plaintiff's. Buerosse v. Dutchland Dairy Restaurants, 72 Wis.2d 239, 244, 240 N.W.2d 176 (1976); Frederick v. Hotel Investments, Inc., 48 Wis.2d 429, 434-35, 180 N.W.2d 562 (1970). We conclude there is credible evidence supporting the verdict as approved by the trial court.