Court Opinion

ID: 9858475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:25:18.523833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:33.601244
License: Public Domain

Gehl, J.
{dissenting). A combination of three circumstances requires a new trial if for no other reason than in the interest of justice. Each of them standing alone might warrant the action of the majority; but the combination *580makes it appear probable that justice has miscarried, and that, therefore, we should order a new trial.
Three photographs, Exhibits D, E, and F were rejected. They were offered by Peiffer and his insurance carrier for the purpose of demonstrating to the jury that the story told by Wagner as to his observation of the position of Peiffer’s car on the north and south highway as it was approaching the curve was incredible. They tend to throw some doubt upon his story and indicate that it was not likely, because of the presence of shrubbery and the elevation of the terrain at the curve, that Peiffer could have observed the position of the Wagner car as he testified that he did. It is no answer to say that the jury had viewed the premises and that its members would or could have made the observation or have seen the conditions represented by the photographs. They might have made the observation had their attention been called to the possibility or probability that Wagner would testify as he did. We do not assume that that was done, for it would have been error to permit it. The trial court cited as its reason for rejecting the exhibits the fact that they were taken at a point too close to the edge of the road and were not a true picture of the two highways or the scene of the accident. The record does not disclose that that is true. In fact, the objection to their receipt was not made upon that ground.
The court refused to permit two witnesses to place marks upon a map which had been received in evidence to indicate the location of the automobiles and skid marks. Placing marks upon maps is a common practice and is helpful to both the jury and the reviewing court. I do not find that its propriety has ever been questioned. In many of the opinions of this court reference is made to marks placed upon maps, and in at least one of them, we have considered them of controlling weight as compared with estimates made in oral testimony. Foster v. Bauer, 173 Wis. 231, 180 N. W. *581817. I believe that I may safely say that none of the members of this court has ever heard objection made at the trial to an offer that a witness designate an object or the location of one upon a map.
The third circumstance, probably the most important, is that which exists in the jury’s award of damages to Peif-fer. His damages to his automobile and for towing were stipulated at $1,021; for medical and hospital expenses at $3,944.75. It was undisputed that at the time of trial he had sustained a wage loss of $3,778.50. There'was, therefore a showing upon stipulation and undisputed testimony of $8,744.25 in so-called special damages at the time of trial. It was also undisputed that he would be totally disabled for a minimum additional period of six months, possibly a year, and, based upon the amount of his earnings at the time of the accident, and considering a period of continuing disability for only six months, there was undisputed proof of an additional wage loss of $1,786.20. Thus, there was undisputed proof of a total of $10,530.45, and the jury’s total award for damages, including assessments for pain, suffering, and disability, was $9,965.75. Their award for loss of earnings, $3,500, was more than $2,000 less than the undisputed proof shows he lost in that respect.
For pain and suffering endured over a period of a year, during two months of which there was excruciating pain, the jury awarded Peiffer $750. For permanent disability involving a permanently stiff right hip in a man thirty-seven years of age, a minimum permanent loss of function in his right knee of thirty per cent, a doubtful recovery from “double vision” of his left eye, and an over-all condition which will render him unable to perform the only kind of work for which he has been trained, the jury awarded him only $750.
There was a sharp conflict in the testimony as. to the alleged negligence of the two drivers. The significant cir*582cumstance that the cars came together at a substantial distance to the right of Peiffer’s lane of travel is not so clearly offset by the testimony of the opposition as to permit the court to say that Peiffer was guilty of negligence as a matter of law. Under such circumstances we may not say that the obvious perverseness of the jury manifested by its assessment of damages sustained by Peiffer did not extend to the determination of the questions involving negligence. Olsen v. Brown, 186 Wis. 179, 202 N. W. 167. Here is demonstrated the important effect of the court’s refusal to receive in evidence the photographs which would have tended to impeach Wagner’s-story that he saw or was able to see the position of the Peiffer car as it approached the curve. Had Peiffer been permitted to show by the photographs that Wagner’s story was incredible, is it not reasonable to assume that the jury might not have disregarded the judge’s instructions on the question of damages? Murphy v. Lachmund Lumber & Coal Co. 194 Wis. 119, 215 N. W. 822.
The award of damages to Peiffer is so grossly disproportionate to his injuries and disability that we might well conclude, that upon that ground alone, the jury must have been influenced by a perverted judgment which extended to its determination of the other questions of the verdict and order a new trial. However wrong I might be in that conclusion, it still appears to me that the combination of circumstances referred to discloses conclusively that justice has miscarried in this case and that a new trial should be granted under the provisions of sec. 251.09, Stats.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Broadfoot and Mr. Justice Currie join in this dissent.