Court Opinion

ID: 9658870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:19:25.109181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:00.921142
License: Public Domain

Hanley, J.
(dissenting). I must respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority’s opinion which states that the finding of negligence on the part of Walter Ianni is supported by credible evidence.
The majority acknowledges that the only testimony supporting the jury’s finding of negligence came from Isabel Ianni. This testimony was not only inconsistent with prior statements given by her, it completely contradicted her earlier statements. Mrs. Ianni could not have been asleep while at the same time forming an opinion as to the speed and location in the roadway of the automobile in which she was riding. Mrs. Ianni never offered any explanation for her contradictory testimony to the jury. If either of the two versions is true, the other must necessarily be false. The majority relies on the general rule that the credibility of the witnesses is the sole function of the jury. I cannot agree that the jury should be permitted to speculate between two absolutely contradictory versions of an accident from the same witness.
*368I would rely upon the general rule of law that:
“Where a party relies on the testimony of a single witness to prove a given issue, and the testimony of such witness is contradictory and conflicting with no explanation of the contradiction, and no other fact or circumstance in the case tends to show which version of the evidence is true, no case is made . . . .” 32A C. J. S., Evidence, p. 823, sec. 1043.
This court recently held in Gelhaar v. State (1969), 41 Wis. 2d 230, 163 N. W. 2d 609, that under certain circumstances (which were met in this case) a prior inconsistent statement was entitled to substantive evi-dentiary weight. Thus, in fact, the flatly contradictory statements of Mrs. Ianni were all before the jury. I can see no distinction between contradictory testimony from the same witness at trial (which the majority concedes is not sufficient to establish a case unless the contradiction is explained) and testimony which contradicts prior inconsistent statements which have substantive evidentiary value.
I would reverse the trial court’s judgment against the Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company and order that the complaint against it be dismissed.