Court Opinion

ID: 9671325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:34:36.639156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.307133
License: Public Domain

Robert W. Hansen, J.
(concurring). “Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief. Doctor, lawyer, fireman chief.” So, or nearly so, rope-skipping youngsters once were wont to chant. What if the seven mentioned in the rhyme set out to walk across a public highway? What degree of care must each or all exercise in taking the walk or crossing the road? The general rule, as the trial court here instructed the jury, is that “ordinary care” is required, meaning “. . . that degree of care which the great mass of mankind, or the ordinarily prudent man, exercises under like or similar circumstances.” 1
*760OK as to six, but not as to the seventh, the three justices who would reverse for error appear to agree. For, as to the fire chief, they conclude the standard of care on his part in crossing the highway is to be somewhat less the variance required because of his preoccupation with his duty as fire chief. There is to be no similar lowering of the standard for the lawyer because he “. . . has no responsibility to have his case on his mind.” “What then about the doctor?” ask the three justices who would affirm, and, “What about a plainclothes policeman or a husband or father taking his wife or child to a hospital ?” The look down the road is appropriate, because, while we deal here only with a volunteer fire chief responding to a false alarm as to a grass fire, it seems clear that the creation of varying standards of due care for particular professions or occupations will not end with the recognition of the special circumstance of a firefighter responding to an alarm.
The three who would reverse for error elect to say, “. . . The standard of care for a workman in a hazardous location is not related to the ordinarily prudent man ... It is a lesser duty than a nonworkman under the same hazards.” They recognize but reject the alternative approach which is to “. . . explain under the general negligence instruction that an ordinarily prudent man under similar circumstances means a workman.” The reason given for the rejection: “It has generally been considered the standard instruction for negligence of an ordinarily prudent man under similar circumstances does not mean that an ordinarily prudent man is a fireman.” If not, why not? What else can “under like or similar circumstances” mean other than like or similar to the situation in which the plaintiff found himself: A fire chief, responding to an alarm, crossing a highway to ask those assembled where the fire was. Why he was there and what he was doing certainly are among the relevant *761circumstances to which the general test applies. If the “ordinarily prudent man” test is “generally” not so understood, what is needed is a special instruction, or addition to the general instruction, that makes clear all circumstances come within the rule. Explaining the rule, not changing it, is all that is required.
The writer would hold all persons to a single standard as to what constitutes ordinary care: what an ordinarily prudent man would do under like or similar circumstances. The circumstance of a volunteer fire chief, not in uniform, responding to a false report of a grass fire is one of the circumstances for which the rule provides. When, as here, it is applied to a highway accident, the reference to circumstances goes beyond the physical factors, such as width of the highway, position of the cars or the locale of the accident. It includes the mission or work or special situation of the fire chief who brings this action for personal injury damages. The nature of his mission or function does not change the test, but mission and function are among the circumstances which the “ordinarily prudent man” would consider in the exercise of ordinary care.
We see the situation here presented as analogous to that involving persons who deal with instrumentalities that are known to be dangerous. It is clear enough that those who deal with high tension electricity must exercise great care because the risk is so great.2 But more than semantics is involved in refusing to state that an electrician is held to a different standard of care than a plumber. The proportioning of care to danger does not require some occupation-dependent raising or lowering of the standard of care. It is only the circumstances that *762vary. The legal standard remains constant.3 However, it is the particular circumstances present that determine what care a reasonably prudent person would exercise under all such circumstances.4
So the writer would find no error in the trial court refusing to instruct that there is a different and lower standard of due care for a volunteer fireman than for someone or everyone else.5 However, applied to the facts and record in this case, the writer would find that Wisconsin Jury Instructions, Civil 1001, stating the “ordinarily prudent man” test6 did not sufficiently inform the *763jury that the “like or similar circumstances” to which the rule refers included not only the physical scene at the place of the accident but also the work and mission of the plaintiff. On the record here, the phrase “like or similar circumstances,” left undefined, did not adequately inform the jury that what the plaintiff fire chief was engaged in doing at the time was among the circumstances they were to consider along with where he was walking when he was struck. While the instructions as requested were properly rejected, the instructions as given failed to make clear the totality of circumstances the jury was to include in applying the “ordinarily prudent man” test. So, in the interest of justice, the writer would reverse and order a new trial on the issues of negligence, causation and apportionment.

 As stated in Wisconsin Jury Instructions, Civil 1001.

 “Those who deal with instrumentalities that are known to be dangerous, such as high tension electricity, gas, explosives, or elevators, must exercise a great amount of care because the risk is great.” Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971), p. 180, sec. 34.

 “Although the language used by the courts sometimes seems to indicate that a special standard is being applied, it would appear that none of these cases should logically call for any departure from the usual formula. What is required is merely the conduct of the reasonable man of ordinary prudence under the circumstances, and the greater danger, or the greater responsibility, is merely one of the circumstances, demanding only an increased amount of care.” Prosser, Law of Torts, Id. at page 181.

 Similarly, in instructing on the standard of ordinary care required in an emergency, it is the presence of the emergency as a circumstance that is material in the application, not altering or abandoning the “ordinarily prudent man” test. See: 57 Am. Jur. 2d, Negligence, p. 439, sec. 91, stating: “The emergency rule is an application of the prudent man rule .... The emergency does not change the requirement of ordinary care, but the person confronted with the emergency is required to use only that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances . . . .” Consistent with this approach, Wisconsin Jury Instructions, Civil 1051, dealing with “. . . preoccupation of a workman in the discharge of his duties. . . .” should be read to imply that a preoccupied workman need put forth only less effort to meet the ordinary standard under the circumstances.

 The rejected instructions read, in part: “You are further instructed that momentary diversion of attention or preoccupation of a volunteer fireman in the discharge of his duties minimizes the degree of care required of him in the absence of such diversion or preoccupation.”

 “ ‘Negligence’ means a failure to exercise ordinary care. ‘Ordinary care’ is that degree of care which the great mass of mankind, or the ordinarily prudent man, exercises under like or similar circumstances.” Wisconsin Jury Instructions, Civil 1001.