Court Opinion

ID: 9670102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:14:41.729018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.504744
License: Public Domain

Currie, J.
(concurring). The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial in the interest of justice, after determining that the answers of the jury to the comparative-negligence questions of the verdict were against the great weight of the evidence. The test which this court should apply, in passing on the abuse-of-discretion issue, is whether there existed any reasonable basis for the trial court’s conclusion *521that the comparisons of negligence made by the jury were against the great weight of the evidence.
In setting forth its analysis of the evidence, which prompted it to conclude that the 70-30 percent comparison was against the great weight of the evidence, the court stressed in its memorandum decision, as the fact of paramount importance, that Green could have used at least 16j4 feet of usable roadway between the Sell and Blackwell cars, even if three feet of the Sell automobile were on the highway. This overlooks entirely the fact that it was the negligence of the plaintiff boys, in pushing the unlighted Sell car onto the highway, which created the dangerous situation that precipitated the accident.
Green was not negligent in attempting to pass the Blackwell car at a time when the Sell automobile was not yet visible to Green. Green’s speed at the time of passing was 40 miles per hour. At this speed his car was traveling 59 feet per second, and a total distance of 149 feet would have been required within which to stop. Wisconsin’s Manual for Motorists (1959 ed.), p. 36. Inasmuch as Green did not see the unlighted Sell car until he was 100 feet from it, he could not have brought his car to a stop in that distance. At this point he believed himself confronted with an emergency and, while trying to stop, lost control of his car to the extent that it struck the Sell automobile. The jury assessed 30 percent of the negligence to Green. One possible explanation is that the jury may have determined Green was not entitled to the emergency rule because he was then traveling at such a speed that he could not stop within the distance he could see ahead. A second possibility is that the jury may have concluded that while his speed was not negligent he was negligent with respect to lookout in not seeing the Sell car sooner. A third alternative is that the jury felt that Green was negligent in failing to see at a distance of 100 feet that he had plenty of room to pass between the *522Sell and Blackwell cars, and to manage his own car so as to pass between them.
Nevertheless, whatever the jury’s basis for apportioning 30 percent of the negligence to Green, there was every reason for the jury to conclude that plaintiff boys’ negligence in pushing the unlighted Sell car onto the highway was greater than Green’s, and to apportion the negligence accordingly. Thus it was unreasonable for the trial court to conclude that this apportionment was opposed to the great weight of the evidence. Therefore, I concur in the result reached in Mr. Justice Dieterich’s opinion.