Summary
In Kinsman v. Panek, 40 Wis.2d 408, 162 N.W.2d 27 (1968), a driver entered a region of blowing snow which reduced visibility to 40 feet. He reduced his speed to 25 to 30 miles per hour but was unable to prevent a collision with a state patrol car which had stopped to investigate an accident.
Summary of this case from Nelson v. Travelers Ins. Co.Opinion
No. 16.
Argued October 2, 1968. —
Decided October 29, 1968.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Marathon county: GERALD J. BOILEAU, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.
For the appellants there was a brief by Genrich, Terwilliger, Wakeen, Piehler Conway, attorneys, and Roger Rouse of counsel, all of Wausau, and oral argument by Mr. Rouse.
For the respondent there was a brief by Weber Bolte and Richard J. Weber, all of Wausau, and oral argument by Richard J. Weber.
This is an appeal by the defendants, Peter Panek and his insurance carrier, from the judgment of the circuit court for Marathon county, which awarded damages to Richard T. Kinsman as the result of an automobile accident. The accident occurred at approximately 5:20 p.m. on Easter Sunday, March 29, 1964.
The plaintiff, Richard T. Kinsman, was an officer of the Wisconsin State Patrol, and shortly prior to the accident he had been patrolling Highway 29 in Marathon county. Although the snow was light that day, there were areas of heavily drifting snow and places where the visibility was seriously impaired.
While on duty west of the scene of the accident, Kinsman was informed that there had been an accident a distance to the east. He proceeded to the scene of the accident, which was on the crest of a hill on Highway 29 and approximately three-tenths of a mile to the west of a roadway known as the Spring Valley Lane. When he arrived at the scene, he found an area of heavily blowing snow, which resulted from snow being blown from the tops of the embankment on the side of the road. He drove east through approximately one-tenth of a mile of the blowing snow until he came to the crest of the hill where the accident had occurred. At that point he saw that there were three vehicles off the road to the north and one vehicle on the south side of the road partially blocking the eastbound lane of traffic. He pulled his squad car completely off the road onto the south shoulder. His car was heading east and was stopped about 30 feet to the rear of the automobile which was partially blocking the eastbound lane of travel. From the time he received the information that an accident had occurred, his red dome light was flashing and was in operation at and after the time he stopped his squad car on the crest of the hill. His headlights were also on.
Immediately after reaching this position, he opened the door and simultaneously reported to his headquarters that he would be out of his vehicle for the purpose of investigating the accident. As he hung up his microphone and prepared to get out of the car, he saw an automobile coming from the east, later identified to be that driven by Peter Panek, heading directly toward him on a diagonal course. As he saw the automobile approaching, he threw himself across the front seat of the squad car. The Panek automobile struck the left rear wheel of the squad car. As a result of the injuries sustained by Trooper Kinsman this action was brought.
Kinsman testified that at various spots on the highway there were areas of extreme iciness, and those same areas were those where snow was drifting across the road. He stated that at some time prior to the accident he had been patrolling east of where the accident happened and that there were at least two icy spots — one a half mile, and the other two miles to the east. In each of these areas snow was drifting heavily across the roadway. He stated that each of these areas was approximately one-tenth of a mile in length and that in those areas visibility was a maximum of 200 feet. It is conceded that Panek crossed both of these areas shortly before the accident.
Kinsman stated that the Panek vehicle was approximately 30 or 40 feet away from him when he first saw it, but he testified that he was able to see approximately 100 to 200 feet when he first arrived at the scene of the accident.
Kinsman testified that the area of blowing snow in which the accident occurred was approximately three-tenths of a mile in length and two-tenths of a mile of this area of slipperiness and reduced visibility was to the east of the scene of the accident. It was established by the testimony of Panek that he first saw the area of blowing snow when he was at the crest of a hill to the east of the hillcrest where the accident occurred. He admitted that, as he drove toward the area of blowing snow, he would not be able to see when he got into the area. He stated that he slacked his speed to 25 to 30 miles an hour when he got into the snowy area and acknowledged that 40 feet was about the farthest distance that he could see in that cloud of snow. He stated that he could not stop within that 40-foot distance. Kinsman also testified that, just at the time of the accident, the visibility was 30 or 40 feet.
Panek continued to operate his car at a speed of 25 to 30 miles an hour in the area of the drifting snow until he saw the automobiles on the north side of the road. At that time he applied his brakes and skidded across the road into the south (eastbound) lane of traffic and struck the rear quarter of Kinsman's squad car. He stated that, as he approached the area of drifting snow, he could not see through it. Lily Panek, Panek's wife and a passenger in the car, stated that when they got to the drifting area, ". . . you just got blinded. Just like in a fog. Real thick."
The jury found no negligence on the part of Panek. The trial judge, however, on motions after verdict, changed the jury's answer to the special verdict question in regard to the defendant's negligence. That question was, "Just before the collision was the defendant, Peter Panek, negligent in the manner in which he operated his automobile?" The trial judge changed the answer to that question from "No" to "Yes" and also answered the cause question in relationship to that negligence "Yes."
The defendants have appealed on the question of negligence only, claiming that the judge erred in changing these answers of the verdict. Damages were awarded to Kinsman in the total amount of $15,250. However, no appeal was made from the damage award.
In reviewing a trial court's order following motions after verdict, whether it sustains or sets aside a jury's verdict the same test is to be applied on appeal, namely:
". . . that when there is any credible evidence which, under any reasonable view, fairly admits of an inference that supports the jury's finding, neither the trial court nor this court should change the jury's finding." Rodenkirch v. Johnson (1960), 9 Wis.2d 245, 248, 101 N.W.2d 83.
Frequently, on appeal, the court's decision on motions after verdict has been attacked by an appellant who seeks to set aside a verdict which has received the approval of the trial judge. In those cases we have stated the rule:
"The jury's findings which have the approval of the trial court will not be disturbed if there is any credible evidence to support such findings." Ide v. Wamser (1964), 22 Wis.2d 325, 331, 126 N.W.2d 59.
In any case, however, this court looks to the jury's verdict; and if there is credible evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, it will be upheld whether or not it receives the approval of the trial judge. The test is the same in either case. We thus look to the evidence to determine whether there is any credible evidence to support the jury's verdict.
The appellants' theory of the case is predicated upon their assumption stated in their brief that:
"Mr. Panek's vision was obscured suddenly and without warning and the extent of the limitation of vision was not at all apparently until he started into the blowing snow and at which time he immediately took every possible action to reduce his speed and stop."
Were there any credible evidence to support this assumption, the appellants' position would be arguably meritorious. A careful perusal of the record reveals no such evidence. True, Mrs. Panek testified:
"Well, there it just blinded you like, you know, like it was instant, just like an instant cup of coffee. Just mix it up real fast and that is how this thing was. It just hit you."
This answer, however, was in response to counsel's question, "What was the visibility in the area where the accident took place?" There was no dispute that visibility was very limited. All of the witnesses testified that, within the blowing area, visibility was very bad. State Trooper Kinsman's report said it was almost "nil."
It is obvious that the defendant seeks to rely upon the emergency doctrine that the impact of the snowy area was unexpected and instantaneous and he was thereby confronted with an emergency which should exonerate him from the consequences of his conduct. We have, however, frequently stated that:
". . . the party seeking the benefits of the emergency doctrine must be free from negligence which contributed to the creation of the emergency." Geis v. Hirth (1966), 32 Wis.2d 580, 586, 146 N.W.2d 459. See also Zillmer v. Miglautsch (1967), 35 Wis.2d 691, 151 N.W.2d 741; Schmit v. Sekach (1966), 29 Wis.2d 281, 139 N.W.2d 88.
Accordingly, in the event that it is apparent from the facts that a party is negligent as a matter of law and that such negligence contributed to the emergency, that party is not shielded by the emergency doctrine. In the instant case we are satisfied that if an emergency existed, as indicated by the testimony of Lily Panek, it is apparent that it was Panek's negligence that created the emergency.
As set forth in the statement of facts, Panek saw the area of heavily blowing snow from the crest of the hill to the east. Kinsman testified without contradiction that the blowing area extended two-tenths of a mile to the east of the site of the accident. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the distance from Panek's point on the top of that hill to the area of the blowing snow was at a minimum of 780 feet and at that point Panek admitted that he was not able to see through the blowing area. He nevertheless proceeded to the area where the snow interfered with his visibility.
As stated by the trial judge, even though Panek admitted that his visibility was obscured to such an extent that he could not see beyond 40 feet, he proceeded in the whirling snow at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour for two-tenths of a mile until the point of impact. He admitted that he knew from his experience with snow drifting on the road to the east of the accident site, that visibility would be impaired and that the highway within the area of the blowing snow would be slippery. He nevertheless elected to proceed in the face of these known hazards. Under these circumstances we deem this case to be covered by the rule of Lauson v. Fond du Lac (1909), 141 Wis. 57, 123 N.W. 629, which has more recently been restated in Henthorn v. M. G. C. Corp. (1957), 1 Wis.2d 180, 83 N.W.2d 759; Barker Barrel Co. v. Fisher (1960), 10 Wis.2d 197, 200, 102 N.W.2d 107; Bailey v. Hagen (1964), 25 Wis.2d 386, 130 N.W.2d 773. In each of these cases we held that, where there was poor visibility, it was negligence on the part of the driver of an automobile to proceed at a speed at which he cannot stop his vehicle in the distance which he can see ahead.
In the instant case, even after Panek was aware of the reduced visibility, he continued to travel at a rate of 25 to 30 miles an hour when, as he acknowledged, he knew he could not stop. Under these circumstances and in the absence of any credible evidence of contrary facts that would support the jury's verdict, we agree with the trial judge's decision that the defendant was negligent as to speed as a matter of law. The judge properly changed the answer to the question in regard to, the negligence of Panek from "No" to "Yes."
Nor do we see any need for a further trial on the question of whether such negligence was causal. The test of cause in Wisconsin is whether the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in contributing to the result. Milwaukee Suburban Transport Corp. v. Royal Transit Co. (1966), 29 Wis.2d 620, 628, 629, 139 N.W.2d 595. It is apparent from the record that no jury question is presented in regard to this portion of the verdict. "Reasonable men could not differ as to whether the defendant's conduct was, or was not, a substantial factor in producing the result." Prosser, Law of Torts (2d ed.), page 281, sec. 50.
Appellants also contend that if the trial judge's finding of negligence as to Panek is upheld, appellants should have a further opportunity of proving Kinsman's negligence. The defendants, however, failed to move the court on motions after verdict for a change in the jury's determination that Kinsman was free of negligence. Under the rule of Wells v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. (1957), 274 Wis. 505, 80 N.W.2d 380, the defendants are not entitled to have reconsidered, as a matter of right, matters that were not brought to the attention of the trial court. While it would be within the discretion of this court under sec. 251.09, Stats., to grant a new trial in regard to proportion of negligence or the question of causation, there must be a showing that there has been a probable miscarriage of justice. We are satisfied, viewing the case as a whole, that justice is served by sustaining the trial court's determination to set aside the verdict.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.