Dakter v. Cavallino

866 N.W.2d 656 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was a professional truck driver operating a semi-tractor-trailer pursuant to a commercial driver's license issued by the State of Wisconsin. D had driven a semi-trailer truck for 31 years. P was driving a passenger automobile. He approached the intersection with his turn signal on and stopped. Hoiland, who is not a party to this lawsuit, was driving a van southbound on Highway 80 and intended to turn left onto Highway 82. Hoiland approached the intersection with his turn signal on and stopped. His vehicle was opposite P's vehicle in the intersection and was in front of D's semi-trailer truck. D was driving a 65-foot semi-trailer truck southbound on Highway 80. D intended to continue straight on Highway 80. P attempted to execute a left turn onto Tilmar Street and collided with D's semi-trailer truck. P sustained serious injuries. P sued D asserting that D's negligence caused the collision. The parties disagreed about whether the jury should hear expert testimony regarding the special knowledge and skill possessed by semi-trailer truck drivers. The circuit court stated: 'I don't believe there is a heightened standard of care. I believe all of us are required to maintain our speed, maintain our management, control of our vehicles, and also to maintain a proper look-out.' Ordinary care means the care 'a reasonable and prudent truck driver would use under the same or similar circumstances.' The circuit court ruled that expert testimony regarding the knowledge and skill possessed by semi-trailer truck drivers was admissible. Three expert witnesses testified regarding the safety standards and practices that govern semi-trailer truck drivers. Two for P and one for D. The circuit court gave the truck driver negligence instruction, an instruction specific to the defendant as the operator of a semi-trailer truck. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the P. T filed post-verdict motions seeking a new trial. They were denied. D appealed.