Poole v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

95 N.W.2d 799, 7 Wis. 2d 65

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Decided: April 7, 1959
• Status: Published

Opinions

Fairchild, J.

Defendant claims that there was no credible evidence to sustain the jury finding that Poole was negligent as to management and control. Defendant relies upon decisions which have been summarized by the court as follows: “Out of these cases must be read the rule that skidding may occur without fault, and that the mere fact of its occurrence will not support a finding or inference of negligence.” Coenen v. Van Handel (1955), 269 Wis. 6, 8, 68 N. W. (2d) 435.

The validity of this rule is not questioned. In the cases referred to, however, the cars involved have been in a position or movement from which the inference of negligence would ordinarily be drawn, but the proof has been clear that the position or movement was the result of skidding. Jury verdicts that the defendant driver was not negligent have been sustained if there was conflicting evidence as to negligent conduct precipitating the skidding. Linden v. Miller (1920), 172 Wis. 20, 177 N. W. 909; Churchill v. Brock (1953), 264 Wis. 23, 58 N. W. (2d) 290. It has been held as a matter of law that defendant driver was not negligent where there was no evidence to sustain a finding that negligent conduct precipitated the skidding. Wobosel v. Lee (1932), 209 Wis. 51, 243 N. W. 425; Maltby v. Thiel (1937), 224 Wis. 648, 272 N. W. 848. Jury verdicts that defendant driver was negligent have been sustained where there was evidence that negligent conduct precipitated the skidding. Van Matre v. Milwaukee E. R. & T. Co. (1955), 268 Wis. 399, 67 N. W. (2d) 831; Williams v. Williams (1933), 210 Wis. 304, 246 N. W. 322; Zeinemann v. Gasser (1947), 251 Wis. 238, 29 N. W. (2d) 49; Coenen v. Van Handel, supra. None of the cited decisions involves a situation where proof that skidding caused an invasion of the left side of the roadway was absent or inconclusive.

In Henthorn v. M. G. C. Corp. (1957), 1 Wis. (2d) 180, 83 N. W. (2d) 759, we declined to presume the existence of a nonnegligent explanation for stopping on the roadway. See also Cushing v. Meehan, ante, p. 30, 95 N. W. (2d) 796.

Defendant interprets the evidence before us as showing that the Poole car skidded across the center line of the highway into the Derleth car. We do not agree that this is the only reasonable interpretation. Mr. Derleth first saw the Poole car some distance away and thought it was proceeding on Poole’s side of the highway without apparent difficulty. Just before the collision he saw it again at apparently a considerable angle with the center line of the roadway for he could not see its headlights. It was skidding toward Derleth. It is a reasonable interpretation of his testimony that it was moving more or less in the same direction as the highway, but leading with its left side. At least some of the rear portion of the car must have been at that time on Derleth’s side of the road. Derleth apparently did not see the Poole car begin to skid and did not testify that he saw it skid across the center. Whether the rear end skidded across the center line or whether the car was on the wrong side before skidding began is not clear.

We understand the portion of Derleth’s testimony set out in the statement of facts to mean that between the time he saw Poole’s headlights and the time he first saw Poole skidding, there was an interval of time when he was not watching Poole, but was preoccupied with watching the road in front of him. Other answers emphasize the fact that Derleth did not claim to see all of Poole’s progress from the point where Poole was first seen:

“Q. And suddenly you simply saw the Poole car sliding and skidding sidewards right into the front of your car? A. He came right into my beam of headlights, a black object.

“Q. And skidding sideways, was it not? A. That’s right, broadside.”

If the testimony had been that Poole invaded the wrong side of the roadway as a result of skidding, no negligence on his part could be inferred either from his invasion of the wrong side or from his skidding. There being no proof that any act of Poole caused the skid, plaintiffs’ case would fail under those facts. Here, however, the testimony does not directly show that the invasion was caused by skidding. The invasion may have taken place before the skidding began. For instance, there is testimony that the highway curved slightly to Poole’s right. Proceeding straight ahead, he would have invaded the left side and may have skidded as a result of his effort to correct this invasion.

If a defendant driver be observed skidding down his left side of the road, does the fact of skidding prima jade excuse his invasion of the left side and impose upon plaintiff the burden of proving either that defendant invaded before skidding began or that negligent conduct caused the skidding ?

We conclude that presence on the wrong side of the roadway in these circumstances is evidence of negligence unless it also be shown that the presence on the wrong side was due to skidding. It may be that the jury might properly have inferred from Derleth’s testimony and all the other circumstances in evidence that Poole was on the proper side of the road until he began to skid but whether or not this inference was to be drawn was for the jury.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.