Dakter v. Cavallino
2014 WI App 112, 358 Wis. 2d 434, 856 N.W.2d 523 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While every person is held to the same legal duty to exercise ordinary care, a person's superior knowledge and skills, such as those of a professional truck driver, are circumstances that a jury must consider in determining whether the person's conduct met that standard of care.
Facts:
- Ronald Dakter was driving his car northbound on Highway 80 and intended to turn left onto Tilmar Avenue.
- At the same intersection, a van driven by Wyman Hoiland was stopped in the southbound lane of Highway 80, signaling to turn left.
- Dale Cavallino was driving a 65-foot semi-trailer truck southbound on Highway 80, approaching the intersection from behind Hoiland's van.
- The roadways were wet at the time of the collision.
- According to Hoiland, Cavallino's truck moved from the through lane into a right-turn lane to pass Hoiland's stopped van.
- Cavallino's truck then collided with Dakter's car as Dakter was executing his left turn.
- Cavallino testified he was traveling at approximately 40 miles per hour in a 45 mph zone and had just begun to apply his brakes at the moment of impact.
- The Dakters argued that Ronald Dakter's view of Cavallino's approaching truck was obscured by Hoiland's van and the rainy, gray weather conditions.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald and Kathleen Dakter filed a negligence action against Dale Cavallino, his employer, and his insurer in the circuit court (trial court).
- Cavallino moved for summary judgment, arguing Dakter was more negligent as a matter of law, which the trial court denied.
- The case proceeded to a ten-day jury trial.
- The jury found both drivers causally negligent and apportioned fault as 65% to Cavallino and 35% to Dakter.
- The jury awarded damages, including $31,668 to Kathleen Dakter for nursing services.
- Cavallino filed post-verdict motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and to change the verdict's apportionment of negligence.
- The circuit court denied Cavallino's post-verdict motions and entered judgment on the verdict.
- Cavallino (appellant) appealed the judgment and the order denying his motions to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction that directs the jury to consider a professional truck driver's superior skills, knowledge, and experience when determining negligence improperly hold that driver to a heightened legal duty of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Blanchard, P.J.
No. A jury instruction directing the jury to consider a professional truck driver's superior skills and knowledge is not a prejudicial error when viewed in the totality of instructions that correctly define the universal standard of ordinary care. The court reasoned that while the legal duty for all persons is the same—to exercise ordinary care—the determination of whether that duty was breached is based on the specific circumstances. A person's superior knowledge or skill is one such circumstance. Citing the Restatement (Third) of Torts, the court explained that if an actor has skills or knowledge exceeding those of most others, those skills are taken into account to determine if the actor behaved as a reasonably careful person. The court distinguished this from imposing a different, higher legal duty on professionals. Even assuming the instruction was potentially confusing, it was not prejudicial because other instructions repeatedly and correctly stated the general 'reasonable person' standard of care for all parties, and the evidence and arguments at trial properly focused on Cavallino's specific experience as a factor in assessing his negligence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the nuance in negligence law between the universal duty of ordinary care and the specific standard of conduct required to meet that duty. It affirms that while the legal duty is the same for everyone, the factual analysis of whether that duty was breached can and should take into account an individual's special skills or professional knowledge. This holding solidifies the principle that a person's expertise is a relevant circumstance in the negligence calculus, without creating a separate, heightened legal duty for professionals. The case is significant for tort litigation involving professionals, as it allows juries to hold them to a standard of conduct commensurate with their training and experience.
