Jensen v. Heritage Mutual Insurance
127 N.W.2d 228, 1964 Wisc. LEXIS 406, 23 Wis. 2d 344 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prior inconsistent written statement is sufficiently authenticated and thus admissible for impeachment purposes once the witness admits to signing it; further authentication by the person who transcribed the statement is not required.
Facts:
- A car driven by Stanley, in which Jensen was a passenger, was traveling in the southbound lane at approximately 9:45 p.m.
- A car driven by Gustafson was traveling northbound and collided with Stanley's car.
- Jensen, the sole eyewitness, testified that she saw Gustafson's car cross into their southbound lane immediately before impact, leaving no time to warn Stanley.
- Stanley was killed in the collision.
- A tow truck driver, Royce Melstrom, who removed Gustafson's car from the scene, had previously given a signed, written statement to an attorney, John Fetzner, about his observations.
- At trial, Melstrom's testimony conflicted with parts of his prior written statement.
- Stanley's widow, Wright, remarried approximately six months after his death and before the trial took place.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Jensen (passenger) and plaintiff Wright (for the wrongful death of her husband, Stanley) sued the defendant (representing Gustafson) in a Wisconsin trial court.
- During the trial, the court excluded a signed statement from witness Melstrom offered by the defendant for impeachment purposes.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Gustafson causally negligent and awarded damages to Jensen and Wright.
- The defendant's motions after the verdict to change the jury's answers were denied, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, citing errors in evidentiary rulings and the excessiveness of the damages.
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 trial court commit reversible error by excluding for lack of foundation a witness's prior inconsistent written statement when the witness admits to signing the document?
Opinions:
Majority - Currie, C. J.
No. While the trial court erred in excluding the prior inconsistent statement, the error was not prejudicial and therefore does not warrant reversal. A prior written statement is sufficiently authenticated for admission as evidence if the witness acknowledges that the signature on it is their own. It is then open to the witness to explain any discrepancies, such as the statement being transcribed incorrectly. Although the trial court wrongly excluded Melstrom's statement under this rule, the error was harmless. The theory of causation suggested by the statement—that gouge marks from the collision were actually made by Melstrom's wrecker—was so improbable that it is highly unlikely the jury would have accepted it. Therefore, its exclusion did not affect the ultimate outcome of the case. Furthermore, the damages awarded for wrongful death were not excessive, as a surviving spouse's remarriage is merely one factor for a jury to consider and does not, as a matter of law, reduce or cap the damages for pecuniary loss or loss of companionship.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary foundation required to admit a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment in Wisconsin. The court pivots from a stricter standard, establishing that a witness's acknowledgment of their signature is sufficient authentication, thereby streamlining the impeachment process. This shifts the burden to the witness to explain discrepancies rather than requiring the cross-examining party to call the statement's transcriber. The ruling enhances trial efficiency and simplifies the procedure for challenging a witness's credibility. Additionally, the case confirms that a surviving spouse's remarriage, while admissible, is not a dispositive factor in calculating wrongful death damages, leaving the ultimate determination to the jury's discretion based on all circumstances.
