Marolla v. American Family Mutual Insurance
38 Wis. 2d 539, 157 N.W.2d 674, 1968 Wisc. LEXIS 920 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private company's internal safety rules are inadmissible as evidence to establish the legal standard of care in a negligence action. The standard of care is fixed by law, not by private rules, which may require more or less than the law demands.
Facts:
- Marolla was an employee of the Soo Line Railroad and worked as a track car operator.
- The Soo Line Railroad had an internal safety rule for its track car operators regarding public crossings, which stated: 'Approach crossings under complete control' and 'Stop if necessary.'
- While operating a track car, Marolla was involved in a collision with an automobile at a public highway crossing.
- There was an alleged custom among Soo Line Railroad track car operators to stop at highway crossings when a car is approaching.
Procedural Posture:
- Marolla, a railroad employee, was the plaintiff in a negligence action against the insurer of an automobile driver following a collision.
- At trial, the defendant-insurer sought to introduce the railroad's internal safety rule and evidence of a company-specific custom to prove Marolla's contributory negligence.
- The trial court sustained the plaintiff's objection, excluding the proffered evidence.
- A jury returned a verdict, and the insurer, as appellant, appealed the trial court's evidentiary ruling to the state's highest court, arguing the exclusion constituted prejudicial error that affected the comparative negligence determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a company's internal safety rule or evidence of a company-specific custom admissible in a negligence action to establish the standard of care for one of its employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Beilfuss, J.
No, a company's internal safety rule is not admissible to establish the standard of care. The legal standard for negligence is what an ordinarily prudent person would do under the circumstances, a standard fixed by common or statutory law, not by a private company's rules. Admitting such rules would create a variable standard of care, subjecting an individual to different levels of liability for the same act depending on their employer's policies. While evidence of a widespread industry custom may be admissible, evidence of a custom limited to a single company is not, for the same reasons. The court affirmed the trial court's exclusion of both the safety rule and the evidence of the company-specific custom.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that the standard of care is an objective measure determined by law, independent of any private party's internal policies. By deeming company-specific rules inadmissible, the court prevents a 'floating' standard of care that would vary between defendants and could discourage companies from adopting safety rules that exceed the legal minimum. The opinion distinguishes inadmissible company-specific rules from potentially admissible evidence of a widespread, uniform industry custom, thereby clarifying the evidentiary basis for establishing the standard of care in specialized fields.
