Ronald J. Dakter v. Dale L. Cavallino
363 Wis. 2d 738, 866 N.W.2d 656, 2015 WI 67 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard of ordinary care requires an individual with special knowledge or skills, such as a licensed professional, to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person with those same special abilities would exercise under similar circumstances. This application of the ordinary care standard is not a heightened standard of care, but rather one tailored to the specific circumstances of the actor.
Facts:
- Dale Cavallino, a professional truck driver with 31 years of experience, held a commercial driver's license issued by the State of Wisconsin.
- On May 29, 2008, Cavallino was operating a 65-foot semi-trailer truck southbound on a state highway.
- The pavement was wet due to rainy weather conditions.
- Ronald J. Dakter was driving a passenger car northbound on the same highway and stopped at an intersection, signaling to make a left turn.
- Another van, driven by Wyman Hoiland, was stopped in the intersection in front of Cavallino's truck, also intending to turn left.
- As Dakter attempted to execute his left turn, his automobile collided with Cavallino's semi-trailer truck.
- Dakter sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald J. Dakter sued Dale Cavallino for negligence in the Circuit Court for Juneau County, a trial court.
- Following a 10-day trial, the jury found Cavallino 65% causally negligent and Dakter 35% causally negligent and awarded damages.
- Cavallino filed post-verdict motions for a new trial, which the circuit court denied.
- The circuit court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Dakter.
- Cavallino, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that any error in the challenged jury instruction was not prejudicial.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 jury instruction erroneous if it directs the jury to evaluate a professional semi-trailer truck driver's conduct against the standard of care of a reasonable semi truck driver exercising the skill and knowledge possessed by those holding commercial driver's licenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson
No, the jury instruction was not erroneous. The instruction correctly stated the law by defining the standard of ordinary care as it applies to a person with special knowledge and skills. The universal standard of care is that of a reasonable person under the circumstances, and an actor's special skills are part of those circumstances. Under both the 'superior knowledge rule' and the 'profession or trade principle,' an actor engaged in an occupation requiring special competence, like a commercially licensed truck driver, must use the care a reasonable member of that profession would exercise. The instruction did not impose a heightened standard of care; it merely specified what ordinary care entails for a professional truck driver, and when viewed with the other instructions, it was not misleading.
Concurring - Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack
Yes, the special skills instruction was erroneous because it incorrectly stated the law. The instruction created a separate 'semi-truck driver standard of care,' which is improper because all users of a shared public roadway are subject to the same standard of ordinary care. Applying a special skills doctrine in this context improperly converts a standard negligence case into a professional malpractice action. However, the error was harmless and did not prejudice the defendant. The jury was repeatedly instructed on the correct ordinary care standard, and the evidence supporting the verdict was substantial enough that the outcome would likely have been the same even without the erroneous instruction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'superior knowledge rule' in standard negligence cases, extending it beyond the typical professional malpractice context. It establishes that for individuals in occupations requiring special licensing and skill, the objective 'reasonable person' standard is contextualized by the abilities of a reasonable person within that specific profession. This precedent clarifies how juries should assess negligence for skilled actors like commercial drivers, pilots, or boat captains, ensuring their conduct is judged against a standard commensurate with their expertise without creating a formally distinct or 'heightened' duty of care. The ruling will guide future litigation by confirming that specialized knowledge is a key 'circumstance' in the ordinary care analysis.
Unlock the full brief for Ronald J. Dakter v. Dale L. Cavallino