Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2630 Pulver, et al. v. Jennings, et al.

By: dmc-admin//September 4, 2001//

00-2630 Pulver, et al. v. Jennings, et al.

By: dmc-admin//September 4, 2001//

Listen to this article

Melvin Pulver appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding him $9,153 damages plus costs and interest for injuries he sustained in a three-car automobile accident. Pulver contends he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) the jury’s findings on negligence and the apportionment of negligence were the result of passion, prejudice and perversity, and were erroneous as a matter of law; (2) the damages awarded by the jury were inadequate; (3) the trial court erred in submitting the right-of-way instruction and the sudden emergency instruction to the jury; (4) the trial court erred in not permitting him to show a videotape to the jury; (5) the trial court erred in reducing Pulver’s award against David Jennings because of Jennings’ settlement with Pulver’s subrogated health care insurer; and (6) he is entitled to attorney fees and costs because two of the defenses contained in the answer were frivolous.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings on negligence, the apportionment of negligence and damages; and those findings were not the result of passion, prejudice, and perversity, were not erroneous as a matter of law, and do not entitle Pulver to a new trial. We also conclude the trial court did not err and did properly exercise its discretion in giving the challenged jury instructions and excluding the videotapes. Finally, we conclude the trial court did not violate either the collateral source rule or the principle of subrogation when it took into account Jennings’s payment to the subrogated insurer in calculating the judgment against Jennings. We do not decide whether Pulver is entitled to attorney fees because he did not obtain a ruling on this issue from the trial court. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Columbia County, Miller, J., Vergeront, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: James G. Schernecker, Madison

For Respondent: Wayne L. Maffei, Baraboo; Natalie T. Bussan, Baraboo

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests