BENCH BLOG: State Supreme Court keeps on truckin’

Listen to this article

Can a jury consider the training and experience of a semi-trailer truck driver in determining his negligence? Is a commercially licensed truck driver held to higher standard of care when a semi-trailer is involved in a collision?

A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court decision relied on the nearly century-old case of Osborne v. Montgomery to review basic principles of negligence in answering these questions.

The case arose from a collision on wet pavement between a car driven by the plaintiff, Ronald Dakter, and a 65-foot semi-trailer truck driven by the defendant, Dale Cavallino. Dakter was making a left turn from a highway in Elroy, and Cavallino was coming onward in the opposite direction. Dakter was seriously injured.

Jury instruction

A 10-day trial was held in Juneau County before Circuit Court Judge John Roemer. Evidence was presented showing that Cavallino was a commercially licensed truck driver with 31 years of experience. Dakter’s experts and Cavallino himself testified about the great extent of knowledge and skill that would be acquired by such a driver.

The jury instruction concerning Cavallino’s standard of care was hotly contested. Cavallino argued that the instruction proposed by Dakter had the effect of holding him to a heightened standard of care, even though both litigants agreed that the appropriate standard was ordinary care.

As part of a series of jury instructions concerning negligence, Judge Roemer decided — over Cavallino’s objection — to provide this instruction:

At the time of the accident, the defendant, Dale Cavallino, was a professional truck driver operating a semi tractor-trailer pursuant to a commercial driver’s license issued by the State of Wisconsin. As the operator of a semi tractor-trailer, it was his duty to use the degree of care, skill, and judgment which a reasonable semi truck driver would exercise in the same or similar circumstances having due regard for the state of learning, education, experience, and knowledge possessed by semi truck drivers holding commercial driver’s licenses. A semi truck driver who fails to conform to the standard is negligent. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that (the defendant) was negligent.

The jury found Cavallino 65 percent negligent and Dakter 35 percent negligent, and its answers to damage questions came to more than $1 million.

After his post-conviction motions were denied, Cavallino appealed.

Court of Appeals’ point of view

The Court of Appeals, in a published decision from District 4 Presiding Judge Brian Blanchard, found the instruction proper because it considered superior knowledge and skill to be a “circumstance” in the general evaluation of whether Cavallino’s conduct had met the ordinary standard of care.

But the court also decided that the instruction might have created “at least some danger” that the jury should hold Cavallino, “because he is a professional driver,” to a higher standard of care than other drivers.

READ OUR RELATED CASE ANALYSIS

Accordingly, it assumed error and engaged in an extensive, well-reasoned analysis of whether the error was prejudicial. In the end, the court ruled it was not.

Therefore, Judge Roemer was affirmed. Cavallino petitioned for review, which was granted.

Supreme Court’s opinion

Cavallino again argued that the instruction held him to a heightened standard of care. In contrast, Dakter contended that the instruction directed the jury to take the special knowledge and skill of a professional semi-trailer truck driver into account in deciding whether Cavallino met the standard of ordinary care.

Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote for the court. She returned to negligence fundamentals in explaining that the standard of ordinary care is “the care exercised by a reasonable person under the circumstances.”

She explained that the Osborne case was the first Wisconsin case to adopt the superior-knowledge rule – “circumstances” include “any relevant special knowledge or skills an actor brings to bear.”

The opinion then differentiated this rule from the related “profession or trade” principle, i.e., members of a particular profession or trade must exercise the knowledge and skill of a reasonable member of that group in the same or similar circumstances.

These sorts of groups include both professionals such as physicians, nurses, chiropractors, dentists and lawyers, and members of various trades, such as building contractors, plumbers and insurance agents.

Importantly, under either the superior knowledge and skills rule or the profession/trade rule, the standard of care remains ordinary care.

Since the instruction directed the jury to consider Cavallino’s special knowledge or skill as a professional semi-trailer truck driver, it incorporated both rules.

Cavallino argued that neither doctrine applied to him because all users of a roadway have the same duty of ordinary care regardless of their driving experience or skill. Moreover, the profession or trade rule was really meant for highly specialized professions, not truck drivers.

Abrahamson, in contrast, concluded that a driver of semi-trailer truck has skill and knowledge that are not possessed by a reasonable, ordinary driver. Further, the profession or trade doctrine applies “broadly” to occupations that require the use of “acquired learning, and aptitude developed by special training and experience.”

Lastly, the court concluded that the jury instruction was not misleading despite the Court of Appeals’ contrary contention.

Concurrences

In a peculiar concurrence, Chief Justice Pat Roggensack contended that the superior-knowledge rule is limited to “persons taking actions in a venue where the special skills are required by that venue.” Thus, physicians, lawyers and pharmacists work in venues where their specialized knowledge and skills are obligatory.

This is a misreading of Wisconsin law. Then, relying on a Wyoming case, she sought to make a new rule that since all vehicle operators act in the same venue — the shared roadway — the superior-knowledge and skill doctrine cannot apply to any particular vehicle operator.

Justice Annette Ziegler concurred to emphasize that, at the time of the accident, the circumstance was Cavallino’s driving a semi-trailer truck, not a passenger car. Had he been driving a car, neither his superior skill and knowledge nor his membership in the trade would be relevant circumstances.

Commentary

This case brings us back to the fundamentals of the standard of care in negligence law. It clearly explicates the related superior-knowledge and skill doctrine and the profession or trade rule.

Roggensack’s concurrence seems to come out of left field, but Ziegler’s concurrence has the effect of correcting it.

Given the rancor on the court, it is welcome respite to see a majority opinion without dissents.