Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2997 Wiza v. Northland Insurance Co., et al.

By: dmc-admin//July 1, 2002//

01-2997 Wiza v. Northland Insurance Co., et al.

By: dmc-admin//July 1, 2002//

Listen to this article

Myron Wiza appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict that found him twenty percent contributorily negligent in a truck accident in which he was injured. The jury found the driver, Mary Hart, eighty percent causally negligent in the accident. On appeal, Wiza asserts three general grounds for reversal. First, he contends the trial court erred when it allowed Hart to testify regarding her ability to control the truck after Wiza intervened in an attempt to prevent the accident. Second, Wiza argues the trial court erred when it failed to find that the emergency doctrine applied as a matter of law and instructed the jury regarding Wiza’s negligence. Finally, Wiza contends these mistakes infected the jury’s determination of damages, resulting in a perverse verdict. Wiza seeks a new trial or, in the alternative, a modification of the judgment removing the finding of his contributory negligence.

Because the trial court properly allowed Hart’s testimony and correctly instructed the jury, and because the jury’s verdict is not perverse, we affirm the judgment and order.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist III, Chippewa County, Sazama, J., Cane, C.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: J. Drew Ryberg, Eau Claire; Michael J. Happe, Eau Claire

For Respondent: Daniel A. Haws, St. Paul, Minn.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests