Ruling could have lawsuits barreling down on truckers

Listen to this article

Should 30 years of experience and an average of more than eight hours a day behind the wheel make a trucker more aware than the average driver of dangerous traffic conditions and thus better able to avoid an accident?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has touched on this question in Dakter v. Cavallino, 2013 AP 1750. At the heart of the case was a set of instructions that had been provided to jury members in Juneau County Circuit Court. That court had awarded the plaintiff, Dakter, and his wife more than $1 million in damages, although the verdict was reduced by 35 percent because of shared responsibility for the accident.

The jury instructions considered by the Supreme Court stated that a trucker’s training and knowledge may be considered in attempts at determining whether a driver had failed to exhibit “ordinary care.” The justices ultimately ruled the instructions were not prejudicial and had, in fact, correctly stated the law.

The main question presented by the case is: Does it create an expanded window of liability for truckers and trucking companies? Although the Supreme Court’s ruling rested solely on whether jury instructions correctly stated the law or were instead prejudicial, the net effect could be that more short- and long-haul truckers and their employers in Wisconsin could be exposed to added millions in liability.

The origins of this case go back to the end of May 2008, to a late afternoon in Juneau County and the crossing of state highways 80 and 82 in Elroy.

Dale Cavallino, a trucker, was driving south on Highway 80, traveling about 40 mph following a light rain. His 65-foot semi-trailer rig was rumbling toward the intersection in the outside lane. Sitting in a vehicle facing the opposite direction was Dakter and his wife, Kathleen, who were waiting to turn west onto Highway 82.

Several witnesses testified that Dakter turned just ahead of the approaching semi-trailer. That left Cavallino with little to no time to respond before T-boning the smaller vehicle and seriously injuring Dakter and his wife.

Plaintiff’s experts accused Cavallino of having fallen under “highway hypnosis” and of failing to maintain a proper “zone of safety.” Giving his training and experience, Cavallino should have known, they said, to keep at least six truck lengths between his truck and the car in front of it.

Experts for the defense, in response, centered their arguments on the very short amount of time Cavallino had to respond in order to prevent the crash. They also contended that he was driving under the speed limit and that he had shown reasonable care.

READ JEAN DIMOTTO’S RELATED BENCH BLOG

After both sides had made their cases, Judge John Roemer Jr. allowed Dakter’s attorney to present instructions concerning Truck Driver’s Negligence.

Those instructions stated that Cavallino should be held responsible for the knowledge he had to prove he had in order to get a Commercial Driver’s License, as well as the experience he acquired from working as a truck driver for 31 years.

The defense strongly objected to the instructions. Long-established Wisconsin law requires drivers to show nothing more than “ordinary care” when operating a vehicle, Cavallino’s counsel argued.

Cavallino worried that allowing the Truck Driver Negligence instructions to be heard by the jury would make it appear as though truck drivers should be held to a higher duty or standard of care. At a minimum, jurors might become confused about what the correct standard is.

Despite the trial court jury’s ruling in favor of Dakter, an appellate court later found that the Truck Driver Negligence instructions had in fact misstated the law. Ruling the error to be harmless, though, the appeals court upheld the lower court’s verdict.

Cavallino appealed to the state Supreme Court. In his briefs, Cavallino stated that the jury instructions had improperly stated the law and raised a strong possibility that jurors would misunderstand the instructions and think Cavallino should be held to a higher standard of care.

The Supreme Court ruled for Dakter on every important point. The jury instructions did not incorrectly state the law, according to the court, and the jury was unlikely to have been confused by language that would let Cavallino have a new trial.

The court found that a state rule known as the Superior Knowledge Rule requires people who have special knowledge or abilities to act in a manner consistent with that knowledge.

The Supreme Court noted that common jury instructions in Wisconsin state that heightened responsibility can be required of teachers, chiropractors, skilled technicians and nurses.

In this case, according to the court, the Special Knowledge principle was interwoven with another principle, one called the Profession or Trade principle. According to the latter principle, lawyers, doctors, contractors and other professionals are assumed to have the same knowledge as other reasonably competent members of the same profession.

But instead of creating a higher duty of care on the road, the court continued, these two guidelines as they applied to Cavallino merely instructed the jury to understand that truckers acting within the boundaries of “ordinary care” must use the knowledge and special abilities they may have acquired as licensed, seasoned truck drivers.

Cavallino’s lawyer repeatedly asserted that the Profession or Trade principle should not apply here.

That principle should only apply in malpractice cases and similar situations, in which “the actor is providing a highly specialized service,” according to Cavallino’s counsel.

Although both the Superior Knowledge principle and the Profession and Trade principle are known and established legal conceptions in Wisconsin courts, the Supreme Court here has intermingled them in a way that could result in more truckers being hauled into court. Specifically, vehicle drivers who come to believe that truckers are obliged to take greater precautions on the road might be more inclined to file lawsuits — even factually dubious ones — when they are in crashes with big-rig trucks.

But how much Superior Knowledge can a big-rig driver with only a few years experience have? And would that knowledge really make his or her judgment that much more reliable than a typical driver’s?

In the next two to five years of new case filings in Wisconsin, we’ll probably find out.