Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

For the appellant there was a brief by Fischer, Brunner Strossenreuther, attorneys, and Eberlein Eberlein of counsel, all of Shawano, and oral argument by L. J. Brunner and M. G. Eberlein. For the respondents there was a brief by Genrich Genrich, attorneys, and Herbert L. Terwilliger, James A. Fitzpatrick, and William J. Hoffmann of counsel, all of Wausau, and oral argument by Mr. Fred W. Genrich, Jr., and Mr. Terwilliger.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary: Volland v. McGee, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, November 4, 1941

Factual and Procedural Background

Action was commenced January 6, 1939, by plaintiff Harold Volland against defendant William McGee and McGee's insurer (Saint Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company) for damages from an automobile collision occurring early on December 13, 1938, on Highway No. 47 in the vicinity of the unincorporated village of Keshena. Volland was driving south and McGee north. The cars collided in the west lane on the inside of a curve; defendant's car was turned crosswise facing west and was struck on its right side by the front of plaintiff's automobile. Roadway conditions included ice and a slight downward slope toward the north on the curve; weather was otherwise favorable.

At trial, a special verdict found both parties negligent: plaintiff guilty of negligence as to speed and that such speed was a proximate cause; defendant negligent in operating on the left side of the highway and that such negligence was a proximate cause. Negligence was apportioned fifty per cent to each party. Judgment was entered December 28, 1939, dismissing the complaint and all counterclaims/cross-claims. After the dismissal, the trial court granted a motion by appellant to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, but that order was ineffective because the court had no jurisdiction to set aside the verdict more than sixty days after the verdict under sec. 270.49(1), Stats. The matter had been earlier considered by this court on appeal in prior entries captioned Volland v. McGee (reported at 236 Wis. 358 and 238 Wis. 227). The present appeal is from the December 28, 1939 judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court's instructions to the jury concerning appellant's speed—specifically charging that appellant was negligent if his speed exceeded twenty miles per hour based on the court's characterization of the scene as a "residential district"—were correct.
Whether appellant was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or to a change in the jury's answers to the special verdict questions and entry of judgment on the amended verdict.
Whether the case was properly placed before the jury (i.e., whether the evidence required submission to the jury or warranted a ruling as a matter of law).
Whether the trial court could set aside the verdict and grant a new trial after sixty days from the rendition of the verdict absent an extension under sec. 270.49(1), Stats. (this procedural limitation was raised in the record and considered by the court).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Appellant assigned as error the trial court's instructions relating to the speed at which he should have been traveling, arguing the instruction that a speed in excess of twenty miles per hour constituted negligence was improper because it rested on an erroneous finding that the scene was a "residential district."
Appellant asserted entitlement to judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.), or alternatively to a change of the jury's answers to the special verdict and for judgment on the verdict as so amended.
Implicit in appellant's position was that the evidence did not support submission to the jury on certain negligence issues (i.e., that the evidence showed, as a matter of law, that appellant was not negligent or was not in a position to avoid the accident).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McGill v. Baumgart, 233 Wis. 86, 288 N.W. 799	Interpretation of "residence district" as defined in sec. 85.10(29) — frontage calculation requires over fifty percent of the frontage for three hundred feet to be occupied by dwellings or dwellings and business buildings.	The court applied McGill to conclude that the facts in the present case did not satisfy the statutory criteria for a "residential district," and therefore the trial court's instruction treating the scene as a residential area (with a 20 m.p.h. speed rule) was erroneous and prejudicial.
Volland v. McGee, 236 Wis. 358, 294 N.W. 497, 295 N.W. 635	Prior appellate consideration of matters in this case (procedural history / practice issues).	The court noted the case had been considered on appeal previously; the record reflects earlier appellate review of a post-trial order relating to a motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial.
Volland v. McGee, 238 Wis. 227, 298 N.W. 602	Another prior appellate entry raising a question of practice.	The court referenced this prior decision as part of the procedural history and prior appellate consideration of practice questions in the same litigation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed both the factual record and the legal instructions given to the jury. The jury's special verdict attributed equal fault (50% each) to plaintiff and defendant, finding plaintiff negligent as to speed and defendant negligent for operating on the left side of the highway.

The principal legal analysis centered on whether the trial court properly instructed the jury that appellant was negligent if his speed exceeded twenty miles per hour. That instruction depended on the trial court's characterization of the scene as a "residential district," invoking the statutory 20 m.p.h. limit (sec. 85.40(1), with the definition of "residence district" in sec. 85.10(29)). The supreme court examined the statute and its interpretation in McGill v. Baumgart, which required that over fifty percent of the frontage for three hundred feet be occupied by dwellings or dwellings and business buildings for an area to qualify as a residential district. The court concluded that the facts of this case did not meet that statutory definition and that the instruction that the scene was within a residential district was therefore erroneous.

The court emphasized that the erroneous instruction was prejudicial because it related to an element of negligence (speed) on which appellant was found guilty. The instruction was described as "well calculated to carry the impression to the jury that under the applicable law appellant's speed was excessive and was a proximate cause," and so it "practically compelled" the jury to find appellant negligent as to speed.

The opinion also addressed procedural attempts by the trial court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. The trial court had attempted to grant a new trial on the ground that its characterization of the area as residential was erroneous, but the appellate court observed that the trial court lacked authority to set aside the verdict more than sixty days after its rendition without an extension under sec. 270.49(1), Stats. That procedural limitation was noted as a fixed statutory rule.

Finally, the court considered whether the evidence was so clear that it could amend the special verdict answers or enter judgment as a matter of law for appellant. The court concluded the testimony lacked the certainty required to decide the negligence question as a matter of law: estimates by witnesses and conflicting testimony (including respondent's own testimony) created factual disputes appropriate for resolution by a jury. Consequently, the court declined to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to change the jury's answers as a matter of law.

Holding and Implications

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.

Direct effect: The supreme court reversed the December 28, 1939 judgment dismissing the complaint and counterclaims, and directed that a new trial be granted because the trial court's erroneous instruction classifying the scene as a "residential district" (and imposing a 20 m.p.h. rule) was prejudicial. The court also held that appellant was not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to alteration of the jury's answers as a matter of law because the evidence presented conflicts and lacks the necessary certainty for such relief.

The opinion does not announce a new legal principle beyond its application of McGill v. Baumgart to the facts; the decision's practical consequence is the reversal and remand for a new trial rather than the establishment of a broader new precedent.

Show full summary ...

VOLLAND, Appellant, vs. McGEE and another, Respondents.

Action commenced January 6, 1939, by Harold Volland against William McGee and his insurance carrier, the Saint Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, for damages resulting from an automobile collision. The defendant McGee interposed a counterclaim against plaintiff and cross-complained against the interpleaded defendant, the American Automobile Insurance Company. The judgment dismissed the action and all claims. Plaintiff appeals.

The collision occurred early in the morning of December 13, 1938, on Highway No. 47. Plaintiff was driving south and defendant north. The two cars collided in the west lane of travel of the road on the inside of a curve where the highway which runs in a general north and south direction curves toward the northwest. The weather conditions were favorable, but the roadway was icy and there was a slight downward slope toward the north on the curve. The highway was banked somewhat so as to be lower on the west side. The plaintiff was thus traveling up a slight grade as he approached the point of collision. Defendant's car turned crosswise of the road facing west and was struck on its right side by the front of plaintiff's automobile.

Defendant testified that he turned his car into the west lane because he thought plaintiff was on the wrong side of the road and that he turned to avoid what he thought would be a head-on collision. The evidence showed that defendant was on his side of the road until but fifty feet from the point of the accident, and that he suddenly swung over to his left in front of the plaintiff. Skid marks extended in an arc from the east side of the highway over to the point on the west side where the collision took place. The plaintiff's version is that he applied his brakes as soon as he saw the defendant crosswise in front of him, but that he was unable to stop before running into defendant's car.

A trial was had to the court and jury. A special verdict was rendered in which the findings are that plaintiff was guilty of negligence as to speed, and that such speed was a natural cause of the accident; that defendant was negligent in operating his automobile on the left side of the highway, and that such negligence was a natural cause of the accident. The negligence of each party was assessed at fifty per cent. Judgment was entered on December 28, 1939, dismissing plaintiff's complaint and defendant's counterclaim and cross complaint.

FAIRCHILD, J.

After judgment of dismissal had been ordered by the circuit court a motion by appellant to set aside the judgment and for a new trial was granted below. That order was not effective as the trial court could not set aside the verdict and grant a new trial after sixty days had elapsed from the rendering of the verdict, no extension of time for cause having been granted. This is a fixed rule provided by sec. 270.49 (1), Stats. On appeal from that order the matter was considered by this court in Volland v. McGee, 236 Wis. 358, 294 N.W. 497, 295 N.W. 635, and another question of practice was raised in 238 Wis. 227, 298 N.W. 602. The case is now before us on appeal from the judgment of December 28, 1939. Appellant assigns as error instructions to the jury with relation to the speed at which he should have been traveling. He also claims to be entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and to a change of answers of the special verdict and for judgment on the verdict as so amended. So one question presented is whether appellant's case was properly placed before the jury. This depends upon the correctness of the court's instructions as to appellant's duty with respect to the speed of his car at the time of the collision. The jury was told that appellant was negligent if his speed at the time exceeded twenty miles per hour. The facts in evidence to which the instruction related did not require or warrant such a charge. The instruction as given was well calculated to carry the impression to the jury that under the applicable law appellant's speed was excessive and was a proximate cause of the collision. Appellant appears to have been driving in his proper lane of travel and his speed was not limited beyond the rule of due care set out in sec. 85.40 (1), Stats. 1937. But the jury was told that the accident happened in a residential district and that "a maximum permissible speed on any highway in a residential district shall be twenty miles an hour . . . and therefore if you find just prior to the accident that . . . Harold Volland was driving his car at a speed of more than twenty miles an hour, then you must answer such subdivisions [relating to negligence as to speed] as to such driver yes." Volland had testified to his driving at twenty-five or thirty miles per hour. This charge as to speed practically compelled the jury to find appellant negligent with relation to speed. Although the accident occurred in the unincorporated village of Keshena, it did not occur in a residential district as defined by sec. 85.10 (29), and interpreted in McGill v. Baumgart, 233 Wis. 86, 288 N.W. 799. That case held that a mathematical summation of the frontage, meaning space in front of buildings only without regard to the surrounding grounds, must' amount to more than fifty per cent before the area is residential within the meaning of the statute. The facts of this case do not fall within that requirement, so the instruction that the scene of the accident was a residential area was erroneous. That it was prejudicial cannot be questioned since the instruction related to an element of negligence of which appellant was found guilty.

The record shows that the learned trial judge reached the conclusion his instructions had been erroneous when motions were later made to review the ruling that the collision occurred in a residential district. In a memorandum opinion granting a new trial the lower court said: "It now seems certain to the court that it was in error when it held it a residential district. In McGill v. Baumgart, in interpreting the statute with respect to `residence district,' our supreme court held that the frontage for three hundred feet had to be `mainly' occupied by dwellings, or dwellings and business buildings, and that meant over fifty per cent of the frontage had to be so occupied. The trial court interpreted the residence statute to mean, `the buildings, and its yard or appurtenances,' had to occupy more than one half of the three hundred feet."

As to the question of whether appellant is entitled to have the jury's answers to certain questions changed as a matter of law or whether a new trial should be granted, it is considered that the testimony lacks the quality of certainty which would enable a court to say as a matter of law that the appellant immediately before the accident was not in a position to avoid the accident. There is evidence in the form of estimates of the distance appellant was from the scene of collision when he first noticed that respondent's car was moving broadside in his direction on the west side of the road. Respondent's testimony creates a conflict in the evidence and raises a jury question as to the negligence, if any, of appellant.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.

VOLLAND v. McGEE