|
������ COURT OF APPEALS ��������������� DECISION �� DATED AND RELEASED �������� FEBRUARY 18, 1997 |
����������������� NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals.� See � 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing.� If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No.� 95-3568
STATE
OF WISCONSIN�������������� IN COURT OF
APPEALS
�� �
DISTRICT III�����������
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
ROBERT H. HOLMES, III
and CAROL LYNN HOLMES,
����������������������� ����������������������� ����������� Plaintiff-Appellant,
����������� ����������� v.
ROFFERS CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC., and
AMERICAN STATES
INSURANCE
COMPANY,
����������������������� ����������������������� ����������� Defendants-Respondents,
HOOD EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, INC.
����������������������� ����������������������� ����������� Defendant.
������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������� APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Ashland County:�
ROBERT E. EATON,[1]
Judge.� Affirmed.
����������������������� Before Cane, P.J., Myse
and Carlson, JJ.
����������������������� PER
CURIAM. Robert Holmes, III, appeals a judgment finding him 50%
causally negligent for injuries he suffered when he knelt in wet cement for two
hours causing chemical burns to his knees.�
Holmes argues that the trial judge should have recused himself, that the
court should not have allowed an unlisted defense witness to testify and should
not have instructed the jury on contributory negligence.� We reject these arguments and affirm the
judgment.
����������������������� Holmes argues that Judge
Eaton should have disqualified himself because a shareholder in Roffers
Construction contributed $100 to Eaton's reelection campaign.� A judge is only required to disqualify
himself when he makes a subjective determination that, in fact or in
appearance, he cannot act in an impartial manner.� See State v. American TV & Appliance,
151 Wis.2d 175, 183, 443 N.W.2d 662, 665 (1989).� At a post-trial hearing, the trial judge stated that he was
unaware of the contribution at the time of the trial and that he handled the
case in an impartial manner.� Therefore,
the trial judge was not required to recuse himself.
����������������������� Holmes argues that the
trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it allowed an unlisted
defense witness to testify.� This
argument fails for two reasons: First, Holmes waived this objection
by withdrawing his motion for a mistrial, see Lobermeier v.
General Tele. Co. of Wisconsin, 119 Wis.2d 129, 136, 349 N.W.2d 466,
470 (1984); second, the witness testified regarding punitive damages, an issue
that was first pleaded at the start of the trial.� Holmes was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness,
voir dire the jury and ask for a continuance.�
He chose only to cross-examine the witness and withdrew his motion for a
mistrial.� The trial court properly
exercised its discretion when it allowed the defense to present one witness to
testify on a matter that had not been pleaded at the time the witness list was
submitted.
����������������������� Finally, the trial court
properly exercised its discretion when it instructed the jury on Holmes'
contributory negligence.� The jury
should be instructed on contributory negligence unless the evidence, construed
in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction, would not
support a finding of negligence.� See
Valiga v. National Food Co., 58 Wis.2d 232, 241, 206 N.W.2d 377,
382 (1973); Gage v. Seal, 36 Wis.2d 661, 667, 154 N.W.2d 354, 358
(1967).� The evidence that Holmes
immersed his knees in wet cement for two hours when he was unaware of the
chemical properties of cement constitutes sufficient evidence to present a jury
question on his contributory negligence.
����������������������� By the Court.�Judgment
affirmed.
����������������������� This opinion will not be
published.� See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.�