|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED December 12, 1996 |
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. 96-2164-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
JEFFREY R. HUNDT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
RURAL SECURITY LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff,
v.
RURAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, ROGER J.
HUNDT,
Third Party Defendants.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for La Crosse County:
DENNIS G. MONTABON, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Dykman, P.J.,
Vergeront and Roggensack, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Jeffrey Hundt appeals from a judgment entered on a
jury verdict finding him 55% causally negligent of his own injury, which he
sustained by falling down a silo chute.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.[1]
Hundt, his father and
his uncle were hired to fill a silo on a neighboring farm. Hundt volunteered to climb a silo chute in
order to manipulate an auger in the silo.
While attempting to climb the silo chute, he fell thirty feet, causing
him serious injury. He brought suit on
the theory that the farm's owner had negligently failed to latch a silo door,
causing his injuries. After a trial,
the jury apportioned 45% negligence to the farm owner and 55% negligence to
Hundt. Hundt appeals, arguing that no
credible evidence sustains the jury verdict.
We disagree.
We must sustain a jury
verdict if any credible evidence supports it.
Fehring v. Republic Ins. Co., 118 Wis.2d 299, 305-06, 347
N.W.2d 595, 598 (1984). The jury here
heard evidence that one climbing a silo ought to feel the latch on each door
above to ascertain that it is closed.
The jury also heard that the chute was dirty, that it was dark, and that
Hundt was climbing with only one hand, using the other to carry a short-handled
hoe. Further, the jury had the benefit
of several witnesses who also described the silo climbing procedure. This was sufficient evidence from which a
reasonable jury could come to the conclusion it did. Id. at 305-06, 347 N.W.2d at 598.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.