Page images
PDF
EPUB

(b)

(d)

(b) (c)

(d)

APPENDIX II

Proposed Special Verdict No. 1 QUESTION No. 1

At and just prior to the collision was the defendant John Doe negligent with respect to: (a)

Answer:
Answer:
Answer:

Answer:
QUESTION No. 2

If you answer (any subdivision of) Question No. 1 'Yes,' then answer (the corresponding subdivisions of) this question: Was such negligence on the part of the defendant John Doe a cause of the collision (to the plaintiff Richard Roe). (a)

Answer:
Answer:
Answer:

Answer:
QUESTION No. 3

At and just prior to the collision was the plaintiff Richard Roe negligent with respect to:

Answer:
Answer:

Answer:
(d)

Answer: QUESTION No. 4

If you answer (any subdivision of) Question No. 3 'Yes,' then answer (the corresponding subdivision of) this question: Was such negligence on the part of the plaintiff Richard Roe a cause of the collision. (a)

Answer:
Answer:

Answer:
(d)

Answer: QUESTION No. 5

If you find by your answers to (any subdivision of) Questions No. 1 and 3 that both the defendant Richard Roe and the plaintiff John Doe were negligent, and if you further find by your answers to (any subdivision of) Questions No. 2 and 4, that the negligence of each was a cause of the collision then answer this question: Taking the combined negligence which caused the collision as 100%, what percentage of such negligence is attributable to: (a) the Defendant

Answer: - % (b) the

Answer: - %
Total: 100 %

(a)
(b)

(d)

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Editor's Note: It should be noted that Wisconsin Jury Instruction

Civil 1575 calls attention to the function of the jury in assessing the negligence of the parties so that the combined total equals 100%. Question five (5) performs the same function, in that the Sample Statute and Wisconsin Statute Section 895.045 does not specifically refer to this mandatory computation of negligence. This is necessary so that the 50% rule will operate to bar plaintiff's recovery, and this figure cannot be impliedly arrived at unless the jury knows that as between the parties, complete negligence in terms of percentage must be allocated.

QUESTION No. 6
What sum of money will fairly and reasonably compensate

- with respect to: ( ) personal injuries to date?

Answer: $_
() future personal injuries (disability)? Answer:
( ) past medical (and hospital) expenses ? Answer: $_

future medical (and hospital) expenses? Answer: $_
loss of earnings to date?

Answer: $-
future loss of earnings ?

Answer: $ ( ) damage to

Answer: $_

Proposed Special Verdict No. 2 QUESTION No. 1

At and just prior to the collision, was the defendant (Caption) negligent with respect to: (a) speed ?

Answer: (b) racing ?

Answer: (c) overtaking and passing?

Answer:

QUESTION No. 2

If you answer any subdivision of Question No. 1 'Yes,' then answer the corresponding subdivision of this question: Was such negligence on the part of the defendant (Caption) a cause of the collision with respect to: (a) speed ?

Answer: (b) racing ?

Answer: (c) overtaking and passing?

Answer:

QUESTION No. 3

At and just prior to the collision, was the defendant (Caption) negligent with respect to: (a) speed? (b) racing ?

Answer:

Answer:

QUESTION No. 4

If you answer any subdivision of Question No. 3 'Yes,' then answer the corresponding subdivision of this question: Was such negligence on the part of the defendant (Caption) a cause of the collision with respect to: (a) speed ?

Answer: (b) racing ?

Answer:

QUESTION No. 5

At and just prior to the collision, was the plaintiff (Caption) negligent with respect to: (a) the manner of making his left turn? Answer: (b) directional signals ?

Answer:

QUESTION No. 6

If you answer any subdivision of Question No. 5 'Yes,' then answer the corresponding subdivision of this question: Was such negligence on the part of the plaintiff (Caption) a cause of the collision with respect to: (a) the manner of making his left turn? Answer: (b) directional signals ?

Answer:

QUESTION No. 7

If you find by your answers to any subdivisions of Questions No. 1 and 3 that either the defendant (Caption) or the defendant (Caption), or both, were negligent, and if you further find by your answers to any subdivision of Questions No. 2 and 4 that the negligence of either the defendant (Caption) or the defendant (Caption), or both, was & cause of the collision, and if you find by your answer to any subdivision of Question No. 5 that the plaintiff (Caption) was negligent, and if you further find by your answer to any subdivision of Question No. 6 that the negligence of the plaintiff (Caption) was a cause of the collision, then answer this question: Taking the combined negligence which caused the collision as 100%, what percentage of such negligence is attributable to: (a) the defendant (Caption)?

Answer: (b) the defendant (Caption)?

Answer:
(c) the plaintiff (Caption)?

Answer:
Total: 100 %

QUESTION No. 8

What sum of money will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff (Caption) with respect to: (a) personal injuries to date ?

Answer: (b) past medical and hospital expenses ? Answer: (c) loss of earnings to date?

Answer: (d) damage to his automobile?

Answer:

QUESTION No. 9

What sum of money will fairly and reasonably compensate the intervening plaintiff (Caption) for damage to (Caption) automobile?

Answer: $_ Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this — day of November, 1966.

(Foreman)

(Forelady)

QUESTION OR DISSENTING JURORS as to SUBDIVISION NO.

Editor's Note: Question 6 in form No. 1 and Questions 8 and 9 in form

No. 2 require only that the jury assess the total amount of damages required to compensate the parties fairly and reasonably. This total damage allocation is the unique feature of Wisconsin practice, and having once submitted the verdict, then the reduction of the plaintiff's recovery (that is, the mathematical subtraction of percentages and the proportionate reduction of plaintiff's damages due to any percentage found against the recovering party) or denial of recovery to the plaintiff, is a court function.

"Comportance Conve Negli

APPENDIX III Bibliography-Wisconsin Comparative Negligence Law 1. E. Harold Hallows, “Comparative Negligence-Is It the Answer?

19 Federation of Insurance Counsel Quarterly 71 (Spring 1969). 2. C. James Heft, "Comparative NegligenceWhat It Is, How It Works,

Why It's Fair,” 19 Federation of Insurance Counsel Quarterly 79

(Spring 1969). 3. Carroll R. Heft, “Comparative Negligence-Summary," 19 Federa

tion of Insurance Counsel Quarterly 91 (Spring 1969). 4. Heft & Heft, “Comparative Negligence: Wisconsin's Answer,” 55

ABA Journal 127 (February 1969)-condensation of two previous

articles. 5. J. Decker, “Some Random Observations About Comparative Negli

gence And The Trial Process In Wisconsin," 1 Conn L Rev 56 (June

1968). 6. Vaudreuil, “Outline Of Wisconsin Comparative Negligence Act,"

14th Annual NAII Workshop Report 123 (April 1968). 7. “Outline Of Wisconsin's Comparative Negligence Act.” Prepared by

Heft, Coates, Heft, Henzl & Bichler for the 4th Annual Defense

Tactics Seminar of the Illinois Defense Counsel (January 1968). 8. Carroll R. Heft, “Comparative Negligence Problem Child: A Study

Of Growth To Manhood," 7 DLJ 46 (1960). 9. A. W. Parnell, “The Mechanics of Comparative Negligence Law in

Wisconsin," 37 Mich St B Journal 9 (October 1958).

APPENDIX IV
Comparative Negligence Statutes

ARKANSAS 88 27-1730.1 and 27-1730.2 Ark. Stats. Ann.

Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery of damages for any injury, property damage or death where the negligence of the person injured or killed is of less degree than the negligence of any person, firm or corporation causing such damage. In all actions hereafter accruing for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death or injury to property, the contributory negligence shall not prevent a recovery where any negligence of the person so injured, damaged or killed is of less degree than any negligence of the person, firm or corporation causing such damage; provided that where such contributory negligence is shown on the part of the person injured, damaged or killed, the amount of the recovery shall be diminished in proportion to such contributory negligence.

GEORGIA $$ 105-603 and 94-703 of the Georgia Code Ann. provide:

105-603. Diligence of plaintiff.-If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant's negligence, he is not entitled to recover. In other cases the defendant is not relieved, although the plaintiff may in some way have contributed to the injury sustained. 94-703. Consent or negligence of person injured as defense; comparative negligence as affecting amount of recovery.—No person shall recover damages from a railroad company for injury to himself or his property, where the same is done by his consent or is caused by his own negligence. If the complainant and the agents of the company are both at fault, the former may recover, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to him.

HAWAII
Chapter 663, Hawaii Revised Statutes (1969 amendment):

Contributory negligence no bar; comparative negligence; findings of fact and special verdicts.

(a) Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person or his legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage or death recovery is made.

(b) In any action to which subsection (a) of this section applies,

« PreviousContinue »