## Facts

- David R. Rabata sued Dohner (and another defendant) for personal injuries from a two-car collision on a two-lane highway.
- Liability turned on which vehicle crossed the center line and “in whose lane the collision occurred.”
- Rabata testified Dohner approached from the east and made a “baseball curve” into Rabata’s lane, causing the impact on Rabata’s side of the road.
- Dohner testified Rabata was initially in his proper lane but moved into Dohner’s lane immediately before impact.
- Both sides presented accident-reconstruction experts: the defense expert opined the impact occurred in Dohner’s lane; Rabata’s expert, engineer Harold Vik, opined the impact occurred in Rabata’s lane based on his review of physical evidence and testimony.
- The defense impeached Rabata with prior inconsistent statements, including a change in his estimate of when he first saw Dohner’s vehicle (75 feet at an adverse examination versus 750 feet at trial).
- The jury found for Rabata, crediting Rabata and his expert.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s finding that the collision occurred in Rabata’s lane was supported by credible evidence despite conflicting testimony and expert opinions.
2. Whether the trial court erred by allowing Rabata’s accident-reconstruction expert to give an opinion on point of impact without a hypothetical question incorporating disputed facts.
3. Whether inconsistencies in Rabata’s testimony and asserted conflict with “physical facts” made Rabata’s and his expert’s testimony incredible as a matter of law, requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the jury’s verdict for Rabata.
- The court held that the lane-of-impact dispute presented a credibility question for the jury and the verdict could not be disturbed because it was supported by credible evidence.
- The court rejected the claim that Rabata’s testimony and his expert’s opinion were incredible as a matter of law; the physical evidence did not render Rabata’s version legally impossible.
- The court held the trial judge did not err in permitting the plaintiff’s accident-reconstruction expert to state his opinion without a formal hypothetical question where the opinion was grounded in evidence in the record and subject to cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- A jury verdict must be upheld if supported by any credible evidence; conflicts in testimony, including between qualified experts, are for the jury to resolve.
- Witness impeachment and inconsistencies generally affect weight and credibility, not admissibility or legal sufficiency, unless the testimony is incredible as a matter of law.
- Testimony may be rejected as incredible as a matter of law only when it is inherently impossible or in conflict with incontrovertible physical facts.
- Expert opinion testimony on accident reconstruction may be admitted without a hypothetical question when the expert’s basis is disclosed through evidence and the opposing party can test assumptions through cross-examination; admission rests largely in trial-court discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed because the jury had credible evidence to find the collision occurred in Rabata’s lane, and the plaintiff’s reconstruction expert was properly allowed to opine on point of impact without a mandatory hypothetical question, with credibility and competing interpretations left to the jury.


Rabata v. Dohner, 172 N.W.2d 409 (Wis. 1969)