WI · jury_instructions

Wis JI-Civil 1600

Servant: Driver of Automobile (Presumption from Ownership of Vehicle)

activein force · 2003-01-01 – presentas-observed

Uncontradicted evidence has been received in this case that was the owner of

the automobile driven by. From this fact alone, a presumption arises that (driver) was

the servant of (owner). Other evidence has been introduced, however, for the purpose of

showing that (driver) was not the servant of (driver) at the time of the accident.

A "servant" is a person employed to perform a service for another and who, with

respect to (his) (her) physical conduct in the performance of the service, is subject to the

other's control or right to control. The term "servant" as used in this instruction is not used in

the ordinary sense, that is as only applying to domestic help.

In analyzing the relationship between (owner) and (driver) to determine whether

(driver) was a servant, you should consider: (1) why (driver) was operating the vehicle; (2)

the general understanding of the parties and their conduct which tend to characterize their

relationship; and (3) the control which (owner) had over the use of the vehicle by (driver).

For (driver) to be the servant of (owner): (1) there must have been some agreement by

(driver) to act on (owner)'s behalf or for (owner)'s benefit; (2) some benefit to (owner) must

have resulted from (driver) operating the vehicle; and (3) (owner) must have the right to

control (driver) and direct (driver) in accomplishing (owner)'s purpose. Benefit to (owner) is

not confined to an undertaking conducted for financial gain. It includes any benefit to the

owner, including the owner's own pleasure. The element of control by the owner does not

mean the actual or physical operation of the vehicle but rather control as applied to the use of

the automobile by (driver) to accomplish the owner's purpose.

Unless you are satisfied by the greater weight of the credible evidence, to a reasonable

certainty, that it is more probable that (driver) was not the servant of (owner), then you must

find that (driver) was the servant of (owner). The burden is on (owner) to convince you that

(driver) was not the servant of (owner) at the time of the accident and that the answer to the

question should be "no."

SPECIAL VERDICT

At the time of the accident, was (driver) the servant of the (owner)?

Answer:____________

Yes or No

History

Wis JI-Civil 1600 (2003). ©2003, Regents, Univ. of Wis. Prepared by the Wisconsin Civil Jury Instructions Committee of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference with the University of Wisconsin Law School; posted by the Wisconsin State Law Library with the University's permission.

Provenance

Source: wilawlibrary.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-24
Edition: 2026-09-24
Content hash: 2ae9fe1041ad831b1a522f8194e37b825384cb4ad700e50274f58ce56576e373

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs