794 N.W.2d 757
S.D.2011Background
- Cooper sued Rang for negligent operation after Rang slid on icy roads and rear-ended Cooper at the bottom of a hill with a stop sign.
- Rang saw Cooper about fifty feet ahead, began braking fifteen to twenty feet from Cooper, but could not stop, causing the collision.
- Cooper incurred substantial medical expenses for neck, arm, and knee injuries over subsequent years.
- At trial, Cooper moved for a judgment as a matter of law on Rang’s negligence after Rang admitted fault in deposition and trial.
- The jury returned a verdict for Rang; the court denied Cooper’s post-trial motions.
- The Supreme Court reverses and remands for judgment for Cooper on Rang’s negligence and for a new trial on proximate cause and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law on Rang’s negligence | Cooper argues Rang admitted fault and there was no contributory negligence or legal excuse | Rang contends there was contested evidence and errors in instruction or causation | Yes, the court erred in denying JMOL on Rang’s negligence |
| Whether Rang’s admissions establish negligence as a matter of law given there was no contributory negligence or legal excuse | Rang admitted fault, leaving no basis for non-negligence finding | Admissions alone do not automatically negate all defenses or issues | Yes, Rang’s admissions support negligence as a matter of law |
| Whether the record supports entry of judgment for Cooper and a new trial on proximate cause and damages | Evidence shows Rang failed to maintain control and stop despite icy conditions | Jury could reasonably credit Rang’s account or views on causation | Yes, reversed and remanded for judgment for Cooper and new trial on proximate cause and damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Dartt v. Berghorst, 484 N.W.2d 891 (S.D. 1992) (negligence and duty under winter conditions; no sudden emergency where condition is known)
- Christenson v. Bergeson, 688 N.W.2d 421 (S.D. 2004) (unavoidable accident and duty to maintain lookout; evidence insufficient for negligence)
- Klarenbeek v. Campbell, 299 N.W.2d 580 (S.D. 1980) (clear one-sidedness of negligence where stationary vehicle and duty to look out)
- Kappler v. Kappler (Plucker v. Kappler cited), 311 N.W.2d 924 (S.D. 1981) (sudden emergency; surprise negating negligence when applicable)
- Baddou v. Hall, 756 N.W.2d 554 (S.D. 2008) (unavoidable accident or lack of surprise due to road conditions)
- Nichols v. Morkert, 182 N.W.2d 324 (S.D. 1971) (earlier view on contributory negligence; later questioning)
- Steffen v. Schwan’s Sales Enter., Inc., 713 N.W.2d 614 (S.D. 2006) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment as matter of law)
- Schwartz v. Morgan, 776 N.W.2d (S.D. 2009) (review of JNOV and abuse of discretion)