Daly v. McFarland
2012 Minn. LEXIS 152
Minn.2012Background
- Daly sued McFarland for injuries from a January 20, 2007 snowmobile collision involving four experienced riders.
- A unanimous jury found both Daly and McFarland negligent, but Daly’s negligence was not a direct cause; 30% of fault was allocated to Daly.
- Judgment for Daly awarded the full damages found by the jury as Daly’s damages ($442,633.50).
- McFarland moved for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, for a new trial due to purported flaws in reconciling the verdict and because of absent emergency-rule or primary-assumption-of-risk instructions.
- The district court denied the motions; the court of appeals affirmed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held that the primary-assumption-of-risk doctrine does not bar Daly’s claims in snowmobiling, rejected the emergency-rule instruction as error, and remanded for remittitur due to inconsistent verdict questions as to causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does primary assumption of risk bar Daly's snowmobile claim? | Daly contends Olson/Carpenter should be overruled via modern snowmobile danger. | McFarland argues snowmobiling is inherently riskier and should be barred by primary assumption of risk. | Primary assumption of risk does not apply to snowmobiling. |
| Was an emergency-rule instruction required? | McFarland asserts instruction should have been given for sudden peril. | Daly maintains no emergency existed requiring instruction. | District court did not abuse discretion; no emergency-rule instruction required; any error was harmless. |
| Did the district court properly reconcile the special verdict form? | McFarland argues the verdicts on Questions 4 and 5 are inconsistent and require a new trial. | Daly argues reconciling was proper to effect jury intent and that Question 5 could reflect negligence rather than direct causation. | District court abused its discretion; remittitur ordered (70% vs 30%), with option for a new trial on liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39 (Minn. 1974) (snowmobiling not per se dangerous; primary assumption of risk not applied)
- Carpenter v. Mattison, 300 Minn. 273 (Minn. 1974) (statutory duty of care; primary vs. secondary assumption of risk analysis)
- Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enters., 396 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. 1986) (primary assumption of risk limited to certain dangerous sports contexts)
- Haugen v. Int’l Transp., Inc., 379 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. 1986) (Seventh Amendment concerns and reconciling inconsistent verdicts requiring discretion)
- Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc., 437 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1989) (remittitur as remedy in remittitur/new-trial context when verdict inconsistent)