Hewitt v. Felderman
2013 SD 91
| S.D. | 2013Background
- Peggy Hewitt was in two rear-end collisions: January 11, 2007 (Berens rear-ended Hewitt; Berens admitted fault) and June 27, 2008 (Micah Hewitt driving; his car hit a deer and then was struck from behind by Shelli Felderman).
- Hewitt claimed ongoing neck, head, and arm problems from the 2007 crash and sought damages from both Berens and Felderman; the cases were tried together.
- Felderman was cited for following too closely and paid the citation but contested liability at trial.
- The jury found Berens liable and awarded Hewitt $60,000 for the 2007 collision, found Felderman negligent for the 2008 collision but also found Felderman’s negligence was not a legal cause of Hewitt’s injuries and awarded Hewitt zero damages against Felderman.
- Hewitt moved for directed verdict, a new trial on damages, and attorney’s fees/costs for Felderman’s failure to admit negligence; Felderman moved for costs as prevailing party. The trial court denied all relief; both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hewitt) | Defendant's Argument (Felderman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of directed verdict on negligence | Hewitt: insufficient evidence to send negligence to jury; directed verdict should have been granted. | Felderman: issue was factual; reasonable grounds to submit to jury (sudden emergency). | Moot — jury found Felderman negligent; Court declines review of directed verdict denial. |
| 2. New trial on damages | Hewitt: evidence of causation and damages was undisputed; zero damages verdict is unsupported. | Felderman: jury could reject causation; alternative causes existed and credibility issues supported verdict. | Denied — verdict explainable by evidence; jury could reject expert testimony and find no causal link. |
| 3. Attorney’s fees/costs to Hewitt for proving negligence (SDCL 15-6-37) | Hewitt: Felderman denied admissions; statute requires fee award where denials are proven. | Felderman: had reasonable grounds to deny; trial judge found negligence was a factual question for jury. | Denied — court may refuse fees if there was good reason to deny admissions including reasonable belief of prevailing. |
| 4. Felderman’s motion for costs/disbursements as prevailing party (SDCL 15-17-37) | Felderman: zero damages constitutes prevailing party; thus she should recover costs. | Hewitt: neither party should be treated as prevailing given mixed results; court may limit costs in interest of justice. | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion in finding no prevailing party / limiting disbursements. |
| 5. Admissibility of future medical testimony | Hewitt: (sought to admit) experts on future treatment. | Felderman: challenged admissibility. | Moot — because jury awarded zero damages, issue need not be decided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cody v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 502 N.W.2d 558 (S.D. 1993) (mootness—appeal dismissed where court cannot grant effectual relief)
- Investigation of the Highway Constr. Indus. v. Bartholow, 373 N.W.2d 419 (S.D. 1985) (mootness and when judgment would have no practical legal effect)
- Alvine Family Ltd. P’ship v. Hagemann, 780 N.W.2d 507 (S.D. 2010) (standard of review—denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Bridge v. Karl’s, Inc., 538 N.W.2d 521 (S.D. 1995) (role of expert testimony—assist jury, not supplant it; not binding on jury)
- Novak v. Novak, 741 N.W.2d 222 (S.D. 2007) (awarding attorney fees where denials of requests for admission were indefensible)
- Full House, Inc. v. Stell, 640 N.W.2d 61 (S.D. 2002) (court may limit or deny disbursements under SDCL permitting limitation in interests of justice)