James Lasley v. Running Supply, Inc., 670 F. App'x 910

Lasley, an independent truck driver, picked up cattle panels and received an "Unloading Precautions" sheet warning that black bands could spring open and that drivers were not responsible for unloading; he testified he read and understood it.
At Running Supply's store, Lasley voluntarily offered to help unload; employee Melvin Brown provided tools but did not ask him to assist.
After cutting one bundle safely, Lasley cut a second bundle that sprang open and severely injured him.
Lasley sued Running Supply in diversity court for negligence; he requested premises-liability jury instructions (arguing a duty to warn about dangerous activities) but the district court instructed only on general negligence.
The jury returned a verdict for Running Supply; Lasley moved for a new trial arguing the district court erred by refusing premises-liability instructions based on activities on the land.
The district court denied the new trial, finding sufficient evidence that Lasley assumed the risk; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding any instructional error did not affect Lasley’s substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by refusing premises-liability instructions for dangerous activities on the land	Lasley: landowner must warn business invitees of dangerous activities; failure to instruct prejudiced him	Running Supply: South Dakota law requires warnings for conditions on the land, not for activities; general negligence instructions were proper	Court: Even if error, any error was harmless because assumption of risk defeated recovery; affirmed
Standard of review for jury-instruction error	Lasley: requested instruction and court definitively denied it, so review for abuse of discretion	Running Supply: argues plain-error review because lack of specific objection	Court: Reviewed for abuse of discretion under Rule 51 because Lasley requested and the court definitively rejected the instruction on the record
Whether assumption of risk applied	Lasley: no adequate warning from landowner about unloading activity	Running Supply: Lasley knew and appreciated the risk (read precautions) and voluntarily acted	Court: Found sufficient evidence Lasley had actual knowledge, appreciated the risk, and voluntarily accepted it; assumption of risk established
Whether any instructional error affected substantial rights	Lasley: erroneous instruction on premises liability affected verdict	Running Supply: any error was harmless given defense evidence	Court: Held no reversible error—Lasley’s substantial rights were not affected; no new trial

Acuity v. Johnson, 776 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2015) (jury-instruction review is for abuse of discretion)
Linden v. CNH Am., LLC, 673 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2012) (instructions must fairly represent evidence and applicable law)
Bauer v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 680 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2012) (reversal only when error affects substantial rights)
Slidell, Inc. v. Millennium Inorganic Chems., Inc., 460 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2006) (new trial required only if errors misled jury or probably affected verdict)
Burry v. Eustis Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 243 F.3d 432 (8th Cir. 2001) (prejudice showing for instruction error can be negated by strong defense evidence)
Parker v. Casa Del Rey-Rapid City, Inc., 641 N.W.2d 112 (S.D. 2002) (premises liability is a subpart of general duty to exercise reasonable care)
Stenholtz v. Modica, 264 N.W.2d 514 (S.D. 1978) (known or obvious danger bears on assumption of risk)