Karst v. Shur-Co.
2016 SD 35
| S.D. | 2016Background
- Richard Karst bought two Wilson grain trailers equipped with Shur model 3500 electric-tarp systems; the system used a roll tube, flex arms, torsion springs, an electric motor, and a removable sleeve over a manual-spline.
- On December 15, 2009, one trailer’s electric tarp failed in the open position; Karst attempted to remove the sleeve to access the spline and manually close the tarp; when the sleeve separated the torsion spring propelled the flex arm into him and he suffered catastrophic brain injury.
- Shur provided a warning label on the rear flex-arm base and an owner’s manual; the manual warned of spring tension but did not explain how to unroll the tarp when stuck open.
- Karsts sued Shur and Wilson for strict liability and negligence (defective design and failure to warn). The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on the failure-to-warn claims for lack of evidence that Richard read the warnings; Wilson also received summary judgment on negligent-design claim; remaining claims went to a jury that returned verdict for defendants.
- On appeal Karsts raised four issues: (1) Instruction 20 on strict liability; (2) summary judgment on failure-to-warn; (3) whether assumption-of-risk was properly submitted; (4) exclusion of evidence about the actual warnings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Karst) | Defendant's Argument (Shur/Wilson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury Instruction 20 (strict liability / "unreasonably dangerous") | Instruction 20 misstated law, confused jury, and improperly emphasized defendants’ theory; consumer-expectation standard required | Instruction 20 correctly advised jury that a product can be dangerous without being unreasonably dangerous and that defect must render the product unreasonably dangerous | Affirmed: instructions considered together (19/20/21) correctly stated South Dakota law and were not misleading |
| Summary judgment on failure-to-warn (causation) | Warnings were irrelevant or inadequate; evidence raised inference Richard read manual; presumption he read warnings; placement claim (label location) creates question of fact | Plaintiff must prove causation by showing an adequate warning would have been read and followed; no evidence Richard read warnings; expert placement opinion insufficient | Affirmed: summary judgment proper — Karsts produced no evidence Richard read warnings; no presumption; expert affidavit did not establish actual inadequacy of placement |
| Assumption of risk (jury submission) | No evidence Richard knew danger of converting tarp with it open; instruction inappropriate | There was sufficient evidence to submit the defense | Moot: special verdict form sequence shows jury never reached assumption-of-risk question; presumed juries followed instructions |
| Exclusion of evidence of provided warnings (admissibility/rebuttal) | Karsts should have been allowed to present manuals/labels to rebut defense and impeach witnesses | Trial court excluded warning evidence after summary judgment; any testimony about warnings was invited by plaintiffs’ counsel and curative instruction was given | Affirmed: exclusion proper given summary-judgment ruling and invited testimony; curative instruction mitigated any prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Safway Steel Scaffolds Co., 400 N.W.2d 909 (S.D. 1987) (South Dakota adoption of Restatement rule of strict liability for products in defective condition unreasonably dangerous)
- Vetter v. Cam Wal Elec. Coop., Inc., 711 N.W.2d 612 (S.D. 2006) (standard of review and de novo review for overall correctness of jury instructions)
- Barton Solvents, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 855 N.W.2d 145 (S.D. 2014) (summary judgment and the nonmoving party’s burden to show specific facts on essential elements)
- Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. First Premier Bank, 686 N.W.2d 430 (S.D. 2004) (discussed jury-instruction tension between risk-utility and consumer-expectation tests)
- Dehnert v. Garrett Feed Co., 169 N.W.2d 719 (S.D. 1969) (presumption of due care in vehicle-accident context and limits on extending such presumptions)