Lenards v. Deboer
865 N.W.2d 867
| S.D. | 2015Background
- On June 4, 2009 John DeBoer rear-ended Jill Lenards; DeBoer pleaded guilty to careless driving but also claimed temporary glare from sun; he at times admitted fault.
- Lenards initially reported no serious injury and did not complain of lower back pain until more than three weeks after the crash; early ER and CT exams showed no objective spinal injury.
- Lenards later pursued physical therapy and long-term chiropractic care, had other intervening conditions (arthritis, obesity, macromastia) and an unrelated 2011 slip-and-fall; she did not seek recovery of medical bills at trial.
- In May 2012 Lenards sued for pain and suffering limited to lower back and leg; she obtained an in limine ruling excluding her medical bills and restricted her trial theory to those body regions.
- Defense expert Dr. Ripperda testified accident-related symptoms resolved within two months and later complaints were likely due to non-accident conditions; trial court denied directed verdict on liability and submitted a general verdict form with an unavoidable-accident instruction.
- The jury returned a general verdict for DeBoer; the circuit court denied Lenards’ motion for a new trial and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / denial of new trial | Lenards: DeBoer essentially admitted fault and she had injury; verdict unsupported | DeBoer: causation and damages disputed; medical evidence and delayed complaints undermine claim | Court: Affirmed denial — damages causation was disputed and jury could accept defense evidence |
| Unavoidable-accident jury instruction | Lenards: objected to instruction as unnecessary and confusing | DeBoer: requested instruction to excuse liability if accident was unavoidable | Majority: did not reach merits (verdict sustained due to disputed damages); Concurrence: instruction was improper under controlling precedent and the element of surprise was lacking |
| Directed verdict on liability | Lenards: should have been directed in her favor | DeBoer: factual disputes precluded direction; motion not preserved for JMOL | Court: Directed-verdict motion not preserved; general verdict prevents review; affirmed |
| Use of general verdict form | Lenards: objected to submitting liability to jury in that manner | DeBoer: case was for the jury on disputed facts | Court: Because damages causation was contested, general verdict precludes remand even if instruction error occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Felderman, 841 N.W.2d 258 (S.D. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial and deference to jury verdict)
- Alvine Family Ltd. P’ship v. Hagemann, 780 N.W.2d 507 (S.D. 2010) (jury-verdict review principles)
- Thomas v. Sully Cnty., 629 N.W.2d 590 (S.D. 2001) (general verdict presumed decided on a proper theory when multiple theories possible)
- Meyer v. Johnson, 254 N.W.2d 107 (S.D. 1977) (unavoidable-accident instruction is usually unnecessary and limited)
- Howard v. Sanborn, 483 N.W.2d 796 (S.D. 1992) (blinding lights do not satisfy surprise element for unavoidable-accident instruction)
- Bakker v. Irvine, 519 N.W.2d 41 (S.D. 1994) (pain-and-suffering damages are uniquely unquantifiable and a jury question)