906 N.W.2d 359
S.D.2017Background
- Schott (owner of Corson County Feeders) followed agronomy plans and herbicide recommendations from SD Wheat Growers (SDWG) for years and relied on SDWG agronomists for what and when to spray.
- Schott planted a mix of Clearfield and non-Clearfield sunflower varieties in 2014 under a seed contract; the varieties are indistinguishable in the field but require different herbicides.
- SDWG agronomist Fees prepared a 2014 plan ordering both TapOut (for non-Clearfield) and Beyond (for Clearfield); Fees later claimed Schott told him he was planting only Clearfield, which Schott denies.
- Fees prescribed and SDWG supplied Beyond; Schott (a licensed spray applicator) sprayed Beyond and 1,200 acres of non-Clearfield sunflowers were destroyed because non-Clearfield plants are not tolerant of Beyond.
- Schott sued SDWG for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty; SDWG moved for summary judgment arguing Schott assumed the risk (and was contributorily negligent) because he was a licensed applicator who failed to read the label.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for SDWG on assumption of the risk; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding genuine factual disputes about Schott’s knowledge and appreciation of the risk.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schott actually knew the risk of applying Beyond to non-Clearfield sunflowers | Schott lacked actual knowledge of Clearfield vs. non-Clearfield and thus did not appreciate the danger | Schott previously planted/sprayed both varieties and told Fees he planted only Clearfield, so he had actual knowledge | Genuine factual dispute exists; summary judgment improper on actual-knowledge ground |
| Whether Schott had constructive knowledge of the risk (i.e., should be charged as a matter of law) | Reliance on SDWG and lack of ability to distinguish varieties meant label-reading would not have alerted him | As a licensed applicator, Schott had a duty to read labels and ensure proper application; thus constructively knew the risk | Constructive knowledge not established as a matter of law given disputed facts; summary judgment improper |
| Whether licensure as a spray applicator conclusively imputes knowledge and appreciation of this specific risk | Licensure did not necessarily require training to distinguish sunflower varieties; license alone insufficient | Licensure creates an obligation to follow labels and implies knowledge of pesticide restrictions | Court held licensure alone did not eliminate factual questions about actual understanding; cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Whether assumption of the risk can be decided as a matter of law on these facts | Schott contends assumption requires proof of actual/constructive knowledge and appreciation, which are in dispute | SDWG contends assumption of risk is established and summary judgment appropriate | Assumption of risk requires subjective knowledge/appreciation; unresolved factual issues make summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Karst v. Shur-Co., 878 N.W.2d 604 (definition and elements of assumption of risk)
- Duda v. Phatty McGees, Inc., 758 N.W.2d 754 (explaining subjective standard for knowledge and appreciation)
- Bartlett v. Gregg, 92 N.W.2d 654 (adult constructive-knowledge exceptions and assumption of risk principles)
- Myers v. Lennox Co-op Ass’n, 307 N.W.2d 863 (when assumption of risk may be decided as matter of law)
- Goepfert v. Filler, 563 N.W.2d 140 (example of affirmed summary judgment on assumption of risk where facts were indisputable)