820 N.W.2d 761
S.D.2012Background
- Walter and Morck on a motorcycle were pedaling home from bar stops; Walter sustained injuries when Fuks’s tractor bucket struck them after a contested centerline crossing.
- Fuks defended with contributory negligence and assumption of risk; he moved for summary judgment alleging Walter was under the influence.
- Walter’s BAC at the time of the accident was contested: .087% extrapolated by Mathison versus .062% claimed by Walter.
- Emergency responders treated Walter; Morck was given a BAC below the legal limit and released.
- Bac-related presumptions under SDCL 32-23-7 were admitted as a jury instruction despite defendant’s objection; the instruction omitted the .08% presumption.
- Walter violated the court’s in limine orders by questions implying lack of DUI prosecution; the court found these violations prejudicial and warranted a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DUI presumptions instruction was proper in a civil case | Walter argues SDCL 32-23-7 applies to civil cases | Fuks contends the presumptions apply only to criminal prosecutions | Presumptions in SDCL 32-23-7 do not apply in negligence actions |
| Whether in limine violations require a new trial | Walter argues disclosures about DUI prosecution were inadvertent | Fuks contends violations were prejudicial but did not merit a new trial | Yes; the in limine violations were prejudicial and reversible error requiring new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Fossum v. Zurn, 78 S.D. 260 (S.D. 1960) (presumptions apply to criminal prosecutions only)
- Therkildsen v. Fisher Beverage, 1996 S.D. 39 (S.D. 1996) (incorporation into civil/worker’s comp contexts)
- Flockhart v. Wyant, 467 N.W.2d 473 (S.D. 1991) (presumptions used to emphasize driver condition; civil context questioned)
- Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publ’ns Inc., 517 N.W.2d 419 (S.D. 1994) (in limine denial standards; prejudice assessment for new trials)
- Papke v. Harbert, 2007 S.D. 87 (S.D. 2007) (jury instruction standards; proper law statement)
- First Premier Bank v. Kolcraft Enter., Inc., 686 N.W.2d 430 (S.D. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for trial rulings)
- Loen v. Anderson, 2005 S.D. 9 (S.D. 2005) (new trial standard following prejudicial error)