18 N.W.3d 148
S.D.2025Background
- Todd Weiland sued Patrick Bumann for personal injuries from a car accident where Bumann, acting as an on-duty Highway Patrol trooper, made a U-turn and collided with Weiland’s car.
- Weiland claimed negligence and several negligence per se theories based on Bumann’s traffic violations; Bumann denied liability and asserted contributory negligence and failure to mitigate damages.
- The circuit court denied Weiland’s request for partial summary judgment on key issues and excluded some evidence (accident report, parts of the Highway Patrol investigation, and insurance adjuster statements).
- At trial, the jury found Bumann negligent and Weiland contributorily negligent (but not more than slightly) and awarded Weiland $18,661.50 in damages.
- Both parties appealed–Weiland on the circuit court’s evidentiary and procedural rulings, and Bumann raising the standard of care and damages issues by notice of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of summary judgment on negligence, etc. | Court should have granted judgment as a matter of law on negligence | Disputed facts required jury determination | Moot; jury found Bumann negligent, so no effectual relief possible |
| Submission of contributory negligence to jury | No competent evidence supported submitting to jury | Evidence of Weiland’s speed and actions supported jury question | Sufficient evidence existed; properly submitted to jury |
| Exclusion of accident report & SDHP evidence | Exclusion was error; should have been admitted | Properly excluded—foundation, relevance, or prejudice lacking | No prejudicial error; key content reached jury through other testimony |
| Refusal of insurance instruction to jury | Instruction required due to juror’s question | Not necessary; issue not injected into trial | Within court’s discretion; instruction properly refused |
| Preclusion of per diem damages argument | Court should have permitted per diem argument for future damages | Not supported by evidence of ongoing injury | Discretionary; court’s decision upheld given evidence in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- DT-Trak Consulting, Inc. v. Kolda, 979 N.W.2d 304 (S.D. 2022) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Klutman v. Sioux Falls Storm, 769 N.W.2d 440 (S.D. 2009) (requirements for contributory negligence to be submitted to jury)
- Wasland v. Porter Auto & Marine, Inc., 600 N.W.2d 904 (S.D. 1999) (plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages)
- Sedlacek v. Prussman Contracting, Inc., 941 N.W.2d 819 (S.D. 2020) (standard for evidentiary rulings on appeal)