993 N.W.2d 553
S.D.2023Background
- Wright owned a 1978 Citabria listed for $75,000; Temple rented and later crashed it while learning to fly; plane was extensively damaged.
- Wright repaired the plane at a cost of $79,083.02 and later sold it for $52,500; he sued Temple for negligence, breach of contract, deceit, and related claims.
- A jury found Temple liable and awarded $34,144.84 on each of three theories; the circuit court aggregated those identical amounts into a $102,434.52 judgment.
- On first appeal (Wright I) the South Dakota Supreme Court held the jury instructions on damages were erroneous and prejudicial and remanded for a new trial limited to damages.
- On remand the parties agreed the court would decide damages on the existing record; the circuit court awarded $72,000 (difference between $75,000 pre-crash FMV and $3,000 salvage), plus prejudgment interest and costs, totaling $131,735.67.
- Temple appealed, contesting appellate jurisdiction (service on third-party Merrill), the circuit court’s use of salvage as post-crash value, and the prejudgment interest award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wright) | Defendant's Argument (Temple) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction—service on third-party Merrill | Appeal proper; Merrill not participating on remand (Wright argued after SOCC) | Temple argued service not required because Merrill effectively dismissed; Wright argued service requirement mandatory | Court: Jurisdiction exists—Merrill was no longer a party for remand purposes, so service not required |
| Proper measure of damages—use of diminution (salvage) vs. cost of repair | Wright: diminution via salvage ($3,000) appropriate because cost of repair exceeded diminution; court should use lesser (diminution) | Temple: post-crash FMV is $52,500 (sale price after repair), so damages should be $22,500 | Court: Use diminution (pre-crash FMV $75,000 minus salvage $3,000 = $72,000); cost-of-repair measure inappropriate because repair cost exceeded diminution |
| Whether sale price after repair is controlling evidence of post-crash FMV | Wright: sale was compelled (sold to stop expenses), so sale price not reliable FMV | Temple: $52,500 sale price is actual market evidence of post-repair FMV and should reduce damages | Court: Sale price not persuasive as fair-market evidence (seller was under compulsion); salvage value properly used for post-crash FMV when repair cost exceeds diminution |
| Prejudgment interest entitlement and accrual date | Wright: entitled to statutory prejudgment interest from date of injury | Temple: damages were uncertain until remand decision, so interest should run only from entry of the judgment | Court: Prejudgment interest is mandatory under SDCL 21-1-13.1; award from date of loss was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Temple, 956 N.W.2d 436 (S.D. 2021) (previous opinion remanding damages due to erroneous jury instruction)
- Ward v. LaCreek Elec. Ass'n, 163 N.W.2d 344 (S.D.) (articulates alternative measures: reasonable repair cost or diminution in market value)
- JAS Enters., Inc. v. BBS Enters., Inc., 835 N.W.2d 117 (S.D. 2013) (prejudgment interest under SDCL 21-1-13.1 is mandatory)
- In re Reese Trust, 776 N.W.2d 832 (S.D. 2009) (service of notice of appeal requirements and party-status analysis)
- Rupert v. City of Rapid City, 827 N.W.2d 55 (S.D. 2013) (cost-of-repair damages not proper when cost exceeds diminution)
- Peska Props., Inc. v. N. Rental Corp., 976 N.W.2d 749 (S.D. 2022) (standard of review for damages findings)
- Lamb v. Winkler, 987 N.W.2d 398 (S.D. 2023) (same rule on alternative measures of property damages)