Wood v. City of Crooks

Supreme Court of South Dakota · Torts

TortsComparative NegligenceContributory Negligencecomparative negligencecontributory negligenceslight negligencecombined negligence of all defendantssettling defendants

Facts

Wood was injured in a collision between a Burlington Northern train and his automobile at a railroad crossing on a Minnehaha County highway near Crooks, South Dakota. He settled with Burlington Northern before suit and later settled with Minnehaha County, leaving only the City of Crooks for trial. The jury apportioned negligence as follows: Wood 30%, City 30%, County 20%, and Burlington 20%. Wood did not appeal the jury's 30% negligence finding, so that allocation was accepted as fact on appeal.

Issue

When applying South Dakota's slight-versus-gross comparative negligence statute, should the plaintiff's contributory negligence be compared only to the negligence of the sole non-settling defendant or to the combined negligence of all defendants, including settling defendants? Also, was Wood's 30% contributory negligence slight in comparison with the defendants' combined 70% negligence?

Rule

Under SDCL 20-9-2, a contributorily negligent plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff's negligence was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant, and for that comparison the plaintiff's negligence is measured against the combined negligence of all defendants, including settling defendants. Whether contributory negligence exists is generally a question of fact, but whether it is more than slight may be decided as a matter of law when the facts are undisputed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sioux Falls, Nora Jensen was injured when a delivery van owned by Prairie Star Logistics struck her car after a malfunctioning traffic signal and an obscured stop sign contributed to the crash. Before trial, Nora settled with the signal contractor and the county road department; at trial against Prairie Star alone, the jury assigned fault as follows: Nora 18%, Prairie Star 22%, the contractor 30%, and the county 30%.

Under the governing rule, how should the court determine whether Nora's contributory negligence bars recovery against Prairie Star?

Explanation. The rule requires the plaintiff's contributory negligence to be compared with the combined negligence of all defendants, including settling and non-settling defendants. The majority rejected the argument that the comparison is limited to the sole remaining defendant and emphasized that the statute's singular term 'defendant' includes the plural.