Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligencestatuteappealtrialcontributory negligence

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesnegligencecontributory negligence

Related Cases

Wood v. City of Crooks, 559 N.W.2d 558, 1997 S.D. 20

Facts

The action arose from a collision between a Burlington Northern Railroad train and an automobile operated by Tracy Wood at a crossing on a Minnehaha County highway. Wood had settled with the railroad before filing suit and later settled with Minnehaha County. His case against the City of Crooks went to trial, where the jury found both Wood and the City equally negligent at 30%, while the county and railroad were found to be 20% at fault each. The City appealed the damage award, arguing that Wood's contributory negligence barred recovery.

Apparently City convinced the jury that Wood was at fault for, among other things, failure to see the train, failure to brake or take other evasive action, failure to keep a lookout, failure to avoid the accident, and violation of the speed limit at an obstructed railroad crossing.

Issue

Whether the jury's finding that Wood was 30% at fault constituted contributory negligence that was more than slight, thereby barring his recovery under South Dakota's contributory negligence statute.

City argues that whether a plaintiff's contributory negligence is slight in comparison with the negligence of a 'defendant' should depend only upon the non-settling defendant's negligence.

Rule

Under South Dakota law, a plaintiff's contributory negligence does not bar recovery if it is slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. The determination of whether the plaintiff's negligence is more than slight is made by comparing it with the negligence of all defendants.

In all actions brought to recover damages for injuries to a person or to his property caused by the negligence of another, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery when the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant.

Analysis

The court analyzed the jury's finding of 30% contributory negligence by comparing it to the combined negligence of the other defendants, which totaled 70%. The court concluded that a finding of 30% fault was more than slight when compared to the negligence of the City, County, and railroad, thus barring Wood's recovery under the contributory negligence statute.

We hold, as a matter of law, that the jury's finding of 30% contributory negligence is more than slight in comparison with City's, County's, and Burlington's combined 70% negligence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, holding that Wood's 30% contributory negligence was more than slight in comparison to the negligence of the other defendants, which precluded his recovery.

The award of damages is reversed in accordance with this decision.

Who won?

The City of Crooks prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court determined that Wood's contributory negligence was more than slight, which barred his recovery.

City also argues it did not have a duty to maintain or control railroad crossings, and that if it did, this crossing was outside of its jurisdiction.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Beim v. Hulfish, 216 N.J. 484, 83 A.3d 31

Needham v. Price, 368 N.C. 563, 780 S.E.2d 549

Nickell v. Russell, 260 Neb. 1, 614 N.W.2d 349

Collins v. Plant Insulation Co., 185 Cal.App.4th 260, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 241, 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 861, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6933, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8258

Sanders v. Alger, 242 Ariz. 246, 394 P.3d 1083, 766 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22