Beyer v. Cordell

Decision Date15 January 1988
Docket NumberNo. 15730,15730
Citation420 N.W.2d 767
PartiesDouglas K. BEYER and Norma J. Beyer, Jointly and Severally, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Alvin F. CORDELL, Defendant and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Wally Eklund of Johnson, Eklund & Davis, Gregory, for plaintiffs and appellants.

T.F. Martin and Chris Nerland of McCann, Martin & McCann, P.C., Brookings, for defendant and appellee.

SABERS, Justice.

Douglas K. Beyer and Norma J. Beyer (Beyers) appeal jury verdicts in a negligence action claiming the court erred in allowing an amendment to the pleadings and in jury instructions.

Facts

On December 12, 1978, some time after midnight, the Beyers were travelling east on U.S. Highway # 212 near Watertown. There was testimony that the night was cold, there was some ice on the roads, and visibility was reduced. Near the intersection of Highway # 212 and Interstate 29, the Beyers observed a semitrailer-truck blocking both eastbound lanes of Highway # 212. Another car was stopped in the left eastbound lane. The Beyer vehicle slowed and stopped. After approximately two to five minutes, the Beyer vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Alvin F. Cordell (Cordell). Cordell had been travelling east on Highway # 212 at approximately 35 to 40 miles per hour. Cordell testified that he saw the "clearance lights" of the semi when he was approximately 100 feet from it. The Beyers' car was then about ten feet in front of Cordell. Cordell testified he saw only the tail lights on the Beyers' car and did not see any emergency flashers. The Beyers' car was "totalled" and the Beyers were injured.

On November 12th, 1981 (two years and eleven months after the accident), the Beyers sued Cordell, alleging his negligence resulted in personal injuries to them (property damages were settled prior to the jury trial). At the trial on January 21st through 23rd, 1987, the Beyers introduced evidence of medical bills in excess of $15,000 and economic losses in excess of $40,000. Beyers asserted that continuing medical problems resulting from their injuries required continuing medical treatment and interfered with Douglas Beyer's ability to farm his land.

After the evidence was presented to the jury, but before instructions were settled, Beyers moved for directed verdicts. These motions were denied.

Cordell's original answer raised the defense of contributory negligence against Douglas Beyer (the driver), but not against Norma Beyer (the passenger). Cordell moved to amend his answer to conform to the evidence and assert the defense of contributory negligence against Norma Beyer. The trial court allowed the amendment.

During the settling of jury instructions, the trial court sustained the Beyers' objections to a proposed contributory negligence instruction, but gave a jury instruction on comparative negligence.

The jury returned a verdict of $11,980 for Douglas Beyer and $14,568 for Norma Beyer. The Beyers appeal.

1. TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING CORDELL TO AMEND HIS ANSWER AND ASSERT THE DEFENSE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AGAINST NORMA BEYER.

An affirmative defense is not waived if the pleadings are properly amended to include the unpled defense or if the issue was tried by express or implied consent. Schecher v. Shakstad Electric & Machine Works, Inc., 414 N.W.2d 303 (S.D.1987). The decision to allow amendment of pleadings is within the discretion of the trial court. Tesch v. Tesch, 399 N.W.2d 880 (S.D.1987). SDCL 15-6-15(b) allows amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence. "The test for allowing an amendment under SDCL 15-6-15(b) is whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by the amendment; i.e., did he have a fair opportunity to litigate the issue, and could he have offered any additional evidence if the case had been tried on the different issue." Bucher v. Staley, 297 N.W.2d 802, 806 (S.D.1980), citing American Property Services v. Barringer, 256 N.W.2d 887 (S.D.1977).

Cordell claims that the following evidence demonstrates Norma Beyer was contributorily negligent:

1. She was aware of the bad weather conditions and poor visibility.

2. She had a duty to maintain a lookout and did not.

3. The Beyer vehicle was parked on the highway for two to five minutes.

4. The Beyers were parked long enough to have a conversation as to whether they should turn around and go back.

5. She could have told her husband to pull off the highway and onto the shoulder.

In Miller v. Baken Park, Inc., 84 S.D. 624, 632, 175 N.W.2d 605, 609 (1970), this court stated that the passenger's duty is "different from that of the driver." On rehearing, this court held that "it was for the jury to decide if [the passenger] was contributorily negligent, i.e., if she acted as a reasonably prudent person would act under the circumstances and conditions then existing." Miller, supra, modified on rehearing, 85 S.D. 133, 134, 178 N.W.2d 560, 561 (1970). This court in Hanisch v. Body, 77 S.D. 265, 90 N.W.2d 924 (1958), more fully stated the duty of a passenger by citing 5A Am.Jur. Automobiles and Highway Traffic, Sec. 789:

While the guest has no duty to direct or control the driver who has physical control of the car, but may trust him until it becomes clear that such trust is misplaced, there is a point where passive reliance upon the driver ends and the duty of a guest to exercise ordinary care for his own safety begins. If the guest sees, or ought by due diligence to see, a danger not obvious to the driver, or sees that the driver is incompetent careless, or not taking proper precautions, it is his duty to give some warning of danger, and a failure to do so constitutes contributory negligence.... At precisely what point the duty arises ... is largely a factual question to be properly decided by the jury upon the basis of the available facts and circumstances. (emphasis added)

Hanisch, supra, 90 N.W.2d at 927. Norma Beyer testified that she reached over and turned on the flashers in the car, and that she also saw the Cordell vehicle before it struck the Beyers and gave a verbal warning to her husband.

Although Cordell asserts five factual points to support the allegation of contributory negligence against Norma Beyer, in closing arguments, Cordell's counsel stated: " 'What is the negligence, if any, of Mrs. Beyer?' The only possible negligence would be: did she have a responsibility as ... a passenger in that car to say to her husband, 'We better pull over'?" * Regardless of whether there was one factual question or several, factual determinations are left to the jury except where the evidence allows but one conclusion to be drawn. "Contributory negligence is a question of law only when the court is impelled to say that from the facts reasonable men can draw but one conclusion pointing unerringly to the negligence of the plaintiff contributing to his injury." Peters v. Hoisington, 72 S.D. 542, 548, 37 N.W.2d 410, 413 (1949).

The facts used to attempt to prove Douglas Beyer's contributory negligence are much the same as those used to try to prove Norma Beyer's negligence. Norma Beyer's testimony was intended to dispute the claim of contributory negligence. The issue of contributory negligence was fairly litigated and the Beyers do not indicate that there was any additional evidence which could have been offered if the contributory negligence defense had been raised against Norma Beyer in the original pleading. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the amendment of Cordell's answer.

2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY INSTRUCTING ON COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

In determining whether a jury instruction resulted in prejudicial error, the instructions are reviewed as a whole. Dwyer v. Christensen, 77 S.D. 381, 92 N.W.2d 199 (1958).

The following instructions are relevant to this review:

Instruction # 5: [claims of the parties] (S.D.P.J.I. 20.01)

The plaintiffs claim that they were injured and sustained damages as a proximate result of the negligence of the defendant in one or more of the following respects: that the defendant did drive and operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway in such manner and with such negligence and want of ordinary care as to cause the same to collide and crash into the rear and left side of the vehicle of the plaintiffs without just cause or reason and rendered said vehicle of the plaintiffs a total loss, injuring the occupants therein.

The defendant denies that he was guilty of negligence in the doing of the things claimed by the plaintiffs, and alleges that the accident and resulting damages to plaintiffs, if any, was caused by the negligence of Douglas K. Beyer. (emphasis added)

Instruction # 17: [negligence] (S.D.P.J.I. 10.01)

Under the law as applied to the present case, every person is responsible for injury to the person or property of another, caused by such person's want of ordinary care or skill, subject to the defense of contributory negligence. When used in these instructions, negligence means want of such ordinary care or skill. Such want of ordinary care or skill exists when there is a failure to do that which a reasonably prudent person would do or when there is done that which a reasonably prudent person would not do; this in each instance in the same or similar circumstances as existed in connection with the conduct which is under consideration. (emphasis added)

Instruction 17A: [comparative negligence] (S.D.P.J.I. 11.02)

If the jury should find the plaintiff contributorily negligent, as elsewhere in these instructions defined, the plaintiff may still recover if the jury should find that such contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. This rule has no application unless such contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. If the jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Mash v. Cutler
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 24, 1992
  • Wolff v. Secretary of South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Dept., 19057
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • October 19, 1995
    ...had been tried on the different issue. Isakson v. Parris, 526 N.W.2d 733, 736 (S.D.1995) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Beyer v. Cordell, 420 N.W.2d 767, 769-70 (S.D.1988)). 1 The majority states the Wolffs were not prejudiced because they did not file a response stating they were prejudiced a......
  • Americana Healthcare Center, a Div. of Manor Healthcare Corp. v. Randall
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 16, 1994
    ...the issue, and could he or she have offered any additional evidence if the case had been tried on a different issue. Beyer v. Cordell 420 N.W.2d 767 (S.D.1988); Bucher v. Staley 297 N.W.2d 802 (S.D.1980); SDCL 15-6-15. The trial court's decision to permit amendment of pleadings will not be ......
  • Dakota Cheese, Inc. v. Ford
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • November 23, 1999
    ...by express or implied consent. The decision to allow amendment of pleadings is within the discretion of the trial court. Beyer v. Cordell, 420 N.W.2d 767, 769 (S.D.1988) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis [¶ 26.] The trial court was within its discretion in granting Ford's motion to ame......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT