Domagala v. Rolland

• Decision Date: 26 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. A09–1945.,A09–1945.
• Citation: 805 N.W.2d 14
• Parties: Bradley J. DOMAGALA, Respondent, v. Eric ROLLAND, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

805 N.W.2d 14

Bradley J. DOMAGALA, Respondent,
v.
Eric ROLLAND, et al., Appellants.

No. A09–1945.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 26, 2011.

[805 N.W.2d 18]

Syllabus by the Court

1. The specific duty to warn that arises when parties stand in a special relationship is separate and distinct from issuing a warning as an exercise of the general duty of reasonable care.

2. Appellants did not owe respondent a specific duty to warn because the parties were not in a special relationship.

3. Appellant created a foreseeable risk of harm to others when appellant shook a bucket attachment that was connected to a skid loader by only one pin, and consequently owed a duty to act with reasonable care to prevent this conduct from causing injury to others.

4. When a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, the defendant may exercise reasonable care by warning the plaintiff of impending harm.

5. The district court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that appellants had no duty to protect and no duty to warn respondent because these instructions were misleading as to the crucial elements of duty and breach of duty.

Thomas J. Weidner, Kevin S. Sandstrom, Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P., Stillwater, MN, for respondent.

Charles E. Lundberg, David E. Camarotto, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellants.

OPINION ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.

This negligence case requires us to decide whether the failure to warn others of foreseeable harm created by the defendant's conduct can constitute negligence absent a special relationship between the parties. A jury found appellants Eric Rolland and Rolland Building Corporation not negligent in an incident in which a skid loader attachment fell on respondent

[805 N.W.2d 19]

Bradley Domagala's foot, resulting in the amputation of three toes. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case on the ground that the district court erred when it instructed the jury that Rolland had no duty to warn or protect Domagala. The court of appeals recognized a distinction between the specific duty to warn that arises in the context of a special relationship and giving a warning as an exercise of the general duty of reasonable care. Rolland appeals this decision, arguing that the court of appeals has created a new exception to our special relationship doctrine. We affirm and remand this case for a new trial.

In the spring of 2003 respondent Bradley Domagala engaged appellants Eric Rolland and Rolland Building Corp. (“Rolland”) to perform landscaping services on Domagala's property. Domagala's yard had a rough grade and Domagala wanted a finished grade to correct drainage issues and accommodate sod or seed. Because Rolland and Domagala were related through marriage, Rolland did not charge Domagala for the work.

On June 23, 2003, Rolland arrived at Domagala's residence with a New Holland 985X skid loader to perform the agreed-upon landscaping. Rolland had approximately eight years of experience operating a skid loader. Because Domagala did not have any knowledge or expertise in the maintenance or operation of skid loaders, he elected to pick up rocks and debris around the yard. Rolland and Domagala used hand signals to communicate with one another as they worked because the skid loader was noisy. When Domagala needed to speak with Rolland, he would approach the skid loader with his hands raised and Rolland would mirror this action, indicating that Rolland was not touching the skid loader's controls.

Rolland brought three attachments for the skid loader—forks, a bucket, and a leveling bar. Switching between attachments was a laborious process that required a great deal of maneuvering on Rolland's part. A key step in the process involved two release levers that latched the attachment to the loader. To release the attachment, Rolland lifted both levers, which removed pins that held the attachment to the skid loader. To fasten a new attachment, Rolland would maneuver the skid loader flush with the new attachment and then lower the levers to secure the pins. Domagala observed this process at least twice and admitted that he knew the levers played a role in releasing the attachments from the skid loader.

It was not uncommon for debris to jam the levers, preventing Rolland from lifting the levers to release an attachment. When this happened to only one lever, Rolland would raise the lever that did work, return to the controls, and “flutter the hydraulics” so that the attachment shook and dislodged the debris. Releasing one lever “created extra play” for shaking loose the debris. Rolland admitted that shaking the attachment when it was connected to the skid loader by a single pin was “very” dangerous.

At some point during the evening on June 23, 2003, Rolland was preparing to switch from the bucket attachment to the leveling bar. Debris was lodged in one of the levers, so Rolland released the other lever and began fluttering the hydraulics with the bucket raised 10 to 20 inches off the ground. While Rolland was shaking the bucket to dislodge the debris, Domagala noticed a rock jammed in the lever. Domagala approached the skid loader with his hands raised, and Rolland raised his own hands in response. Without any further communication between the parties, Domagala removed the rock from the

[805 N.W.2d 20]

lever. Domagala then released the previously-jammed lever and the bucket fell on Domagala's left foot. The injury eventually resulted in the amputation of three of Domagala's toes.

Domagala sued Rolland, alleging that Rolland operated the skid loader in a negligent and careless manner and “failed to warn [Domagala] of the dangers associated with trying to unlatch the Skid Steer's bucket.” Rolland moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Rolland did not owe Domagala a duty of care and that recovery was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. The district court denied the summary judgment motion and reached three conclusions relevant to this appeal. First, the court found that the parties were not in a special relationship and as such, Rolland did not have a duty to protect Domagala. The court also concluded that Rolland had no duty to warn Domagala of impending dangers associated with the skid loader because the parties were not alleging a special relationship or relying on products liability law. But the court then relied on Restatement (Second) Torts § 321 (1965) to conclude that Rolland owed Domagala a duty of reasonable care because Rolland's operation of the skid loader created an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another.

Based on the district court's ruling, Rolland requested that the court instruct the jury that Rolland had no duty to warn and no duty to protect Domagala. These special instructions stated:

No Duty to Protect

A person generally has no duty to act for the protection of another person. A legal duty to protect will be found to exist only if there is a special relationship between the parties and the risk is foreseeable. The Court has ruled, as a matter of law, that no duty to protect exists in this matter and you must not consider such a duty in your deliberation in this case.

No Duty to Warn

A special relationship giving rise to a duty to warn is only found on the part of common carriers, innkeepers, possessors of land who hold it open to the public, and persons who have custody of another person under circumstances in which that other person is deprived of normal opportunities of self-protection. The Court has ruled, as a matter of law, that no duty to warn exists in this matter and you must not consider such a duty in your deliberation in this case.

Domagala objected to the proposed instructions on the grounds that they were “highly prejudicial” and “create[d] confusion as to whether a warning could be inclusive of the duty of reasonable care.” The court overruled Domagala's objection and read the special instructions to the jury. The court also gave Domagala's requested instructions mirroring the language of Restatement (Second) Torts § 321 and the pattern jury instruction for negligence and reasonable care:

Duty of Care Based on the Creation of a Dangerous Situation

If a person created an unreasonable risk of causing physical harm to another, that person has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent the risk from taking effect. This duty applies, even though at the time of the creation of the unreasonable risk, the person had no reason to believe that it would involve such a risk.

Negligence and Reasonable Care—Basic Definition

Reasonable care is the care a reasonable person would use in the same or similar circumstances. Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Ask yourself what a reasonable person would have

[805 N.W.2d 21]

done in these circumstances. Negligence occurs when a person does something a reasonable person would not do, or fails to do something a reasonable person would do.

See Restatement (Second) Torts § 321; 4 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass'n, Minnesota Practice—Jury Instruction Guides, Civil, CIVJIG 25.10 (5th ed.2006).

During his closing argument, Domagala focused primarily on the definition of negligence and whether Rolland “failed to act as a reasonable person would.” Domagala also attempted to educate the jury about the source of the language in the jury instructions by explaining special relationships in negligence law. The district court found Domagala's closing arguments objectionable. Pursuant to a previous ruling, the court told the jury, “[B]ecause of things that have been said, and issues that have been raised, ... I am going to reread some information I previously gave you to make sure that you are, in fact, following the instructions, and the law as I give them to you.” The district court then reread all of the instructions quoted above except the no-duty-to-protect instruction.

During deliberations, the jury asked the district court, “Does ‘no duty to warn’ mean...