Case Title: Ballard v. Happy Jack's Supper Club

Citation: 425 N.W.2d 385

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1988-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
425 N.W.2d 385 (1988) Monica BALLARD, Executrix of the Estate of Leo Ballard, Deceased, and Monica Ballard, on Her own Behalf, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HAPPY JACK'S SUPPER CLUB, Mary Ann O'Malley, Larry O'Malley, Betty O'Malley and Eldora O'Malley, Defendants and Appellees. No. 15649. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs January 13, 1988. Decided June 15, 1988. Rick Johnson of Johnson, Eklund & Davis, Gregory, for plaintiff and appellant. Steven M. Johnson and Michael F. Marlow of Brady, Reade & Johnson, Yankton, for defendants and appellees. HENDERSON, Justice. Monica Ballard (Appellant) initiated a negligence action against Happy Jack's Supper Club and the partners (O'Malleys) who owned it, after her husband, Leo Ballard (Ballard), now deceased, fell in the Club's parking lot, breaking both of his arms. A jury trial was held in the circuit court for Yankton County. Verdict was returned for the defendants. Appellant alleges error below, creating two issues on appeal: We reverse and remand on the basis of Issue (1). At approximately 10:00 p.m. on September 3, 1983, Ballard, Appellant, and two friends, Mr. and Mrs. Manning, stopped at *386 the Club for a late dinner. They attended a football game earlier, and each consumed several alcoholic drinks before their arrival at the Club. The Club's parking lot contained a number of white parking curbs, placed parallel to the walkway along the side of the building. At the time the group arrived, the lot was well lighted. On his way from the car to the entrance, Ballard did not pass over any of the curbs, which he nonetheless knew were in place from prior visits. Ballard had a drink before and after his meal. After dinner, at about 1:00 a.m., the Ballard party left the Club, Ballard himself trailing behind the others as he had lingered to pay the bill. The others testified that they had no difficulty seeing their way to the car, although the Club's parking lot floodlights and neon advertising sign had been extinguished earlier to signal potential customers that the Club's grill was closed for the night.[1] Ballard, however, fell, having tripped over one of the parking curbs, which he later expressed in a written statement that he had not seen, although he was aware of their presence. At this point, we note that Ballard was a diabetic who had some loss of feeling in his lower legs. He seems to have had some difficulty in moving around. He also had arthritis, stemming from injuries incurred in previous falls. Because of his poor health, especially the diabetes, he had been instructed by doctors not to drink alcohol, but continued to do so on a regular basis. No testimony was given indicating that he was intoxicated or disoriented in any way at the time of the incident in question, although he had consumed four or five alcoholic drinks over the course of the evening (from before the game, until his after-dinner drink). Ballard died of cancer before trial. Appellant asserted that the O'Malleys were negligent in turning off lights before Ballard, a business invitee, left the Club that night; and it was this act which caused Ballard's fall and injuries. O'Malleys defended themselves by denying negligence and pleaded the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. A jury trial ensued, during which Appellant's counsel objected to court's jury instruction concerning a landowner's duty to business invitees (No. 23), arguing that it was an incomplete statement of the law. Counsel offered a handwritten instruction of his own, which the court refused on the ground that it was not in compliance with the statute (SDCL 15-6-51(a)) prescribing the physical format and procedure for submission of such instructions. Defense counsel did not offer to waive the statutory requirements. Appellant's counsel also objected to two jury instructions setting forth the assumption of risk defense. These objections were based on an alleged lack of evidence to support such a theory. The court disagreed, whereupon these instructions went to the jury. After an arduous trial, with able/experienced counsel trying the facts, the jury returned a verdict for defendants. Appellant argues that the court's instruction concerning a landowner's duty of care was incomplete. We agree; however, to reach the merits of this issue, we must first consider the threshold question of Appellant's failure to comply with the requirements of SDCL 15-6-51(a), which provides in part: In State v. Greene, 86 S.D. 177, 192 N.W.2d 712 (1971), this Court rejected orally requested instructions, holding that statutory requirements must be substantially complied with. Greene, 86 S.D. at 185, 192 N.W.2d at 716-17 (Greene specifically dealt with SDCL 15-6-51(b)). As to the meaning of "substantial compliance" in reference to SDCL 15-6-51(a), this Court has recently condoned a trial court's handwritten fifteen-word amendment to a jury instruction. See State v. Reed, 387 N.W.2d 10, 14 (S.D. 1986). This is an obvious relaxation of the typewritten requirement and was birthed for spirit of the law vis-á-vis letter of the law. "Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." SDCL 23A-44-14; Reed, 387 N.W.2d at 13. Pertinent to our inquiry, we note Katch v. Speidel, Div. of Textron, Inc., 746 F.2d 1136 (6th Cir.1984): Katch, 746 F.2d at 1139.[2] Under South Dakota law, the judge is charged with the duty to instruct the jury as to the law of the case. SDCL 15-6-51(a). As Appellant's handwritten instruction, per Reed, could have formed the basis for amendment of the court's jury instruction, we must examine the substance of the instructions given and proposed. The gravamen of Appellant's argument, on court's Instruction No. 23, is that the court failed to inform the jury that a landowner's duty of reasonable care toward a business invitee[3] (which Ballard unquestionably was) is not necessarily extinguished even if the invitee knew of the dangerous condition on the land that caused invitee's harm. Appellant's handwritten proposed instruction reads: This instruction parallels, not precisely, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) comment f (1965), which was discussed at length in Mitchell v. Ankney, 396 N.W.2d 312 (S.D.1986). The full text of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, detailing the landowner's duty to a business invitee, provides: Comment (a) to this section directs that § 343 should be read together with § 343A (known or obvious dangers), which serves to limit the landowner's liability. Section 343A(1) reads as follows: The instruction used by the trial court (No. 23) failed to note the "limitation to the limitation" emphasized above. The relevant part of Instruction No. 23 was as follows: The jury was not instructed that Ballard's knowledge of the danger did not necessarily extinguish the landowner's duty of care toward his invitee. Therefore, Instruction No. 23 was not a complete instruction. The "unless" language of § 343A(1), as explained in comment (f), was deleted. The instructions, when read as a whole, were inadequate, and gave the defendants an unfair advantage. The jury was presented with sufficient facts to permit a finding that Ballard might have hurried, where he had lingered after the others to pay the bill, and the others were already in the car, waiting. While there was no direct distraction present, as in Mitchell, where the garden hose may have been missed by a person spoken to at the key moment, making Appellant's proposed instruction excessive,[4] the circuit court's attention was drawn to the key concept missing from Instruction No. 23. The circuit court is reversed on this issue. Appellant objected to the jury instructions pertaining to the doctrine of assumption *389 of risk, as, she asserts, it was not supported by the evidence. We disagree. The test of the assumption of risk doctrine's applicability is set out in Wolf v. Graber, 303 N.W.2d 364 (S.D.1981). A defendant must show: (1) The plaintiff (Ballard, in this case) had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk; (2) an appreciation of its character; and (3) voluntary acceptance of the risk, having had the time, knowledge, and experience to make an intelligent choice. Wolf, 303 N.W.2d at 368. On the facts of this case, where Ballard admitted he knew of the curbs, he had noticed the darkness, he had been injured by previous falls, and he could have avoided the curbs altogether by taking the same route to the car as when he had entered, the defendants must be regarded as having passed the Wolf test. There was evidence sufficient to reach the jury on the matter. "Ordinarily, questions of negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk are for the jury, provided there is evidence to support them." Stenholtz v. Modica, 264 N.W.2d 514, 517 (S.D.1978). Therefore, an assumption of risk defense was applicable and the instructions were justified. We reverse the trial court solely on the legal substance of Instruction No. 23. We recognize Appellant's proposed instruction was itself, in form and substance, flawed to some degree, but certainly sufficient to draw the trial court's attention to law essential to the jury's proper consideration of the case. Reversed and remanded. MORGAN and SABERS, JJ., concur. MILLER, J., concurs specially. WUEST, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. MILLER, Justice (concurring specially). I concur with the majority opinion. The sole purpose of this writing is to respond to the special writing of Chief Justice Wuest. Although I agree with the concerns expressed by the Chief Justice, I believe those concerns are misplaced in this case. Admittedly, appellants' counsel failed to comply with the procedural requirements regarding proposed instructions. However, the trial court undertook to inadequately and incompletely instruct on the law (as indicated by the majority) after timely and proper objection was made by appellants' counsel. Under the settled law of this state, the trial court has committed prejudicial error by failing to fulfill its duty to instruct on the applicable law of the case. Wang v. Wang, 393 N.W.2d 771 (S.D.1986); Runge v. Prairie States Ins. of Sioux Falls, 393 N.W.2d 538 (S.D.1986); Kappenman v. Action Inc., 392 N.W.2d 410 (S.D.1986); Wheeldon v. Madison, 374 N.W.2d 367 (S.D.1985); Rosenberg v. Mosher, 331 N.W.2d 79 (S.D.1983); Black v. Gardner, 320 N.W.2d 153 (S.D.1982). Therefore, it is appropriate for us to review the trial court's instructions and to reverse and remand for a new trial. WUEST, Chief Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I dissent. In 1966, this Court adopted SDCL 15-6-51(a) providing that requested instructions "... shall be typed, double-spaced, on letter-size, bond paper[.]" Counsel failed to comply with this rule. The trial court applied the rule adopted by this Court. Now, the majority reverses the trial judge for following our rule and decision in Greene, 86 S.D. at 185, 192 N.W.2d at 716-17 (1971) (citing Reed, 387 N.W.2d at 13). The majority's reliance on Reed is misplaced. In Reed, defense counsel acquiesced in the handwritten addition to the instructions. We said, "[a] defendant should not be permitted to quietly acquiesce, thereby preserving an error for later use in the event of an adverse verdict. Our rules provide that an objection must be made when the instructions are settled, otherwise error is not preserved." We further held that the handwriting was harmless error. SDCL 23A-44-14. The facts in this case are entirely different. Here, the trial judge refused to accept an instruction in violation of our rules. Neither the Court nor defense counsel acquiesced. I am concerned this decision will wreak havoc with *390 the rule leaving the trial courts and the Bar in utter confusion. If the rule is too harsh, let us change it by adopting a new or amended rule. In all other aspects, I concur with the majority opinion. [1] Testimony conflicted as to how many lights were left on at the time Ballard left. Ballard wrote that there was only a single dim light ("like a nightlight") at the door. Appellant testified that a light was on at the door. Mrs. Manning stated, in her deposition, that there were no outside lights at all. Mr. O'Malley testified that there were four 75-watt bulbs lit over the door, and five 75-watt floodlights shining along each side of the building. [2] Katch also indicates, however, that federal courts accept orally requested instructions. Federal standards are less formal than required in this state. [3] This duty of reasonable care is the highest duty owed any entrant upon land. See Annot., Modern Status of Rules Conditioning Landowner's Liability Upon Status of Injured Party as Invitee, Licensee, or Trespasser, 32 A.L.R.3d 508, 517-18 (1970). [4] In Brierley v. Anaconda Co., 111 Ariz. 8, 522 P.2d 1085 (1974), the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a similar proposed instruction taken verbatim from § 343A(1) comment f, where there was no evidence of distraction, as such an instruction would invite the jury to speculate. The Brierley jury, however, had been given an instruction based on the language of § 343, regarding the expectation that an invitee might fail to protect himself, that is totally lacking here.