Opinion ID: 1644027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Did the trial court err by failing to enter findings comparing plaintiff's negligence with defendant's negligence? Under SDCL 20-9-2, the fact that plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar recovery when the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. This statute requires the plaintiff's negligence to be compared with the negligence of the defendant, rather than with the ordinarily prudent person. Lovell v. Oahe Electric Coop., 382 N.W.2d 396 (S.D.1986). Here, the trial court addressed the negligence of both parties in its findings, setting forth their respective duties and how they breached those duties. The trial court then concluded: Plaintiff's contributory negligence, being more than slight in comparison with that of the defendant, precludes his recovery for damages to his pickup and claimed personal injuries. A reasonable man in plaintiff's place would not have concluded it was safe to go through the intersection under the facts of this case. Therefore, the trial court addressed the problem of plaintiff's contributory negligence, but it did not enter findings directly comparing the negligence of the two parties. Instead, the trial court examined plaintiff's negligence using the reasonable man standard. This is clearly contrary to our holding in Lovell and requires reversal of the judgment. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WUEST, C.J., and MILLER, J., concur. MORGAN and SABERS, JJ., concur in part and concur in result in part.