Opinion ID: 2224548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jim's Duty To Warn

Text: This court has recognized that a passenger's duty differs from that of the driver. Beyer v. Cordell, 420 N.W.2d 767 (S.D.1988); Miller v. Baken Park, Inc., 84 S.D. 624, 632, 175 N.W.2d 605, 609 (1970). In Beyer, we stated: 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 [.] 420 N.W.2d at 769-70 (citing Hanisch v. Body, 77 S.D. 265, 90 N.W.2d 924 (1958), quoting 5A Am.Jur. Automobiles & Highway Traffic § 789). The danger in this case (Sanborn's approaching vehicle) was obvious to both driver and passenger. In fact, Jean commented to her husband that she thought the car coming up behind them was going to hit them and he told her to turn quickly. These facts do not give rise to a duty on Jim's behalf to warn Jean of the danger. Beyer, supra . Accordingly, the trial court erred in instructing on Jim's alleged contributory negligence. Under South Dakota law and the instructions as given, the plaintiff is totally barred from recovering if the jury finds the plaintiff to be contributorily negligent in an amount more than slight. Thus, this instruction was extremely prejudicial to Howards. We believe the jury's verdict may and probably would have been different if the jury had not been instructed on contributory negligence.
Howards correctly assert that the trial court's submission to the jury of the instruction on unavoidable accident was prejudicial error. We have stated that the propriety of such an instruction depends on the facts of each case. Stevens v. Wood Sawmill, Inc., 426 N.W.2d 13 (S.D.1988) (reversible error to give instruction where unattended truck rolled down hill and injured plaintiff). Although we believe unavoidable accident instructions should be restrictively used we do not favor ... total exclusion.... Such instruction may properly be given in those cases where there is evidence that something other than the negligence of one of the parties caused the mishap. It is particularly apt where the further element of `surprise' is present such as the sudden and unexpected presence of ice, the blowout of a tire, the malfunction of brakes, or other mechanical failure. Id. at 17 (quoting Cordell v. Scott, 79 S.D. 316,322-23, 111 N.W.2d 594, 598 (1961)). Further, this instruction is not proper where the incident is reasonably foreseeable. Stevens, supra . See also Hoffman v. Royer, 359 N.W.2d 387 (S.D.1984) (reversible error to give instruction where passing defendant collided with a truck turning left on highway); Plucker v. Kappler, 311 N.W.2d 924 (S.D.1981) (improper instruction but not reversible error where defendant knew of icy road conditions); Del Vecchio v. Lund, 293 N.W.2d 474 (S.D. 1980) (reversible error to give instruction where defendant boat driver killed water skier on crowded lake); Meyer v. Johnson, 254 N.W.2d 107 (S.D.1977) (reversible error to give instruction where defendant knew of snow and slippery road conditions and was familiar with the road and its curves); Alley v. Siepman, 87 S.D. 670, 214 N.W.2d 7 (1974) (trial court did not err in refusing to give unavoidable accident instruction where element of surprise was lacking); Herman v. Spiegler, 82 S.D. 339, 145 N.W.2d 916 (1966) (instruction improper but not reversible error where vehicle collided with unlighted tractor pulling a stackmover on foggy morning); Cordell, supra (reference to unavoidable accident instruction was at most unnecessary surplusage in accident on icy road). Based on the facts of this case, we hold the instruction was both improper and prejudicial. The facts reveal that no surprise factor was present. Sanborn testified that he had traveled on this stretch of Highway 34 every day, twice a day, for over thirty years. He knew the highway was busy that night and he knew people often stopped to turn into the Cattleman's Club. Prior to the accident, he saw Howards' taillights and knew a car was ahead of him. Sanborn argues that the skewed headlight satisfies the surprise element; however, it has been recognized that the presence of blinding headlights ... [is] not [an] intervening cause but [is among those] conditions which impose on drivers the duty to assure that safety of public by the exercise of a degree of care commensurate with such surrounding circumstances. 2 Blashfield Automobile Law and Practice § 53.6, p. 386. See also Pleinis v. Wilson Storage and Transfer Company, 75 S.D. 397, 400, 66 N.W.2d 68, 71 (1954) (blinding headlights are a condition which would call for some diminution of speed or care on the part of the defendant.) Interestingly, as noted earlier, this skewed light did not affect Howards' vision. We must reiterate to the trial bench and bar that the unavoidable accident instruction was intended to have restricted use. (In fact, the comments to South Dakota Pattern Jury Instructions indicate that this instruction is not recommended.) Since Cordell was decided in 1961, each subsequent case on appeal has found the instruction to be improper. In all but two cases, it was found to be reversible error. In light of the evidence presented, this instruction unduly and improperly emphasized Sanborn's position and was prejudicial to Howards. Id.; Del Vecchio, 293 N.W.2d at 476.
The jury did not ultimately reach this issue; however, because we remand for a new trial, we will address it. Howards contend that the trial court erred in giving an instruction which generally expanded upon the pattern instruction by adding a section on how to calculate the present cash value and included a present worth table, when no evidence was offered to support such an instruction. The trial court's Instruction No. 26, which is nearly identical to the federal instruction from Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Devitt, Blackmar and Wolff, Vol. 3, § 85.11 (1987), reads as follows: If you should find that plaintiff Jean Howard is entitled to a verdict, and further find that the evidence in the case establishes either: (1) a reasonable likelihood of future medical expense, or (2) a reasonable likelihood of loss of future earnings, or if you should find that plaintiff Jim Howard is entitled to a verdict, and you further find the evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood that he will be deprived of the services, aid, comfort, society, companionship and conjugal affections of his wife then it becomes your duty to ascertain the present worth in dollars of such future damage, since the award of future damages necessarily requires that payment be made now for a loss that will not actually be sustained until some future date. Under these circumstances, the result is that plaintiffs Jean and Jim Howard will in effect be reimbursed in advance of the loss, and so will have the use of money which they would not have received until some future date, but for the verdict. In order to make a reasonable adjustment for the present use, interest free, of money representing a lump-sum payment of anticipated future loss, the law requires that you discount, or reduce to its present worth, the amount of the anticipated future loss, by taking (1) the interest rate or return which such plaintiffs could reasonably be expected to receive on an investment of the lump-sum payment together with (2) the period of time over which the future loss is reasonably certain to be sustained; and then reduce, or in effect deduct from, the total amount of anticipated future loss whatever that amount would be reasonably certain to earn or return, if invested at such rate of interest over such period of time; and include in the verdict an award for only the present-worththe reduced amountof anticipated future loss. As already explained to you, this computation is made by using the so-called present-worth table (present worth of one per period), which the Court had judicially noticed and which are attached to this instruction for your use. Bear in mind that your duty to discount to present value applies only to loss of future earnings, future medical expenses or loss of consortium and not to any other damages the plaintiffs may have sustained in this instance. Also bear in mind that the evidence of Jean Howard's claim for loss of future earnings as submitted by Dr. Brown has already been reduced to present value. It is, however, your duty to determine whether his adjustment for present value of that claim was reasonable, and if not, you should make your own adjustment for present value of any sum to which you determine Jean Howard is entitled, if any. The federal instructions also include an alternative instruction entitled Lost Wages and/or Earning CapacityWhen Economic Experts Testify. See Devitt, Blackmar and Wolff, § 85.12. [2] South Dakota law is silent on the issue of proper computation of the discount rate for estimating the present value of future income. Robichaud v. Theis, 858 F.2d 392, 396 (8th Cir.1988). Additionally, the South Dakota Pattern Jury Instruction does not tell the jury how to reduce the damages. [3] As of yet, neither this court nor the United States Supreme Court has endorsed one particular method for determining present value. Some states have either statutorily or judicially endorsed a method. [4] We determine that, at this time, we should clarify the meaning of our previous holdings on how to properly instruct the jury on reducing awards to present value. We held in Watkins v. Ebach, 291 N.W.2d 765, 767 (S.D.1980): Although it is true this court has never held that the trial court must give a present value instruction regarding loss of future earnings, we think that this requirement should now be imposed. In that case, we adopted the prevailing rule that damages for loss of future earnings should be reduced to present value. However, therein we went on to say that the record did not support the giving of such an instruction because the appellant/defendant offered no testimony upon which the jury could have made an intelligent decision on reducing the award for loss of future earnings to present value. Id. (emphasis added). See also Flagtwet v. Smith, 367 N.W.2d 188 (S.D.1985). We used language in Watkins that might suggest that expert testimony is required in every case where future earnings might be awarded. We now hold that expert testimony on the reduction of future earnings is not required in every case. However, if an expert testifies and reduces the damages to present value for the jury, an instruction (such as the one given in this case) which includes present worth tables must be carefully crafted to prevent confusion. We believe the instruction given by the trial court here was adequate and not confusing. When there is no expert testimony on present value, as in Watkins, then the jury must have some direction to help it intelligently reduce the award to present value. In Watkins, we quoted with approval from Brodie v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 415 Pa. 296, 203 A.2d 657, 660 (1964), wherein it stated: The involved process of reducing future losses to their present worth has, undoubtedly, led to confusion and guesswork verdicts. Reason, logic and fairness would, therefore, dictate that enlightenment lightenment is necessary. Such can be provided, at least in part, by permitting the use of accepted tables or the testimony of a qualified expert, who can compose the proper computations. This reflects our acceptance of the practice of either providing the jury with instructions including tables or some other helpful means to reduce to present value, or providing an expert to reduce the damages for the jury. We generally approve of the Devitt, Blackmar and Wolff instructions cited above. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial consistent with the foregoing. WUEST, HENDERSON, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur.