Court Opinion

ID: 9666700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:25:54.124055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.303264
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur except that I would affirm the trial court on submission of the issue of contributory negligence to the jury. If Junge “had five or six seconds to react,” but failed to do so, there is a question for the jury as to contributory negligence and proximate cause. Klarenbeek is clearly distinguishable. The majority’s current position is clearly contrary to the majority’s position in the recent case of Treib v. Kern, 513 N.W.2d 908 (S.D.1994), as written by Justice Amund-son and joined by Chief Justice Miller and Justice Wuest.
Since a new trial is granted, there really is no good reason to reach this issue, especially if the conference opinion is going to say “assuming the facts are essentially the same on retrial[.]”
AMUNDSON, J., joins this special writing.