Court Opinion

ID: 9672341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:53:03.028825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.466205
License: Public Domain

COLER, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with Justice Wollman that the res ipsa loquitur, instruction was properly submitted to the jury.
The majority opinion fails to take into account that, under the amended complaint, respondents sought $1,127.68 for specific damages under Counts I and III and an additional $5,000 for compensatory damages on the grounds of a private nuisance, Count II. These three theories were submitted under the instructions and the jury returned a general verdict for $4,627.68. A reversal on the basis of the res ipsa loquitur pleading and instruction does not dispose of at least $3,500 of the verdict which apparently was awarded as compensation for the private nuisance.
I believe there is a legitimate question of whether respondents could proceed both on the theory of negligence and on private nuisance. Negligence is not necessarily involved in the nuisance action, Greer v. City of Lennox, 1961, 79 S.D. 28, 107 N.W.2d 337, but the facts in this case disclose that it was not a problem of design or continuing neglect of the system but a one-time accident arising out of possible negligence on the part of the city which brought about the damages sought. SDCL 21-10 contemplates the enjoining of a continuing nuisance and SDCL 21-10-9 authorizes damages for the duration of the nuisance. Appellant did challenge the right of respondents to maintain the action but only concentrated in its brief upon the necessity to prove special damages.
“[Mjental suffering may be recovered for, if it is the direct, proximate, and natural result of, the wrongful act.” Coty v. Baughman, 1926, 50 S.D. 372, 210 N.W. 348, 48 A.L.R. 1205. I believe that, unless that part of the verdict is affirmed on this basis, we must deal with the questions of improper joinder of causes of action, SDCL 15-6-18, or election of remedies. The error, if any existed, was not prejudicial in that damages for *565mental anguish were properly awarded under Counts I and III by reason of Coty v. Baughman, supra.
The majority opinion cites, Fassbinder v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 1963, 3 Cir., 322 F.2d 859. The language quoted from that case says essentially the same thing that this court has said, though not expressly in that language, in Barger v. Chelpon, 1932, 60 S.D. 66, 243 N.W. 97. Orrison v. City of Rapid City, 1956, 76 S.D. 145, 74 N.W.2d 489; Henrichs v. Inter City Bus Lines, 1961, 79 S.D. 267, 111 N.W.2d 327; Anderson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 1932, 59 S.D. 543, 241 N.W. 516 and Wheeler v. Corner d/b/a LaFemme, 1969, 84 S.D. 287, 170 N.W.2d 883. These decisions stand for the proposition that it is not necessary to allege res ipsa loquitur in the pleadings. The only requirement is that the essential elements necessary for the application of the doctrine be established by the evidence. None of these cases state that it is improper to plead the doctrine. Rather, the thrust of our decisions is that the doctrine is available if the evidence warrants its application but failure to plead it does not waive the benefits of the doctrine where evidence supports the jury’s application of the doctrine. Barger v. Chelpon, supra; Wheeler v. Corner, supra.
Certainly, the submission of the res ipsa loquitur instruction (South Dakota Civil Pattern Jury Instruction 22.01), under proper circumstances, is the accepted practice in our state and nothing in our decisions states that it is improper for the trial court to submit the issue to a jury. 65A C.J.S. Negligence § 282.
I perceive no harm in specific pleading of res ipsa loquitur. The purpose to be served by such pleading, as pointed out by Judge McLaughlin in his dissent in Fassbinder v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, supra, is that defendant is thereby afforded an opportunity to refute the charge of exclusive control and the other elements necessary to establish the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
The parties did not request either special verdict under SDCL 15-6-49(a) or written interrogatories under SDCL 15-6-49(b). The submission of either is at the discretion of the trial court under Rules 49(a) and 49(b) but it could have been done on *566the trial court’s initiative and for purposes of review the trial court probably should have done so. 6 A.L.R.3d 438, § 2 at 442 et seq.
This court has considered the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and its application on many occasions and a good many of those cases are cited in the South Dakota Civil Pattern Jury Instructions 22.00 and 22.01. If the jury had not been instructed, this court, under our own precedent, should extend the courtesy to the successful plaintiffs to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have found the city negligent as did this court in McLinn v. Noll, 1937, 65 S.D. 440, 274 N.W. 833. See also Schmeling v. Jorgensen, 1957, 77 S.D. 8, 84, N.W.2d 558. Even if the pleading improperly joined theories of negligence and the instruction on res ipsa loquitur was unwarranted, how can Ave say, under the circumstances, that the jury did not agree that the award was proper under the claim of specific acts of negligence oh the part of the city?
The basic duties of respondents and of appellant in relation to sanitary sewer connections are set forth in Shann v. City of Rapid City, 1948, 72 S.D. 418, 35 N.W.2d 399:
“the city should not be held absolutely liable as a trespasser should' water back up on plaintiff’s property through the drain which plaintiff had installed, however, the fact that plaintiff has voluntarily connected her premises with the sewer is no bar to her recovery for damage caused by the set back of water and sewage if such set back is caused by the negligence of the city.”
I further submit, that although someone other than the parties may have accidentally or deliberately placed the stick in that manhole or some other manhole
“a municipality is liable for damages from an accident the result of two concurrent causes, though one of them is a cause over which the municipality has no control, providing, however, it is a cause which it should have anticipated and have guarded against.” Smith v. City of Yankton, 1909, 23 S.D. 352, 121 N.W. 848.
*567Under the evidence adduced and based on the instructions given, the jury may well have found for plaintiffs on the theory of negligence alleged in Count I of the amended complaint by concluding that the city failed to properly supervise the contract- or in securing openings to manholes during the course of construction.
I would affirm the judgment.