Court Opinion

ID: 9514520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:50:08.353026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:18.554812
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 24.] I dissent. The majority opinion states, “[i]n appropriate eases there still may be a jury question as to whether the [defendant’s] conduct ... compares to the conduct of the reasonable man.” ¶ 10. I submit that whether the defendant breached the standard of care is nearly always a question for the jury. “Summary judgment is generally not feasible in negligence cases because the standard of the reasonable man must be applied to conflicting testimony.... It is only when the evidence is such that reasonable men can draw but one conclusion from facts and inferences that they become a matter of law and this occurs rarely.” Wildeboer v. South Dakota Junior Chamber of Com*594merce, Inc., 1997 SD 33, ¶10, 561 N.W.2d 666, 669 (quoting Lamp v. First Natl Bank of Garretson, 496 N.W.2d 581, 583 (S.D.1993)).
[¶25.] The majority opinion inexplicably distorts well-settled principles of negligence by concluding that an electric shock was unforeseeable and therefore, Spink owed no duty to Bradley. Whether Spink owed a duty to Bradley is not determined by analyzing whether Spink could foresee the precise harm that befell Bradley. That Spink’s employees owed a duty to exercise the standard of care which reasonably prudent, trained and experienced electricians would exercise cannot seriously be disputed. Whether they breached that duty is a disputed genuine issue of material fact and presents a question for the jury. Summary judgment is especially unsuited in negligence cases where the ultimate issue requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care was met in a specific situation. Wildeboer, 1997 SD 33 at ¶ 10, 561 N.W.2d at 669. “Negligence is the breach of a duty owed to another, the proximate cause of which results in an injury.” Mark, Inc. v. Maguire Ins. Agency, Inc., 518 N.W.2d 227, 229 (S.D.1994). “Resolving negligence questions is an elemental jury function[.]” Robbins v. Buntrock, 1996 SD 84, ¶ 8, 550 N.W.2d 422, 425.
[¶ 26.] Summary judgment was improper and we should reverse and remand for trial on the merits.