Court Opinion

ID: 9707881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:23:50.760801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:39.318974
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
Because of widespread dissatisfaction existing in the bench and bar our Comparative Negligence Act was amended by Chapter 149, Session Laws of 1964 so it would conform to the interpretation of the parent state of Nebraska. It has subsequently been interpreted by our court in three cases: Nugent v. Quam, 82 S.D. 583, 152 N.W.2d 371; Crabb v. Wade, 84 S.D. 93, 167 N.W.2d 546; Smith v. Gunderson, 1971, 86 S.D. 38, 190 N.W.2d 841.
*236In my opinion Crabb v. Wade correctly reflects the present attitude of the court with reference to the present meaning and proper application of our Comparative Negligence Act:
"As pointed out in Nugent v. Quam, 82 S.D. 583, 152 N.W.2d 371, there can be no application of this law unless both parties are guilty of negligence proximately causing or contributing to the injuries complained of. The negligence of both parties must, therefore, be first considered and determined separately by the common standard of the reasonably prudent man. If the parties are both found to be causally negligent, the jury then determines if the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant.
"The court indicated in Nugent the word 'slight' means small in quantum in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. However, by eliminating the 'gross' comparison feature and by requiring direct comparison of the parties' negligence the 1964 amendment to our comparative negligence act, in effect, enlarged or expanded the scope of the term 'slight contributory negligence'. It is now a relative and variable term which defines precise definition and prohibits an arbitrary mathematical ratio limitation. Broadly speaking, our comparative negligence act now applies whenever a plaintiff's contributory negligence is determined to be small in comparison with defendant's negligence. What constitutes 'slight' or 'small' contributory negligence naturally varies with the facts and circumstances in each case. The same conduct constituting slight or small contributory negligence in one case may be great in others when compared with the negligent acts of different defendants under different facts and circumstances." (emphasis supplied.)
It is difficult for me to see the relevancy of a pre-amendment historical review of our Comparative Negligence cases to any of the issues involved. As I agree with the ultimate conclusion reached in the opinion I concur in that result.