Court Opinion

ID: 9722137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:17:34.234401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:30.845540
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would remand for a new trial on damages only.
The failure of the trial court to give Degen’s requested instructions on determining lost earning capacity and on personal inconvenience and loss of ability to enjoy life as a result of the injury was prejudicial. The general charge on damages did not sufficiently cover these items.* In reaching this conclusion, I am cognizant of the fact that the jury in the first trial, where the *413above mentioned instructions were given, found damages in the amount of $380,000. The jury’s award of $100,000 in the second trial is no small amount, but I feel that the error in failing to properly instruct the jury in the second trial, coupled with the wide disparity in verdicts, warrants a new trial on damages.

 See South Dakota Pattern Jury Instruction 30.07-KB) and Committee Comments thereto.