Court Opinion

ID: 9544394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:55:18.750824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:54.976896
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority concedes that it was error, in view of defendant’s admission of liability, to allow defendant’s testimony concerning his occupation, family background, and lack of memory. Such matters were completely irrelevant, and the failure to allow plaintiffs to rebut any of that testimony rendered the admitted error prejudicial.
Furthermore, as the majority opinion notes, where liability is established, as it was here, “the jury was duty bound to assess damages in accordance with evidence presented, guided by the instructions of the court.” Lanning v. Schulte, 82 S.D. 528, 149 N.W.2d 765 (1967). The jury’s total disregard for the court’s instructions with respect to vehicle damage and its unwarranted disregard for the undisputed evidence on funeral expenses demonstrates that the verdicts were clearly contrary to the evidence and instructions and were, therefore, tainted.
Accordingly, I dissent.
I am authorized to state that HENDERSON, Justice, joins in this dissent.