Court Opinion

ID: 9730365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:10:15.567226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.009475
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in result).
Having pioneered some theory in this action, see American State Bank, Trust Dep’t v. Mayer, 326 N.W.2d 110, 113 (S.D.1982) (Henderson, J., concurring specially in part, dissenting in part), which appears to be bearing some fruit, nonetheless, I must write specially to preserve the integrity of my thought.
Notice in my first writing that “I would permit the introduction of blood alcohol tests on pedestrians involved in accidents providing that it is first established that there is evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the pedestrian.” Id. *48at 113 (emphasis supplied). Were it not so, a clever defense lawyer would parade before the jury that the pedestrian had excessively imbibed of the spirits or at least had partaken of some alcohol, and thus, create a prejudice against the pedestrian. Unless there is threshold proof of negligence on the part of the pedestrian, a blood test should be inadmissible lest the trial turn into a “walking while intoxicated” struggle. My point is that the walker (pedestrian) could be negligence-free, and if such be the case, the fact that his or her blood alcohol test revealed some percentage of alcohol should not go before the jury to preclude the innocent pedestrian from recovering a fair verdict for injuries sustained. Said test would not, as mentioned, tend to prove or disprove the issue of liability in the case.