Court Opinion

ID: 9687152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:17:11.347434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.387403
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion reverses on Issue III. I would also reverse on Issues I and II, because of:
1. The trial court’s failure to allow jury challenges to all bank customers when raised by pretrial motion and in the course of voir dire.
2. The trial court’s error in granting a directed verdict on VonEyes’ cause of action for breach of the obligation of good faith dealing in commercial transactions pursuant to SDCL 57A-1-203.
1. Bank Customers As Jurors
The trial court should have granted Von-Eyes’ request for a blanket challenge for cause to all depositors and borrowers of Bank on theories of a principal/agent reía-tionship (SDCL 15-14-6(3)) and that those potential jurors had an interest in the action (SDCL 15-14-6(5)). Every prospective juror who is a customer at the bank is in a debtor/creditor relationship with that bank. In other words, either the bank owes them money or they owe the bank money. This debtor/creditor relationship is substantial even without considering the need for that potential juror to seek a loan in the future or an extension for loan payments. In the present economy, these were real probabilities, not just potential sources of prejudice against VonEyes or bias for the Bank.
As indicated, five of the twelve jurors had a debtor/creditor relationship with Bank. The fact that VonEyes challenged only one of these five for cause during trial is not crucial here as it was in State v. Flack, 77 S.D. 176, 89 N.W.2d 30 (1958). VonEyes challenged all of the bank customers for cause by pretrial motion, which was denied by the trial court. The right to challenge these bank customers as jurors has been preserved. To require VonEyes to again challenge four of these jurors in front of all of the jurors would require a useless act which would put them in even more disfavor with Bank’s customers.
Under South Dakota law the trial judge must exercise his discretion in the selection of a jury. Bartlett v. Gregg, 77 S.D. 406, 92 N.W.2d 654 (1958) states that “The trial court knows the attorneys, usually most of the jury panel, and the type of community in which the trial is held.” Bartlett, 92 N.W.2d at 659. The trial court is charged with the obligation to insure that the jury panel is fair and impartial. 47 Am.Jur.2d Jury § 23; Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). This duty is even more crucial when the number of jurors who are bank customers will be so proportionately large that an impartial jury cannot be selected. Olson v. City of Sioux Falls, 63 S.D. 563, 262 N.W. 85 (1935). It is almost always wise for the trial court to err on the side of disqualification for even if the juror is wrongly removed, the worst *640the court will have done in most cases is to have replaced one impartial juror with another. State v. Ternes, 259 N.W.2d 296 (N.D.1977).
The right to a jury trial means nothing if the jurors have an interest in the action or in the main question involved (Bank’s liability). Jurors who are debtors and creditors of a bank should be excluded, especially where the number of jurors with connections to the bank exceeds forty percent of the entire jury and constitutes fifty percent of the number of jurors needed for a verdict. That VonEyes did not have a fair jury is evident from the following questions and answers of Juror Hurd, who sat as a juror over objection for cause.
Counsel: Mr. Hurd, if at the conclusion of the evidence you felt that the Von-Eyes had established that their position should prevail, would the fact that you’ve had a business relationship with the bank make it difficult or uncomfortable with you as far as returning a verdict in favor of the VonEyes?
Juror: Well, maybe a little bit uncomfortable. But—
Counsel: It would cause you some problem in your mind as far as coming back and saying if you felt the evidence was justified, you know, that the bank was wrong in this case?
Juror: Yeh, it could.
Counsel: You feel that could influence your decision-making ability, Mr. Hurd? Juror: Maybe just a little bit.
No further showing should have been required in this case to dismiss Juror Hurd, and no further showing should be required to reverse and remand for a fair and impartial jury in the retrial.
2. Obligation Of Good Faith
SDCL 57A-1-203 provides: “Every contract or duty within this title imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.” The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on VonEyes’ cause of action for breach of obligation of good faith because of questions concerning: 1) bad faith involving the 1985 wheat crop, 2) bad faith involving the refusal to advance a 1984 Federal Land Bank payment, 3) failure to dispose of collateral in a commercially reasonable manner, including the necessity for pregnancy testing eighty bred cows, 4) excessive trucking charges, 5) the timing of the public sale of the cattle, and 6) the reasonableness and timeliness of the repossession of the cattle which was extremely stressful to the cattle.
As stated by the majority opinion, “The court must determine if there is any substantial evidence to sustain the cause of action. If there is such evidence as would allow reasonable minds to differ, the case must go to the jury. Haggar v. Olfert, 387 N.W.2d 45 (S.D.1986); Sabag v. Continental South Dakota, 374 N.W.2d 349 (S.D.1985); Lytle v. Morgan, 270 N.W.2d 359 (S.D.1978).” (emphasis added) It is obvious in this case that the evidence was such to allow reasonable minds to differ and therefore the case should have gone to the jury. It was reversible error for the trial court to direct a verdict under these circumstances.
In view of the reversible error on Issues I and II and the reversible error as decided by the majority opinion with respect to Issue III, all of the issues and questions should go back for a new and fair trial.