Court Opinion

ID: 9685723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:58:43.178019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:53.394551
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the majority opinion but write specially to elaborate on issue three as it warrants further discussion.
It should be noted that Kusser carried the burden of proof on the following issues:
(1) That Feller was negligent;
(2) That the negligence of Feller was the proximate cause of the injury to Kusser 1; and,
(3) The amount of damages, if any, suffered by Kusser.
Apparently, the jury determined that Kusser met her burden of establishing Feller’s negligence, but she could not establish damages with reasonable certainty. (The jury awarded zero damages). Feller advocates, that since the jury awarded Kusser “zero damages,” the verdict was actually in favor of him. Feller relies on K & E Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Mayer, 330 N.W.2d 529 (S.D.1983).
We relied on Lewis v. Storms, 290 N.W.2d 494 (S.D.1980) for our decision in K & E. In Lewis, we decided that the jury verdict was in essence a verdict for the defendant, notwithstanding that it was returned on plaintiff’s verdict form; and, where the intention of the jury was clearly ascertainable, the trial court should have amended the verdict and entered judgment for the defendant.
As Justice Sabers expresses, “the trial court should be clear that the verdict is contrary to the intention of the jury.” In *623Lewis, the intention of the jury was clearly ascertainable. The jury submitted a note to the court which expressed: “If we find them both negligent, how do we fill out the form?”2 The notation of “contributory negligence more than slight” on the verdict form patently reflects the reason why the Plaintiff (Lewis) was afforded no damages.
In the present case, we are not so theoretically fortunate. We cannot be certain, as we were in Lewis, that the verdict rendered was in essence, for Feller. Since the jury found for Kusser but awarded no damages, we may conclude that Kusser failed to establish that she suffered any damage due to Feller’s actions.3 In this case, the jury’s verdict does conform to its intention.
In conclusion, Lems is distinguishable and should be confined to its facts. Likewise with K & E.

. Feller called no medical witnesses. In Feller’s brief he makes reference to certain x-ray findings of Doctors Ahrlin, Nesbit and Krafka; however, there was no testimony admitted of these three doctors because the trial court sustained Kusser’s objection on grounds of hearsay evidence. Dr. Scherr, a chiropractor, testified for Kusser and confirmed that the above three medical doctors could find no abnormalities in Kusser’s x-rays. Powerful evidence, you see, against Kusser!

. In Lewis, 290 N.W.2d at 498, we expressed that the jury verdict was "merely defective in form." Not so in the case at bar.

. A great deal of testimony involved Kusser’s playing golf after the accident. Her testimony was impeached concerning this physical activity. Also, the chiropractor's testimony at trial was impeached regarding testimony at his deposition.