Court Opinion

ID: 9735144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:03:38.494308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:55.717520
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and concurring specially in part).
I join the majority opinion and vote to reverse and remand for a new trial.
The trial court also erred when, on its own, it instructed the jury that:
At the time of this accident neither party was shown to have violated any ordinance or statute relating to the riding of a bicycle or the restraint of a dog....
This instruction was not neutral when one considers that Defendants were the only parties being sued for their conduct. This was an improper comment on the evidence in view of the court’s refusal to reopen to admit the Lennox city ordinance prohibiting dogs from running at large. This instruction is damaging to Plaintiff because it absolves Defendants from the violation of any city ordinance. This instruction not only absolves Defendants from violating any city ordinance relating to the restraint of a dog, but it also absolves Defendants from violating any statute relating to the restraint of a dog. In other words, at this point in the trial, Defen*749dants are already two-thirds of the way home free and clear and only negligence is left. Therefore, this instruction was not simply superfluous but damaging, harmful error.
In fact, this sua sponte jury instruction is inconsistent with itself and with the other jury instructions on negligence. As indicated above, it tells the jury that Defendants were not “shown to have violated any ... statute relating to ... the restraint of a dog.” (Emphasis added.) This seems to include the statutory codification of ordinary negligence set forth in SDCL 20-9-1 which provides:
Every person is responsible for injury to the person, property, or rights of another caused by his willful acts or caused by his want of ordinary care or skill, subject in the latter cases to the defense of contributory negligence.
In other words, while the instructions correctly told the jury to consider negligence, this instruction incorrectly told the jury that negligence relating to the restraint of a dog had already been considered and Defendants were free from statutory negligence. Therefore, this sua sponte instruction was inconsistent with itself and with the other jury instructions on negligence.
Finally, it was error for the trial court to permit testimony concerning the conduct of Plaintiffs dog. Whether Plaintiff owned a dog had no bearing on the issues presented at trial. This was properly objected to on grounds of relevancy on two occasions. The trial court overruled both objections. This was error.
SDCL 19-12-1 defines “relevant evidence” as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Whether Plaintiff owned a dog and if so, the conduct of that dog, had absolutely NO “tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” SDCL 19-12-1. Therefore, the evidence was irrelevant. “Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” SDCL 19-12-2.