 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Welch v. Haase12/3/2003
cannot be found liable or negligent as defined in these instructions based upon their ownership of land. There is no injury or death that occurred on the land owned by Allen Haase and Zenda Haase, and Plaintiff [Welch] is not making a claim against them that relate to their being negligent or at fault as landowners.
Welch's only objection to this instruction was, "I think this instruction just confuses the issue about – we made it clear we are not suing for any land ownership issues, and I don't think it is a necessary instruction." Notably, Welch did not object on any ground other than jury confusion. Therefore, we only review the "confusion" objection.
. With respect to jury confusion, the trial court responded to Welch's objection, observing:
The Court is going to give 15A. I think in particular stemming from voir dire where there tended to be some assumptions that landowners did have a – some liability issues, I just think that in order to clearly state the law to the jury, that this instruction is necessary.
We agree with the trial court's observation that, because some jurors thought land owners could be liable as a matter of law, there was a sufficient basis to give a clarifying instruction. Welch also failed to demonstrate prejudice because the trial court also gave other instructions explaining the circumstances under which Haases would be liable for their negligence.
. The second instruction at issue summarizes South Dakota's statute governing a social host's furnishing of alcohol to another. Instruction 15B indicated that:
Under South Dakota law, a social host who furnishes any alcoholic beverages is not civilly liable to any injured person or his estate for any injury suffered, including any action for wrongful death, or property damage suffered because of the intoxication of any person due to the consumption of such alcoholic beverages. The South Dakota Legislature has found that the consumption of alcoholic beverages, rather than the serving of alcoholic beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.
The court has ruled, as a matter of law, that Allen Haase and Zenda Haase are not social hosts as defined by South Dakota law. Plaintiff does not claim that Allen Haase and Zenda Haase furnished the alcohol for the Winner High School graduation party.
. Welch objected to this instruction claiming that it would confuse the jury, and that the instruction was not applicable to the case. However, the trial court again observed that:
iven juror answers in the selection process, I believe that there is a belief in the community that if you have the beer there, that that in and of itself makes you responsible for whatever happens, and that is not the theory of this case, it is not the plaintiff's claims. And I think just to give the jury a full understanding of South Dakota law, that this is also necessary. The Court will give 15B.
. On appeal, Welch argues that the instruction and the closing argument "created reversible error because they conflicted with the applicable law, they were confusing, and they were misleading." However, because Welch only objected at trial on the basis of possible confusion and applicability of the instruction, we only review those issues. See SDCL 15-6-51(a) (providing that " o party may claim error for the giving or failure to give an instruction unless that party objects stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection").
. With respect to applicability and jury confusion, we again agree that this instruction was given to alleviate rather than create
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|