Finkle et al v. Regency CSP Ventures Limited Partnership et al, No. 4:2013cv04019 - Document 118 (D.S.D. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 72 MOTION For Ruling on Proper Application of Comparative Negligence Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 10/17/14. (SLW)

Download PDF
Finkle et al v. Regency CSP Ventures Limited Partnership et al Doc. 118 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA aCT 1 7 2014 ｾ＠ SOUTHERN DIVISION **************************************************** GRACI FINKLE and PHILIP FINKLE, Plaintiffs, vs. REGENCY CSP VENTURES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and U.S. HOTEL AND RESORT MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * CIV 13-4019 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RULING ON PROPER APPLICATION OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE * *************************************************** Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Ruling on Proper Application of Comparative Negligence. Doc. 72. This Court has already held that it is probable that the South Dakota Supreme Court would hold that an admission that an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment does not preclude an action for both respondeat superior and negligent training or supervision and is allowing Plaintiffs to proceed on causes of action for respondeat superior and negligent training or supervision. Doc. 71. DISCUSSION Defendants contend that the jury should compare Philip Finkle's alleged negligence solely to Kathleen Funk's alleged negligence when applying the comparative fault analysis at triaL Defendants maintain that it is unfair to assess an employer's fault a second time for the same occurrence. Plaintiffs rely on Wood v. City o/Cooks, 559 N.W.2d 558 (S.D. 1997), for the rule that "[t]o determine whether a plaintiff's negligence is more than slight, the test is to compare it with the negligence of all defendants." Id. at, 4 (citing Henry Woods & Beth Deere, Comparative Fault § 13: 1 (3d ed. 1996) (collecting cases and noting that 31 states now follow the majority view that plaintiff's negligence is compared against the combined negligence of all defendants)). Dockets.Justia.com In a diversity action, state substantive law applies. See Lamar Advertising ofS.D., Inc. v. Kay, 267 F.R.D. 568, 574 (D.S.D. 2010). This Court previously cited Wood v. City of Crooks, 559 N.W.2d 558 (S.D. 1997), as support for its belief that all the negligence of the parties should be compared for comparative negligence purposes, but allowed any party who disagreed with the Court's position to provide the Court with supporting arguments and authorities. The Court is not convinced by the Defendants' argument that Wood is not controlling. See Wood v. City ofCrooks, 559 N.W.2d at 560 ("City's argument that Wood's negligence should be compared only with City's negligence, as the sole non-settling defendant, is without merit. It would be patently unfair to deny recovery to a plaintiff 10% at fault against nine defendants each 10% at fault simply because plaintiffs negligence was equal or more than slight in comparison with a single defendant.") Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the test at trial in determining whether a plaintiffs negligence is more than slight, is to compare it with the negligence of all defendants. 1,,\1 Dated this l.l-"'day of October, 2014. BY THE COURT: ï½ ï½ ï½¾ ｾ＠ wrence L. Piersol United States District Judge ATTEST: JOSEPH HAAS, ï½ ï½ ï½¾ï¼  BY: ,11mfVlOl. Uh (SEAL) DEPt Y 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.