Tammen v. K&K Mgmt. Servs., Inc.

Summary

In this slip-and-fall negligence action, a South Dakota jury found that the restaurant was not negligent after the plaintiff fell on ice in its parking lot. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court provided a full and accurate statement of the law and did not err in refusing the plaintiff's proposed premises-liability, nondelegable-duty, contributory-negligence, and pre-existing-condition instructions.

Holdings

1. The circuit court properly instructed the jury on negligence and the reasonable-person standard. It was not required to add Tammen's proposed language because the instructions accurately stated the law and substantially covered the relevant principles.
2. The circuit court adequately instructed the jury that a possessor of land owes an invitee the duty to exercise reasonable or ordinary care for the invitee's safety. The court did not err by refusing Tammen's broader requested instructions because they included potentially misleading or confusing propositions and the court was not required to rewrite them.
3. The circuit court did not err by refusing the requested nondelegable-duty instruction because the case did not involve an attempt by the Restaurant to delegate its responsibility for maintaining reasonably safe premises to First Rate Excavate.
4. The court did not reach those issues because the jury found that the Restaurant was not negligent and therefore never considered contributory negligence or damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court's negligence and reasonable-person jury instructions were accurate and sufficiently complete.
2. Whether the circuit court erred by refusing Tammen's requested premises-liability instructions concerning a business invitee's duties to inspect, warn, and maintain reasonably safe premises.
3. Whether the circuit court was required to give a requested instruction stating that the Restaurant's duty to maintain safe premises was nondelegable when it hired an independent contractor.
4. Whether the court erred in instructing the jury on contributory negligence or refusing an instruction concerning dormant pre-existing health conditions.

Disposition

affirmed