Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-1209

Patrick Brian Stewart, Appellant, vs. Christopher Michael Koenig, et al., Respondents.

Filed June 30, 2009 Reversed and remanded Bjorkman, Judge

Olmsted County District Court File No. 55-CV-06-9449 Peter C. Sandberg, Sandberg & Sandberg, 4057 28th Street Northwest, Suite 300, Rochester, MN 55904 (for appellant) Angela C. Shackleford, LaBore, Giuliani, Cosgriff & Viltoft, Ltd., 10285 Yellow Circle Drive, P.O. Box 70, Hopkins, MN 55343 (for respondents) Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge. SYLLABUS The driver of a motor vehicle operating on a private driveway that crosses a state recreational trail is a "trail user" and is subject to the rules governing state recreational trails.

OPINION BJORKMAN, Judge This case presents the question whether a driver operating a motor vehicle on a private driveway that crosses a state recreational trail is a "trail user" within the meaning of the rules governing state recreational trails. The district court determined that the trail rules do not apply, declined to instruct the jury in accord with the rules, and denied appellants motion for a new trial. We conclude that the trail rules do apply and reverse and remand for a new trial. FACTS In June 2005, appellant Patrick Stewart and respondent Christopher Koenig collided in the uncontrolled intersection of the Douglas Trail and a private driveway in Olmsted County. Appellant was bicycling on the trail, and respondent was driving a motor vehicle on the private driveway. Appellant suffered a broken neck as a result of the collision. Appellant commenced a negligence action against respondent and

respondents mother, who owned the motor vehicle.1 At trial, appellant requested a jury instruction stating that "any trail user who is about to enter onto or cross a trail treadway[] shall yield the right-of-way to any trail user already on the treadway to be entered or crossed." The proposed instruction incorporated a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rule, and appellant asked the district court to instruct the jury that a violation of the rule is negligence per se. The

1

Respondents mother also appears as a respondent here, but we refer only to Christopher Koenig as "respondent." 2

district court declined to give the requested instruction on the ground that respondent was not a "trail user" and therefore not subject to the DNR rules. The district court instructed the jury on common-law negligence principles. The jury found that respondent was not negligent and that appellant was negligent. The jury determined that appellant suffered a permanent injury as a result of the accident, but awarded appellant no damages. Appellant moved for a new trial, arguing that the district courts failure to give the requested jury instruction was "a fundamental error of law and controlling principle," and that the damages verdict was "contrary to the evidence, perverse and insufficient as a matter of law." The district court denied the motion. This appeal follows. ISSUES 1. Did the district court err by concluding that respondent, a driver of a motor vehicle operating on a private driveway that crosses a state recreational trail, was not a "trail user" and therefore not subject to the DNR rules governing the trail? Did the district court err by failing to grant a new trial on damages when the jury found permanent injury but awarded no damages? ANALYSIS I. Jury instructions must "as a whole convey to the jury a clear and correct understanding of the law of the case." Barnes v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 233 Minn. 410, 421, 47 N.W.2d 180, 187 (1951). A party is entitled to a specific instruction on its theory of the case if the instruction finds evidentiary support and accords with applicable law. Sandhofer v. Abbott-Nw. Hosp., 283 N.W.2d 362, 367 (Minn. 1979). Although we

2.

3

generally review jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488, 490 (Minn. 1986), we will reverse and remand for a new trial when a jury instruction conveys "an erroneous understanding of controlling principles of law." See Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5, 62 N.W.2d 351, 354 (1954). Appellants proposed jury instruction mirrors the language of Minn. R. 6100.3400, subp. 6(D) (2003): "Any trail user who is about to enter onto or cross a trail treadway[] shall yield the right of way to any trail user already on the treadway to be entered or crossed." The rules define a number of terms, including bicycle, motor vehicle, person, trail, and treadway. Minn. R. 6100.3300, subps. 2, 7

Download A08-1209, Patrick Brian Stewart, Appellant, vs. Christopher Michael Koenig, et a

Minnesota Law