Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A10-1184

Court of Appeals

Meyer, J. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Anderson, Paul H. and Page, JJ. Took no part, Gildea, C.J.

Christopher John Daly, Respondent, vs. Zachary John McFarland, Appellant. ________________________ William O. Bongard, Marcia K. Miller, Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum & Carey, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent. Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Michael T. O'Rourke, Erickson, Zierke, Kuderer & Madsen, P.A., Fairmont, Minnesota, for appellant. ________________________ SYLLABUS 1. The doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply to preclude Filed: April 25, 2012 Office of Appellate Courts

liability for negligent operation of a snowmobile. 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the

jury on the emergency rule. 1

3.

The district court abused its discretion in reconciling an inconsistent jury

verdict form; the remedy is remittitur or, in the event remittitur is rejected by the plaintiff, a new trial on liability. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. OPINION MEYER, Justice. Respondent Christopher John Daly sued appellant Zachary John McFarland for injuries sustained as the result of an accident involving two snowmobiles. A unanimous jury returned a special verdict form finding that both Daly and McFarland were negligent, but that Daly's negligence was not a direct cause of the accident. The jury then allocated 30% of the fault for the accident to Daly. The court entered judgment for Daly in the amount of $442,633.50, the full amount of damages that the jury found Daly to have suffered. McFarland then moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that the district court improperly reconciled the jury's special verdict form answers, and that McFarland was not negligent as a matter of law. In the alternative, McFarland moved for a new trial because of error in the reconciliation of the special verdict form, and also because of the failure of the court to instruct the jury on the emergency rule or the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The district court denied the motion in its entirety. The court of appeals affirmed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. This case arises out of a snowmobiling accident that occurred on January 20, 2007. Daly, McFarland, Neil Forsberg, and Jeff Engelkes are all in their mid-thirties, had 2

operated snowmobiles together for years, and were experienced snowmobile drivers. The four riders departed from Engelkes' small engine repair shop. Outside of Fulda, the group crossed a bean field, riding four abreast. Daly slowed down at the end of the field and McFarland passed him as they approached a ditch. While McFarland was passing Daly, McFarland's snowmobile hit a drift and vaulted into the air. McFarland pushed the snowmobile away from his body to avoid injury, and it flipped toward Daly. Daly tried to avoid McFarland's snowmobile, but the two snowmobiles collided, causing Daly to fall off his snowmobile and suffer injuries. At trial Daly argued that the accident occurred as a result of McFarland's excessive and negligent speed. Daly claimed that while he slowed down to allow

someone else to lead through the ditch, McFarland maintained his speed of at least 60 miles per hour. Daly argued that McFarland was negligent in not adjusting his speed to deal with drifts as he came across them, as required by Minn. Stat.

Download A10-1184, Christopher John Daly, Respondent, vs. Zachary John McFarland, Appella

Minnesota Law