South Dakota
How Butterfield v. Forrester applies in South Dakota: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
In South Dakota, the principles from Butterfield v. Forrester regarding contributory negligence apply where a plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care can bar recovery. The state recognizes a modified comparative negligence standard, allowing recovery as long as the plaintiff's negligence is not greater than the defendant's.
In South Dakota, a plaintiff whose negligence is less than or equal to 50% may recover damages, while a plaintiff whose negligence is greater than 50% is barred from recovery, codified in SDCL 20-9-2.
The court held that a plaintiff's own negligence can reduce their recovery in proportion to their share of fault.
Established that contributory negligence is relevant in assessing the plaintiff's claim and can impact the amount of damages awarded.
Reiterated that comparative negligence principles apply, emphasizing the need for clear jury instructions on fault allocation.
South Dakota's approach to contributory negligence reflects a blend of traditional concepts from Butterfield v. Forrester while adopting a modified comparative negligence standard, differing from some federal jurisdictions that may apply pure comparative negligence. This shift allows greater access to recovery for plaintiffs whose negligence is not predominant.
Contributory negligence principles are often tested on the South Dakota bar exam, particularly regarding how negligence affects recovery in personal injury claims.