Dodson v. South Dakota Department of Human Services
2005 SD 91, 2005 S.D. LEXIS 153, 703 N.W.2d 353 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When assessing the contributory negligence of a plaintiff suffering from diminished mental faculties in a medical malpractice action, juries must apply a subjective standard that considers the plaintiff's mental capacity at the time, rather than an objective 'reasonable person' standard.
Facts:
- Kristi Dodson graduated high school in 1998, lived in Kansas until 2000, and married Jason Dodson in Pierre in August 2000.
- Shortly after her wedding, Kristi began to suffer from various health problems and erratic behavior.
- On March 21, 2001, Kristi’s parents and husband persuaded her to enter McKennan Hospital for evaluation and treatment.
- While at McKennan Hospital, Kristi was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, a severe mental illness characterized by mood swings and a high rate of suicide, and was severely depressed.
- On April 1, Kristi attempted to commit suicide at McKennan Hospital, became unconscious, but was successfully resuscitated.
- On April 4, McKennan Hospital recommended Kristi be transferred to the South Dakota Human Services Center (HSC) for long-term treatment, where she remained until April 11.
- On April 11, Kristi was discharged from HSC, and her husband took her home to Pierre.
- The following day, April 12, Kristi committed suicide.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Dodson, individually and as special administrator of Kristi Dodson's estate, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Matthew Stanley and his employer Avera McKennan Hospital, the South Dakota Human Services Center (HSC), and Dr. Hartley Alsgaard and his employer.
- The defendants (Appellees) raised the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.
- The case was tried to a jury in Minnehaha County in February 2004.
- The jury found that Avera McKennan Hospital and Dr. Stanley were not negligent.
- The jury found that HSC or Dr. Alsgaard breached the applicable standard of care for Kristi and that this breach was the legal cause of her injuries or damages.
- However, the jury also found that Kristi's contributory negligence was 'more than slight,' which barred any recovery against HSC or Dr. Alsgaard.
- As a result of the contributory negligence finding, the jury did not reach the issue of assumption of the risk.
- Jason Dodson (Appellant) appealed the trial court's decision, specifically challenging the jury instructions on contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by instructing the jury to apply an objective 'reasonable person' standard when assessing the contributory negligence of a mentally ill plaintiff in a medical malpractice action, rather than a subjective standard that considers her mental capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Rusch, Circuit Judge
Yes, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on contributory negligence by applying an objective 'reasonable person' standard to Kristi Dodson's conduct, rather than a subjective standard considering her mental capacity. The Court acknowledges that contributory negligence is applicable in medical malpractice cases. However, for plaintiffs with diminished mental faculties not amounting to total insanity, the established legal principle is that they should be held only to the standard of care they were capable of exercising, which is that of a person with like mental capacity under similar circumstances. Citing Fetzer v. Aberdeen Clinic (1925), a prior South Dakota decision, and aligning with the majority view in legal scholarship and other jurisdictions, the Court emphasizes that a subjective, capacity-based test is appropriate for mentally ill plaintiffs. The jury in this case was improperly instructed to measure Kristi’s conduct against that of a 'reasonable person,' making no reference to her mental capacity, despite her previous suicide attempt providing HSC and Dr. Alsgaard with notice of her incapacity and reason to anticipate self-harm. This erroneous instruction was prejudicial, as it likely produced the verdict barring recovery, necessitating a new trial. The Court also briefly noted that assumption of the risk, if it were to be considered, would require the plaintiff to possess full comprehension and appreciation of the danger, which would involve analyzing her age, intelligence, experience, and mental condition.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for contributory negligence in South Dakota for plaintiffs suffering from mental illness, shifting from a strict objective standard to a more nuanced subjective, capacity-based approach. This decision acknowledges the unique vulnerabilities of individuals with diminished mental capacity, particularly in medical malpractice cases where healthcare providers have a professional duty to protect such patients from self-harm. The ruling will likely impact future cases by placing a higher burden on medical professionals to account for a patient's mental state and diminishing the ability of defendants to use a patient's mental health-related actions to reduce liability, especially when the defendant's duty includes preventing those very actions.
