Goepfert v. Filler
563 N.W.2d 140 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who voluntarily exits a moving vehicle assumes the risk of injury as a matter of law, thereby negating any duty of care owed by the driver, when the risk is plainly observable and a reasonable alternative was available.
Facts:
- Michael Goepfert was a front-seat passenger in a car driven by Chris Stethem, celebrating a university homecoming with several friends.
- As they neared their destination, passengers in the back asked Stethem to let them out.
- Stethem initially refused, but after being repeatedly asked, he stated, 'If you want to get out, get out,' while the car was still moving at approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour.
- The other passengers understood Stethem's comment to be a joke or a 'smart aleck' remark.
- As Stethem began to accelerate through a green traffic light, Goepfert, without speaking, simultaneously opened his door and jumped out of the car.
- Goepfert flipped over backwards when his feet hit the pavement, causing his head to strike the ground.
- Goepfert, a twenty-two-year-old college student, sustained a fatal skull fracture as a result of the fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Goepfert's parents filed a wrongful death action against Chris Stethem in a state circuit court (the trial court).
- Stethem, the defendant, moved for summary judgment, arguing Goepfert had assumed the risk of his injuries.
- The circuit court granted Stethem's motion for summary judgment.
- Goepfert's parents, the plaintiffs, appealed the summary judgment order to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a passenger who voluntarily and without warning jumps from a moving car assume the risk of injury as a matter of law, thereby entitling the driver to summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Konenkamp, Justice
Yes. A passenger who voluntarily exits a moving vehicle assumes the risk of injury as a matter of law. To establish the defense of assumption of the risk, a defendant must show that the plaintiff (1) had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk, (2) appreciated its character, and (3) voluntarily accepted the risk with time and experience to make an intelligent choice. The court found all three elements were conclusively established. First, the risk of exiting a moving vehicle is so plainly observable that anyone of competent faculties is charged with knowledge of it. Second, Goepfert, as a twenty-two-year-old college student, must have appreciated the danger, as it is a risk 'that no adult person of average intelligence can deny.' Third, Goepfert's acceptance of the risk was voluntary because he had a clear and reasonable alternative: to remain in the car until it stopped. Because no wrongful conduct by Stethem forced Goepfert to make his choice, he voluntarily assumed the obvious peril, and reasonable minds could not differ on this conclusion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundary between when assumption of the risk is a question of fact for the jury and when it can be decided as a matter of law by a judge. It establishes a strong precedent that for certain inherently and obviously dangerous activities, such as exiting a moving vehicle, the elements of assumption of the risk are considered met as a matter of law. This decision empowers trial courts to grant summary judgment in cases where a plaintiff's actions so clearly demonstrate a voluntary acceptance of a known, grave danger, thereby precluding recovery and preventing such cases from reaching a jury. It reinforces the principle that individuals are responsible for the consequences of their own patently reckless behavior, especially when a safe alternative is readily available.
Unlock the full brief for Goepfert v. Filler