Schott v. S.D. Wheat Growers
2017 SD 91 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the affirmative defense of assumption of risk to be established as a matter of law, the plaintiff must have had actual or constructive knowledge of the specific risk, appreciated its character, and voluntarily accepted it. If there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding the plaintiff's subjective knowledge and appreciation of the danger, the issue is a question of fact for a jury.
Facts:
- Dallas Schott, a farmer, consistently hired and followed the agronomy advice of South Dakota Wheat Growers Association (SDWG) for his crops, including what herbicides to use.
- Beginning in 2012, Schott planted a mixture of 'Clearfield' and 'non-Clearfield' sunflower varieties, which are physically indistinguishable when growing, but continued to rely on SDWG agronomist Jason Fees to plan his crops and prescribe herbicides.
- Schott maintained that at all relevant times, he did not know what 'Clearfield' sunflowers were or understand the difference between the two varieties.
- For the 2014 crop year, Fees developed a planting plan for Schott that included both sunflower varieties and herbicides appropriate for each.
- SDWG's Fees claimed he later spoke with Schott, who allegedly said he was only planting the Clearfield variety; Schott denied this conversation ever occurred.
- In June 2014, after Schott had planted both varieties of sunflowers, he contacted Fees for a herbicide prescription.
- Fees prescribed and supplied the herbicide 'Beyond,' which is only safe for use on 'Clearfield' sunflowers.
- Relying on Fees's prescription, Schott sprayed 'Beyond' on his fields, which resulted in the destruction of 1,200 acres of his 'non-Clearfield' sunflowers.
Procedural Posture:
- Dallas Schott and Corson County Feeders, Inc. filed a lawsuit against South Dakota Wheat Growers Association (SDWG) in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Corson County, South Dakota, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty.
- SDWG filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Schott had assumed the risk and was contributorily negligent.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of SDWG, ruling that Schott had assumed the risk as a matter of law.
- Schott, as the appellant, appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment 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 plaintiff farmer assume the risk as a matter of law of destroying his crops by spraying an incorrect herbicide when there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he knew or understood the difference between the crop varieties and the specific herbicide's limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Zinter, Justice
No, a plaintiff farmer does not assume the risk as a matter of law when there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his actual knowledge and appreciation of the danger. The affirmative defense of assumption of the risk requires the defendant to prove that the plaintiff (1) had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk, (2) appreciated its character, and (3) voluntarily accepted it. The standard for assessing knowledge and appreciation is subjective, focusing on what the particular plaintiff actually knew and understood. Here, Schott presented sworn testimony that he did not know the difference between Clearfield and non-Clearfield sunflowers and that he relied entirely on SDWG's expertise. This creates a genuine dispute of material fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. Schott's status as a licensed spray applicator and his failure to read the herbicide label do not establish knowledge as a matter of law, because without a baseline understanding of his crop varieties, the information on the label would not have alerted him to the specific risk. Because reasonable people could differ on whether Schott knowingly assumed the risk, the issue must be decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for granting summary judgment on the affirmative defense of assumption of risk, emphasizing that it is typically a question of fact for the jury. The court underscored the subjective nature of the 'knowledge and appreciation' element, clarifying that a plaintiff's specific, personal understanding is the central inquiry. This ruling limits the doctrine of constructive knowledge, suggesting it applies primarily to obvious, universally understood dangers rather than specialized knowledge that a person might reasonably delegate to an expert advisor. The case serves as a precedent that a plaintiff's professional status or failure to read a warning label is not dispositive if they can raise a credible factual dispute about their understanding of the underlying conditions necessary to appreciate the risk.
