South v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
1980 N.D. LEXIS 197, 290 N.W.2d 819 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who knows or has reason to know that their conduct, whether tortious or innocent, has caused harm to another has an affirmative duty to render assistance to prevent further harm.
Facts:
- Billy Lee South was driving to a new missile site for the first time, taking a route that crossed railroad tracks at the Barrett Avenue crossing in Larimore, North Dakota.
- The crossing was known to have an obstructed view of the tracks to the east for drivers traveling south.
- As South approached the crossing traveling at approximately 20 miles per hour, an AMTRAK passenger train approached at approximately 68 miles per hour.
- The parties disputed whether the train's whistle blew to warn of its approach.
- The train collided with the left front portion of South’s vehicle at the crossing.
- South sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision.
- There was evidence that the railroad's crossbuck sign at the crossing was negligently maintained.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy Lee South and Delores South sued National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) and other railroad entities (the "Railroad") in the Grand Forks District Court (the trial court) for negligence and loss of consortium.
- The Souths initially also sued the city of Larimore, but the trial court granted the city's motion to dismiss.
- The case against the Railroad proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Souths, finding the Railroad 100% negligent and awarding $935,000 to Billy Lee South and $125,000 to Delores South.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict.
- The Railroad (appellant) filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The Railroad (appellant) appealed the judgment and the denial of its post-trial motions to the North Dakota Supreme Court, with the Souths as appellees.
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 person who knows or has reason to know that their conduct, whether tortious or innocent, has caused harm to another have an affirmative duty to render assistance to prevent further harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Paulson, Justice
Yes. A person who knows or has reason to know that their conduct, whether tortious or innocent, has caused harm to another has an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent such further harm. The court formally adopts the standard set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 322, which moves away from the traditional common law rule that there is no duty to come to the aid of another. Because the Railroad's conduct caused South's injuries, its employees had a duty to render reasonable assistance. Therefore, evidence regarding the train engineer's failure to assist South after the accident was relevant and admissible. The court also found no prejudicial error in the trial court's other rulings, including the admission of expert testimony on the dangerousness of the crossing, testimony on prior near-accidents, and evidence of the railroad's habit of not blowing its whistle.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing a new affirmative duty in North Dakota tort law by formally adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 322. It moves beyond the traditional common law reluctance to impose liability for nonfeasance (failure to act) and creates a duty to render aid when one's own conduct, even if innocent, causes harm. This precedent will affect future personal injury cases by allowing plaintiffs to introduce evidence regarding a defendant's post-accident conduct and potentially claim additional damages for failure to render assistance. The case also reinforces the broad discretion of trial courts in admitting expert testimony and other evidence related to the dangerousness of a condition.
