South v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
290 N.W.2d 819, 1980 N.D. LEXIS 197 (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 reasonable assistance to prevent further harm. Evidence of prior similar accidents or "near accidents" is admissible to demonstrate the dangerous character of a location, provided the circumstances are substantially similar.
Facts:
- Billy Lee South was a missile site superintendent who lived in Larimore, North Dakota.
- On the morning of January 17, 1976, South was, for the first time, driving to a new work site via a route that crossed railroad tracks at the Barrett Avenue crossing.
- As South approached the crossing at approximately 20 miles per hour, his view of the tracks to the east was obstructed.
- A westbound AMTRAK passenger train, traveling at approximately 68 miles per hour, approached the crossing at the same time.
- The front of the train's engine collided with the left front portion of South's pickup truck, causing him serious injuries.
- Witness testimony conflicted as to whether the train's whistle blew to provide a warning before the collision.
- Evidence was presented that the railroad's crossbuck sign at the crossing was negligently maintained.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy Lee South and his wife Delores South sued National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) et al. [the Railroad] for negligence in the Grand Forks District Court (trial court).
- The jury returned a verdict finding the Railroad 100% negligent and Billy Lee South 0% negligent, awarding substantial damages to both plaintiffs.
- The district court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
- The Railroad filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The district court denied the Railroad's post-trial motions.
- The Railroad [as appellant] appealed the judgment and the denial of its motions to the Supreme Court of North 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 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 reasonable assistance to prevent further harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Paulson, J.
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. In adopting the standard from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 322, the court establishes that one who causes harm cannot simply leave the victim in peril. This duty exists regardless of whether the initial conduct was negligent. Therefore, evidence regarding the train engineer's failure to render aid to South after the collision was relevant and admissible to determine if this duty was breached and if further harm resulted. The court also affirmed the trial court's numerous other rulings, holding that: 1) any error in not instructing the jury on a non-party's negligence was harmless because the jury found the plaintiff 0% negligent; 2) evidence of prior "near accidents" was admissible because the circumstances were substantially similar; 3) testimony about the frequent failure to blow the train whistle was admissible as evidence of habit under Rule 406; 4) expert testimony on the dangerousness of the crossing and on stopping distances was proper as it assisted the jury; and 5) South was not bound by his own opinion testimony regarding stopping distance, as a party is not bound by estimates or opinions.
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 away from the traditional common law rule that generally imposes no duty to render aid, creating liability for the aggravation of injuries if a person who causes harm fails to provide reasonable assistance. This precedent creates a new avenue for damages in personal injury cases. The opinion also serves as a comprehensive guide on evidentiary rules in negligence actions, affirming the admissibility of habit evidence and prior similar incidents to show negligence or a dangerous condition, thereby strengthening plaintiffs' ability to use circumstantial evidence in future cases.
