## Facts

- Kristi M. Dodson was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and experienced severe depression and behavioral problems after marriage.
- She was admitted to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and treatment and attempted suicide during that admission, requiring resuscitation.
- Kristi was transferred to a state psychiatric facility for longer-term treatment and was discharged after about one week.
- Kristi died by suicide the day after discharge.
- Her husband, Jason Dodson, sued state entities and a treating psychiatrist for medical malpractice and wrongful death based on alleged negligent treatment and discharge.
- Defendants asserted contributory negligence, arguing Kristi’s conduct, including suicide, contributed to her death.
- The jury found a breach of the standard of care by the state facility or psychiatrist and found causation, but—under an instruction applying an objective “reasonable person in like circumstances” standard—found contributory negligence barring recovery.

## Issues

1. In a malpractice case involving suicide and severe mental illness, must contributory negligence be assessed with consideration of the decedent’s actual mental capacity rather than a purely objective reasonable-person standard?
2. Whether an objective contributory-negligence instruction that does not account for severe mental illness is prejudicial error when contributory negligence is outcome-determinative.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court erred by instructing the jury to apply a strictly objective reasonable-person standard to contributory negligence without allowing consideration of Kristi’s mental illness and diminished capacity.
- The court concluded the error was prejudicial because the jury’s contributory-negligence finding was the sole basis for the defense verdict despite findings of breach and causation.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence is generally evaluated by an objective reasonably prudent person standard, but that framework must account for a plaintiff’s (or decedent’s) mental illness when the illness substantially impairs judgment and volition.
- In such cases, the fact-finder must be permitted to consider whether the person had the capacity to understand the danger and conform conduct to the reasonably prudent person standard.
- Severe mental illness does not categorically preclude contributory negligence, but it requires capacity-sensitive jury instructions tailored to the evidence of impairment.
- An instructional error on the governing contributory-negligence standard warrants a new trial when it likely affected the verdict on a central disputed issue.

## Conclusion

The court required contributory-negligence instructions in suicide-related malpractice litigation to permit evaluation of the decedent’s conduct in light of actual mental capacity, and ordered a new trial because the objective reasonable-person instruction improperly allowed mental illness to be ignored.


Dodson v. S.D. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 703 N.W.2d 353 (S.D. 2005)