Facts
- During South Dakota State University’s “Hobo Day” homecoming celebration in Brookings, South Dakota, Chris Stethem drove several friends to a downtown bar.
- Michael Goepfert rode in the front passenger seat of Stethem’s car.
- As they neared an intersection by the bar, the traffic light was red and Stethem slowed the car to about 10–15 miles per hour but did not stop.
- Some passengers asked Stethem to let them out in front of the bar rather than park and walk.
- Stethem responded that they would all walk, but also said words to the effect of, “If you want to get out, get out,” while the car continued moving.
- When the light turned green and Stethem started to accelerate, Goepfert—without saying anything—opened the door and jumped from the moving car.
- Goepfert flipped backward, struck his head on the pavement, and lost consciousness.
- He was taken to the hospital, treated, and released; his condition worsened, and he later died from intracranial hemorrhaging.
- Goepfert’s parents, as special administrators of his estate, filed a wrongful-death action against multiple defendants, including Stethem.
- Stethem moved for summary judgment, arguing Goepfert assumed the risk by voluntarily jumping from a moving vehicle; the circuit court granted the motion.
- Goepfert’s parents appealed the summary judgment to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Issues
- Although assumption of risk is ordinarily a jury question, may a court decide it as a matter of law on summary judgment under these circumstances?
- Did Goepfert assume the risk of injury as a matter of law when he voluntarily jumped from a moving car traveling about 10–15 miles per hour?
Decision
- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Stethem.
- The court held that Goepfert assumed the risk as a matter of law by voluntarily exiting a moving vehicle without warning.
- Because reasonable minds could not differ on the elements of assumption of risk on this record, the claim against the driver was barred.
Legal Principles
- Assumption of risk in South Dakota requires: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of the risk, (2) appreciation of the risk’s nature, and (3) voluntary acceptance of the risk with sufficient time, knowledge, and experience to make an intelligent choice.
- Assumption of risk is generally for the jury, but it may be decided as a matter of law when the material facts are undisputed and reasonable factfinders could reach only one conclusion.
- Constructive knowledge may be found when the danger is open and obvious to a reasonable person of similar age, intelligence, and experience.
- A plaintiff’s voluntary decision to encounter an obvious danger can bar recovery, even where the defendant is alleged to have acted negligently, if the plaintiff’s conduct satisfies the elements of assumption of risk on the undisputed record.
Conclusion
In Goepfert v. Filler, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for driver Chris Stethem on the estate’s wrongful-death claim, concluding that Michael Goepfert’s decision to jump from a moving car was a voluntary encounter with an open and obvious danger and therefore established assumption of risk as a matter of law.