## Facts

- Annette Steilen was shopping at a Cabela’s store in Mitchell, South Dakota, when a heavy steel receiver hitch fell from a display and struck her left wrist.
- Steilen testified her shoulder “brushed” or “bumped” the hitch immediately before it fell; an incident report similarly stated she brushed/bumped the hitch.
- Steilen obtained medical treatment and alleged significant, long-term impairment affecting her ability to work.
- Steilen offered a photograph and argued the hitches were displayed in a manner that allowed them to protrude into the aisle and suggested negligent stocking or securing by store employees.
- Cabela’s presented evidence that the display was stable; employees inspected the display after the incident and reported nothing out of place; there was no video of the event.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur in Steilen’s premises-negligence action.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the jury’s defense verdict.
- The court held res ipsa loquitur instructions were not supported by the evidence because the circumstances permitted competing, reasonable inferences inconsistent with Cabela’s negligence.
- The court concluded the jury was properly instructed on ordinary negligence, and the refusal to add a res ipsa inference was not error.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur requires proof that (1) the instrumentality was under the defendant’s exclusive control, (2) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence by those in control, and (3) the injury was caused by the event.
- A res ipsa instruction is improper when the evidence leaves room for different reasonable presumptions or inferences, including non-negligent explanations.
- The availability of res ipsa loquitur is an initial question for the court; a requested instruction may be refused if not warranted by the evidentiary record.
- Customer interaction with merchandise can defeat “exclusive control” where the circumstances indicate the item may have been dislodged by the customer at the time of the incident.
- A plaintiff may proceed on ordinary negligence theories without res ipsa loquitur; the doctrine is an evidentiary shortcut, not an element of a negligence claim.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence supported plausible explanations other than negligent stocking—especially Steilen’s contact with the hitch immediately before it fell—the trial court properly refused res ipsa loquitur instructions, and the defense verdict was affirmed.


Steilen v. Cabela’s Wholesale, Inc., 906 N.W.2d 913 (S.D. 2018)