Schott v. South Dakota Wheat Growers Assoc.
South Dakota Supreme Court
906 N.W.2d 359 (2017)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Dallas Schott (plaintiff) grew sunflowers of a variety known as non-Clearfield. Schott acquired TapOut, the proper herbicide for non-Clearfield sunflowers, from the South Dakota Wheat Growers Association (SDWG) (defendant). A few years later, Schott planted a sunflower crop containing both Clearfield and non-Clearfield varieties, which are indistinguishable while growing. SDWG recommended Beyond, the herbicide for Clearfield sunflowers, apparently based on an impression that Schott had switched exclusively to the Clearfield variety for that year’s crop. The application of Beyond destroyed 1,200 acres of Schott’s non-Clearfield sunflowers. Schott brought suit against SDWG for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. At trial, SDWG’s agronomist testified that Schott had stated an intention to plant only Clearfield sunflowers that year. However, the agronomist could not recall the exact words Schott had used, and Schott insisted that the conversation had never taken place. Furthermore, Schott testified that, at the time of planting, he did not know what Clearfield sunflowers were, nor did he understand the difference between the Clearfield and non-Clearfield varieties. SDWG moved for summary judgment on an assumption-of-risk defense, which the circuit court granted. Schott appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Zinter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
