A driver who crashes into the rear-end of another vehicle is not automatically negligent, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday in upholding a jury verdict that cleared a driver of negligence in a Rapid City collision.

If a driver admits violating the law that prohibits following too closely, a judge could find the driver negligent as a matter of law, the high court said in a unanimous decision. But juries should decide cases where drivers argue they acted reasonably and prudently, the justices said.

The high court's unanimous decision affirmed a jury's finding that Carla Jean Hall was not negligent when she ran into the rear of Abdelaziz Baddou's vehicle in January 2004 on a two-lane street.

Hall said she had been following Baddou for about three blocks at approximately 25 mph and slowed down to watch for children near a school. She said she looked left to make sure some children were not going to dart out in front of her vehicle, looked back ahead and realized Baddou had stopped.

Baddou had stopped legally and turned on his left-hand turn signal while he waited for oncoming traffic to clear. Hall stepped on her brakes and veered right, but the left front of her vehicle hit the right rear bumper of Baddou's vehicle.

Baddou sued Hall for negligence, and he presented evidence that his right knee was permanently injured in the crash.

The Rapid City police officer investigating the accident wrote a fault notation on the accident report indicating that one driver rear-ended a legally stopped vehicle that was waiting to turn. Circuit Judge John J. Delaney granted Hall's motion to remove that notation from the report when the document was used as evidence in the trial.

The accident report also indicated no citation had been issued in the accident.

Hall's lawyer drew the jury's attention to the report's lack of any citation against Hall. The judge then told the jury a citation would not establish whether negligence occurred.

The judge also told the jury it was to decide what a reasonable person would have done in such circumstances.

Baddou argued that the judge should declare that Hall was negligent because she violated a state law that prohibits a driver from following another vehicle "more closely than is reasonable and prudent," taking into consideration speed and other traffic conditions.

The Supreme Court said negligence is established when a driver admits violating the law that prohibits following too closely, and a judge can then direct a verdict for the other party unless there is evidence of a legal excuse.

Hall never admitted following too closely, so it was up to the jury to decide whether she acted reasonably and prudently in looking to determine whether children were going to dart in front of her vehicle, the high court said.

When someone admits violating a safety law, a jury does not need to determine liability because negligence is established as a matter of law, the Supreme Court said. But a jury should decide liability in cases where drivers argue their actions were reasonable, the justices said.

The jury may have decided that Hall was not following too closely, and it may have considered her worry that children might dart onto the road, the high court said.

"Reasonable minds may differ, but we must resolve doubts in favor of the jury verdict," wrote Circuit Judge Mark Barnett of Pierre, who was an acting Supreme Court justice in the case.

The high court also rejected Baddou's contention that Hall did not present enough evidence to support the jury's finding of no negligence.