Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Injury Law
by
Plaintiff sued Harding County for negligence after he drove into a washed-out portion of a county road and was injured. A jury returned a general verdict for the County. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the County’s admitted violation of S.D. Codified Laws 31-28-6 entitled him to judgment as a matter of law as to the County’s liability and that the court erred by allowing questions regarding assumption of the risk and contributory negligence to go to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s verdict, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law, as there was evidence that supported the verdict; and (2) the evidence supported the instructions given for contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. View "Stensland v. Harding County" on Justia Law

Posted in: Injury Law
by
Plaintiff suffered an injury from a fall while at Black Hills Dialysis LLC’s (BHD) facility in Shannon County. Plaintiff sued BHD for her injuries. A dispute subsequently arose about whether the circuit court should summon jurors from Shannon County or neighboring Fall River County where Shannon County has no physical state court facilities and all Shannon County legal proceedings are held at the Fall River County Courthouse. The circuit court ruled that it would summon Fall River County jurors, holding that a 2009 standing order issued by the presiding judge of the Seventh Circuit stating that all Shannon County matters would be tried in Fall River County supported its resolution of the issue. The Supreme Court vacated the presiding judge’s standing order and reversed the order of the circuit court, holding (1) the presiding judge exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority in issuing the standing order, which effectively changed venue in all Shannon County cases; (2) the circuit court’s ruling on venue in this case was improper and without legal basis; and (3) under the circumstances of this case, venue was proper in Shannon County, and Shannon County jurors should be summoned and empaneled. View "Good Lance v. Black Hills Dialysis, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Aggregate Construction, Inc. (Aggregate) hired Aaron Swan & Associates, Inc. (Swan) to conduct sodium-sulfate soundness testing of material to be used in a construction project for the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) for sodium-sulfate soundness testing. Aggregate later filed this action against Swan, alleging breach of contract and negligence for Swan’s alleged failure to test adequately the material. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Swan, concluding that a release executed between Aggregate and SDDOT barred the claims against Swan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Aggregate and SDDOT executed a release that applied to the causes of action brought by Aggregate against Swan, the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to Swan. View "Aggregate Constr., Inc. v. Aaron Swan & Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

Posted in: Contracts, Injury Law
by
Matthew and Caralynn Fonder purchased a home and obtained a mortgage from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Wells Fargo selected Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. Flood Services (WFFS) to conduct a flood hazard determination on the Fonders’ home. WFFS determined the home was not in a special flood hazard area, and therefore, the Bank did not require the Fonders to obtain flood insurance. A flood later destroyed the Fonders’ home. Wells Fargo later filed a complaint to foreclose on the Fonders’ home. The Fonders cross-claimed against WFFS seeking to recover damages sustained a result of their reliance on WFFS’s erroneous flood determination. The circuit court dismissed the cross-claim for failure to state a claim and dismissed the Fonders’ motion to amend their third-party complaint to assert a claim of negligent misrepresentation on the grounds that WFFS did not owe the Fonders a duty. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred when it dismissed the Fonders’ claims for professional negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress but did not err in dismissing the Fonders’ breach-of-fiduciary duty claim; and (2) upon remand, the Fonders may amend their cross-claim to include negligent misrepresentation. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fonder" on Justia Law

by
Matthew and Caralynn Fonder purchased a home and obtained a mortgage from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Wells Fargo selected Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. Flood Services (WFFS) to conduct a flood hazard determination on the Fonders’ home. WFFS determined the home was not in a special flood hazard area, and therefore, the Bank did not require the Fonders to obtain flood insurance. A flood later destroyed the Fonders’ home. Wells Fargo later filed a complaint to foreclose on the Fonders’ home. The Fonders cross-claimed against WFFS seeking to recover damages sustained a result of their reliance on WFFS’s erroneous flood determination. The circuit court dismissed the cross-claim for failure to state a claim and dismissed the Fonders’ motion to amend their third-party complaint to assert a claim of negligent misrepresentation on the grounds that WFFS did not owe the Fonders a duty. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred when it dismissed the Fonders’ claims for professional negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress but did not err in dismissing the Fonders’ breach-of-fiduciary duty claim; and (2) upon remand, the Fonders may amend their cross-claim to include negligent misrepresentation. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fonder" on Justia Law

by
After Fannie Mae foreclosed upon and acquired the home at issue in this case, Fannie Mae hired Hayman Residential Engineering Services, Inc. to prepare a structural engineering report on the home. Based on the report, Fannie Mae made some of the recommended repairs. Fannie Mae subsequently sold the home to buyers, who then sold the home to Roger and Dorothy Johnson. Thereafter, the Johnsons discovered that the estimated cost of making all necessary repairs to the home exceeded its value. The Johnsons filed a professional negligence claim against Hayman. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Hayman, concluding that Hayman did not owe the Johnsons a duty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Hayman did not owe a professional duty to the Johnsons because they did not suffer a foreseeable harm stemming from Hayman’s alleged negligence, and therefore, a professional negligence claim could not be established. View "Johnson v. Hayman & Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed a petition and affidavit for a stalking protection order against Defendant, her former boyfriend. After a hearing, the circuit court entered a written permanent protection order prohibiting Defendant from coming within a distance of 100 yards of Plaintiff for a period of five years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Plaintiff failed to timely submit written findings of fact, the Court was left with the circuit court’s oral findings of fact and conclusions of law from the hearing, and the court’s oral findings of fact were insufficient to permit a meaningful review of the court decision; and (2) the circuit court did not err in excluding certain evidence on the basis that it was not relevant. Remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law. View "Repp v. Van Someren" on Justia Law

by
John DeBoer and Jill Lenards were involved in a car accident. Lenards sued DeBoer for negligence, limiting her damages claim to pain and suffering. The jury returned a general verdict for DeBoer. The circuit court subsequently denied Lenards’ motion for a new trial. Lenard appealed, arguing that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that it could consider whether this was an unavoidable accident, and that the issue of liability should have been directed in her favor. The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching Lenards’ liability issues, holding that because Lenards’ damages claim was the subject of a factual dispute, and because the jury returned a general verdict, the Court was precluded from reviewing her liability issues. View "Lenards v. DeBoer" on Justia Law

Posted in: Injury Law
by
Plaintiffs alleged that they were sexually abused at some point during the late 1950s through the early 1970s by priests, brothers, nuns, and others when they were attending St. Francis Mission School on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus and the Rosebud Educational Society/St. Francis Mission (“the Societies”), which operated the school. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Societies, concluding that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the 2010 amendment to S.D. Codified Laws 26-10-25 setting an age limit for claimants to bring suit. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact showing that the Societies committed intentional criminal acts against Plaintiffs, and therefore S.D. Codified Laws 26-10-25 did not extend the time to commence these actions involving alleged childhood sexual abuse; (2) the majority of Plaintiffs failed to establish fraudulent concealment on behalf of the Societies that would toll the statute of limitations; but (3) as to two Plaintiffs, a trier of fact must determine whether the elements for fraudulent concealment had been established sufficiently to toll the statute of limitations. View "Eagleman v. Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus" on Justia Law

Posted in: Injury Law
by
Nicholas Hybertson hired Jeff Muhlenkort to spray Hybertson’s filed with an herbicide. Several days after Muhlenkort applied the fertilizer to the Hybertson field, corn on a field owned by Murray and Georgine Lindblom began dying. The Lindbloms brought a claim for damages against Muhlenkort, Hybertson, and Sun Aviation, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) for damages based on negligence and trespass theories. The circuit court ruled in favor of Defendants. The Lindbloms appealed, arguing, among other things, that the circuit court should have given deference to a South Dakota Department of Agriculture investigator’s determination that Muhlenkort violated a safety statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court was not required to give deference to the Department’s pre-hearing determination that Muhlenkort violated S.D. Codified Laws 38-21-44(2); and (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the circuit court’s determination that Muhlenkort did not act negligently in applying the herbicide. View "Lindblom v. Sun Aviation, Inc." on Justia Law

Posted in: Injury Law