Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Peggy Hewitt was involved in two separate rear-end collisions. In the first accident, in 2007, Hewitt was injured after her vehicle was rear-ended at a stop sign by Dwight Berens. In the second accident, in 2008, while Hewitt's vehicle was stopping to avoid a collision with a deer, a vehicle driven by Shelli Felderman struck Hewitt's rear bumper. Hewitt's lawsuits against Berens and Felderman were combined in a single trial in 2012. The jury found both Berens and Felderman negligent and awarded damages to Hewitt against Berens. The jury, however, awarded no damages to Hewitt against Felderman, finding that Felderman's negligence was not a legal cause of Hewitt's injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by (1) denying Hewitt's motions for a directed verdict, for a new trial on the issue of damages, and for attorney's fees and costs; (2) denying Felderman's motion for costs and disbursements as the prevailing party; and (3) allowing testimony regarding future medical procedures.View "Hewitt v. Felderman" on Justia Law

After Mary Lou Fox died, Plaintiff, Mary Lou's daughter and the administratrix of Mary Lou's estate, sued Mary Lou's former husband, Robert Fox. Plaintiff alleged that Mary Lou jointly owned 960 acres of farmland with Robert, that Robert deprived Mary Lou of her ownership interest in the land, and that Plaintiff was thereby deprived of an inheritance from Mary Lou. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Robert, concluding that Mary Lou had no ownership interest in the 960 acres. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that each cause of action brought by Plaintiff failed because Mary Lou had no claim to a right of ownership in the 960 acres and Plaintiff had no authority supporting her claims. View "Niesche v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Twelve-year-old K.V. threw a large rock that struck nine-year-old G.E. in the head. The incident took place near the intersection of three backyards, one of which belonged to the rental home of the Vitals, K.V.'s parents, the second of which belonged to the Englunds, G.E.'s parents, and the third of which belonged to Robert Smith, the Vitals' landlord. The Englunds filed an action against K.V., the Vitals, and Smith. The claims against Smith included negligence, negligent rental, and punitive damages. The trial court granted summary judgment for Smith. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Smith did not owe a duty of care to G.E. based on his position as landlord and did not owe a duty to protect G.E. from the alleged intentional or criminal conduct of K.V.View "Englund v. Vital" on Justia Law