Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, as the administrator of her brother’s estate, sued the owners of the group home where her brother resided, alleging that Defendants (1) negligently failed to provide her brother medical care in a timely manner, (2) caused her brother’s wrongful death, and (3) failed to seek proper consent for the handling of her brother’s body after his death. The circuit court dismissed the third claim on summary judgment. After a trial, the jury found that Defendants were negligent but that the negligence was not the legal cause of the damage alleged by Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) granted Defendants partial summary judgment or at trial when it excluded Plaintiff’s evidence related to Defendants’ involvement in the post-death decisions; (2) denied Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue; (3) refused Plaintiff’s instruction on spoliation; and (4) denied Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. View "Red Bear v. SESDAC, Inc." on Justia Law

Raymond Bennett, who was intoxicated and driving his motorcycle, entered a curve at a high rate of speed and drove into a ditch. He was killed in the accident. Several Highway Patrol troopers soon arrived to manage the scene and investigate the incident. Approximately an hour and a half later, Douglas Howard rounded the same curve and encountered a motorhome that was stopped in his lane of travel. Howard lost control of his motorcycle and was injured. Howard sued Bennett’s estate, alleging that Bennett’s negligence in his own accident proximately caused Howard’s injuries in the subsequent accident. The Estate moved for summary judgment. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bennett’s negligence was not the proximate cause of Howard’s injuries as a matter of law. Remanded with instructions for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Estate. View "Howard v. Bennett" on Justia Law

After Keith Mendenhall and Lisa Swanson divorced, Keith brought a claim for slander against Lisa. Lisa counterclaimed for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, slander, and alienation of her daughter’s affection. Before trial, the trial court granted Lisa’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Keith’s slander claim. The jury subsequently found in favor of Lisa on each of her counterclaims except slander and awarded her $211,710. Keith appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by admitting fourteen exhibits consisting of court documents from prior proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the court’s failure to analyze the facts contained in the fourteen exhibits under principles of judicial notice or issue preclusion was error, and the error likely had a substantial influence on the jury’s verdict. View "Mendenhall v. Swanson" on Justia Law

Total Auctions and Real Estate, LLC (Total Auctions) was a licensed automobile dealer that intended to hold automobile auctions in Lincoln County. Total Auctions met with a dealer agent employed by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on how to comply with the applicable law. Total Auctions informed the agent that its business plan included the sale of vehicles consigned from dealers outside Lincoln County, the county of Total Auctions’ place of business. The agent failed to inform Total Auctions that state law prohibited auctioning vehicles consigned from dealers outside Lincoln County. After incurring expenses setting up its business, Total Auctions was informed that there was a problem with the out-of-county consignments. Total Auctions sued the DMV agent, the DMV, its director, and the Department of Revenue and Regulation, alleging negligence and negligent supervision. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Total Auctions’ claimed damages were caused by the agent’s alleged misrepresentation of law, relief was barred as to all claims because misrepresentations of law are not actionable. View "Total Auctions & Real Estate, LLC v. S.D. Department of Revenue & Regulation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed lawsuits against Defendants - a medical doctor, his medical clinic, two hospitals, and other individual defendants (collectively, Defendants) - alleging various causes of action, including negligence, negligent credentialing, fraud, and deceit. Plaintiffs sought production of documents from Defendants, but Defendants declined to produce all of them, asserting that some of the materials sought were peer review materials protected under S.D. Codified Laws 36-4-26.1. Plaintiffs moved to compel production, asking the circuit court to determine that section 36-4-26.1 was unconstitutional. The circuit court ordered Defendants to produce, without in camera review, documents protected by peer review, determining that the statute was constitutional only if it applied a “crime-fraud exception” and that the exception had been met in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred (1) by creating a crime-fraud exception to section 36-4-26.1, and (2) by ordering Defendants to produce materials in the possession of medical peer review committees. View "Novotny v. Sossan" on Justia Law

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