New SD Supreme Court Case: Medical Expenses Go Hand in Hand with Pain and Suffering Damages

New SD Supreme Court Case reaffirming the principle that medical damages go part and parcel with pain and suffering damages.

New SD Supreme Court "Slip and Fall" Decision

New South Dakota Supreme Court Decision on Slip and Fall Case.

Read the Fine Print!

Always remember to read the fine print, especially when signing an insurance contract.

SD Supreme Court Wrongful Death Suit

On September 16, 2009, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an order for a new trial in a wrongful death suit.  The Court held that because a juror discussed his knowledge of a Google search before the trial, the jury was tainted and a new trial was justified. 

In this case, Russo v. Takata Corp., the driver of a Geo Tracker who was driving to school was killed when her car slid off the side of the road and flipped nearly three times.  Because the driver was a minor, her mother brought suit against Takata Corp., a seatbelt manufacturer, alleging that the seatbelt malfunctioned and failed to operate properly.  After deliberations, the jury found in favor of Takata.  

Prior to the trial, a prospective jury member performed a Google search of Takata.  This juror made it through pretrial questioning, and ended up on the jury for the trial.  During deliberations, the juror stated that he had done a Google search of Takata, and discovered that Takata had never been sued before.  Since this information was received outside of the actual case, the Court held that it may have unfairly influenced other jurors.  

The facts of this case are certainly unfortunate.  We often take our children’s safety for granted as they travel to school everyday.  It is the duty of parents to make sure their children wear their seatbelts.  In this case, the parents performed their duty, but the seatbelt manufacturer may have failed to live up to their end of the deal.  This situation is precisely where parents need to reach out to an advocate to ensure the safety of their loved ones.  A verdict in favor of the plaintiff will not bring back the young girl who lost her life, but perhaps it would save the lives of other children in the future.  

New US Supreme Court Ruling on Admissible Evidence

In Menandes Diaz v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court recently decided that the United States Constitution required state prosecutors who want to offer crime lab reports as evidence at trial, to have the particular expert testify in person at the trial and be subject to cross-examination by the Defendant’s Lawyer.  Interestingly, the Supreme Court indicated that defense lawyers must assert the right to confront and cross-examine the expert witness before the State has to produce the witness to testify at trial.

What this means in South Dakota is that any prosecution expert trial witness who does a lab report, chemical analysis, finger prints analysis, blood spatter patterns analysis, blood chemistry analysis, gun, bullet, and really any other form of physical evidence subject to analysis by a laboratory must be supported by a witness and available for cross-examination.  This is typically how it is done anyway at trial, but there may be certain lab reports that are generally relied upon as part of other testimony.

There is no question that this decision will give defense lawyers another avenue to protect their client’s rights by cross-examining certain witnesses that might not otherwise have had to testify.  Defense Lawyers need to make sure they assert these rights.

US Supreme Court Ruling on Student Rights

The United States Supreme Court recently decided that public school officials are now limited in their ability to search students for drugs or other harmful items.  In Safford United School District v. Redding, the Supreme Court ruled that school official searches of the inter-clothing and undergarments of a student, in other words a strip search, will be pretty much prohibited from here on out under the United States Constitution.

The Court did not change the right of public school officials to search students’ back packs, notebooks, and other belongings along with their outer-clothing and pockets based upon reasonable suspicion.

This is a particularly difficult problem for school officials and for students and their parents.  It is also a good example of how difficult these cases are.  Certainly, the school officials want to provide a safe school environment for their students, faculty, and staff.  On the other hand, the United States Constitution protects all people, including students, from unreasonable searches and seizures.  This case points out the difficult issues that Courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys face on these issues. 

The bottom line here is that students do enjoy some Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and they are not susceptible to the whims of school administrators.  Student searches by school officials require, at a minimum, at least reasonable suspicion of illegal activity before any search can be conducted. 

New SD Supreme Court Personal Injury Ruling

This week I am switching gears to talk about an interesting personal injury case that was just ruled on by the South Dakota Supreme Court.  In Klutman v. Sioux Falls Storm, the South Dakota Supreme court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Gaylen Klutmen

Gaylen was 17 at the time of a Sioux Falls Storm promotional season kick-off event.  At one point during the event, children were invited to come on to the turf and play an informal game of touch-football.  The participants didn’t sign waivers and received no warning regarding the condition of the field.  After only a few plays in the game, Gaylen was running the ball up the field when he came to a sudden halt and fell backwards.  Gaylen had his foot caught in the turf, which caused a severe knee injury.  The trial court held the Storm liable for damages, and the SD Supreme Court affirmed this ruling.

So what’s the moral of the story?  Well, the answer to that question is two-fold.  First, it serves as a reminder to every person and business that they may be held liable for negligence for accidents that happen on his or her property.  Second, no one expects a life altering accident to happen to them in a situation as innocent as a promotional event.   But let’s face it: accidents do happen, and when they do you need an attorney to ensure you receive the damages you are entitled to. 

New South Dakota Supreme Court Decision on Voluntary Statements

Last week we talked about the protection the 4th Amendment gives you from warrantless searches by police officers.  Now nothing has changed in that department, but what you might not know is that there are a certain set of events which trigger this 4th Amendment protection.  In other words, there are certain circumstances where you aren’t protected from search and seizure.

On June 24, 2009, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled in State v. Iversen that the stop and arrest of James Iversen was constitutional.  Iversen was convicted of driving or controlling a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol level. What makes this case unique is that at the time of the stop, at 1:30 am, Iversen was in his parked pickup with his headlights off and his engine running.  Because there had been some theft in the area recently, a police officer pulled his patrol car behind Iversen, and focused his spotlight on Iversen’s pickup.  When the officer approached the truck, Iversen voluntarily rolled his window down.  At this point the officer smelled alcohol, and initiated his arrest.

So why was the officer authorized to perform this arrest?  Here was a man simply sitting in a parked car with his engine on.  The SD Supreme Court ruled that, in fact, Iversen was free to leave at any moment.  Because he voluntarily rolled his window down, he allowed himself to be questioned, giving the officer reasonable suspicion for an arrest.  Remember, if you are not under arrest, you may leave without talking to police. 

New US Supreme Court ruling on warrantless vehicle searches

On April 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided a very important case that directly affects your individual rights.  Arizona v Gant establishes an important controlling precedent regarding police performing warrantless searches.  This decision holds that the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of the arrest in order to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle after the driver and occupants have been arrested and secured.