Attorney Blog

Recent SD Supreme Court Estate Ruling

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)26600 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:00:00 EST

On February 10, 2010, the South Dakota Supreme Court filed an opinion on a will-contest case. This case will help teach you about two important terms that we use in the legal community. The first is what is called a "Personal Representative". The second term is "fiduciary duty."

This particular case was very complicated, and so I won't waste too much of your time on delving on the facts and background. In 1997, Walter Brownlee passed away and left a Will that devised the bulk of his estate to his children and grandchildren, with his Certificates of Deposit (C.D.'s), residence, and most of his personal property going to his long-time companion, Jeanie Weekley. Over time, Weekley felt that the Personal Representative was doing a poor job in handling the estate, and sued him for negligent administration of the estate.

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let's discuss what a Personal Representative is, and what his or her responsibilities are. A Personal Representative, also known as the executor or executrix, is the person who is designated in the Will to carry out the estate plan. In other words, he or she makes sure that everyone who is devised money gets that money, and takes care of the estate's assets. He will pay off creditors, handle various paperwork duties, and deal with the probate court.

Personal Representatives also act in a "fiduciary duty" on behalf of those having an interest in the estate, and to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries of the estate. To put it differently, the Personal Representative has an obligation to manage the assets of the estate in a reasonable matter, so that those who are devised those assets get the most out of them. If the Personal Representative fails to reasonably perform his fiduciary duty, he is liable to interested persons, or those who have an interest in the will, for the damage or loss resulting from his breach of the fiduciary duty.

In this case, the court found that the Personal Representative did in fact breach his fiduciary duty to Weekley, by failing to take possession of or preserve some construction equipment that were assets of the estate. Originally, this equipment was worth over $100,000. By the time the Personal Representative got around to selling it, it only netted $26,000. This case is a great example of how a Personal Representative did a poor job of managing an asset that caused damage to an interested party. Since it was the Personal Representative's fault that the asset decreased in value, he was liable to Weekley for the difference.

The lesson here is that a Personal Representative needs to do his job, because if he doesn't, he may end up paying for it.

No Common Law Marriage In SD

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)26568 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:00:00 EST

In a decision regarding a will-contest case decided on January 6th, 2010, the South Dakota Supreme Court held that while South Dakota will recognize valid common-law marriages in other jurisdictions, the state of South Dakota does not recognize common-law marriages in the state itself.

In this case, the trial court held that Karen Hargrave was the common-law wife of Paul Duval. Therefore, upon Duval's death, the court held that Hargrave should be treated as Duval's surviving spouse for inheritance purposes in South Dakota. Duval's daughters appealed this judgment, arguing that since Duval was never formally married to Hargrave, Hargrave should not be treated as his wife for inheritance purposes.

South Dakota eliminated common-law marriages in 1959. However, South Dakota continues to recognize any marriage contracted outside of the state, providing the marriage is valid in the state where it took place. Hargrave argued that since she and Duval lived together in Oklahoma, which recognizes common-law marriages, the court should hold the marriage as valid. Common-law marriage is more than simply living together. In fact, as in the case for Oklahoma, the couple must agree or declare their intent to be married, live together, and hold themselves out as husband and wife. Since Hargrave and Duval did not proclaim themselves to be married, Oklahoma law would not recognize their alleged common-law marriage.

The South Dakota Supreme Court therefore held that Hargrave and Duval were not in a common-law marriage, and Hargrave should not be treated as Duval's wife for inheritance purposes. So what is there to learn from this from a will-contest perspective? I would argue that this is an important case for both sides. First, if your loved-one dies, and his or her partner claims a common-law marriage, you will know that South Dakota will not honor such a claim. Conversely, if you are currently residing with someone you consider your husband or wife, but have not been officially married by the State, you might want to consider that your inheritance may not go to him or her, absent such a declaration in your Will.

Read the Fine Print!

dplucker@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)24267 — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

It has almost become cliché, but sometimes it is too easy to forget how important the “fine print” can really be when you are signing any sort of contract. The SD Supreme Court’s decision in Cole v. Wellmark on December 9, 2009 shows why it is so important to carefully read any document or contract you are asked to sign, especially an insurance contract.

In this case, Dellas and Maggie Cole were attempting to obtain health insurance after an employment change resulted in a loss of coverage. The contacted an insurance agent, in order to find a new policy. The agent went through several options with them, and the Coles settled on a policy from Wellmark. The agent informed them that their youngest son’s allergies would probably be considered a preexisting condition for which an exclusion would be issued.

The Coles signed the policy application, and expected coverage to begin after their check was deposited. Shortly thereafter, Coles’ daughter had a knee injury, and wound up with $20,000 in medical expenses. The Coles contacted the agent, and it was then that the agent informed them that the insurance policy was never actually issued. You see, right above the signature line was language that stated that coverage would not begin unless and until the application was reviewed and approved, and notice of acceptance would be provided in writing.

Obviously, the Coles weren’t too happy, and they sued Wellmark. They lost at the trial level, and appealed the SD Supreme Court. The Coles thought they had a good argument. After all, Wellmark had deposited their first payment, and the agent had verbally told them that everything was “all set” and “good to go.” The Supreme Court said no. The Court held that the limiting language in the application (the “fine print”) trumped any statements made by the agent. Since Wellmark never approved the application, there was never any coverage.

So what’s the lesson here? Well, besides the fact that the Coles might want to sue their agent, the lesson is this: the limitations or conditions that are set out in written agreements, especially insurance policies, will almost always trump any verbal agreements or assurances. If the cell phone salesman promises free texting, but it’s not in the contract you sign, then you’ll be paying for your texts. We sign contracts every day. Cell phone plans, loans, waivers…they are everywhere, and they can be confusing. Make sure you consult an attorney before signing any document that appears confusing or ambiguous, so you really know what you are getting yourself into.

It Couldn't Happen Here...Right?

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)24155 — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

Imagine living in a country where you could be held in jail for 18 days without being able to be appointed an attorney. Even worse, you suffer from a serious heart condition, post traumatic stress disorder, and a hiatal hernia. You tell your jailor that you need your medication, and all you get back is a note saying, “The medical staff is aware and signed you up for a sick call.” You repeatedly tell your jailor that your rights have been violated, but to no avail.

It may come as some surprise, but such a serious violation an individual’s rights happened right here in South Dakota. Eric Larson was arrested for alleged simple assault, booked in the Moody County Sheriff’s Office, and then transferred to Minnehaha County Jail in Sioux Falls on July 24, 2008. Larson repeatedly requested that his own injuries be photographed, but his requests were ignored. Larson also wanted to be appointed an attorney, but since he had not yet been arraigned, he could not secure counsel. So there he sat, for 18 days, until he was finally brought before a magistrate on August 13, 2008.

Thankfully, we live in a country where this type of behavior is the exception rather than the rule. The United States Constitution guarantees every individual’s right to a speedy trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that those arrested without a warrant, as Larson was, must have a judicial probable cause determination within 48 hours after the arrest, unless a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance exists. Even South Dakota statute requires that a person arrested, with our without a warrant, must brought before a committing magistrate without unnecessary delay.

So what ended up happening to Eric Larson? Well, on December 12th, 2009, the South Dakota Supreme Court held that his case should be remanded, in light of the egregious misconduct. The Court decided that the State has the burden of showing an emergency or some extraordinary circumstance existed. If no adequate justification can be shown, then the charges against Larson will be dismissed. (Feel free to read the court’s opinion here.)

You might be wondering how this whole mess might have been avoided. It’s a good question. There are two important interests to weigh here. On the one hand, we certainly don’t want to let possible criminals off the hook just because it took too long for him or her to appear before a magistrate. On the other hand, we live in a country of guaranteed rights, and it is reprehensible for those rights to be willfully and recklessly ignored. The solution? Find an attorney you believe to be competent and able, and memorize the attorney’s office number. That way, if you ever feel that your rights are being violated, you can call that attorney and have an advocate on your behalf.

"But it's not in writing...."

daniel@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)20844 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:00:00 EST

"But it's not in writing!" It's a myth that everyone seems to have heard before: a contract is no good if you don't have it on paper.

The good news: this myth isn't true. A contract is an agreement, not a document. Some contracts are oral, and some are written. Some are signed, and some are back-and-forth emails. Some are never discussed, but are just "implied" or "assumed", based on how the parties acted.

And sometimes, there are two contracts at issue: the written contract, and the oral agreement reached before everything was written down. In law, the oral agreement reached before the written contract is called the "parol agreement". (For history and language buffs, the word 'parol' originated in the context of the promises a war prisoner would make prior to being released from captivity, and, literally meant, "giving your word".)

The idea works the same way in the law, as well. If someone gives their verbal "word", a court can enforce those promises in the same way as a written contract. And if the written agreement doesn't explain exactly what the parties intended, a court can look at the prior negotiations and agreements.

An opinion issued this week briefly discussed parol agreements, and restated the rule that, usually, a written agreement replaces an oral agreement. See, Kjerstad Realty v. Bootjack Ranch. The case involved a dispute between a realtor, demanding a commission, and the property seller, who refused to pay the commission (because the ranch was sold to a neighbor to whom the realtor didn't actually "show" the property). The case was sent back for a jury trial.

In general, it is better to have written agreements. Often, however, we take each other's "word", instead. And the law will treat those promises the same as if they are written down. So if you hear someone say the magic phrase, "But it's not in writing", tell them the good news: it doesn't have to be.

SD Supreme Court Wrongful Death Suit

dplucker@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)19105 — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

US Supreme Court Ruling on Student Rights

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)15486 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

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 US Supreme Court Ruling on Admissible Evidence

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)15485 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

Contractors Beware! Careless Mistakes Can Cost You Your Mechanic's Lien

daniel@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)15453 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

If you are a contractor and file your own mechanic's liens, you may want to take a moment to read the opinion in DAKOTA CRAFT, INC. V. SEVERSON, 2009 SD 56, handed down on July 8, 2009, by the South Dakota Supreme Court. The strict rule established by the Court is enough to make anyone nervous.

Severson, the contractor, built the Boneyard Saloon in Whitewood, South Dakota, a large, destination concert venue and bar that piggy-backs onto the success of the Sturgis Bike Rally. He finished the work on time, and completed everything required under the contract. But the property owner did not pay for the work.

Severson had filed over $512,000.00 worth of mechanic's liens on the property. (A mechanic's lien is like a mini-mortgage on real estate that helps ensure a contractor gets paid for his work.)

The trial court and Supreme Court held that $420,000.00 worth of the liens were invalid...leaving Severson secured for only about $82,000.00.

At great length, the Supreme Court picked apart the lien filing. The problems included the following:

"it is unclear whether these descriptions relate to entire jobs or projects to be completed, and whether Severson was contracting a certain result at a certain price or whether he was charging per hour";
"the descriptions lack sufficient detail to meet the 'ordinarily intelligent and careful person' test;
the language of the liens is "inherently ambiguous, and fails to provide notice to the other materialmen and mortgagees of the ultimate cost of the work provided pursuant to this document".
the liens "fail to disclose the materials supplied, the amount of the materials supplied, or the purpose of the materials".

The only part of the lien which was upheld had very specific language, as follows:

"Apply PVC/TPO ultra guard roofing system to 180’ x 36’ building and [parapet] all adhesive fasteners and flashings as per print . . . all materials, labor, adhesives and taxes".

However, the Court noted that "there was no separate agreement for either material or labor for the project". (If there were such an agreement, this specific language may have been insufficient, too.)

The moral of the story: Be careful out there, and, if you're not confident you're doing it right, hire a lawyer to file your mechanic's liens.

In addition, if you're a contractor still waiting to get paid, it may be time to foreclose your liens. If your liens are valid, the Court's strict rule may invalidate other liens on the property, making it more likely you can get paid in full.

New SD Supreme Court Personal Injury Ruling

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)15381 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

An Ounce of Prevention....

daniel@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)15344 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

Benjamin Franklin coined the old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It's a piece of wisdom applicable to so many areas of life: Eating well is much cheaper than a doctor's care later on. Regular auto tune-ups can save thousands compared to an overhaul.

It's wisdom that applies in the world of small business, as well. I encourage all of my business clients to make it a habit of consulting with their accountant, insurance agent, banker, and attorney (in that order). Each of those professionals is trained to spot problem-areas before they turn ugly.

Unfortunately, what happens too often is that the client was not consulting any of these professionals, and by the time the problem arrives at the law office, it has turned into a nasty business dispute, or full-blown litigation. The problem might have been prevented months or years earlier with an hour or two of consultation with an advisor.

In the legal realm, the issues often include employment contracts (and hiring and firing); misunderstandings about a business partnership (profit sharing; loss allocation; duties of partners; etc.); muddy and vague real estate leases; a do-it-yourself contract for deed (or any other do-it-yourself legal document); disgruntled minority shareholders; and any number of contract disputes.

Of course, careful planning cannot avoid all future problems......but it certainly is the best medicine to minimize them.

Whether it is "prevention" or "cure" that you need, the first step is to do something about it. This month, make it your goal to keep your business heading in the right direction by having a conversation with your accountant, insurance agent, banker, and attorney (in that order). If you need a referral or recommendation, we know some top-notch accountants, insurers, and bankers.

And, if you're facing a dispute that seems headed for litigation, it is always better to call the lawyer sooner, rather than later. Often, a creative settlement can avoid a lawsuit entirely. Or, if a jury trial is unavoidable, the time to begin preparing is right now.

Sobriety Checkpoint Warnings - via txt msg

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)14795 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

The Highway Patrol will send you a text message to alert you about sobriety checkpoints in your county.

Click here for more information, and to sign up.

Avoid a DUI. Call a cab. Designate a driver. Don't drive. Help keep our roads safe.

Celebrating Our Independence - July 4th

daniel@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)14792 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

There will be no shortage of grand celebrations today, July 4th. And for good reason. Even back in July of 1776, John Adams, in a letter to his wife, predicted that the signing of the Declaration of Independence would "be celebrated, by succeeding generations, as the great anniversary festival." However, Adams thought July 2nd would be the "big day", because that was when the Continental Congress voted for independence....in the typical style of politicians, it took two full days of debating to hammer out the details. Finally, on July 4th, the document was released to the public. And the rest, of course, is history.

Although it's not nearly as festive as fireworks, every year I download a copy of the Declaration of Independence and read it. The famous line we all recognize is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The passages that follow, however, often get forgotten, and for me they are a pleasant reminder about how my career as a lawyer is connected to the struggle for freedom they started so long ago. Part of the tyranny of King George involved his repeated attempts to limit the power of the courts, and also "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury".

After their long battle for independence, the Colonists eventually established an independent court system, along with the right of everyone to a jury trial for criminal and civil cases...in other words, protection for everyone whose life, liberty, or property was at risk. For me, it is an honor to serve as an attorney, because we are vehicles for helping carry out the intent of that ancient document, one client at a time, and, when necessary, one jury trial at a time.

As part of your celebration today, I invite you take a few quiet minutes and read the text that started our revolution for freedom. Happy Independence Day.

New South Dakota Supreme Court Decision on Voluntary Statements

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)14582 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

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

jcole@zdclaw.com (Blog Author)14142 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

Many people mistakenly assume that if they are pulled over for any offense, including traffic violations, a warrantless search of their vehicle is fair game. This is simply not true. The Court has ruled that there are only certain, specific exceptions which allow a warrantless search of your vehicle. If you are pulled over for a traffic offense, like the suspended driver’s license of Rodney Gant, the police may need a warrant to search your vehicle. Remember, it is not rude to request a search warrant from a police officer; in fact it is your right as an American.

Prepare For Another Winter Storm

dplucker@zdclaw.com; jcole@zdclaw.com (News Author)12297 — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

Yet another winter storm is headed our way. The SD Department of Public Safety is urging South Dakotans to plan ahead as the storm is expected to make its way into the region. Forecasters expect freezing rain, significant icing, and blowing snow to develop over South Dakota on Friday and continue into Monday morning. Six to twelve inches of snow is expected, and winds may reach up to 50 mph. Please consider alternative options if you absolutely have to travel. With weather like this, car accidents are sure to be a significant danger.

As always, keep the following tips in mind when driving in the winter as set out by the SD Departments of Public Safety and Transportation:

1.    Wear your seatbelt.

2.    Travel during the day and on well-travelled roads and highways if possible.

3.    Keep family and friends informed of your travel schedule and route.

4.    Call 511 or visit safetravelusa.com for road conditions.

5.    Keep a winter weather survival kit in your car. This kit should include blankets, warm clothing, water, energy bars, a flashlight, a distress flag, a shovel, and matches.

If you must travel, and you do become stranded, the Departments advise you to stay in your vehicle and:

1.    Run the engine and heater about ten minutes an hour to stay warm.

2.    When the engine is running, open a window slightly to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning.
Occasionally clearing snow from the exhaust pipe will also help prevent carbon monoxide buildup.

3.    When it’s dark outside, turn on your interior light so rescuers may see you.

4.    Put up a distress flag, or spread a large colored cloth on the ground to attract attention from rescuers.

Please drive safe these next couple days, and try to keep these helpful tips in mind to avoid dangerous car accidents.

U.S. Department of Transportation Unveils New Distracted Driving Website

dplucker@zdclaw.com; jcole@zdclaw.com (News Author)12084 — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

The United States Department of Transportation has unveiled a new website dedicated to the emerging problem of "distracted driving." The new site features some great statistics and information about how dangerous distracted driving can really be. I would encourage everyone to explore the new website, and see for yourself how dangerous "dialing and driving" can be. Feel free to visit it here.

Another Winter Storm To Develop Tonight. Keep These Tips In Mind While Travelling.

dplucker@zdclaw.com; jcole@zdclaw.com (News Author)12075 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

A winter storm is expected to develop over South Dakota this evening, and will continue into Thursday morning. We can expect two to five inches of snow, and winds up to 40 mph. This will create dangerous travel conditions across the state. Plus, temperatures will fall well below zero in many areas of the state.

The SD Departments of Public Safety and Transportation have advised travelers to take the following safety precautions:

1.    Wear your seatbelt.

2.    Travel during the day and on well-travelled roads and highways if possible.

3.    Keep family and friends informed of your travel schedule and route.

4.    Call 511 or visit safetravelusa.com for road conditions.

5.    Keep a winter weather survival kit in your car. This kit should include blankets, warm clothing, water, energy bars, a flashlight, a distress flag, a shovel, and matches.

If you must travel, and you do become stranded, the Departments advise you to stay in your vehicle and:

1.    Run the engine and heater about ten minutes an hour to stay warm.

2.    When the engine is running, open a window slightly to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning.
Occasionally clearing snow from the exhaust pipe will also help prevent carbon monoxide buildup.

3.    When it’s dark outside, turn on your interior light so rescuers may see you.

4.    Put up a distress flag, or spread a large colored cloth on the ground to attract attention from rescuers.

Please drive safe these next couple days, and try to keep these helpful tips in mind to avoid dangerous car accidents.

Please Drive Safe On New Year's Eve

dplucker@zdclaw.com; jcole@zdclaw.com (News Author)12003 — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

New Year's Eve is right around the corner. We at ZDC would like to wish everyone all the best for the incoming year. We hope you have all had a great holiday season.

On a more serious note, however, please keep in mind that driving can be very dangerous on New Year's Eve. Remember not to drink and drive. If you want to go out to celebrate the New Year, please designate a sober driver, or grab a taxi.

The South Dakota Highway Patrol already has sobriety checkpoints planned in January in 16 counties, including Minnehaha, Lake, Moody, Spink, and Penington.

To receive text message alerts on the checkpoints, and taxi service availability, sign up for the state's Act Civilized campaign here.

Keep the Sturgis Rally Safe: Watch for Bikers While Driving

dplucker@zdclaw.com; jcole@zdclaw.com (News Author)9723 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

With the annual Sturgis Rally fast approaching, I'd like to take some time to please caution everyone to keep their eyes open and focused on the road when driving on the highway this week. Just yesterday a Yankton man died while riding his motorcycle after a collision with a pickup truck. Today, a 58-year-old Indiana woman was also killed while riding her motorcycle after being hit by a car. The driver of the car was cited for making an illegal left turn. The sad connection between both of these deaths is that the drivers of the vehicles that collided with the motorcyclists failed to obey our traffic laws.

Please obey traffic laws and follow the instructions of traffic signs. Put down the cell phone, keep focused on the road, and always check your blind spots. Let's make this rally an enjoyable event for all South Dakotans, and all of the bikers who travel to our state.

Texting and Driving More Dangerous Than Drunken Driving?

dplucker@zdclaw.com; jcole@zdclaw.com (News Author)9735 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

While some newscasters and comedians have been poking fun at the new studies that show the dangers of texting and driving, it is extremely important to understand the threat distracted driving poses to the safety of all drivers. In a study released last week, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that when drivers text, the risk of collision is 23 times greater. Furthermore, when drivers dial a cell phone, or reach for an electronic device such as an I Pod, they are six times more likely to have a collision.

Even scarier, a separate report by Car and Driver Magazine found that texting and driving is more dangerous than drunken driving.

This issue is so serious, that US Department of Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, is convening a summit next month with senior transportation officials, safety advocates, law enforcement, members of Congress, and academics to study the dangers of distracted driving.

Our roads are dangerous enough as it is. If you are a parent, and your son or daughter has just started driving, be adamant that they refrain from distracted driving. That means no texting, no cell phone dialing, and no other electronic distractions. If you yourself have gotten in the habit of texting while driving, make a serious effort to stop immediately. We live in a fast-paced world, but no text or phone call is important enough to risk your life or the lives of others.

Yankton Man Dies in Traffic Accident

dplucker@zdclaw.com; jcole@zdclaw.com (News Author)9722 — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

A 59-year-old Yankton man was killed from injuries sustained from a traffic accident on a rural SD highway intersection. According to authorities, the other driver, a 26-year-old driving a pickup truck, struck the man on his motorcycle after failing to stop at a stop sign. This is obviously a tragic situation. It serves as a reminder that we can't control the actions of other drivers out there. Please stay alert when driving, and obey all traffic laws and traffic signs.

Drive Responsibly This Holiday Weekend

dplucker@zdclaw.com; jcole@zdclaw.com (News Author)9267 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

Last year there were 137 car crashes on South Dakota roads over the 4th of July holiday.