South Dakota Personal Injury Attorney Blog

Dangerous Job Leaves Man Injured and Seeking Insurance

Fri, 11 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

Ten years ago, a Sturgis man was electrocuted while servicing a power line from a boom truck. He was badly injured but lived to tell about it. He and his lawyers then spent the next ten years trying to find insurance coverage to pay for his injuries and lost wages. After three different insurance companies denied coverage, his final chapter is told in a recent South Dakota Supreme Court case, entitled, James E. Cornelius v. National Casualty Company, 2012 S.D. 29.

* * *

James Cornelius worked for a company that provided construction and maintenance services to power companies. James started as a groundsman, where his duties involved changing out electrical poles (from the ground). Later, he was promoted to linesman, spending his days up in the “bucket” of a 1963 International boom truck. James’s job involved work on energized lines using insulated gloves, hand tools, and a pneumatic wrench.
On March 11, 2002, James was in the bucket of his truck near Wright, Wyoming (about 80 miles straight west of Custer). He was finishing up the work on a power pole with three energized lines. He had just removed his insulated gloves to tighten the hardware on the neutral connector when his head brushed against one of the live lines. The electric current entered his body near his left ear, traveled down both arms to the bucket, and then to the ground (allegedly due to faulty insulators).
James sustained serious injuries to his right arm, as well as burns to his face and damage to his eye. After several amputations and fourteen months of recuperation, a doctor determined his body was 54% impaired.
With the help of an attorney, James began looking for insurance coverage for his injuries and lost wages. First, the Supreme Court of Wyoming determined that he was not an “employee” of the power company, and therefore was ineligible for its worker’s compensation coverage.
Next, he attempted to obtain coverage through the maintenance company’s general commercial policy. A federal court in Rapid City ruled that an exclusion prevented his claim. Strike two.
In a third attempt, James then sought coverage under the automobile policy issued to his employer (the one that covered the boom truck). At the trial court level, the judge reviewed the policy and the facts and determined that no coverage was available here, either. Strike three.
James then appealed that decision to our state Supreme Court.

* * *

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is the best insurance that money can buy. UM/UIM coverage is essentially “insurance of last resort.” When all other coverage is unavailable (or isn’t enough), UM/UIM coverage steps in to save the day. By statute, every auto policy is required to contain a basic level of coverage that kicks in if the car you’re driving in is hit by another driver with no insurance (or too little). However, some insurance policies go farther than this and provide coverage for single car accidents and other situations where the car isn’t even moving.
Every policy and every case is different, though. For example, in a prior case, the Court denied coverage to a man who died from carbon monoxide poisoning while sleeping in his motor home. There, the Court determined that the motor home was not covered because it was being used as a “dwelling” at the time of the injury, rather than as a motor vehicle.
In James’s case, the insurance company pointed to that case and argued that the boom truck wasn’t being used for “transportation purposes” at the time of the accident. The Court rejected that argument because the policy expressly allowed coverage for “cherry pickers and similar devices… used to raise and lower workers.” Thus, after ten long years, James finally found coverage to pay for his injuries and lost wages.
The moral of the story is the importance of choosing a lawyer who understands insurance and who has the patience and tenacity to keep fighting to find as much coverage as possible. Too often, lawyers take cases and settle them with the first policy they find. This results in a quick buck, but not in the best possible result.

* * *

Every time an injured client comes into our office, I tell them to check the UM/UIM coverage on their own policy, in order to plan for “next time”. I tell them, also, that bumping up the level of coverage is relatively cheap, and I encourage them to visit with their insurance agent about it.
Sometimes this advice falls on deaf ears. However, one of my clients last month called her insurance agent the same day, and found out that for $2.00 per year, she could raise her level of UM/UIM coverage from $100,000 to $300,000.
At a minimum, that’s what I recommend you do, too. If you’re able, look into getting $500,000 or $1 million or more.

Kevin Costner Untouchable in Sculpture Dispute

Thu, 10 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

In a 5-0 decision released this morning, the South Dakota Supreme Court sided with Kevin Costner in a long-running dispute about a set of bronze, bison scupltures.

Costner first visited South Dakota over twenty years ago while shooting the movie, "Dances With Wolves." He began making plans to open a luxury resort and casino in Deadwood called The Dunbar, after his character in that movie, Lt. John J. Dunbar. The casino plans sputtered for years and were eventually abandoned.
As part of his preparations, however, Costner commissioned an artist to forge a set of 17, larger-than-life bronze buffalo statues, which would be displayed as a group in the main concourse of the hotel, thundering along in a herd while being pursued by three sculpltures of Lakota hunters on horseback.
The artist, Peggy Detmers, agreed to do the work for a reduced fee for the opportunity to recoup profits from sales of miniatures in the hotel gift shop.
A decade passed, and The Dunbar was still unbuilt. Costner then drafted a new contract, written in the first person, which Detmers signed. Apparently, neither used a lawyer. The contract provided:
Although I do not anticipate this will ever arise, if The Dunbar is not built within ten (10) years or the sculptures are not agreeably displayed elsewhere, I will give you 50% of the profits from the sale of the one and one-quarter life scale sculptures after I have recouped all my costs incurred in the creation of the sculptures and any such sale. The sale price will be at our above standard bronze market pricing. All accounting will be provided. In addition, I will assign back to you the copyright of the sculptures so sold (14 bison, 3 Lakota horse and riders).
Detmers finished work on the sculptures, but the resort was still not started. The scupltures were then installed near the proposed site for the resort, in a visitor's center called "Tatanka." Detmers filed a lawsuit in 2008 regarding the meaning of the underlined sentence, and challenging the idea that the scupltures were "agreeably displayed elsewhere", since the resort was never built.
The Supreme Court ruled on two issues: one factual, one legal. As a factual matter, the Court refused to second-guess the trial judge who heard the testimony live and was able to observe the witnesses' demeanor. The trial court had concluded that Detmers was never given the impression that The Dunbar was going to be built, only that it was a possibility. Thus, when she agreed to the placement of the sculptures at Tatanka, she could not claim that she was misled about plans for the future.
The legal issue involved the defintion of the word "elsewhere." The trial court used the dictionary defintion, which here means, essentially "anywhere else besides The Dunbar". Since The Dunbar was never built, the trial judge ruled that anywhere else in the world would qualify for the distinction of "elsewhere." And since Tatanka was a separate (although contiguous) parcel of land to the proposed Dunbar site, Tatanka, therefore, was "elsewhere." The Supreme Court agreed with this analysis.
If it sounds like word-play to you, you're not alone. The moral of the story is not to enter into important contracts without an attorney. And if you're in the middle of a contract dispute (or merely just concerned about your rights), the time to call an attorney is yesterday.
As a result of the Court's ruling, the scupltures will remain at Tatanka. This is good news for Deadwood, but not the result Detmers was hoping for.

Costner "Untouchable" in Sculpture Dispute

Thu, 10 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

Honesty's the Best Policy for Any Job

Thu, 10 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

A real estate agent was accused of forging her client’s signature, but it was later discovered that her client asked her to sign his name, so that he wouldn’t have to drive all the way back to her office.
The resulting conflict put her real estate license in jeopardy. The case was heard on appeal in an action entitled Cheri St. Pierre v. South Dakota Real Estate Commission, 2012 S.D. 25.

* * *

For most of us, the biggest purchase of our lives will be a piece of real estate: a house, a farm, or a business. Those transactions take a lot of planning, saving, and courage. Even though the stakes are high, the public’s working knowledge of real estate sales is very limited. As a result, nearly everyone relies on a qualified real estate agent to guide them through the process. But how do you know if you have a good agent?
The real estate industry’s solution is to heavily regulate the licensing process, including those who want a license, and those who have one. The state Real Estate Commission also requires licensees to receive continuing education on topics like ethics, financing, contract law, and fair housing statutes. In addition, the Legislature has adopted a list of 42 things which are considered “unprofessional conduct.” If a real estate agent or broker commits one of those acts, he or she can face suspension or revocation.
On that list of no-no’s are things like failing to keep sales proceeds in a separate bank account; being convicted of a crime of dishonesty; using dummy contracts to help customers obtain bank financing; failing to deal fairly with all parties to a sale; improperly influencing an appraisal; acts of “incompetency”; and even issuing a non-sufficient funds check. Also on that list is a very broad “catch-all” provision that forbids “any other conduct which constitutes dishonesty.” This includes conduct in both the professional realm, as well as in an agent’s private affairs.
In short, there are plenty of ways to lose a real estate license, and anyone who isn’t absolutely honest in every aspect of his or her life is in the wrong line of work. That’s a lesson that was impressed upon Cheri St. Pierre in this opinion.

* * *

In 2007, Ms. St. Pierre worked as a real estate agent in Rapid City. She assisted three co-owners with the sale of a vacant lot. On closing day, the sellers signed their names (over and over) to the inevitable stack of documents that accompanies any land transaction. Later, Ms. St. Pierre inquired about her commission, and her supervisor pointed out that there was one form still unsigned. The commission would be held back until she got it signed.
Ms. St. Pierre initially thought the form was pointless but agreed to call one of her clients. He was not eager to drive all the way back to sign one more piece of paper. He told Ms. St. Pierre to sign it on his behalf, and on behalf of his two other business partners (who were in California). Ms. St. Pierre signed all three names, but didn’t reveal this when she turned in the form. Her supervisor became suspicious due to the speed with which the signatures had been obtained. She then noticed the signatures didn’t match those on earlier documents. A peek into Ms. St. Pierre’s wastepaper basket revealed a crumpled “rough draft” with white-out on the signature line.
When confronted, Ms. St. Pierre claimed that she had received the signed copies via email. Unable to provide a copy of that email, she eventually confessed. Ms. St. Pierre self-reported her misconduct to the Real Estate Commission, which then gave her a conditional, one-year suspension and fined her. She appealed this decision.

* * *

On appeal, Ms. St. Pierre’s lawyer argued that her actions didn’t constitute “forgery,” and, therefore, the suspension was unwarranted.
In response, the Real Estate Commission argued a different angle. It focused on the “catch-all” requirement that a real estate agent must be completely honest in every way. Here, there was no question that Ms. St. Pierre attempted to deceive her employer, its compliance staff, and then denied her actions when first confronted.
For all of these reasons, the Court agreed that Ms. St. Pierre had engaged in dishonesty and upheld her conditional suspension and $1,000.00 fine.

* * *

The public’s help is vital to weed out inept and dishonest members from the real estate profession.
If you suspect wrongful conduct in any way, do not hesitate to share your concerns with the Real Estate Commission. A complaint form can be downloaded by clicking on “Real Estate” in the forms section of the dlr.sd.gov website.

Don't Speak With the Adjuster if You Are in a South Dakota Truck Crash

Wed, 09 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

Your life can change in the blink of an eye, without warning. Perhaps you were driving down I-90 one afternoon in South Dakota when a truck crashed head-on into your car. Unfortunately, truck accidents can happen to anyone. Eighteen-wheelers are so big and heavy that truck drivers oftentimes cannot stop or swerve in time to avoid a crash.

According to the United States Department of Transportation, there are over 500,000 truck accidents each year. While only approximately 16 percent of these crashes are the trucker driver’s fault, an overwhelming number of motor vehicle operators are killed. If you are in a South Dakota truck accident, call Zimmer, Duncan and Cole, LLP, to speak with an experienced Sioux Falls truck accident lawyer.

Dealing with a trucker’s insurance company is difficult and frustrating, especially following a devastating motor vehicle crash. A knowledgeable truck accident attorney from Sioux Falls wants you to be careful if you try to deal with the aftermath of the crash yourself. Below are some tips that you may find helpful.

You must be sure not to:

Complete any paperwork given to you by the truck driver’s insurance company or sign any documents without having the forms reviewed by an attorney.
Talk to the truck driver’s insurance claims adjuster or legal representation, even if you believe that you did not cause the crash.
Release your medical records to the opposing party or their agents.
Speak with a private investigator.

Trucking accidents are complex and involve matters such as the size, weight and speed of the truck, as well as the type of cargo being hauled. Therefore, there always is more to the accident than simply your side of the story. Call a Sioux Falls truck accident attorney before the opposing party has a chance to twist your words around.

A motor vehicle crash with a truck is likely to result in serious damage to your vehicle and injuries. Sadly, the crash may also result in fatalities. Call Zimmer, Duncan and Cole, LLP, to consult with a truck accident lawyer from Sioux Falls if you or a loved one has been in a motor vehicle crash in South Dakota. Prepare yourself for your case by ordering a copy of our free book, 7 Deadly Sins That Can Wreck Your Injury Claim. Call our office at (888) 733-2992 for assistance. Our attorneys will fight for you to protect your rights.

Naked Man Hit and Killed Running Across Interstate 29 Near Brookings

Mon, 07 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

On Wednesday, April 25, Jason Childers, 28, of Crawfordsville, Indiana, was running across Interstate 29, near Brookings in South Dakota, when he was hit by a 2008 Chevrolet Equinox. The Chevrolet Equinox was driven by Bruce Mauney, 64, of Sioux Falls. The incident occurred after 6:00 a.m. while Childers was naked and running erratically across the highway. He was hit underneath an interstate overpass. Sadly, Childers died from the crash.

According to police, Childers was a transient who was living with another homeless man underneath an overpass at mile marker 132 on Interstate 29. A witness indicated that prior to being hit, Childers had been drinking alcohol before he removed his clothing and started running back and forth across the highway. Before Childers was hit, two individuals had called 911 to report his erratic behavior. Officers from the Brookings Police Department were responding to the calls when the unfortunate accident occurred.

After the accident, police determined that Mauney had been driving while intoxicated. He was charged with a first offense DUI. Mauney was not injured in the motor vehicle crash.

According to Brookings Police Department Captain Kevin Joffer, when police arrived at the scene they were trying to figure out why Childers was running across the interstate without any clothes. While they have experienced several auto-pedestrian accidents on the interstate, they had never seen an incident like this.

The South Dakota highway patrol is continuing its investigation into the motor vehicle accident.

The attorneys at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole, LLP encourage you to drink responsibly and never drink and drive.

Pierre Woman Dies in Fatal Crash Near Hayes, South Dakota

Mon, 07 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

On Saturday, April 28, 2012, a fatal crash occurred when Sadie Clark, 21, of Yankton, South Dakota, was driving a Dodge Caravan on South Dakota Highway 34. Her Dodge Caravan crashed head-on with a 2004 Ford F350 pickup truck. The pickup truck was being driven by Walt Taton, 53, of Faith, South Dakota. The crash happened after midnight, at approximately 12:15 a.m., just five miles west of Hayes.

According to police, Taton’s Ford pickup truck drifted into the eastbound lane that night, just prior to colliding with the Dodge Caravan. Sadly, a passenger in the Dodge Caravan, Heather Unser, 28, of Pierre, died in the motor vehicle crash. Neither Clark nor Unser were wearing seatbelts at the time of the collision, and both occupants had to be removed from the Dodge Caravan.

All three individuals involved in the crash were taken to St. Mary's Healthcare Center in Pierre. Clark suffered serious non-life threatening injuries as a result of the unfortunate accident. Reports indicate that while Taton was wearing a seatbelt, he also suffered serious non-life threatening injuries.

At this time, police believe that alcohol was a factor in the fatal collision. However, the crash is still being investigated and charges have not been determined yet.

We would like to extend our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Heather Unser, as well as to any others who were impacted by this tragic accident. Our thoughts for a full recovery also go out to both Sadie Clark and Walt Taton.

Sioux Falls Personal Injury Lawyer Shows Future Medical Needs at Trial

Sun, 06 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle crash in South Dakota and your case proceeds to trial, our experienced Sioux Falls personal injury attorneys will seek compensation for your future medical expenses. While it is much easier to show past medical expenses than future ones, we will make sure you are covered for any future surgeries, therapies, medical appointments and expert advice. As knowledgeable personal injury lawyers from Sioux Falls, we have to demonstrate that your future medical expenses are reasonably certain to occur. Essentially, it is our job to prove your need for continued medical care.

The attorneys at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole will provide, in part, the following evidence and testimony at trial:

Treating medical physicians will be asked about future:

Medical bills
Surgeries
Office appointments
Medications
Possible complications
Hospital stays
Need for assistive devices
In-home care

Medical experts will indicate additional information about the extent of the injuries, including your future needs
A mortality table will be used to determine the number of years you are expected to live if your doctor indicates that you will require yearly care
Medical records will show the extent of the injuries caused by the other motor vehicle operator

Call Zimmer, Duncan and Cole, LLP to speak with a Sioux Falls personal injury lawyer if you or a loved one has been in a motor vehicle crash in South Dakota. We have offices in Parker and Sioux Falls. We will work with medical experts to determine the extent of your injuries and your future needs. Call our law office at (888) 733-2992. You can also order a copy of our free book on our website, 7 Deadly Sins That Can Wreck Your Injury Claim.

South Dakota Students Reminded of Fatal Consequences of Drunk Driving

Fri, 04 May 2012 08:00:00 EST

Prom season is here in South Dakota and on Friday, April 13, 2012, Tea Area High School students were reminded of the dangers of drinking and driving.

Over the past six years, 57 teenagers have died in South Dakota as a result of driving while under the influence. Tea Fire Chief Grant Vanriesen wanted to make sure the students of Tea Area High School knew the repercussions of drunk driving and that their actions can have serious results. The fire department transformed the high school parking lot into a somber drunk driving accident scene.

Tea Area High School’s parking lot included the remnants of a fatal drunk driving motor vehicle crash with firefighters playing the role by assisting accident victims. While this was only an act to make teens understand the dangers of driving while intoxicated, students also witnessed a hearse pulling away from the school.

The lesson did not end there. Students even attended both a mock funeral and the criminal trial of two students involved in the car accident.

According to Vanriesen, what students saw was, in fact, the reality of drunk driving and the fatal consequences of making such a decision. It was the goal of the Tea Fire Department to save lives with this reenactment.

If you or a loved one is in a motor vehicle crash in South Dakota, contact Zimmer, Duncan & Cole, LLP to speak with a Sioux Falls car crash attorney. Call our office toll-free at (888) 733-2992 or complete the contact form on this page for a free consultation.

Crash Near Rapid City Claims Life of Driver & Causes Multiple Injuries

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

A head-on collision on Sunday, April 1, led to the death of a man from Rapid City. According to Lieutenant Rick Miller of the South Dakota Highway Patrol, the crash occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. when Vernon Dickenson, 31, was driving a 2000 Jeep Cherokee on a curve on Sheridan Lake Road, ten miles west of Rapid City, and crashed into a 1989 Chevrolet C1500 that was pulling a boat. The crash occurred near Boulder Hill Road. The driver of the Chevrolet C1500, Justin Hirchert, 35, of Rapid City, was taken to Rapid City Regional Hospital with life-threatening injuries. Sadly, Dickenson died at the scene.

Brenda Dickenson, 30, of Rapid City was a passenger in the Jeep Cherokee. She suffered life-threatening injuries and was transported to the hospital. Jim Hirchert, 59, also of Rapid City, was a passenger in the Chevrolet. He suffered serious, but non-life-threatening injuries as a result of the crash.

All drivers and passengers were wearing their seatbelts at the time of the motor vehicle accident.

Sheridan Lake Road was temporarily shut down after the collision; the crash remains under investigation by the South Dakota Highway Patrol.

We extend our deepest condolences to the family of Vernon Dickenson, impacted by this tragic accident. Our thoughts also go out to Justin Hirchert, Jim Hirchert and Brenda Dickenson for a quick recovery.

If you or a loved one has been in a motor vehicle crash in South Dakota, call Zimmer, Duncan & Cole to speak with a Sioux Falls car crash attorney. Contact the office at (888) 733-2992.

Crash in Mitchell Kills Nine-Year-Old, Driver Indicted on Manslaughter

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

On Saturday, March 24, a fatal motor vehicle crash occurred in Mitchell, South Dakota, that led to the death of a nine-year-old girl. Michael Sedlmeier, 46, from Mitchell, was driving a Ford Taurus south on Duff Street at approximately 2:50 p.m. when he was tagged for speeding by Mitchell Police. Sedlmeier then failed to stop at the First Avenue intersection and crashed into a GMC Yukon traveling eastbound. There were five passengers in the GMC Yukon, including nine-year-old Iszabella Morgan. All five passengers and the driver of the GMC Yukon were taken to the Avera Queen of Peace Hospital.

According to the South Dakota Highway Patrol, police attempted to stop Sedlmeier after the crash, but he fled the scene on foot. Mitchell Police caught Sedlmeier, who was originally charged with vehicular homicide, vehicular battery, DUI third and aggravated eluding. According to reports, Sedlmeier had a .206 blood alcohol concentration level; the legal limit in South Dakota is .08.

On Friday, March 30, the vehicular battery charge was replaced with a first degree manslaughter charge. Sedlmeier was indicted on the first degree manslaughter charge, as well as all other charges. A first degree manslaughter conviction carries with it a maximum of life in prison and a $50,000 fine.

Sedlmeier's bond also has been increased from $250,000 to $500,000 since his arrest. He remains in custody at the Davison County Jail.

The South Dakota Highway Patrol is continuing its investigation into the crash.

This is a tragic event and we extend our deepest condolences to the family of young Iszabella Morgan.

Two Deadly Motorcycle Crashes in Sioux Falls Area in One Week

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

Two fatal motorcycle accidents occurred within the span of one week in the Sioux Falls area. On Wednesday, March 28, Tony Johnson, 37, was riding his Kawasaki motorcycle on 26th and Edna when he crashed into a GMC Envoy SUV, driven by John Hodgson, 44. Sadly, Johnson was pronounced dead at the scene. No charges have been filed in this crash.

A second motorcycle accident occurred on Saturday, March 31, when Jonas Severin Hendrickson, 28, was riding his 1998 Harley Davidson on 464th Avenue north of 253rd Street, near Colton. Hendrickson lost control of his motorcycle and was thrown from the motorcycle as it went skidding. Sadly, Hendrickson died at the hospital. In these two crashes, neither motorcycle operator was wearing a helmet.

According to Jeremy Kills A Hundred, Powerbrokers Inc. Salesman in Sioux Falls, early riding has its disadvantages as there is still a lot of dirt and gravel on the road from the winter. But Kills A Hundred indicated that there are steps riders can take to protect themselves while riding, such as wearing a helmet and coat, regardless of the temperature. Kills A Hundred has seen an increase in motorcycle helmet use. With the different styles of helmets available for riders, he believes everyone should be using one.

As the weather improves, motorcycles will continue to come out on the roads. Contact the South Dakota motorcycle accident lawyers at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole if you or a loved one has been in a motorcycle crash. Call our office toll-free at (888) 733-2992.

Staying Safe at Sturgis While Riding Your Motorcycle in South Dakota

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

Each year, the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota plays host to hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists. The rally is already gearing up for this year and is scheduled to take place August 6-12, 2012.

With so many motorcyclists and motor vehicles on the road at the same time, dangerous and deadly accidents are bound to happen. If you or a loved one is in a motorcycle crash, call a South Dakota motorcycle accident lawyer at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole for immediate assistance.

Here are some tips for staying safe during the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally and whenever you are on the road:

Keep a safe distance between you and the vehicle ahead of you so that you have time to react if there is a quick change.
Do not lane split.
Drive within the speed limit and move with the flow of traffic.
Wear a helmet.
Do not operate your motorcycle while intoxicated.

Whether you are on your way to Sturgis or heading out for the day, these simple traffic and safety tips can help you avoid a South Dakota motorcycle accident.

Call Zimmer, Duncan & Cole, Attorneys at Law, if you are in a motorcycle crash in South Dakota. Our experienced South Dakota motorcycle accident attorneys will provide you with a free consultation to discuss your case. Call our office at (888) 733-2992 or complete the contact form on this page. You might also benefit from reading a copy of our free book, 7 Deadly Sins That Can Wreck Your Injury Claim, available on our website.

Police Officers Collide Responding to Call in Aberdeen, South Dakota

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

On Sunday, March 18, two police officers were responding to a call in Aberdeen, South Dakota, when they crashed into each other at an intersection, sending the officers and an intern to the hospital.

Officers Mark Miller, 27, and Alejandro Reyes, 28, were responding to a call from another police officer who was chasing an assault suspect at approximately 4:00am. The third officer witnessed the alleged suspect strike a person in the back of the head with his fists. The assault occurred in the same area as the crash, at the intersection of South Washington Street and Seventh Avenue Southeast. The suspect refused to stop for the police officer.

According to Police Chief Don Lanpher, Jr., the two officers were responding to the call and were driving from different directions. The officers crashed into one another and then into an apartment complex, snapping a tree in half. According to the building owner, Pat Preston, none of the units sustained any damage. The speed of the vehicles was not determined and it is not clear whether either vehicle had the sirens on and lights flashing. However, according to Lanpher, the officers are not obligated to turn them on as that may alert the suspect.

Miller was riding with 21-year old intern, Ashley Elliott, who suffered a broken collar bone and cracked ribs from the crash. Elliott was upgraded from fair to good condition. She was riding with Miller as a part of an internship course.

Miller suffered serious, but non-life threatening injuries and Reyes was treated for minor injuries and released the same day.

The investigation of the crash is ongoing.

South Dakota Lawyer Discusses Exceptions to Seat Belt Law

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

It is common knowledge that seat belts save lives and protect drivers and passengers in the event of a motor vehicle crash. Our South Dakota lawyers at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole represent clients every day who have been in car accidents throughout the state. We know the benefits of wearing a seat belt. Not only is it important to wear a safety belt in order to protect your life, it is the law in South Dakota. But, as with all requirements, there are a few exceptions to the South Dakota seat belt law.

Under what circumstances are you not required to wear a seat belt in South Dakota?

If the motor vehicle was manufactured before September 1, 1973
If your vehicle does not have safety belts because federal law did not require them at the time it was manufactured
If your physician has provided a written statement regarding why you should not wear a seat belt

Regardless of whether you fall under one of the above exceptions to the safety belt law, call our office today to speak with a lawyer from South Dakota if you have been in a motor vehicle crash. Zimmer, Duncan & Cole is a small law firm that will provide the individualized attention your case deserves. For a free consultation with a South Dakota attorney, call our law office at (888) 733-2992, or complete the contact form on this page. With offices in Sioux Falls and Parker, we are here to work for you.

Suffering Burns? How to Investigate Sioux Falls Truck Accident Cases

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

Suffering from burn injuries as a result of a South Dakota truck accident makes it difficult for the victim to obtain immediate information regarding the crash. With the ensuing chaos and while awaiting emergency medical personnel, your attention is on the pain and suffering rather than on gathering information.

If you have suffered from burns as a result of a South Dakota truck accident, our knowledgeable Sioux Falls truck accident lawyers at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole can conduct a thorough investigation of the collision to determine the cause of your injuries. While you recover, we will build a case for you to ensure you are fully compensated.

Our truck accident lawyers from Sioux Falls will conduct a complex investigation of the truck crash by:

Obtaining photos of the scene, including skid marks and location of the vehicles
Recreating the scene with experts
Reviewing speed zones and other factors, such as road conditions
Reviewing the trucker’s log to determine how long the driver had been on the road
Interviewing witnesses
Reviewing the police report and other relevant documents

Sioux Falls truck accident cases are unique in that there may be more than just the truck driver at fault. In some cases, the trucking company, loading company, or even the mechanic may also be liable for your pain and suffering if you have burns and other injuries resulting from the truck crash.

If you have been in a South Dakota truck accident, our Sioux Falls truck accident attorneys will investigate your case. Call our office toll-free at (888) 733-2992 or complete our online contact form for a free consultation. We are here to represent you while you recover.

Nothing New at the Core of the Health Care Debate

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

If an apple a day keeps the doctor away, how many apples would it take to fix the health care system?
Last week, our nation’s Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the health care reform bill. After cutting through all of the underbrush, the dispute hinges upon how the nine Justices will interpret one very short passage in our federal constitution. The case is called Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services. A decision by our Court is expected later this year.

* * *

Health care is a curious business. In many ways, it operates similar to the annual pledge drives for public television: you can still watch Sesame Street even if you don’t ever send in a donation. Likewise, our health care system allows the uninsured to rack up very large medical bills simply by getting sick or being injured in an accident. Congress estimates that this results in about a billion dollars of unpaid medical bills each week. These unpaid bills are then “shifted” elsewhere in the system…ultimately to those who are already paying for health care. This cost-shifting increases premiums for an average family by an estimated $1,000 per year.
(These unpaid bills also create other, hidden expenses for the uninsured: bankruptcies, foreclosures, divorce, and the health-related problems related to these stressful events.)
Fifty million Americans are uninsured. Many millions of these are young adults who are playing the odds: gambling that their youthful vigor will keep them out of the hospital. Millions more want insurance but can’t afford it. Others can afford insurance but have been denied coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition. This is a complicated set of problems that the free market has had trouble fixing. In response, Congress attempted a far-reaching solution in 2010.
As would be expected from an 891-page law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has many features.
It eliminates pre-existing conditions. It expands Medicare coverage for older Americans and Medicaid coverage for poorer Americans. It encourages employers to provide health plans to their employees (or, more accurately, it penalizes those who don’t). It creates a system where individuals can join together to purchase group insurance. And, most famously, it includes a mandate that requires every American to have health insurance, or else pay an annual penalty. This last feature has raised most of the ruckus. Even before the health care bill was passed, legal pundits argued that forcing Americans to purchase something was unconstitutional.
By now, it is mostly forgotten that another source of criticism of the bill was from state governments who believed that the health care bill will impose great costs upon their already-limited Medicaid budgets. The State of Florida was the first to challenge the constitutionality of the new law. The case was filed two years ago in federal court in Pensacola, Florida. Twenty-five other states have joined. It has slowly made its way through the appeals process, and last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments.
The key question in the case is whether Congress has the ability to pass a law that requires all Americans to pay a penalty if they do not purchase health insurance. The district court and the intermediate Court of Appeals both decided that Congress does not have this power.

* * *

Article I of our federal constitution reads like a check-list of powers that we give Congress: borrowing money; raising armies; declaring war; establishing post offices; building roads; and regulating interstate commerce. Following this list of “enumerated powers” is a rather vague phrase that also allows Congress to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” for executing those powers. Courts have interpreted this phrase (called the “Necessary and Proper Clause”) along with the Commerce Clause to justify a very broad scope of congressional power, for nearly any law that somehow impacts the stream of interstate commerce. For example, these clauses have allowed Congress to limit wheat production; prevent the movement of diseased cattle across state lines; prohibit racial discrimination in hotels; and outlaw home-grown, medicinal marijuana. In recent years, our Court has attempted to rein in this seemingly unlimited power, such as in 1995 by invalidating a gun control law because the link to “commerce” was too weak.
The question here is whether Congress can regulate those who are not participating in interstate commerce, i.e., those who are not purchasing insurance.
I predict that a majority will uphold the law using reasoning such as this: Congress can regulate insurance; an individual’s economic decision to forego insurance affects the rest of the market; the potential effect on commerce is unique and tremendous (health care accounts for one out of every six dollars spent in America); and the $1500 annual penalty for not having health insurance is a plausible attempt to eliminate the incentive for health care free-loaders.
In the past, our Court has allowed Congress to experiment with solutions to national problems, and if it passes a bad law, the remedy is at the ballot box, not in a courtroom.

Who's looking out for Mother?

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

An elderly widow sold the family farm to her youngest son, but soon became suspicious about the transaction.
When the contract was finally explained to her, she began to cry. Her son refused to cancel their agreement, so she asked the court to intervene.
The story of their Hutchinson County homestead is told in Pearl Neugebauer v. Lincoln Neugebauer (2011 S.D. 64).
You can find a link to the Court’s opinion and also to my previous columns at LessLegalesePlease.com.

* * *

Pearl Neugebauer and her husband raised seven children on their family farm near Dimock, South Dakota. Like a lot of farms in that area, theirs had a dairy barn. (I can tell you that if you’ve never had Dimock cheese, you’re missing out.)
Pearl’s husband died in 1980, leaving her with the farm. In 1984, she began renting it to two of her sons, Dennis and Lincoln. The farm was worth $117,000 at that time.
Dennis and Lincoln farmed the land for a few years together. Then, in 1989, Lincoln began farming it by himself.
From that point on, Lincoln had an oral lease with his mother and paid annual rent. She moved into Parkston the next year, while Lincoln remained out on the farm.
Each year, Lincoln paid $6,320 in rent. This was a figure he had chosen.
Pearl did not do anything to check on whether that amount was fair. She had only an eighth-grade education. Her husband had handled all of the family’s financial and legal affairs when he was alive.
After his death, she would ask her children to explain such things as Social Security, hospital bills, and other documents.
As for the rent, Pearl simply trusted Lincoln and left it up to him how much to pay. She did, however, expect that her son would be “fair”.
Their rental arrangement continued for almost twenty years. Then, in 2008 Lincoln brought his mother to his lawyer’s office to talk about buying the farm.
Lincoln and his attorney discussed the details in her presence, but Pearl said almost nothing. She was hard of hearing and couldn’t keep up with the conversation. She also didn’t understand the details of the proposed sale.
Two weeks later, Lincoln took his mother back to the lawyer’s office to sign the sales contract. Neither Lincoln nor his lawyer suggested that she should get her own attorney, and neither of them told her that Lincoln’s attorney did not represent her in the transaction.
After she signed the contract, Lincoln told his mother not to tell anyone about it.
Pearl became suspicious, and within a few weeks she showed the contract to the rest of her children.
They read through it and explained to Pearl that she had just sold her farm to Lincoln for $117,000, the farm’s 1984 value. Its present value was $697,000, almost six times as much.
In addition, the agreement was a contract-for-deed arrangement that allowed Lincoln to make payments over thirty years. Pearl, who was 84, would need to live to age 114 in order to receive all of those payments.
After hearing this, Pearl began to cry and asked her children to tear up the agreement. (Legally, this wouldn’t have accomplished anything, although it probably would feel good.) She then asked her son to tear up the contract and enter into a new deal that was “fair”.
When Lincoln refused, Pearl started a lawsuit to unwind the transaction.

* * *

In her lawsuit, Pearl asked for the court to “rescind” the agreement. In effect, she was asking the judge to tear up the agreement, and return her and Lincoln to the position they were in right before they signed their agreement.
In general, most contracts are presumed to be valid. However, courts will unwind them if they find clear evidence of a mistake or wrongdoing.
Here, Pearl alleged that her agreement with Lincoln was a result of “undue influence”.
Undue influence occurs when someone takes advantage of another—either by abusing a position of trust or by preying upon the other’s mental weakness or distress.
Undue influence is something that can happen with land transactions and also in the drafting of Wills. All too often, the victims tend to be the elderly or the sick.
In Pearl’s case, both the trial judge and the state Supreme Court agreed that Lincoln had taken advantage of her in order to get her to sign an unfair contract. The sale was voided, and Pearl gets her land back.

Rapid City Motorcyclist Dies in Collision on U.S. 16 in South Dakota

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

A fatal motor vehicle crash on Sunday, March 18, 2012, took the life of Carl Collins, 47, of Rapid City, South Dakota. The crash occurred on U.S. 16 near Rockerville. Collins died when his 1993 Suzuki motorcycle collided with a 2001 Jeep Cherokee. The Jeep Cherokee, driven by Jesus Guerrero Urquidez, 26, of West Point, Nebraska, included two passengers, Jose Pena, 22, and Marcelia Perez, 24, both from West Point.

According to reports, both Collins and Urquidez were heading eastbound on U.S. 16 when Urquidez tried to turn left onto Golden Hills Drive. Collins struck the Jeep Cherokee while it was making the left turn. The South Dakota Highway Patrol indicated that the motorcycle may have been speeding at the time of the crash, as reported to them by witnesses. Collins was wearing a helmet when the collision occurred and was transported to Rapid City Regional Hospital. Sadly, Collins later died of his injuries at the hospital.

Urquidez and Pena were also taken to Rapid City Regional Hospital with minor injuries; Perez was uninjured. Everyone in the Jeep Cherokee was wearing seatbelts.

No charges have been filed at this time, but the crash is still under investigation.

We extend our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Carl Collins, who were impacted by this tragic and unfortunate accident. Our thoughts are with them during this difficult time.

If you have been in a car accident in South Dakota, call the attorneys at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole for assistance. Call the office toll-free at (888) 733-2992.

Sioux Falls Attorney Explains How to Avoid Car Insurance Scams

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

The internet is fraught with scams and selecting auto insurance is no exception. Fake companies and unlicensed agents who know your need to obtain competitively-priced motor vehicle insurance coverage will prey on individuals looking for new coverage. They send out unsolicited emails and mailings offering attractive prices and policies. This scam is a multi-billion dollar business.

Sadly, you may not know that your insurance company is a fraud until you get into a car crash in Sioux Falls and find out that everything you have paid in premiums is lost. Additionally, it is against the law in South Dakota to drive without insurance coverage, even if you do so unknowingly. If you do not have insurance coverage, then you are considered an “uninsured driver,” which is a misdemeanor in the state. Don’t get caught in this costly scam.

Sioux Falls car crash attorney’s tips for selecting an auto insurance company:

Research several companies; look for existing client reviews and check how long the company has been in existence.
Use an experienced auto insurance company. Legitimate companies tend to be the ones that have been in business for years.
Speak with friends and family about their auto insurance providers.
Purchase insurance only through a licensed agent.

The Sioux Falls car crash lawyers at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole don’t want you to get caught in a scam. Follow the tips listed above when purchasing coverage. If you are in a motor vehicle crash in South Dakota call the attorneys at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole. Our experienced Sioux Falls car crash attorneys have been serving clients and winning cases throughout the state since 1948. Call toll-free at (888) 733-2992 or complete the contact form on this page for a free consultation.

South Dakota Car Accident Attorney Explains Importance of Insurance

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

As South Dakota car accident lawyers, we represent clients who have been in car crashes every day. We understand the importance of having car insurance, as it will protect you and your passengers if you have been in an accident. Whether it is a significant collision or just a minor fender bender, it is important that you exchange insurance information with all other drivers involved in the accident. Be sure that your car insurance information is always in your vehicle in case you are in a crash.

A South Dakota car accident attorney explains why automobile insurance is important -

An auto insurance policy will:

Protect you against uninsured and underinsured drivers
Cover damages to your motor vehicle
Cover medical expenses
Protect you from being financially liable in the event that you caused the crash
Protect other members of your family that use your vehicle

Since insurance companies offer different types of coverage and there are differences in insurance premiums, you should not assume that your specific policy meets your needs. You should speak with your insurance company to understand the nuances of your policy before you are in a South Dakota car accident.

If you have been in a South Dakota motor vehicle crash, call to speak with the knowledgeable attorneys at Zimmer, Duncan & Cole. With offices in Sioux Falls and Parker, we represent clients throughout South Dakota and we will make a strong case for your claim. Call our office toll-free at (888) 733-2992 or complete the contact form on this page for a free consultation. You may also order a copy of our free online guide, 7 Deadly Sins That Can Wreck Your Injury Claim, available on our website.

Long Road to Recovery Imperils Mother's Rights

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:00:00 EST

A woman’s three-decade struggle with alcoholism takes center stage in a case decided this week by South Dakota’s Supreme Court. The opinion involves an attempt by the State to terminate her parental rights. It is entitled In the Matter of L.S. (2012 S.D. 22).

* * *

Whenever a South Dakota court case involves allegations of child abuse or neglect, the family members are referred to only by their initials. For this week’s column, I think the mother (C.S.) and son (L.S.) deserve names so that their story can be told. I will call them Cheryl and Luke.
“Luke” is five years old. His mother, “Cheryl”, is an alcoholic. She began drinking at a very young age: she first entered rehab as a teenager. Following treatment, Cheryl got her life together and remained sober for two decades. During that time she had four children. Luke was the youngest.
When Luke was still an infant, Cheryl was faced with the sudden death of three loved ones: her mother; Luke’s father; and an infant daughter. Cheryl started drinking again, and began a slow, painful slide. Her pain and her drinking affected her young son and impaired her ability to parent.
The outside world didn’t find out until later. At age three, Luke wandered over to a neighbor’s apartment because his mother was acting strangely. Police arrived to investigate. Cheryl’s speech was slurred and her blood alcohol level tested at 0.34 (0.08 is the legal limit). For a 150 pound woman, this is the equivalent of fourteen drinks. The police arrested Cheryl on an outstanding warrant. Luke was removed from her custody and placed with a foster family through the Department of Social Services.
Cheryl completed a 30-day stint in rehab and attempted to get her life back on track again. She attended AA meetings and stayed sober for several months. She was soon reunited with her son Luke. For several reasons, the Department of Social Services was reluctant to allow this. For example, Luke had respiratory problems, but Cheryl continued to smoke inside the apartment. In addition, the Department was concerned that Cheryl was allowing her two adult children (Luke’s half-siblings) to live in the apartment. Cheryl’s adult daughter was arrested in connection with a bag of cocaine found in the home. Her adult son had problems with domestic assault.
Within a month, Cheryl started drinking again, and the bad situation turned worse. Police responded to a 911 call and found Cheryl’s door wide open. Inside, the officers found young Luke sleeping on the couch, near where his mother and her live-in boyfriend were passed out. This time, Cheryl’s blood alcohol level was 0.25. Luke was again removed from the home. Cheryl continued to drink.
A court date was scheduled to determine whether or not Cheryl’s parental rights would be terminated. At the last minute, Cheryl asked for a new date because she was in detox. A month later, Cheryl arrived at the courthouse for the re-scheduled hearing. She told the judge she wasn’t feeling very well because she was recovering from alcohol poisoning. Cheryl left during the hearing, and told her case worker she was going to the emergency room, and then to detox again. Instead, she went to a friend’s house.
The hearing continued without her, and Cheryl was nowhere to be found when the judge delivered the sad and final news: Luke was being taken away from her forever. Her rights to parent him were terminated.
Cheryl’s lawyer helped her appeal.

* * *

A parent’s rights can be terminated only if doing so would be in the best interests of the child. Courts must consider all other options first, including temporarily placing the child in foster care.
In legal terms, the rule is that courts must choose the “least restrictive alternative” available. In other words, terminating parental rights is at the very bottom of the list, and it is allowed only when nothing else will work better. Here, the Supreme Court decided that Cheryl had more than enough time to get her life back on track. She made some headway, but continued to miss appointments with her counselor, and she had lost control of her drinking. Although Cheryl clearly hoped to make things work, her success was temporary and exhibited a lack of effort.
The Court also pointed out that Luke thrived in foster care, and that he regressed during the short time he lived back home.
The Court’s final line sums up the reasoning behind its harsh decision: “When it comes to something as important as the welfare of young children, promises of the parents to conform to the standard of care for their children which is expected in our society do not carry as much weight as their past actions of not properly caring for the children.”

Farm Scam Leads To Foreclosure Dispute

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:00:00 EST

A million-dollar farm benefits scam continues to leave a trail of legal problems over a decade later. The South Dakota Supreme Court issued its opinion regarding the most recent piece of this mess, a bank’s foreclosure action. The case is called Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., v. Rock Creek Farms, et al (2012 S.D. 20).

* * *

David M. Finneman farmed in the western part of South Dakota in the late 1990’s. Like many farmers, he was eligible for federal farm programs, including the Farm Service Agency. FSA payments are available to support certain types of crops and also to promote conservation. Benefits are available only to farmers who have a true ownership interest farmland, and who contribute substantial labor, management, capital and equipment to the operation. (In other words, you have to actually be a farmer to get FSA benefits.) There is also an annual limit to the amount of benefits each farmer can receive.
When Mr. Finneman reached his annual benefit limit, he began working the system to try for more. Because the annual limit was determined on a per-farmer basis, Mr. Finneman came up with the idea of signing up for FSA benefits under other people’s names. He created a series of “sham ownership farming operations.” Each phony entity appeared to be operated by one of his relatives. However, this was not a traditional family farm: his relatives weren’t farmers, and weren’t even from South Dakota. His brother Steven, for example, was a truck driver from Montana. His wife’s brother Bernard was an oil field manager in North Dakota. His son was a teenager at the time. None of them met the government’s definition of “separate farmers actively engaged in farming.”
Mr. Finneman also began filing false crop insurance claims on behalf of these non-farmers and keeping the proceeds. After four years, Mr. Finneman’s scheme had tricked the government into overpaying him $1.3 million in farm benefits. Mr. Finneman was indicted on federal conspiracy charges. He pled guilty, and as part of his sentence was ordered to pay $1,000,000 in restitution to the U.S. government, plus interest.
In an effort to get paid on this debt, the government placed a “lien” on Mr. Finneman’s 17,000 acre farm. “Liens” on real estate are like involuntary mortgages. They are filed at the courthouse with the Register of Deeds. They announce to the world that you owe someone else money, and that this particular parcel of real estate is going to be used to pay the debt.
Liens function in a first-come, first-served fashion. When the property is sold, the first lien in line gets paid first, followed by the second one, and so forth. Like any other creditor, the federal government is allowed to file liens on your property. Usually a bank mortgage is at the very head of the line, so the bank will get paid first, followed by the liens. (However, some liens, like tax liens, have what’s called superpriority and jump ahead of the mortgage and all other liens.)
“Foreclosure” is the legal process of turning liens and mortgages into cash. Usually the process starts when the bank files a lawsuit against the debtor and all of the other lienholders listed with the Register of Deeds. The property is then sold via an auction on the courthouse steps conducted by the sheriff (called a “sheriff’s sale”). The highest bidder becomes the owner, and the sheriff then pays out the auction proceeds to the lienholders in their order of priority (starting with the bank, on down the line).
In Mr. Finneman’s foreclosure, the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale to Ann and Michael Arnoldy. A dispute then arose about something called the “right of redemption”. This right allows the owner of the property to re-purchase it by matching the winning bid. If you were the winning bidder at the sheriff’s sale, it complicates things when someone else holds this right to redeem. It also delays your ownership plans, because the redeemer often is given 180 days to come up with the money. Therefore the winning bidders (the Arnoldys) asked the court to confirm that nobody else was waiting in the wings to swoop in and match their bid. The trial court agreed that the Arnoldys were the true and only owners, as long as the federal government’s $1 million lien was paid.
Mr. Finneman disagreed. On appeal, he asked the Supreme Court to confirm that he had a right of redemption in the property.
The answer? We will never know because Mr. Finneman lost on a technicality. When he filed his appeal, he mistakenly forgot to send a notice of the appeal to the federal government. As a result, his appeal was dismissed outright.
The Arnoldys can now take ownership of his farm.

Sioux Falls Girl Injured After Being Struck by Car in Intersection

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:00:00 EST

ABC’s KSFY News recently reported on a situation that could have been deadly.

According to the news station, three girls were crossing the intersection at North Duluth Avenue and 3^rd Street in Sioux Falls, when one of the girls was struck by an oncoming car.

Police are still investigating the incident, and the girl, who was not named in the report, was taken to a local hospital. She sustained non-life threatening injuries. All of the girls crossing the street around 6pm that night were considered juveniles under the age of 18.

Luckily the Sioux Falls pedestrian accident did not result in a fatality, like most accidents involving cars striking children often do. As springtime approaches, bringing warmer weather and more opportunities for children to play outside, the lawyers at ZDC Law urge drivers to be extra cautious, especially around intersections.

Drivers should also take extra precautions around playgrounds, schools or places where children congregate. Teach your kids never to run into the street for any reason, and to instead have an adult help them retrieve items from the street. Children should also never cross the street unescorted from between two parked cars, or behind a vehicle at an intersection.

The same rules and suggestions for those traveling on foot apply to those on a bicycle, and remind kids to always wear their helmets.

For these and more tips on how to keep your child safe as a pedestrian and bicyclist, contact the lawyers at Zimmer, Duncan and Cole. If you are facing the aftermath of a Sioux Falls pedestrian or bicycle accident, you can also request a complimentary case evaluation by calling 877.336.1650 or by filling out the online form.

Children Injured After Sioux Falls School Bus, Semi-Truck Accident

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:00:00 EST

Five children were injured after a Sioux Falls truck accident near Bowdle, according to KDLT news.

Apparently the children were riding in a school bus shortly before 5pm, when the 72-year-old bus driver, Willis Morris, stopped at a stop sign and then proceed to cross Highway 47.

The bus then struck the side of a semi-truck that had moved onto the east shoulder of the road, coming to a stop on the highway. The semi-truck rolled into a ditch on the west side. The driver of the semi-truck, 50-year-old Jeffrey Neuharth, did not suffer injuries, and neither did Morris. Highway Patrol reported that both drivers were wearing their seatbelts.

According to the report, the five children who were injured did not sustain serious injuries.

While we are thankful that no one was seriously injured during this accident, the

Sioux Falls truck accident lawyers in our office still want to urge parents to talk to their kids about school bus safety. Many school busses do not come equipped with seat belts, and kids can easily be tossed out of their seats in the event of an accident. Teach your children about the importance of always staying seated while on the bus, and to never distract the driver.

Make sure that when your kids cross the street after departing from the bus, that they know to wait until the bus driver motions them across, and to never cross behind a bus or any other vehicle.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a serious Sioux Falls semi-truck accident, contact the lawyers at Zimmer, Duncan and Cole by calling 877.336.1650 or by filling out the online form to schedule a complimentary case evaluation.