925 N.W.2d 482
S.D.2019Background
- Maher owns a mobile home park in Box Elder that is supplied water by the City’s water system; park waterlines are privately owned.
- The City modified its water system in 2014–2015 (new well offline; booster pumps installed at Madison Well) to maintain supply to customers.
- In Feb. 2015 multiple waterlines in Maher’s park broke; Maher reported breaks and the City later installed pressure-reducing valves, after which breaks stopped.
- Maher sued the City for negligence, alleging the City increased system pressure without installing pressure-reducing valves and breached duties in designing/operating the system.
- The City moved for summary judgment invoking the public duty rule, arguing Maher had not shown the City assumed a special duty to him; the circuit court granted summary judgment for the City.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed, holding the public duty rule did not apply to this proprietary water-supply claim and remanding the negligence question for trial consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the public duty rule bars Maher’s negligence claim | Maher: this is ordinary negligence in operation of the City’s water system, not a public-safety/law-enforcement matter; public duty rule inapplicable | City: public duty rule prevents imposing liability absent proof the City assumed a special duty to Maher | Court: public duty rule does not apply; City’s provision of water is a proprietary service and Maher can assert ordinary negligence claim |
| Whether the City owed Maher a duty of care in operating its water system | Maher: City undertook to supply water to him and should exercise reasonable care like a private water supplier | City: any duty is only to the public unless a special duty is established | Court: City owed Maher a duty to operate and maintain the water system reasonably; existence of breach/causation remain factual issues |
| Whether the special-duty test (public-duty exception) governs this dispute | Maher: special-duty framework is for public-safety/law-enforcement failures and not required here | City: Maher must show a special duty under the Tipton four-factor test | Court: Tipton special-duty test is not triggered because this is not a public-safety/law-enforcement context; public-duty rule limited in scope |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Maher: disputed facts (e.g., City’s admission about valves) preclude summary judgment | City: absence of special-duty proof mandates judgment as a matter of law | Court: summary judgment reversed because the legal basis (public duty rule) was inapplicable; factual issues remain for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagen v. City of Sioux Falls, 464 N.W.2d 396 (S.D. 1990) (adopted public-duty concept and framed purpose-focused inquiry for statutes/ordinances)
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor, 567 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 1997) (established four-factor special-duty test under public-duty rule)
- Cromwell v. Rapid City Police Dep’t, 632 N.W.2d 20 (S.D. 2001) (sovereign immunity overview and waiver context)
- Walther v. KPKA Meadowlands Ltd. P’ship, 581 N.W.2d 527 (S.D. 1998) (applied public-duty rule; distinguished officer’s medical-assistance claim as outside rule)
- E.P. v. Riley, 604 N.W.2d 7 (S.D. 1999) (limited application of public-duty rule to law enforcement/public-safety contexts)
- Gleason v. Peters, 568 N.W.2d 482 (S.D. 1997) (declined to abrogate public-duty rule; explained policy rationale)
- McDowell v. Sapienza, 906 N.W.2d 399 (S.D. 2018) (applied public-duty rule to building-code/permit claim; codes aimed at public welfare)
- Elkjer v. City of Rapid City, 695 N.W.2d 235 (S.D. 2005) (recognized governmental entities may owe duties under general tort principles)