Pray v. City of Flandreau
2011 SD 43
S.D.2011Background
- Pray sues the City of Flandreau and Whiteskunk after a Rottweiler escaped and caused Pray to fall, injuring her knee.
- The incident occurred December 12, 2009; Whiteskunk and his girlfriend were outside on Whiteskunk’s property when the dog bolted across the street toward Pray.
- Whiteskunk’s dog was later designated a vicious animal under City Ordinance 6.4 after an April 2009 bite on a city employee.
- Pray claimed the City knew the dog was dangerous and negligently failed to enforce the vicious-animal ordinance.
- The City sought summary judgment relying on Tipton I, arguing no duty to protect Pray as an individual absent a special duty.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment, concluding the ordinance primarily protects the public and not a particular class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pray has proven a special duty owed by the City | Pray asserts Tipton I applies; facts show actual knowledge, reliance, and increased risk. | City contends no duty to Pray as an individual or class; ordinance protects public as a whole. | Not met; no private duty as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor, 538 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 1995) (establishes four-factor framework for private duty)
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor (Tipton II), 567 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 1997) (four elements not strictly required; considers actual knowledge with other factors)
- Hagen v. City of Sioux Falls, 464 N.W.2d 396 (S.D. 1990) (discusses intent to protect a particular class vs. public at large)
- Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1979) (public protection vs. private duty considerations)
- Andrade v. Ellefson, 391 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1985) (Minnesota authority cited on duty concepts in public enforcement)