Red Bear v. SESDAC, Inc.
2017 SD 27
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Darelle "Bill" Red Bear, a state ward with mental disabilities, resided in a SESDAC group home and fell ill December 29, 2008–January 4, 2009; SESDAC staff monitored him but no medical professional examined him at the home; he died at the hospital on January 4, 2009.
- After death, SESDAC employees and state guardianship representatives participated in post-death decisions; the State (DHS) consented to organ donation and cremation; no next of kin participated in those decisions.
- Bill’s sister, Bernadine Red Bear, as administrator of his estate, sued SESDAC for: (1) negligent failure to provide timely medical care; (2) wrongful death; and (3) wrongful handling of the body/denial of next-of-kin rights and sought punitive damages.
- The circuit court granted SESDAC partial summary judgment dismissing the third claim and punitive damages, concluding SESDAC owed no duty regarding post-death decisions; trial proceeded on negligence and wrongful death counts.
- The jury found SESDAC negligent but that the negligence was not the legal cause of the claimed damages; post-trial motions (new trial, spoliation instruction, change of venue) were denied; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 29A-5-507 terminates state guardianship at death so SESDAC had post-death duty over body | Bernadine: guardianship ended at death, SESDAC (by contract/possession) was the only party with custody and thus owed duty to locate next of kin and secure consent | SESDAC: it never held guardianship; State remained responsible for post-death decisions; no statutory or contractual duty imposed on SESDAC to next of kin | Court: did not need to decide statutory interpretation; no duty established against SESDAC as matter of law; summary judgment on claim proper |
| Change of venue | Bernadine: pervasive local ties to SESDAC and underrepresentation of Native Americans made a fair trial in Clay County impossible | SESDAC: voir dire and cause strikes could and did remove biased jurors; no showing impaneled jury was partial | Court: abuse-of-discretion standard; plaintiff failed burden to show inability to obtain impartial jury; denial affirmed |
| Request for spoliation jury instruction | Bernadine: SESDAC controlled post-death decisions and destroyed evidence by consenting to cremation, warranting adverse inference instruction | SESDAC: did not possess/control the body; no evidence of intentional/bad-faith destruction | Court: instruction requires evidence of intentional destruction and control; plaintiff failed to show control or bad faith; instruction properly refused |
| Motion for new trial based on inconsistent verdict (negligence found but no causation/damages) | Bernadine: negligence necessarily implies injury; verdict was ambiguous/incongruent and prejudicial | SESDAC: evidence supported finding of no causation; expert testimony made causation uncertain | Court: jury could reasonably find negligence but not proximate cause; verdict supported by evidence; denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chisum v. Behrens, 283 N.W.2d 235 (S.D. 1979) (intentional interference with legal right to possession of a dead body is actionable and must be willful or malicious)
- Foster-Naser v. Aurora County, 874 N.W.2d 505 (S.D. 2016) (duty questions are legal issues for the court; summary judgment where no duty exists)
- Bordeaux v. Shannon Cty. Sch., 707 N.W.2d 123 (S.D. 2005) (party resisting summary judgment must show it can produce sufficient evidence at trial)
- State v. Engesser, 661 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 2003) (spoliation instruction appropriate only with substantial evidence of intentional destruction and control)
- Lenards v. DeBoer, 865 N.W.2d 867 (S.D. 2015) (denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion; jury verdicts reviewed for passion, prejudice, or legal error)