792 N.W.2d 177
S.D.2010Background
- Salzer was injured July 30, 2006 when Barff, a Sturgis police officer, ran a red light responding to a grass-fire call; Barff’s siren was not activated.
- Salzer sued the City of Sturgis and Barff; the city was later dismissed by stipulation.
- Barff moved for summary judgment arguing Salzer’s claim was untimely under SDCL 9-24-5, which governs actions for negligence of a municipality.
- Salzer argued SDCL 9-24-5 does not include municipal employees and that SDCL 15-2-14(3) provides a three-year period for personal injury against Barff personally.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Barff (the defendant) on the basis of SDCL 9-24-5, and Salzer appealed for de novo review.
- The supreme court reverse-d remanded, holding that SDCL 9-24-5 does not include municipal employees and that Salzer’s claim against Barff personally is not governed by that two-year municipal limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 9-24-5 applies to Barff personally or only to municipalities | Salzer argues 9-24-5 excludes employees | Barff argues 9-24-5 includes employees as acting for a municipality | Barff not within 9-24-5; case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Perdue, Inc. v. Rounds, 782 N.W.2d 375 (S.D. 2010) (statutory-interpretation limits courts to plain meaning unless ambiguity exists)
- Famous Brands, Inc. v. Paden, 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D. 1984) (legislative intent derived from text and context)
- Racich v. Anderson, 608 N.E.2d 972 (Ill. Ct. App. 1993) (illustrative of employee inclusion in limitations regimes)