965 N.W.2d 134
S.D.2021Background
- Hattum Family Farms (Bob, Todd, Chelsea) employed Troy (their son/grandson) and Chalan; Troy and Chalan were working on farm equipment when the accident occurred.
- On Aug. 8, 2016, Troy and Chalan attempted to weld a ½-inch split in a Peterbilt diesel tank at the farm shop after rinsing, drying, and pumping ATV exhaust into the tank; an explosion and fire ensued, fatally injuring both men.
- The Estate (personal representative for Chalan) sued the Hattums for negligence (unsafe workplace) and strict liability (abnormally dangerous activity); a co-employee, Jeff, had separate injury claims consolidated into the case.
- At summary judgment the circuit court (assuming welding the tank was abnormally dangerous) dismissed the Estate’s claims, applying the fellow servant rule and concluding Chalan had assumed the risk and that no breach of duty/training was shown.
- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the negligence/unsafe-workplace claim for lack of evidence that the Hattums breached a duty to train or supervise or that Troy acted negligently, but reversed dismissal of the strict liability claim and remanded on fact questions whether Troy acted within the scope of employment and whether Chalan assumed the risk; the court left open whether welding a diesel tank is per se abnormally dangerous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unsafe-workplace negligence (failure to train/supervise) | Hattums breached nondelegable duty to provide safe workplace and training; factual disputes exist. | Hattums instructed Troy/Chalan to leave the truck alone, had no notice to supervise, and no evidence of inadequate training. | Affirmed — no evidence of breach or causation; plaintiff needed expert proof on welding safety and training. |
| Vicarious liability for negligence (respondeat superior) | Troy acted within scope of employment when directing/preparing repairs, so employer liable. | Troy was not acting in scope; even if he was, no proof he was negligent. | Affirmed dismissal — plaintiff produced no evidence Troy acted negligently; vicarious negligence claim fails. |
| Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity | Welding a fuel tank is abnormally dangerous; employers may be liable via agency if Troy acted within scope. | Hattums not present, did not direct welding; Troy not in scope; fellow servant rule and assumption of risk bar recovery. | Reversed in part — genuine factual disputes exist whether Troy acted within scope and whether Chalan assumed the risk; remanded. Court left open whether welding a diesel tank is abnormally dangerous. |
| Assumption of risk (defense to strict liability) | Chalan did not knowingly accept the remaining risk after rinsing/drying and relying on Troy’s assurances. | Chalan knew the danger and voluntarily accepted it; should bar recovery as matter of law. | Court: assumption of risk is a cognizable defense to strict liability but here factual disputes (knowledge/appreciation) preclude summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamen v. Hamlin Cnty., 955 N.W.2d 336 (S.D. 2021) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Hanson v. Big Stone Therapies, Inc., 916 N.W.2d 151 (S.D. 2018) (summary judgment standards)
- Saathoff v. Kuhlman, 763 N.W.2d 800 (S.D. 2009) (nonmoving party must present specific facts to create genuine issue)
- Kirlin v. Halverson, 758 N.W.2d 436 (S.D. 2008) (respondeat superior and foreseeability test for scope of employment)
- Stone v. Von Eye Farms, 741 N.W.2d 767 (S.D. 2007) (employer’s nondelegable duty to provide safe workplace and supervision)
- Cashman v. Van Dyke, 815 N.W.2d 308 (S.D. 2012) (factors for abnormally dangerous activity)
- Grube v. Daun, 570 N.W.2d 851 (Wis. 1997) (discussion of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities)