2025 S.D. 3
S.D.2025Background
- Chad Sully, treated by Dr. Smith for seizure disorder at Rosebud Indian Health Services Hospital, struck Lonnie Two Eagle, Sr. while driving after suffering a seizure.
- Dr. Smith, under contract via Avel eCare and Moonlighting Solutions, provided Sully with neurological care through telemedicine and advised Sully not to drive unless seizure-free for six months, but allegedly later told him he could drive prematurely.
- Two Eagle was severely injured in the collision and brought claims for medical malpractice and negligence against Dr. Smith, Avel eCare, and Moonlighting Solutions (the latter two only via respondeat superior).
- The circuit court granted defendants’ summary judgment motions, holding Dr. Smith owed no duty of care to Two Eagle, either based on special relationship or foreseeability.
- Two Eagle appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty based on special relationship | Smith’s undertaking to care for Sully extended protection to public | No direct relationship with Two Eagle | No duty owed |
| Duty under § 324A (Good Samaritan) | Negligent advice increased risk to public like Two Eagle | Dr. Smith’s actions didn’t create or elevate risk | No duty owed |
| Foreseeability of harm to Two Eagle | Smith could foresee risk to others from Sully’s driving | Link to Two Eagle too remote, not reasonably foreseeable | No duty owed |
| Public policy supporting duty to third parties | Physicians should protect public from foreseeable patient risk | Duty would harm patient-physician relationship, overbroad | Public policy opposes duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuehl v. Horner (J.W.) Lumber Co., 678 N.W.2d 809 (S.D. 2004) (existence of duty is fundamental in negligence; summary judgment proper if duty is absent)
- Koenig v. London, 968 N.W.2d 646 (S.D. 2021) (recognizes limits of duty to control third party to prevent harm; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315)
- Johnson v. Hayman & Assocs., Inc., 867 N.W.2d 698 (S.D. 2015) (clarifies distinction between foreseeability in duty and causation)
- Martinmaas v. Engelmann, 612 N.W.2d 600 (S.D. 2000) (standard elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)