Lead Opinion
[¶ 1.] This case arises out of a one-car accident in a city park in Rapid City, South Dakota (the City). Adam Hohm (Adam) was severely injured when the car in which he was a passenger skidded off a street in the park and landed upside down in a nearby canal. Adam’s parents, Dean and Jean Hohm (Hohms), acting as Adam’s guardians and conservators, brought suit against the City alleging breach of various duties relating to streets. The City filed a series of motions to dismiss on the basis that it owed no duty to Adam. All of the City’s motions were denied and a jury entered a verdict for Hohms. The City appeals. Although we conclude that cities no longer owe the common-law duty applied by the circuit court, we apply our ruling prospectively and affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[¶ 2.] Between nine and ten p.m. on December 27, 2000, sixteen-year-old Char-issa Hitchcock (Charissa) was driving her car on a slippery, snow-covered street through Canyon Lake Park in Rapid City. Adam, also age sixteen, was riding as a passenger in the car along with another teenage passenger. As Charissa drove through the park, she came to a sharp curve in the road and lost control of her vehicle. The car skidded off the street and landed upside down in a nearby canal. Charissa and the other passenger were quickly rescued from the vehicle, but Adam was trapped underwater in the car and was deprived of oxygen for a period of time. Adam suffered severe brain damage as a result of the accident.
[¶ 3.] Hohms sued the City claiming violation of duties regarding the construction and maintenance of streets, the erection of guards, and the posting of signs warning of known dangers. The City moved for summary judgment, directed verdict, JNOV, and a new trial, all on the basis that it owed no duty to Adam. The City’s motions were denied and, after a jury trial, a verdict was entered in favor of Hohms. The City appeals claiming that
DECISION
[¶ 4.] One of the elements of a negligence claim is a duty on the part of the defendant. Id. The trial court concluded that the City owed Adam common-law duties to construct and maintain its streets in a reasonably safe manner and to erect guards or other barriers against dangerous conditions. The trial court further concluded that the City had a statutory duty under SDCL 31-28-6
[¶ 5.] The duties of counties and municipalities as to highways
The ground upon which it is held that counties are not liable for damages in actions of this character is that they are involuntary political divisions of the state, created for governmental purposes, and are organized without regard to the consent or dissent of the inhabitants; and the theory upon which municipal corporations, proper, are held liable in such cases, is that they are voluntary associations created and organized at the solicitation of, and with the free consent of, the inhabitants, under the laws of the state, and that the benefits accruing to the people by such incorporation compensate them for the liability.
Id. at 399,
[¶ 6.] The Court based this distinction on principles of sovereign immunity that, in the common law, protected counties and townships, as political divisions of the State, from liability for neglect of duties regarding highways unless an action was expressly authorized by statute. See id. (citing Barnett v. Contra Costa Co., 67 Cal.
[¶ 7.] Consistent with the holdings distinguishing county and municipal liability, this Court handed down a long line of decisions recognizing a common-law duty on the part of municipalities to keep, repair or maintain streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for public travel. See Bohl v. City of Dell Rapids,
[¶ 8.] In contrast with the common-law duty of municipalities, the Court held that county and township duties as to highway maintenance were statutory. For example, in the early case of Hanigan v. Minnehaha County,
Prior to the adoption of chapter 210, Laws 1915, which chapter was the original source of said sections 8589 and 8590, it was the settled law of this jurisdiction, following the rule of the common law, that a county was not liable for damages caused by the neglect of its officers to keep in repair a bridge upon a public highway because there was no express statute creating such a liability. That doctrine was enunciated in [Bailey, supra.]
See also Williams, supra (stating, before 1915, there was no statute imposing liability on townships-which are generally treated the same as counties-but, by chapter 210, Laws 1915, townships (and counties) were made liable under certain circumstances for injuries sustained because of defects in highways).
[¶ 9.] This 1915 act, referenced in Han-igan, supra and Williams, supra, was the first legislation imposing liability for negligence in highway maintenance. It explicitly applied not only to townships and counties, but also to towns and cities and broadly provided:
§ 1. Guards Erected — Repairs made. It shall be the duty of the road supervisors of any township, town or city, and the county commissioners of any county not fully organized into civil townships, to keep all public roads and highways, culverts and bridges in such condition as to render them safe and passable and free from danger of accidents or injury to persons or property, while in the lawful use thereof, and in case such roads, highways, culverts or bridges shall become in whole or in part destroyed or out of repair by reason of floods, fires or any other cause, to such an extent as to endanger the safety of public travel, it shall be their duty upon receiving notice thereof to cause to be erected, for the protection of travel and public safety, within twenty-four hours thereafter, substantial guards over such defects, or across such roads or highways, of sufficient height, width and strength to warn and guard the public from accident or injury to the person or property thereof, and it shall also be their duty to repair the same within a reasonable time thereafter. It shall also be the duty of any such supervisors to protect any abandoned public road or highway with substantial guards as provided in this act. § 2. Penalty. Any such officer or officers, who shall violate the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by*901 a fine of not less than ten ($10.00) dollars, nor more than fifty ($50.00) dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not less than five (5) days, nor more than ten (10) days, or both such fine and imprisonment.
§ 3. Damages. Any person shall have a cause of action against such city, town, township or county for injury to persons or property sustained by reason of any violation of the provisions of this act. § 4. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.
1915 S.D.Sess.L. ch. 210 (emphasis added).
[¶ 10.] The 1915 legislation went through various changes and modifications over the following years. It was first amended and codified at sections 8589 and 8590 of the Revised Code of 1919. Those sections retained the references to counties, townships, cities and towns and further retained broad duties relating to highways:
§ 8589. Guards Erected-Repairs. It shall be the duty of the governing body of every city, incorporated town and organized civil toumship, and of the board of county commissioners in territory not included in any such city, town or township, to keep the public highways, culverts and bridges in such condition as to render them safe, passable and free from danger of accident or injury to persons or property while in the lawful use thereof; and in case any highway, culvert or bridge shall become, in whole or in part, destroyed or out of repair by reason of floods, fires or other cause to such an extent as to endanger the safety of public travel, it shall be the duty of such governing body or board, upon receiving notice thereof, to cause to be erected for the protection of travel and public safety, within twenty-four hours thereafter, substantial guards over such defect or across such highway of sufficient height, width and strength to warn and guard the public from accident or injury, and to repair the same within a reasonable time thereafter. It shall also be the duty of such governing body or board to guard any abandoned public highway, culvert or bridge as provided in this article.
§ 8590. Violation-Penalty-Damages. Any officer who shall violate the provisions of the preceding section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than five nor more than ten days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and any person who shall sustain injury to person or property by reason of any violation of such section shall have a cause of action against the city, town, township or county as the case may be.
SD Rev Code 1919, § 8589, § 8590 (emphasis added).
[¶ 11.] In 1939, these two sections of the Revised Code of 1919 were replaced by SDC § 28.0913. That act retained the reference to counties, townships, cities and towns, but limited those entities’ duties as follows:
In case any highway, culvert, or bridge shall become in whole or in part destroyed or out of repair by reason of floods, fires, or other cause to such an extent as to endanger the safety of public travel, it shall be the duty of the governing body or board under statutory duty to maintain such highway, culvert, or bridge upon receiving notice thereof to cause to be erected for the protection of travel and public safety, within twenty-four hours thereafter, substantial guards over such defect or across such highway of sufficient height, width, and strength to guard the public*902 from accident or injury and to repair the same within a reasonable time thereafter. It shall also be the duty of such governing body or board to guard any abandoned public highway, culvert, or bridge in like manner.
Any person who shall sustain injury to person or property by reason of any violation of this section shall have a cause of action against the county, township, city, or town as the case may be for such damages as he may have sustained.
1939 SDC § 28.0913 (emphasis added).
[¶ 12.] The 1939 statutory changes were significant in two respects. First, they removed the broad duty imposed by § 8589 to keep public highways safe and free from danger, retaining only the limited duty to guard and repair highways that were destroyed or out of repair. See Reaney v. Union County,
[I]mpliedly eliminated common law negligence in keeping and maintaining county roads as the base for a cause of action against [a] County. If in the spirit of so-called enlightened public policy changes in the governing statute are again deemed appropriate, we believe the legislature will be cognizant of the need and will not remain insensitive to its responsibility.
Id. at 212,
[¶ 13.] The development of these statutes abrogating the common law and imposing statutory liability for negligence in highway maintenance is also important because, as emphasized in the text of all statutes quoted above, the change applied not only to counties and townships, but also to cities and towns, a point not previously recognized in our jurisprudence. Relying on both changes, the City argues that the legislative inclusion of cities and towns in the statutes abrogated its common-law duties as to highway maintenance and subjected it to the new, limited statutory liability identical to that of counties and townships; i.e., that the narrowing of statutory duties in 1939, as recognized in Reaney, supra and Dohrman, supra, also applied to municipalities. If applicable to municipalities, the current successor to 1939 SDC § 28.0913, SDCL 31-32-10, limits liability like the 1939 legislation as follows:
If any highway, culvert, or bridge is damaged by flood, fire or other cause, to the extent that it endangers the safety of public travel, the governing body responsible for the maintenance of such highway, culvert, or bridge, shall within forty-eight hours of receiving notice of such danger, erect guards over such defect or across such highway of sufficient height, width, and strength to guard the*903 public from accident or injury and shall repair the damage or provide an alternative means of crossing within a reasonable time after receiving notice of the danger. The governing body shall erect a similar guard across any abandoned public highway, culvert, or bridge. Any officer who violates any of the provisions of this section commits a petty offense.
SDCL 31-32-10. Thus, the City contends that under the 1915, 1939, and current version of these statutes, its common-law duty was abrogated and its statutory duty is the same as counties and townships. The City further contends that, under SDCL 31-32-10 and the facts of this case, it owed no duty at all because the Rapid City street was not “damaged” or “abandoned” as required by that statute: rather, allegedly the street was defectively constructed, maintained, or lacked adequate warnings.
[¶ 14.] These contentions require us to address the effect of changes in statutes on the common law. There is no question that the common-law doctrine as set forth in Bailey predates any relevant statutory enactments on duties of a municipality concerning streets. The test for whether a statute overrides a previously recognized common-law doctrine was established in our first Territorial Code of 1877:
The evidence of the common law, including the law merchant, is found in the decisions of the tribunals.
In this state the rules of the common law, including the rules of the law merchant, are in force, except where they conflict with the will of the sovereign power, expressed in the manner stated in § 1-1-23.
SDCL 1-1-24 (originally Rev.Code Terr. Dak, Civil Code §§ 5 & 6 (1877)). One of the methods of expressing the “will of the sovereign power” in SDCL 1-1-23 (originally Rev.Code Terr.Dak, Civil Code § 3 (1877)) to override the common law is “[b]y statutes enacted by the Legislature])]” Thus, in case of a conflict, the statute controls.
[¶ 15.] These principles have been reflected in the decisions of this Court.
As a general precept, common law is in force, except where it conflicts with the will of the sovereign power as expressed through the constitution, statutory enactments, and ordinances. SDCL 1-1-23, 1-1-24. See also McKellips v. Mackintosh,475 N.W.2d 926 , 929 (S.D. 1991). Where a statute is in derogation of common law, it should be “liberally construed with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.” SDCL 2-14-12.
State v. Shadbolt,
“When a statute revises the whole subject of a former one and is clearly designed as a substitute, the former law is repealed, although no express terms to that effect are used. Hillsborough County v. Manchester,49 N.H. 57 , 60; Opinion of Justices,66 N.H. 629 , 668-671,33 A. 1076 . ‘The rule does not rest strictly upon the ground of repeal by implication, but upon the principle that when the Legislature makes a revision of a particular statute, and frames a new statute upon the subject-matter, and from the framework of the act it is apparent that the Legislature designed a complete scheme for this matter, it is a legislative declaration that whatever is*904 embraced in the new law shall prevail, and whatever is excluded is discarded. It is decisive evidence of an intention to prescribe the provisions contained in the later act as the only ones on that subject which shall be obligatory.’ Roche v. Jersey City,40 N.J.L. 257 , 262. The rule is the same when the common law is revised by statute. State v. Wilson,43 N.H. 415 , 419, 82 AmDec 163; State v. Morgan,59 N.H. 322 , 324.”
Id. at 234,
It is true that so far as the substance of the right declared in said chapter [244, Laws of 1907,] is concerned, it is merely declaratory of the common law. But chapter 244 goes further than to merely restate the common-law right; it prescribes the method of procedure to secure the remedy; it assumes to cover the whole subject-matter of damages caused by trespassing animals, including the rules of practice to be followed in such cases. It is clear from the degree of minuteness with which the Legislature went into the whole subject, that the remedy provided was intended to be exclusive, and that it was the intent of the Legislature to repeal any existing provisions of that act.
Id. at 234-35,
[¶ 16.] Applying these principles to the original 1915 legislation on liability for negligence in highway maintenance, we observe that chapter 210 imposed duties on the road supervisors of “any township, town or city,” and on county commissioners to keep highways safe, passable and free from danger; to erect guards over substantial defects; and to complete repairs when such highways were destroyed or fell out of repair. 1915 SDSessL ch 210, § 1 (emphasis added). The act provided criminal penalties for its violation and a civil cause of action for persons injured as a result of noncompliance with its provisions. Id. at §§ 2 & 3. Finally, the act expressly provided that all other acts and parts of acts in conflict with it were repealed. Id. at § 4.
[¶ 17.] Clearly, the detailed provisions of chapter 210 express legislative intent to design a complete scheme of responsibility and liability for highway maintenance such that its requirements should be the only ones that were obligatory. Robinson v. Minnehaha County,
From [chapter 210] there emerges an unmistakable legislative intent to definitely fix the respective duties of the several subdivisions enumerated with reference to public safety and travel on the highways, and to provide for the recovery of damages from a particular subdivision occasioning injury through failure to perform the statutory duty assigned to it.
Id. at 632,
[¶ 18.] Consequently, chapter 210 did not merely restate the common-law duty of municipalities as to maintenance of streets, it prescribed the new statutory duties for cities, towns, counties and townships, enacted criminal penalties, and created a civil cause of action for violation of those duties. To paraphrase the Court’s conclusion in Burnett, it is clear from the degree of minuteness with which the legislature went into the whole subject, that the act was intended to be exclusive, and that it was the intent of the legislature to repeal any other acts or provisions of common law pertaining to the same subject.
[¶ 20.] Based upon this history, cities’ common-law duties respecting streets were abrogated by these legislative enactments. The duties are now limited by statute, and any language in the decisions of this Court after 1939 recognizing a common-law duty on the part of municipalities with regard to streets or highways is hereby overruled. This would include the language regarding a common-law duty in: Williams,
[¶ 21.] Hohms argue that any decision overruling these precedents should be applied prospectively only. Generally, unless a court declares otherwise, a decision has both prospective and retroactive effect. Burgard v. Benedictine Living Communities,
First, the decision to be applied nonret-roactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. Second, it has been stressed that “we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our eases for avoiding the injustice or hardship” by a holding of nonretroactivity.
Id. ¶ 10,
[¶ 22.] Today’s decision establishes a new principle of law by overruling the above precedents upon which litigants have relied and by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. While it is suggested that our decisions in Gulbranson v. Flandreau Township,
[¶ 24.] Thus, under our prior cases, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the City had a common-law duty to safely maintain its streets. See Williams,
[¶ 25.] Affirmed.
Notes
. SDCL 31-28-6 provides:
The public board or officer whose duty it is to repair or maintain any public highway shall erect and maintain at points in conformity with standard uniform traffic control practices on each side of any sharp turn, blind crossing, or other point of danger on such highway, except railway crossings marked as required in § 31-28-7, a substantial and conspicuous warning sign, which sign shall be on the right-hand side of the highway approaching such point of danger. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
. "Highway” is a generic term in South Dakota law defined to include "[ejvery way or place of whatever nature open to the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular travel[.]” SDCL 31-1-1. "Highways” include city streets. See City of Belle Fourche v. Dittman,
. Over the years, the Court also noted some confusion in its decisions on sovereign immunity as it related to municipalities. See Bu-cholz,
. As part of the common-law duty to keep streets and sidewalks reasonably safe, some of these cases recognized duties to construct streets and sidewalks so that they were reasonably safe (see Smith, supra), to guard against dangers {see Rowe, supra) and to provide warnings of defects (see Drake, supra).
. The specific language of the 1939 law imposed the duty on “the governing body or board under statutory duty to maintain such highway[.]” 1939 SDC § 28.0913. In 1939, the governing body or board under statutory duty to maintain a city’s streets would have been the governing body or board of the municipality. See 1939 SDC § 45.0201(94)(mu-nicipalities empowered to establish, improve and repair roads, streets, alleys and sidewalks).
. Hohms suggest that if the common-law duty is abrogated, we should also abrogate Orrison v. City of Rapid City,
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring specially).
[¶ 30.] Today we examine for the first time the full extent of a 1939 statute on municipal liability for street maintenance and construction. We conclude that the Legislature has strictly limited municipal liability for city streets to instances where the city fails to provide guards for an “abandoned” highway or neglects to timely repair or guard a “highway, culvert, or bridge ... damaged by flood, fire or other cause[J” SDCL 31-32-10.
[¶31.] This is a sharp change in direction. Almost from the time of statehood, cities have been liable under the common law for negligence in failing to maintain streets in a reasonably safe condition for the traveling public.
[¶ 82.] As the Court capably explains here, once having embraced the entire subject of highway liability in the early twentieth century, the Legislature then acted to limit that liability in 1939, with the enactment of the predecessor to SDCL 31-32-10 (SDC § 28.0913). Legislative intent to abrogate a common-law rule may be shown expressly when the language “ ‘speaks directly’ to the question addressed by the common law.” Rios v. Nicholson,
[¶ 33.] South Dakota is not the only state to limit governmental liability for highway construction and design. As society became more mobile in the last century, with the increasing role motor vehicles played in every facet of American life, government officials struggled with ways to contain the costs of building and maintaining safe roads. See generally Don F. Vacearo, Annotation, Liability of Governmental Entity or Public Officer for Personal Injury or Damages Arising Out of Vehicular Accident Due to Negligent or Defective Design of a Highway,
[¶ 34.] A troubling question arises: Why are we only discovering now that a statute enacted almost seventy years ago must be given effect after today? The answer is that until today, this Court has never been called upon to decide whether a municipal corporation’s common-law duty to maintain streets in a reasonably safe condition has been abrogated by legislation. While there have been cases examining the language of the 1939 statute, along with its predecessors and later amendments, no case involved a claim against a municipality where that statute was raised.
[¶ 35.] Nonetheless, there remains a considerable body of law retaining municipal common-law liability, and today’s opinion should be read narrowly. This Court has recognized causes of action against municipalities for negligence arising from many functions other than the duty to maintain streets. See Elkjer v. City of Rapid City,
[¶ 36.] A question that should be left open here is what influence our ruling will have on our numerous precedents dealing with sidewalks. In today’s opinion, the Court explicitly overrules language mentioning municipal street and sidewalk liability in several cases, but ultimately some of these cases deal only with sidewalks.
[¶ 37.] Finally, it must be candidly acknowledged that our purported new rule here is, in actuality, merely dictum. Although we declare that, after today, munie-
[¶ 38.] By understanding and acknowledging that our decision is dictum, we enable further development, refinement, and possible reexamination when the next case arises and we are called upon to actually apply the new rule. In the meantime, our Legislature will also have an opportunity to reconsider the 1939 law to decide if it truly wants to immunize the type of circumstances that occurred in this case.
. This Court has repeatedly recognized the common-law duty of municipalities to main
. Even as recently as two years ago we let stand a personal injury suit against a city on a claim that a bicyclist was injured by the city's negligence in failing to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition. Loesch,
. Gurney,
. It is important to point out, however, that our prospective ruling may be more properly labeled "judicial dictum.” "Judicial dicta are conclusions that have been briefed, argued, and given full consideration even though admittedly unnecessary to decision. A judicial dictum may have great weight.” Ceno Metal Products v. Marshall,
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring in result only).
[¶ 40.] I would affirm the trial court and not overrule our prior precedent. We have often commented on the legislature’s power to clarify or correct this Court’s interpretation of legislation. See State v. Schroeder,
[¶ 41.] In addition, the trial court instructed the jury on the duty imposed by SDCL 31-28-6. In that statute, the legislature mandated that “[t]he public board or officer whose duty it is to repair or maintain any public highway shall erect and maintain at points in conformity with standard uniform traffic control practices on each side of any sharp turn, blind crossing, or other point of danger on such highway, ... a substantial and conspicuous warning sign, which sign shall be on the right-hand side of the highway approaching such point of danger. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.” SDCL 31-28-6.
[¶ 42.] Even if the legislature meant to abrogate a common-law duty, as the majority has determined, the legislature did not absolve public entities of all duty to the public in regard to highways. The legislature clearly indicates in the statute that
[¶43.] Likewise, by buying insurance and participating in risk pools, public officials have committed to compensating citizens who are injured because of the public entity’s negligence. See SDCL 21-32A-1. We should acknowledge and affirm the public entity’s decision to pay for the injuries it has caused.