*1 794 right independent validity depends upon validity
from the to an action for of the resulting loss of consortium from death main cause action. Bitsos v. Red Owl (D.S.D. with this language: Inc., husband Stores, F.Supp. Scott, A cause of action therefоre derivative re Moberg S.D. page negligent injury N.W. sults from to one’s pointed injury spouse for the the decedent’s therein was loss of consortium act, neglect such or fault prior сaused lifetime to death. decedent’s There is as would entitled him to recover if right, however, have no such to loss of consor action, death ensued. That action cоuld had not independent, tium derivative or brought wrong- under the not have been wrongful spouse. death of one’s ful death statute. differs Hoekstra, supra. wrongful death before us as the action now remedy. statute constitutes the exclusive an complaint of the here show that action Id. It follows that Selchert’s cause ac by plaintiffs could have been maintained properly tion for loss of consortium was had not husband if death ensued. dismissed. apparently claiming that ac- Plaintiff is case is for further pro- remanded brought may
tions based on death ceedings consistent husband, wrongful of her one under the death statute and the other for loss All the Justices concur. consortium. do not believe that Judge Acting Circuit Court as a сontemplated by legis- such was ever participating. adoption wrongful lature opinion death statute. We are of the brought action can un- where an statute, it
der this is an exclusive reme-
dy-
A comparison of the actions which
plaintiff under our contends authorized statutes, wrong-
constitution In the Matter of the ful death statute further discloses the DISCIPLINE OF WILLIS, legislature. parties intent of the as an Attorney at Law. receiving the benefits of these actions plaintiff are of the class. The same beneficiary this action would be a beneficiary perhaps the chief or sole brought wrongful under action Original Proceeding expressly death statute. This statute Argued
permits
jury
give damages
may
proportionate
injury.
think
to all
110-11,
(emphasis
Id. at
original).
Although interspousal consortium Swanson, personаl right, supra,
is a spousal for the loss of cause action
consortium is derivative in nature. See Miller, 337
Titze v. N.W.2d 176
compare Titze,
1983) (Henderson, dissenting); Budahl Associates,
v. Gordon David Hasvold, Wilson v. (1972). Thus,
S.D.
practice centers around business ventures and real estate transactions.
In the summer of Willis was called testify to grand jury. Therein, before the pertinent present situation, to the Willis testified, alia, inter using to cocaine on several occasions in 1982. April On 1984, in a criminal trial unrelated to Willis using testified to cocaine on several occаsions and purchasing it on one occa- sion. granted immunity Willis was prosecution for testifying proceed- in these ings and criminally thus was not prose- cuted for his violations.
Apparently based on the above testimo- ny, Board of the State Bar of South Dakota investigation initiated an of Willis’ conduct. At a hearing held on again June using testified to cocaine fоur or five times and purchasing it once in 1982. Willis also testified that he did not consider himself an addict, hours, did not during use it office did not it working use while on a provide anyone did not it to else. The Findings Bоard entered Proposed Fact and Recommendations on June possessed
found that Willis and used co- law; caine while licensed to that 22-42-5, this violated SDCL Canon 1-102(A)(3), DR which the latter two re- spectively require lawyers to assist Zieser, R. Atty. James for Discipli- maintaining competence nary Bd. Assn, South Dakota State Bar prohibit Tyndall, complainant. for turpitude. Crew, Michael B. Crew of disciplinary Crew Board recommended formal Sioux ac- Falls, respondent. tion to this Court and that Willis be sus- pended 1) for 90 if he failed to refrain
HENDERSON, Justice.
2)
drug
from illicit
yeаr;
use for one
com-
This is an
proceeding concerning mitted a violation of the Code of Profes-
discipline Attorney
Steven
C. Willis.
sional
that
constituted
year;
within one
graduatеd
Steven C. Willis
from the Uni-
3)
failed to
ser-
versity of South Dakota School of Law in
vice.
Findings
Willis acceded to the
May 1976 and was admitted as a member
Fact and had no objection
filing
of thе South Dakota State Bar Association
the same with this Court.
Upon
at that
graduation,
time.
Willis ini-
tially
accounting
worked for an
firm and in
A Formal Accusation was then filed with
1977, he became a licensed
pursuant
C.P.A. There-
this Court
to SDCL 16-19-67
after,
private practice
Willis entered
alleging
the above violations. Willis’ An-
sole-practitioner.
Sioux Falls as a
His
swer admitted the
and аdmitted
engage
cocaine
six times in his life
using
four to
that Willis did not
in the sale or
prayed
cocaine,
to take
finding
distribution of
was en-
equitable
appointed
Honor-
action. We
Willis used cocaine on
and a
able Robert L. Tschetter as referee
numerous occasions
1982 when he
January
hearing was held on
licensed
pur-
law and did
testimony
elicited at this
was es-
chase cocaine on one occasion.
sentially the
to in all
same as
testified
carefully
listened to and con-
*3
previous proceedings.
threе of the
Willis, Attorney
sidered the statements of
small, impromptu
cocaine use was in
social
represented
Crew who
and the rec-
sought
gatherings and its
was not
use
Disciplinary
ommendations of the
Board.
nor the main attraction. The referee en-
apparent
findings
It
from
becomes
the
by
findings similar to those made
the
referee,
of
recommendations
the
that the
Wil-
but recommended
referee viewed and considered this case in
suspended
practice
the
of
lis be
from
law
deep,
considering
solemn manner
the
days
susрen-
of
180 —the
Attorney
integrity
of
the
of
be
the
sion to
absolute and
second 90
legal profession,
protection of
the
the
the
upon
abeyance
to be held in
the fulfillment
рublic, and arrived at a
which
decision
previously
of the conditions
recommended
legal
serve the
the
would
best interests of
the
Board.
profession
general public.
Discipline
We refer to Matter of
of
the
recommendations of
sen,
303 N.W.2d
Appellant,
Plaintiff and
(1959);
Goodrich,
8,
pline decision for The ultimate Bar rests with this members of the State provides: 16-19-22 Court. SDCL Considered on Briefs have sole *4 Supreme Court shall the roll the name of power to strike from any attоrney and counselor at law and to suspend or to him
revoke his license practice for such time as shall
seem for cause shown.
Here, the referee considered competence of the attorney
legal profession, the fact that this
engaged
turpitude, protection public.
Holding that the referee’s recommenda- Attor- appropriate
tions are sanctions for
ney accordingly the sus-
pension from the of law for 180 suspension to be —the held and the second 90 to be abeyance upon the fulfillment of
conditions set forth above.
FOSHEIM, C.J., WOLLMAN, J., and Judge, Acting as concur.
MORGAN, dissents.
MORGAN, (dissenting). Justice
I dissent. report,
At the through speaking counsel, the court particularly advised in the
that, majority decision spite of the majority in the alluded to eases
triad of opted to stand on its
opinion, the spelled as was recommendation
previous majority in the basically the same reason
I dissent in Matter I did (S.D.1985).
Strange, 366