 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hagemann v. NJS Engineering8/8/2001
As amended October 15, 2001.
KELLI HAGEMANN, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHAD HAGEMANN, DECEASED, AND JASON SIMS PLAINTIFFS
v.
NJS ENGINEERING, INC. AND LAWRENCE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THE LAWRENCE COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, AND CHARLES WILLIAMS, LAWRENCE COUNTY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT DEFENDANT
Daniel E. Ashmore Jennifer K. Trucano of Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell and Nelson Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for appellee Jason Sims Thomas E. Brady Spearfish, South Dakota Attorney for appellants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Amundson, Justice
Appeal from the Circuit Court of The Fourth Judicial Circuit Lawrence County, South Dakota Hon. Warren G. Johnson, Judge
Considered on Briefs May 31, 2001
Opinion Filed 8/8/2001
[ .] The County of Lawrence (County) appeals the trial court's dismissal of County's third-party complaint pursuant to SDCL 15-6-12 (b). We affirm.
FACTS
[ .] On June 24, 1999, Chad Hagemann and Jason Sims, co-employees of Alpha Omega Company, were travelling east on Lawrence County road number 664. Sims was driving a company vehicle as Hagemann was a passenger. While crossing a wooden bridge, a plank somehow lodged under the rear axle of the vehicle causing it to roll. Although Sims survived the accident, Hagemann was ejected from the vehicle and suffered fatal injuries. Alpha Omega paid worker's compensation benefits to Hagemann's estate. Hagemann's estate brought a wrongful death action against County for failure to maintain the bridge where the fatal accident occurred.
[ .] In response to the wrongful death action filed by Hagemann's estate, County filed a third-party complaint against Sims claiming that Sims was negligent in the operation of the vehicle. County claims it would be entitled to contribution or indemnity if it was found liable for the death of Hagemann because Sims was at least partially responsible for the accident. Sims filed a motion to dismiss claiming that SDCL 62-3-2 prevents suit against him. The trial court agreed with Sims and granted his motion to dismiss pursuant to SDCL 15-6-12 (b) (5). County appeals raising the following issue:
Whether SDCL 62-3-2 precludes County from seeking contribution or indemnity from Sims.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ .] This Court's standard of review of a trial court's grant or denial of a motion to dismiss is the same standard as that which is applied upon review of a motion of summary judgment- "is the pleader entitled to judgment as a matter of law?" Yankton Ethanol, Inc. v. Vironment, Inc., 1999 SD 42, , 592 NW2d 596, 597-98 (quoting Steiner v. County of Marshall, 1997 SD 109, , 568 NW2d 627, 631). Therefore, we review all facts most favorable to the non-movant party. Id. We continue to review questions of law, particularly issues of statutory construction, de novo. In Re Estate of Klauzer, 2000 SD 7, , 604 NW2d 474, 479.
DECISION
[ .] The disposition of this case depends on whether under SDCL 62-3-2, Sims is a joint tortfeasor pursuant to SDCL 15-8-11. "The intent of the statute must be determined from what the legislature said, rather than what this court thinks the legislature should have said, and this determination must be confined to the plain, ordinary meaning of the language used by the legislature." M.B. v. Konenkamp, 523 NW2d 94, 97 (SD 1994). The rules of statutory construction adopted by this Court state:
The purpose of rules regarding the construction of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|