South Dakota

May 11, 2023

South Dakota Personal Injury Verdicts and Settlements

In South Dakota, personal injury law governs a diverse array of legal disputes that arise from incidents causing physical injury, emotional distress, or other damages. These could include automobile accidents, slip and falls, medical malpractice, and more.

Understanding potential settlement payouts and jury awards in personal injury cases is crucial. The compensation a plaintiff might receive in South Dakota depends on various factors such as the severity of the injuries sustained, the degree of fault or negligence involved, and the unique circumstances of the case.

This page delves into personal injury law in South Dakota, including the state’s laws and regulations, such as the statute of limitations, and looks at recent cases to provide examples of typical settlement amounts and jury payout in South Dakota.

November 28, 2015

Negligent Credentialing in South Dakota

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A South Dakota judge ruled this week that health care providers are subject to negligent credentialling lawsuits when they fail to properly credential doctors.

Judge Bruce Anderson made another important ruling: that even people on the credentialling committee may be subject to suit. This has not real practical implications because a hospitals will stand behind the committee. But it is never fun to be sued personally, even if you have no real exposure.

The judge also found that hospitals cannot claim peer review privileges as an absolute defense against discovery requests. This is very pro-patient safety and could be a ruling that could start to erode the absolute defense from discovery; that has long been the case in Maryland and in most states. The judge’s logic: hospitals may have an obligation, in some cases, to the public that outweighs peer-review confidentiality. Makes a lot of sense to me.

April 17, 2012

Man Sues Hospital For Circumcising Him

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A 28-year-old prison inmate is suing the hospital that circumcised him as a newborn. The reason? He is claiming the procedure has robbed him of his sexual prowess.

He is alleging that the doctor misled his mother into thinking that the circumcision was a necessary medical procedure. He is arguing that it was unnecessary, unethical and without medical benefit.

What’s even more odd is what he is asking for as compensation. In addition to $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, he is asking that his foreskin be restored “in the hopes I could feel whole again,” though he acknowledges that he doesn’t expects the “restoration” to be anything more than aesthetic.

November 4, 2008

South Dakota Medical Malpractice Incorrect Jury Instruction: A New South Dakota Supreme Court Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The South Dakota Supreme Court has upheld South Dakota Circuit Judge Jon Erickson’s decision to grant a new trial in a medical malpractice lawsuit against a Huron doctor. The medical malpractice lawsuit arose out of complications from gallbladder surgery in 2001. The jury instruction stated:

A doctor is not necessarily negligent because the physician errs in judgment or because efforts prove unsuccessful.

The physician is negligent if the error in judgment or lack of success is due to a failure to perform any of the duties defined in these instructions.

September 24, 2008

South Dakota Supreme Court Rear End Accident Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last week in Baddou v. Hall, the South Dakota Supreme Court either enunciated new law or affirmed existing law (depending upon your perspective) on whether South Dakota has a presumption of negligence in Rapid City rear-end car accident case. The court’s answer: it does not.

This is bad law, in my opinion, because it makes South Dakota car accident lawyer prove a negative. Rear-end car accidents rarely happen in the absence of negligence and the defendant is the one in the best position to know the nuance of the negligence. It is basically a technicality generating law.

I disagree with the Plaintiff that a rear end accident should be negligence per se. Instead, the better law, applied in many states such as Florida, Maryland, and Colorado, is that there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence in rear end accident cases.