Miscellaneous

Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims: S.B. 138 (2017)

South Dakota|2017

Establishes guidelines for asbestos litigation. The plaintiff must provide the

[…]

Establishes guidelines for asbestos litigation. The plaintiff must provide the court and parties with a sworn statement signed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel indicating that all asbestos trust claims that can be made have been filed, provide all parties with any trust claims material, and if the plaintiff’s claim is based on exposure to asbestos through any other person, the plaintiff must produce all trust claims materials submitted by the other person. A defendant may file for a stay of the proceedings if there is information that could support additional trust claims by the plaintiff. The motion must identify any asbestos trust claim the defendant believes the plaintiff can file and include any information supporting the asbestos trust claim. If the court determines there is sufficient basis for the plaintiff to file an asbestos trust claim, the court shall stay the asbestos action until the plaintiff files the asbestos trust claim and produces related trust claims material.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Landowners and Trespassing Liability: H.B. 1087 (2011)

South Dakota|2011

Codifies existing South Dakota law with respect to trespassers by

[…]

Codifies existing South Dakota law with respect to trespassers by providing landowners immunity from liability for injuries to trespassers.  Provides that a landowner does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser and is immune from liability for any injury to a trespasser, unless the physical injury or death was intentionally caused.  Provides an exception for physical injury or death caused to a child thirteen years of age or younger resulting from an artificial condition on the land, if the landowner knew or had reason to know that children of that age were likely to trespass at the location of the artificial condition or if the person knew or should have known that the condition involved an unreasonable risk to such children.  The landowner also is liable for a child’s injury if the child did not realize the risk involved in the artificial condition, the utility to the person of maintaining the artificial condition and the burden of eliminating the danger were slight as compared with the risk to the child, and the person failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Y2K Liability: SB 186 (1999)

South Dakota|1999

Provides entities that have made an attempt to become Y2K

[…]

Provides entities that have made an attempt to become Y2K compliant with a rebuttable presumption that any injury based on Year 2000 disruption was not caused by negligence of the defendant


[hide]

Unchallenged

Obesity Litigation Reform: HB 1282 (2004)

South Dakota|2004

Exempted from civil liability manufacturers, sellers, trade associations, livestock producers, or

[…]

Exempted from civil liability manufacturers, sellers, trade associations, livestock producers, or retailers of any food or drink (as defined in Sec. 201(f) of 21 U.S.C. 321 (f)) when the claim is based on the individual’s weight gain, obesity, or a health condition related to weight gain or obesity, and the weight gain, obesity, or health condition results from the individual’s long-term consumption of a food or drink. The provisions also apply to cases that are currently pending.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Landowners and Trespassing Liability: HB 1087 (2011)

South Dakota|2011

Based on the ALEC model Trespasser Responsibility Act, codifies existing

[…]

Based on the ALEC model Trespasser Responsibility Act, codifies existing South Dakota law with respect to trespassers by providing landowners immunity from liability for injuries to trespassers. Provides that a landowner does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser and is immune from liability for any injury to a trespasser, unless the physical injury or death was intentionally caused. Provides an exception for physical injury or death caused to a child thirteen years of age or younger resulting from an artificial condition on the land, if the landowner knew or had reason to know that children of that age were likely to trespass at the location of the artificial condition or if the person knew or should have known that the condition involved an unreasonable risk to such children. The landowner also is liable for a child’s injury if the child did not realize the risk involved in the artificial condition, the utility to the person of maintaining the artificial condition and the burden of eliminating the danger were slight as compared with the risk to the child, and the person failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Frivolous Suits: SB 178 (1997)

South Dakota|1997

Requires the court to impose payment of part or all

[…]

Requires the court to impose payment of part or all of court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees upon a party whose action was dismissed and found to be frivolous or brought for malicious purposes.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Frivolous Suits: HB 1272 (1997)

South Dakota|1997

Creates a cause of action for barratry and institutes procedures

[…]

Creates a cause of action for barratry and institutes procedures for asserting the claim.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Employer Reference Liability: HB 1129 (1996)

South Dakota|1996

Presumes good faith when employers provide employee references unless it

[…]

Presumes good faith when employers provide employee references unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the employer recklessly, knowingly, or with malicious purpose, disclosed false or deliberately misleading information; or disclosed information subject to a nondisclosure agreement or information that is confidential under any federal or state law


[hide]

Unchallenged

Abolishing the “Loss of Chance” Doctrine: HB 1164 (2002)

South Dakota|2002

Reversed the South Dakota Supreme Court’s adoption of the “loss

[…]

Reversed the South Dakota Supreme Court’s adoption of the “loss of chance” doctrine in a July 2000 decision. That doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover for damages upon a showing by a majority of evidence that a doctor’s negligence reduced a patient’s chance of recovering from an illness or injury. The amount of damages recoverable under the doctrine depends on the extent to which the doctor’s negligence contributed to the loss. The previous law permitted a plaintiff to recover for all damages for loss of chance of recovery upon a showing that a greater than 50 percent chance existed that the doctor’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s loss of chance of recovery. The previous law barred recovery upon a showing of a 50 percent or less chance of causation.

[hide]

Unchallenged