South Dakota Issues

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

Appeal Bond Reform

Joint and Several Liability

Medical Liability Reform

Punitive Damages

Miscellaneous

Latest News

View all news

Louisiana’s “Judicial Hellhole®” Status Costs Residents $965 Annually In “Tort Tax”

King County Courts Named ‘Judicial Hellhole®’ for First Time

Michigan’s Legal Climate Kills 97,000 Jobs Annually, New Report Reveals

Show Me Your Lawsuit: St. Louis Ranks 7th in ‘Judicial Hellholes®’ Report

Cook County’s $21.3 Billion Problem: Lawsuit Abuse

California’s Judicial Hellhole® Status: Where Innovation Meets Litigation