Legal Opinion · Dissent

Siemonsma v. David Manufacturing Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1988No. 16106Published

1DissentSabers, Justice

I dissent for these reasons:

1. TRANSAMERICA, AS PRINCIPAL, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS AGENT’S, DAKOTA INSURANCE AGENCY, NEGLIGENCE OR OMISSION TO ITS INSURED, PETERSON GRAIN SYSTEMS.

The majority opinion sets out the key statute but fails to abide by it.

59-6-9. Responsibility of principal for agent’s negligence or omission. Unless required by or under authority of law to employ that particular agent, a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful acts committed by such agent in and as part of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Groseth International, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Koeniguer v. EckrichSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Zukaitis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API