Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Jensen v. Sport Bowl, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1991No. 17156, 17171Published

1ConcurrenceWuest, Justice

I concur with the majority on the intentional tort issue. Jensen’s pleadings fail to meet the intent requirement of the intentional tort exception.

I concur specially on the second issue. “[EJvery person, including a minor, ... under any contract of employment ” is an employee covered by workers’ compensation. SDCL 62-1-3 (emphasis added). We must construe workers’ compensation statutes liberally to provide coverage. S.D. Med. Serv., 303 N.W.2d at 361. Construed liberally, the “any contract of employment” language of SDCL 62-1-3 should be understood to include “voidable” employment contracts…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Danek v. Meldrum Manufacturing & Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Winn-Lovett Tampa v. MurphreeSupreme Court of Florida · 1954
  3. Hill v. Moskin Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1960
  4. Rasi v. Howard Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Bingham Ex Rel. Austin v. Lagoon Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1985

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API