Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Domson, Inc. v. Kadrmas Lee & Jackson, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 19, 2018No. 28401Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

KERN, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

*407[¶38.] I join issues 1 and 2 of the majority opinion but dissent on issue 3 wherein the majority affirms the grant of summary judgment on Domson's claim of negligent design. Domson established genuine issues of fact sufficient to require a jury to determine whether Dakota Engineering/KLJ breached the standard of care and caused Domson damages due to negligence in designing the project plans.

[¶39.] Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Pierce v. Ford Motor Co. Mahone v. Ford Motor CoCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1951
  3. Bordeaux v. Shannon County SchoolsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State Auto Insurance Companies v. B.N.C.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Stern Oil Co. v. BrownSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012

2 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