Please visit my author page at amazon.com
Darlette Mae Ridley v. Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue, Inc., et al.. SD Dog Bite
The dog in this South Dakota dog bite case originated in Sioux City and lived in Nebraska before moving to South Dakota. She was picked up by the Sioux City Humane Society in 2014. Defendant Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue (SEPR) took possession. Since that organization had no physical facilities, the dog was placed with a foster provider in South Dakota. Later, she was transferred to Platte, Nebraska, but was involved in a fight with that family's dog. She was then placed in a home in South Dakota.
That caregiver was on vacation and made arrangments with SEPR for a temporary foster home. The dog was assigned to defendant. The temporary stay was longer than anticipated, and the temporary foster parent took the dog camping to Newton Hills State Park, where the plaintiff was also camping.
One morning, the plaintiff went for a walk. The dog ran toward her and the collar broke. The plaintiff suffered a broken finger and required cleaning and stitches at the hospital. She sued SEPR and the current and temporary foster parents.
The circuit court, Lincoln County, Judge Douglas E. Hoffman, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed to the South Dakkota Supreme Court.
The high court affirmed. The injuries to plaintiff were not foreseeable as a matter of law. There was no knowledge of any dangerous propensity. Even though there was evidence of a fight with another dog, there was no evidence of prior attacks on humans. There was also no reason for the defendants to believe that the collar would break.
The court noted that South Dakota does not allow liability based upon a dog's breed or propensities. There is no breed-specific standard of care. In particular, it noted that in the case of pit bulls, any inbred aggressiveness is toward other dogs, and not humans.
The plaintiff pointed to a rule of SEPR that dogs with new caretakers should be kept isolated. Therefore, taking the dog to a campground was a violation of this rule. However, the dog had previously been through this procedure with this dog sitter, and there was no causal link. In particular, the dog was restrained on a leash. The court held that it was not foreseeable that the collar would break.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed.
2019 S.D. 48 (Aug. 7, 2019).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com