Case Title: Kiel v. DeSmet Township

Citation: 242 N.W.2d 153

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1976-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
242 N.W.2d 153 (1976) Ardis KIEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DeSMET TOWNSHIP et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. 11598. Supreme Court of South Dakota. May 25, 1976. Vance R. C. Goldammer, Sioux Falls, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Gary J. Pashby and Robert J. McDowell, of Boyce, Murphy, McDowell *154 & Greenfield, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant. Lyle J. Wirt, of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for defendant and respondent Morris Lee. William G. Taylor, Jr., of Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for defendants and respondents DeSmet Township, Leslie Dannenbring and Selmer Skyberg. WOLLMAN, Justice. Appellant became totally blind as a result of injuries that she suffered when a car in which she was riding as a passenger ran off the road at a dead-end intersection on a township road approximately two miles northwest of DeSmet, South Dakota, late at night on June 27, 1971. She brought suit against the driver of the car, the township in which the intersection is located, the township supervisors, and the private contractor who had maintained the road in question for the township. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants except the driver of the car.[*] Appellant has appealed from the summary judgment entered in favor of the township and the township supervisors. We reverse. The pleadings, depositions and affidavits on file reveal that the township road in question, which runs north and south, ends at a "T" intersection with another township road at a point where the accident occurred. Some years prior to the accident the township supervisors had placed a road sign bearing the words "Dead End" on the west shoulder of the road approximately 250 feet north of the intersection. This sign had been knocked down on numerous occasions by persons transporting farm machinery and haystack movers over this road, which has a width of some 20 feet. On or about June 10, 1971, Merle Klinkel, defendant road contractor referred to above, observed this sign broken over and lying in the ditch as he was maintaining the road. In accordance with instructions that he had received from the township supervisors, he carried the sign to the "T" intersection, where he placed it facing north in the center of the intersection by inserting it in the fence that is located on the south right-of-way line of the east-west road with which the road in question intersects. Mr. Klinkel called one of the township supervisors later that day and told him that the sign had been knocked down and that he had placed it in the fence at the intersection. SDCL 31-32-10 provides in part that: SDCL 31-32-11 provides in part that: In Dohrman v. Lawrence County, 82 S.D. 207, 143 N.W.2d 865, and in Reaney v. Union County, 69 S.D. 392, 10 N.W.2d 762, this court held that the failure of the governing board or body to install adequate signs *155 warning of danger incident to a sharp curve or steep hill is not a violation of the duty imposed under the provisions of SDCL 31-32-10. In Jensen v. Hutchinson County, 84 S.D. 60, 166 N.W.2d 827, we said that SDCL 31-32-10 contemplates only damage to the driving portion of a highway and cannot be construed to apply to road signs. Appellant asks that we reconsider our decision in the Jensen case and adopt the views expressed by Judge Hanson, joined by Judge Homeyer, in dissent therein. Overruling a prior decision, especially a relatively recent decision, is not something to be lightly done. After due consideration, however, we conclude that appellant's argument is well taken and that the majority in the Jensen case took too narrow a view of the duties imposed upon a governing body or board by SDCL 31-32-10. We adopt the reasoning expressed by Judge Hanson in his dissenting opinion in the Jensen case, from which we quote as follows: In addition to the cases cited in Judge Hanson's dissent, see also Smith v. City of Preston, 97 Idaho 295, 543 P.2d 848; Fox v. City of Columbia, 260 S.C. 367, 196 S.E.2d 105. To the extent then that Jensen v. Hutchinson County, supra, holds that SDCL *156 31-32-10 includes damage only to the driving portion of a highway and does not contemplate that a highway can become out of repair by reason of the destruction of an existing road sign, that decision is overruled. We do not recede from the holdings in Dorhman v. Lawrence County and Reaney v. Union County, supra, that the failure of a governing board or body to install a road sign in the first instance does not give rise to a cause of action under SDCL 31-32-10 and 31-32-11. Whether the absence of the sign in question from its designated location caused the road to become out of repair, and, if so, whether such defect was a proximate cause of the accident, and whether the sign as placed at the intersection by Merle Klinkel constituted a "substantial guard" within the meaning of SDCL 31-32-10, cf. Lipp v. Corson County, 76 S.D. 343, 78 N.W.2d 172, are questions to be determined by the trier of fact. We hold only that a genuine issue of material fact exists for determination and that respondents are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In view of our holding, we do not reach appellant's argument that the doctrine of sovereign immunity be abolished or the claim that respondents are liable on the theory that the absence of the sign created a nuisance. The order granting summary judgment in favor of the township and the township supervisors is reversed. DUNN, C. J., and WINANS and COLER, JJ., concur. [*] Only the defendant road contractor made a motion for summary judgment. The township and the defendant supervisors made motions to dismiss, which were treated by the trial court as motions for summary judgment, apparently with the consent of all parties. SDCL 15-6-12(b). The trial court made an express determination that no just reason existed for delay for the entry of judgment and directed that judgment be entered. SDCL 15-6-54(b). Cf. Shyrock v. Mitchell Concrete Products, Inc., 87 S.D. 566, 212 N.W.2d 498; Brasel v. City of Pierre, 87 S.D. 561, 211 N.W.2d 846.