Title: SD DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Heim

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

357 N.W.2d 522 (1984) SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Tony HEIM, Defendant and Appellant. No. 14464. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs September 11, 1984. Decided November 7, 1984. *523 Mark Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief. James M. Cremer of Bantz, Gosch, Cremer, Peterson & Oliver, Aberdeen, for defendant and appellant. HENDERSON, Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of December 21, 1983, after trial to the court, denying compensation from the State of South Dakota for the destruction of a diseased elk herd. We affirm. A skin test administered to appellant's elk in September 1981, indicated the presence of bovine tuberculosis. The animals were placed under quarantine and on October 2, 1981, a Complaint for Abatement of a Public Health Hazard was filed. A similar suit was pending in the Eighth Judicial Circuit concerning the elk herd of James and Dwight Owen, which had been purchased from appellant. On December 8, 1981, the litigants herein stipulated that they would be bound by the decision of Judge Tschetter, Eighth Judicial Circuit, with regard to Owen's herd. The Heim animals remained in quarantine during this period. No further action was taken. Judge Tschetter's decision to destroy the Owen's elk came on May 13, 1982. This order was subsequently amended on August 18, 1982. A warrant to destroy appellant's herd was issued on August 19, 1982, by Circuit Judge Vernon Evans, Third Judicial Circuit. Appellant's elk were again administered the skin test. Those reacting positively were destroyed. Appellant brought action for compensation of the destroyed elk, claiming the State acted pursuant to its power of eminent domain. In City of Rapid City v. Boland, 271 N.W.2d 60 (S.D.1978), we established certain rules concerning the duty of the *524 government to compensate owners of property damaged or destroyed by the government. From the general rule requiring compensation, we delineated the following specific exceptions: Boland, 271 N.W.2d at 65 (footnote omitted). Based upon the record herein, it is clear that the destruction of appellant's diseased animals falls within the third exception to compensation found in Boland. This case is also governed by our holding in South Dakota Dep't of Health v. Owen, 350 N.W.2d 48 (S.D.1984). As stated in Owen, 350 N.W.2d at 50, Here, the trial court specifically found: These findings constituted a determination that the diseased elk herd was a public nuisance. Owen, 350 N.W.2d 48. Conclusions of Law numbers 2 and 3 provided: We cannot hold that this was clearly erroneous. Appellant concedes in its reply brief "that the only effective and economical means of eliminating tuberculosis in an animal herd is to destroy the entire herd." As destruction of the herd was a summary abatement of a nuisance imminently hazardous to the public health, safety, or welfare, appellant is not entitled to compensation. See Owen, 350 N.W.2d 48. Appellant insists that the one-year lapse between the discovery of the disease and its abatement indicates these animals were not a public nuisance and were taken under the State's power of eminent domain. The record indicates, however, that the time lapse was due to continuances urged and agreed to by appellant and not to any lack of diligence on the part of the State. We need not reach just compensation, incidental damages, or consequential damages due to our basic holding herein. Affirmed. *525 All the Justices concur. WUEST, Circuit Judge, Acting as Supreme Court Justice, participating.