Opinion ID: 901338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Direct Negligence Did Ault Owe Any Duty to Close?

Text: [¶ 20.] There are three requirements in a negligence claim: (1) a duty on the part of the defendant; (2) a failure to perform that duty; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff resulting from such a failure. Kuehl v. Horner (J.W.) Lumber Co., 2004 SD 48, ¶ 10, 678 N.W.2d 809, 812 (citation omitted). The existence of a duty is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Bland v. Davison County, 507 N.W.2d 80, 81 (S.D.1993) (citation omitted). While negligence actions are not generally suitable for summary judgment, it is appropriate when the duty question is resolved in favor of the defendant. See id. Because this case was decided on summary judgment, we look at the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Kuehl, 2004 SD 48, ¶ 16, 678 N.W.2d at 813 (citation omitted).