Court Opinion

ID: 9674814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:35:47.209206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.823386
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the trial court.
I was of the opinion that the trial of lawsuits by “ambush” was long gone in this state. Here, the parties exchanged correspondence and phone calls and set up depositions in a manner that indicated both were actively seeking a new trial at the first opportunity. Suddenly, the year passes, and the defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under SDCL 15-30-16!
I am not concerned with the law firm that is victimized by this ruling as they will have their day at playing “hard” ball. But *110I am concerned with the little girl with a bad injury who is being wiped out by this decision. This court was concerned enough about her injury to remand this case for a new trial and she should receive that trial. In my opinion, the amended complaint, the absence of the treating physician for a period of six months, the extended correspondence and phone calls, and the setting of depositions was sufficient to sustain the court’s order under SDCL 15-30-16.
I would affirm.