Court Opinion

ID: 9515020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:53:09.447132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:24.068836
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶ 21.] I concur in all respects except that I write specially on Issue C. Gratuitous Employee and Respondeat Superior, to point out that on this record:
Margaret Thuringer is the owner and employer;
Harley Hoisington, and his friend, Sandra Madsen, are her agents and appear to be gratuitous employees;
Heidi Aldentaler, along with her mother, Delaine Aldentaler, appear to be gratuitous employees.
[¶ 22.] On retrial, the questions of negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of the risk must be measured under the gratuitous employee doctrine of SDCL 60-3-1, Schmeling, 77 S.D. 8, 84 N.W.2d 558, and Smith v. Community Co-operative Association of Murdo, 87 S.D. 440, 209 N.W.2d 891 (1973), and the employer would be bound by her own negligence, if any, and the negligence, if any, of her agents, Harley Hoisington and Sandra Madsen. See also Nelson v. Nelson Cattle Co., 513 N.W.2d 900 (S.D.1994).