Court Opinion

ID: 9485943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:34:13.520762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:27.314670
License: Public Domain

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s judgment because I believe that the question of Mr. Mueller’s informed consent was for the jury. There was enough evidence produced in this case to support a finding that Mr. Mueller consented to the way the litigation was being conducted and was therefore barred from later recovering for activity in which he freely and knowingly participated. Appellee, of course, as subrogee, stands in Mr. Mueller’s shoes and therefore takes the *554claim subject to any defenses with which it might be freighted.
I would have no difficulty predicting that the South Dakota Supreme Court would accept the proposition that Mr. Mueller’s consent would be a valid defense to this action. Not only does such a legal proposition comport with common-sense notions about liability, the appellee cites not a single case to the contrary.
I would therefore reverse and remand this case for a new trial.