Court Opinion

ID: 9514273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:48:20.746343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:15.697684
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶ 37.] I agree that the three-year legal malpractice statute of limitations contained in SDCL 15-2-14.2 is not unconstitutional. The reason is obvious. The client has an opportunity to get a second opinion any time after the services are performed. The three-year period provides the client a reasonable opportunity to act on the advice or make other arrangements. One burned or killed from an explosion caused by faulty underground construction, as occurred in Daugaard, has no such opportunity. Therein lies the difference.