Court Opinion

ID: 9515408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:56:23.912984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:29.042234
License: Public Domain

ZINTER, Justice
(concurring).
[¶ 70.] Considering the plain language of SDCL 62-4-37, Holscher’s proposed construction of the term “safety appliance” does not comport with logic and common sense. What could possibly be more dangerous and more detrimental to employee safety than this type of acid spill in the workplace? The spring-loaded valve was specifically intended to prevent such spills and injuries. If this type of device were not contemplated by the statute, nothing could qualify as a safety appliance. For the reasons expressed by the Court, the spring-loaded valve was an employer furnished safety appliance within the meaning of the willful misconduct statute.