Court Opinion

ID: 9657190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:17:11.652446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:42.030499
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part.
I think this court is overreacting to SDCL 15-26A-80 which results in decisions that rely too heavily on waiver of a point or argument by failure to cite authorities.
For example, in this case appellant’s brief relies on theories of negligence and breach of warranty as well as strict liability in tort. At page seven, appellant’s brief states:
For purposes of simplicity the theory of strict liability in tort will be emphasized in this argument. Plaintiff does not wish to imply that the theories of negligence and breach of warranty are not equally applicable to his claim by reason of this emphasis.
In other words, appellant is really saying that the arguments and authorities apply to all three theories even though he’s choosing not to restate them three separate times. In my opinion he shouldn’t have to either, even if he didn’t express this as well as he might have.
On remand, appellant should have an opportunity to prove all three theories of liability.