Court Opinion

ID: 9566584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:41:03.082502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:34.804836
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I would affirm the trial court on Issue 1 because “the settlement agreement of March 2, 1982, operated as a complete defense ... in that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether fraud or duress induced the settlement.” Wilson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968); Hamaker v. Kenwel-Jackson Mach., Inc., 387 N.W.2d 515 (S.D.1986). To this extent, I agree with the majority opinion.
I would also affirm the trial court on Issue 2 because defendants owed a duty to Drier to use reasonable care in disposing of the finished forms. Whether they did or not raises genuine issues of material fact. Trapp v. Madera Pacific, Inc., 390 N.W.2d 558 (S.D.1986). Therefore, there is no doubt to resolve against Drier and the pri-ma facie case is appropriately rebutted. To this extent, I dissent.