construing the two statutes and stating that âthe task of determining proximate cause (and civil liability for wrongdoing) belongs to the courts, not the legislatureâ and â[t]o say that civil liability for such wrongdoing shall rest solely with the consumer, to the exclusion of all other wrongdoers, is questionable in fact and in theory. In fact, the words of the amendment [to SDCL 35-4-78] acknowledge serving of alcoholic beverages as a cause of injuries contrary to the legislative finding in SDCL 35-11-1â
How later courts described this case
- construing the two statutes and stating that âthe task of determining proximate cause (and civil liability for wrongdoing) belongs to the courts, not the legislatureâ and â[t]o say that civil liability for such wrongdoing shall rest solely with the consumer, to the exclusion of all other wrongdoers, is questionable in fact and in theory. In fact, the words of the amendment [to SDCL 35-4-78] acknowledge serving of alcoholic beverages as a cause of injuries contrary to the legislative finding in SDCL 35-11-1â
- holding that Walz decision applies both retrospectively and prospectively and that 1985 amendment to SDCL 35-4-78 attempting to abrogate Walz failed to accomplish its purpose
- "[T]he task of determining proximate cause (and civil liability for wrongdoing) belongs to the courts, not the legislature."
- “[T]he task of determining the proximate cause of injuries in individual cases is the duty of the courts and juries, not the legislature.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WUEST, Chief Justice
(concurring in part).
I concur in issue 1 (Retrospective or Prospective Application of SDCL 35-4-78(2) and Walz) and issue 3. (Effective Date of SDCL 35-11-1 and amended SDCL 35-4-78 and Retroactive Application) of the majority opinion. This requires a reversal of the judgment of the trial court. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to discuss the other issues in the majority and dissenting opinions. This court will review a law’s constitutionality only when necessary for a determination upon the merits of a cause. Investigation of Hy. Const. Ind. v. Bartholow, 373 N.W.2d 419, 420 (S.D.1985); State v. Big Head, 363 N.W.2d 556, 559 (S.D.1985); Baldwin v. First Nat. Bank of Black Hills, 362 N.W.2d 85, 90 (S.D.1985).