# Dahl v. Sittner

> South Dakota Supreme Court · August 28, 1991 · 474 N.W.2d 897

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9724393

## Case

- **Full name:** Dewey DAHL and Lavonne Dahl, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Peter SITTNER and Sittner Real Estate, Inc., Defendants and Appellees
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 28, 1991
- **Citations:** 474 N.W.2d 897; 1991 S.D. LEXIS 159; 1991 WL 165592
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sabers
- **Judges:** Henderson, Miller, Wuest, Sabers, Amundson
- **Cited by:** 75 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9724393

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that statute altering requirements for obtaining 7 discovery in regards to claims for punitive damages was procedural and therefore was properly applied to claim arising before statute took effect
- explaining that statute altering requirements for obtaining discovery in regards to claims * for punitive damages was procedural and therefore was properly applied to claim arising before statute took effect
- noting that Section 21-1-4.1 "does not alter the standard of proof required to recover on a punitive damages claim"
- noting that the term “intentional” is synonymous with “willful”

## Opinion text

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I write specially to point out that, despite the statement to the contrary by the majority opinion, the trial court’s decision was not “properly” based on the “Restatement complicity rule.” I also take issue with the majority’s language that:
The facts of this case do not support that ‘Sittner was justified in concluding that Klock was not an unfit person;’ rather, the facts appear to preponderate that Sittner was reckless in employing Klock.
This language appears to improperly apply the wrong test. The test is whether genuine issues of material fact exist. They do exist. See, Wilson, 157 N.W.2d at 21. The majority even says so in the very same paragraph. As correctly stated therein, it is “for the jury, not the court,” or this court to “conclude” whether or not the facts “appear to preponderate” on Klock’s fitness or Sittner’s recklessness.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9724393. Public record. Not legal advice.