Sorace v. United States, No. 14-2683 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, Administratix of the Estates of Melanie Sorace and Jahneva Cannaday, filed suit against the United States, alleging a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674. Plaintiff's claim was based upon a drunk-driving accident on the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation that killed Melanie and Jahneva. Plaintiff alleged that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s Police Department (“RST PD”) was negligent in failing to locate and arrest the drunk driver prior to the accident.The district court granted the United States' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to allege a special relationship as required for a negligence claim under South Dakota law. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim for negligence. Plaintiff’s complaint also failed to state a claim under the public duty rule. Plaintiff's complaint failed to allege a specific South Dakota statute or regulation that imposes a mandatory duty on the police to protect a particular person or class of persons. The court found that the RST PD did not increase the risk of harm to Melanie and her children by failing to arrest the drunk driver. Therefore, the district court properly granted the motion to dismiss. Further, the district court did not err as a matter of law in not converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: White, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. In action alleging the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's Police Department was negligent in failing to locate and arrest a man before he was involved in drunk driving accident which killed plaintiff's decedents, the district court correctly determined that plaintiff had to demonstrate the existence of an actionable claim under South Dakota law in order to state a FTCA claim; the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for negligence since South Dakota law requires the existence of a special relationship in order to find that a defendant has a duty to prevent misconduct by a third party, and plaintiff failed to allege the existence of a special relationship; further, plaintiff failed to state a claim under the public duty role as the duty, in general, is to the public at large and even where a special duty to particular class of persons is owed, plaintiff failed to allege the reasonable reliance required to create the duty; further, the statutory scheme in place did not demonstrate the intent to protect a particular class of persons required by South Dakota case law; finally the police did not increase the risk of harm or put the decedents in a worse position by their actions; no error in converting the defendant's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment; no error in denying motion to file an amended complaint where plaintiff failed to attach the copy of the amended complaint required by local rule; in any event, amendment would have been futile.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.