SHIRLEEN OLSON-ROTI, MARCIA HOHN, MARY THOMPSON, et el v. LINDA KILCOIN, as Personal Representative of Bert Van Dyke and Van Dyke Supply Company and Ferro Corporation 2002 SD 131
Annotate this CaseSHIRLEEN OLSON-ROTI, MARCIA HOHN, MARY THOMPSON, GERT HEIN, TERESA FONDER, PEGGE STARR, VERDELL KNITTEL, SANDY BRUESKE, SALLY WEBER, TIFFANY TEBAY, CONNIE HJELM and SUSIE SMITH,
Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
LINDA KILCOIN, as Personal Representative of Bert Van Dyke and Van Dyke Supply Company and Ferro Corporation,
Defendant and Appellee
[2002 SD 131]
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of
The Third Judicial Circuit
Lake County, South Dakota
Hon. Tim D. Tucker, Judge
RICK JOHNSON of
Johnson, Eklund, Nicholson &
Peterson
Gregory, South Dakota
Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants.
SUSAN BRUNICK SIMONS of
Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Attorneys for defendants and appellees.
Considered on Briefs August 27, 2002
Opinion Filed 10/23/2002
SABERS, Justice
[¶1.] Justice Richard W. Sabers delivers the majority opinion of the Court on Issue 1, which holds that hearsay statements by the decedent were admissible.
[¶5.] SABERS, Justice, writing the majority opinion on Issues 1 and 2.
[¶6.] Shirleen Olson-Roti and 11 others (collectively Olson-Roti) employed by Van Dyke Supply Company filed suit against Company and its owner, Bert Van Dyke, claiming damages for intentional and negligent exposure to dangerous chemicals. Van Dyke died prior to completion of the lawsuit and his daughter, Linda Kilcoin, was named personal representative of his estate and substituted as a defendant (collectively Company). Company now claims 1) on notice of review, that hearsay statements by decedent Van Dyke are inadmissible, 2) that Olson-Roti cannot pursue punitive damages without a separate cause of action, and 3) that a claim for punitive damages does not survive a tortfeasor’s death. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment on Issue 3 and ruled that hearsay statements made by Van Dyke were admissible under SDCL 19-16-34. We affirm all issues through separate opinions.
FACTS[¶18.] Our standard of review for summary judgment is well established and is “whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.” Manuel v. Wilka, 2000 SD 61, ¶17, 610 NW2d 458, 462 (quoting Parmely v. Hildebrand, 1999 SD 157, ¶7, 603 NW2d 713, 715-16 (citations omitted)). Questions of law are reviewed de novo without deference to the trial court. City of Colton v. Schwebach, 1997 SD 4, ¶8, 557 NW2d 769, 771 (citing Jasper v. Smith, 540 NW2d 399, 401 (SD 1995)).
[¶19.] “[E]videntiary rulings made by the trial court are presumed correct and are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Perovich, 2001 SD 96, ¶11, 632 NW2d 12, 15 (citing State v. Goodroad, 1997 SD 46, ¶9, 563 NW2d 126, 129). “The test is not whether we would have made the same ruling, but whether we believe a judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances, could have reasonably reached the same conclusion.” Goodroad, 1997 SD 46 at ¶9, 563 NW2d at 129 (citing State v. Rufener, 392 NW2d 424, 426 (SD 1986)). While the “ultimate decision to admit or not admit evidence is reviewable under the 'abuse of discretion’ standard, the court’s preliminary determination of whether the hearsay evidence is reliable will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.” State v. Davi, 504 NW2d 844, 849 (SD 1993) (quoting Matter of R.S.S., 474 NW2d 743, 749 (SD 1991)).
[¶20.] 1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
CONCLUDING THAT VAN DYKE’S STATEMENTS
ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER SDCL 19-16-34.
[¶25.] 2. WHETHER OLSON-ROTI ALLEGED A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
[¶26.] Company argues that South Dakota case law permits punitive damages only when they are supported by a separate cause of action. It argues that Olson-Roti is erroneously claiming that her claim for punitive damages is a separate cause of action, while it is only an element of damages. This point was conceded on oral argument by counsel for Olson-Roti.
[¶27.] This Court has stated that punitive damages are allowable only when
supported by a cause of action. See Henry v. Henry, 2000 SD 4, ¶5, 604 NW2d 285, 288 (quoting Schaffer v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 521 NW2d 921, 928 (SD 1994) (holding that “punitive damages are not allowed absent an award for compensatory damages”)). “If a jury returns a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor for zero damages in a case that requires proof of damages as an essential element, then the cause of action has not been proved, and no punitive damages can be awarded.” Henry, 2000 SD 4 at ¶7, 605 NW2d at 288, 289 (citing Prosser & Keeton on The Law of Torts § 2 (5th ed. 1984)).
KONENKAMP, Justice
[¶31.] It is not the policy of South Dakota law to punish the next generation for the wrongs of the last. And a dead wrongdoer is far beyond our temporal power to penalize. As the Restatement provides, in survival actions, “the death of the tortfeasor terminates liability for punitive damages.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 926(b) (1979); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 cmt. a (no punitive damages against representative of deceased tortfeasor in a death action).
[¶32.] Punitive damages in South Dakota are not designed to compensate victims. As Prosser explains, “it is generally agreed that punitive damages are a windfall to the plaintiff and not a matter of right[.]” Prosser and Keeton on Torts
§ 3, 14 (5th ed 1984); cf. Mongold v. Estate of Gilbert, 758 NE2d 1245, 1247 (OhioCtCommPl 2000) (punitive damages not awarded as additional compensation but to punish and deter conduct).
[¶33.] The punitive and deterrent aims of exemplary damages are inseparable. Our Legislature has spoken clearly on this point: a jury “may give damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing the defendant.” SDCL 21-3-2 (emphasis added). Therefore, both punishment of the tortfeasor and deterrence are required to satisfy the statutory punitive damage provision. As one California appeals court held in interpreting a similar provision, “[s]ince the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer for his acts. . . and to deter him from the commission of like wrongs in the future, the reason for such damages ceases to exist with his death.” Whelan v. Rallo, 60 CalRptr2d 876, 877 (CalCtApp 1997). Assessing punitive damages against an estate serves to neither punish nor deter the tortfeasor.
[¶34.] Concededly, the acts alleged against the decedent in this case describe reprehensible conduct. But we cannot ignore the clear language in our punitive damage statute declaring the purpose for punitive damages: to deter and punish wrongdoers, not their heirs.
[¶35.] Therefore, we affirm on Issue 3.
GILBERTSON, Chief Justice (concurring in the result).
[¶39.] While Olson-Roti mounts an impressive argument based on equitable public policy, this is not an equitable issue. Rather, the statutory interpretation of our punitive damage statute alone controls the resolution of this issue. In this jurisdiction, punitive damages have not been recoverable at common law, but rather, only where specifically authorized by statute. Vilhauer v. Horsemen’s Sports, Inc., 1999 SD 93, ¶¶19-20, 598 NW2d 525, 529-30; Thu v. American Family Ins. Co., 292 NW2d 109, 110-11 (SD 1985). SDCL 21-3-2 states:
In any action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, actual or presumed, or in any case of wrongful injury to animals, being subjects of property, committed intentionally or by willful and wanton misconduct, in disregard of humanity, the jury, in addition to the actual damage, may give damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing the defendant. (emphasis added).
The content of this statute has remained virtually unchanged since its enactment by the Dakota Territorial Legislature in 1877.[3] Schaffer v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 1996 SD 94, ¶22, 552 NW2d 801, 809, n6.
[¶40.] At virtually the same time, the Supreme Court of Iowa was asked to decide the very question that is now before us. In Sheik v. Hobson, 64 Iowa 146, 19 NW 875 (Iowa 1884), the court held that a claim of slander against a decedent defendant survived his demise and compensatory damages could be awarded against his estate. However, the court noted that claims for punitive damages uniformly died with the decedent.
But [plaintiff] had no personal interest in the question of [defendant’s] punishment. So far as [defendant] was concerned, the punitory powers of the law ceased when he died. To allow exemplary damages now, would be to punish his legal and personal representatives for his wrongful act; but the civil law never inflicts vicarious punishment.
19 NW at 875-6. See also Rowen v. Le Mars Mut. Ins. Co. of Iowa, 282 NW2d 639, 661 (Iowa 1979); Wolder v. Rahm, 249 NW2d 630, 632 (Iowa 1977).
[¶41.] The pertinent language of SDCL 21-3-2 appears to be the same as California in that it is allowed punitive damages “in addition to the actual damages,” and “for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” Evans v. Gibson, 220 Cal 476, 489, 31 P2d 389, 395 (Cal 1934). At the time of the Evans decision, that court’s research indicated that no case could be located which authorized a claim for punitive damages to survive the defendant’s death and be pursued against the decedent’s estate. 220 Cal at 490, 31 P2d at 395.[4] See also 25 CJS Damages 125(3).
[¶42.] Although somewhat more recent, the Supreme Court of Minnesota arrived at the same result based on its conclusion that the statutory intent of the punitive damage statute was for punishment of the tortfeasor and future deterrence of similar acts by the tortfeasor. The court concluded that neither purpose applied to a decedent. See Thompson v. Petroff’s Estate, 319 NW2d 400, 408 (Minn 1982). The Court further found as “not persuasive” the plaintiff’s claim that the allowance of punitive damages would serve as a deterrent to third parties. Id.
[¶43.] Fundamentally, I disagree with the public policy method of analysis for a resolution of this issue. It is not an examination of the majority vs. minority positions and a determination of which is most “persuasive.” In this case, it is solely a question of statutory interpretation and what the Legislature in 1877 intended when it enacted the predecessors to SDCL 21-3-2. The reliance on cases to the contrary which were decided for the most part a 100 years or more after the enactment of SDCL 21-3-2, provide no basis for a “judicial amendment” to the clear meaning of the statute. The weighing of the public policy benefits of one view as against the other is the prerogative of the Legislature, not this Court in the clear absence of a legislative directive for us to do so.
[¶44.] The statute in dispute is drawn in the public policy and language of 1877. It may today seem to some to be archaic and incapable of serving the state’s current public policy goals. However, as Justice Hugo Black once observed concerning the related issue of constitutional interpretation:
I realize that many good and able [persons] have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people’s elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being some-what old-fashioned I must add it is good enough for me.
Pitts v. Larson, 2001 SD 151, ¶35, 638 NW2d 254, 264 (Gilbertson, J., dissenting) (citing Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 522, 85 SCt 1678, 1702, 14 LEd2d 510, 537 (1965) (Black, J., dissenting)).
[¶45.] Thus, claims for punitive damages under our statute do not survive the tortfeasor’s death and cannot be enforced against the tortfeasor’s estate or heirs.
[¶46.] Zinter, Justice, concurs.
1. Congress has defined lead and cadmium as hazardous chemicals in need of regulation. 15 USC § 2601. Lead poisoning affects the neurological system, the blood, the kidneys, the gastrointestinal tract and the heart. Cadmium is a known carcinogen.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency considers a lead level of 40 mcg/dL in a person’s blood toxic. The Mayo Clinic considers a lead level of 30 mcg/dL in a person’s blood to be toxic. (R. at 284). Normal lead levels are 10 mcg/dL or less. (R. at 64).
[3] . Originally SDCL 21-3-2 constituted two separate statutes. See 1877 Civ. Code § 1946 and § 1974. However, the relevant language which we are now called upon to interpret remained intact through the combination of these two statutes in 1939. See SDC 37.1902.
[4] . The Evans interpretation of statutory language of § 3294 of the California Civil Code, which is the same as SDCL 21-3-2, is particularly persuasive as the source notes of SDCL 21-3-2 and the preface to the 1877 Dakota Territorial Code indicate it was based upon that California statute. 1877 Dak. Terr. Code page V of the preface. See also Trouten v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 SD 106, ¶31, 632 NW2d 856, 863, n3.
[5] . SDCL 21-3-2 provides: “In any action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, actual or presumed . . . the jury, in addition to the actual damage, may give damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing the defendant.”
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.