respondeat superior doctrine in South Dakota

2019The court also overruled a previous case to the extent that it could be read "to eradicate otherwise timely claims against a principal because claims based on the same facts would be time-barred if made against the principal's agent[.]" Id. (overruling Greco v. Univ. of Delaware , 619 A.2d 900 (Del. 1993) ). [¶11.] Focusing particularly on the lack of an actual adjudication on the merits, the Virginia Supreme Court held that a suit against the employer may proceed even though the suit against the employee is time barred.

2019The court also overruled a previous case to the extent that it could be read “to eradicate otherwise timely claims against a principal because claims based on the same facts would be time-barred if made against the principal’s agent[.]” Id. (overruling Greco v. Univ. of Delaware, 619 A.2d 900 (Del. 1993)). [¶11.] Focusing particularly on the lack of an actual adjudication on the merits, the Virginia Supreme Court held that a suit against the employer may proceed even though the suit against the employee is time barred.

2019Id. at 476 ; Cohen v. Alliant Enters., Inc. , 60 S.W.3d 536 , 538-39 (Ky. 2001). [¶10.] Similarly relying on principles attendant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Delaware Supreme Court emphasized that "the employer's liability hinges upon the employee's culpability -as distinguished from the employee's liability. " Verrastro v. Bayhospitalists, LLC , No. 233, CIV., 208 A.3d 720 , 725, 2019 WL 1510458 , *3 (Del.

2019Id. at 476 ; Cohen v. Alliant Enters., Inc., 60 S.W.3d 536 , 538–39 (Ky. 2001). [¶10.] Similarly relying on principles attendant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Delaware Supreme Court emphasized that “the employer’s liability hinges upon the employee’s culpability—as distinguished from the employee’s liability.” Verrastro v. Bayhosptialists, LLC, No. 233, CIV. 2019 WL 1510458 , *3 (Del.

2019Id. at 476 ; Cohen v. Alliant Enters., Inc. , 60 S.W.3d 536 , 538-39 (Ky. 2001). [¶10.] Similarly relying on principles attendant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Delaware Supreme Court emphasized that "the employer's liability hinges upon the employee's culpability -as distinguished from the employee's liability. " Verrastro v. Bayhospitalists, LLC , No. 233, CIV., 208 A.3d 720 , 725, 2019 WL 1510458 , *3 (Del.

2019Id. at 476 ; Cohen v. Alliant Enters., Inc., 60 S.W.3d 536 , 538–39 (Ky. 2001). [¶10.] Similarly relying on principles attendant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Delaware Supreme Court emphasized that “the employer’s liability hinges upon the employee’s culpability—as distinguished from the employee’s liability.” Verrastro v. Bayhosptialists, LLC, No. 233, CIV. 2019 WL 1510458 , *3 (Del.

2018Harvey quotes the two-prong test restated in Kirlin v. Halverson, 2008 S.D. 107 , 758 N.W.2d 436 , and Bernie v. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, 2012 S.D. 63, ¶ 9 , 821 N.W.2d 232, 237 .

2018Harvey quotes the two-prong test restated in Kirlin v. Halverson, 2008 S.D. 107 , 758 N.W.2d 436 , and Bernie v. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, 2012 S.D. 63, ¶ 9 , 821 N.W.2d 232, 237 .

1998The doctrine of respondeat superior may be invoked in a suit against the State; the doctrine is recognized in South Dakota as part of the common law of negligence, Rehm v. Lenz, 1996 SD 51, ¶ 21 , 547 N.W.2d 560, 566 , and here, the State "consented to suit in the same manner that any other party may be sued." SDCL 21-32-16. [¶ 46.] Contrary to Howard's assertion in the conclusion to his brief, made without supporting authority, it was not necessary for Hansen to implead any of Howard's subordinates in order to invoke the doctrine of respondeat superior: A governmental body subject to liabilit

1998The doctrine of respondeat superior may be invoked in a suit against the State; the doctrine is recognized in South Dakota as part of the common law of negligence, Rehm v. Lenz, 1996 SD 51, ¶ 21 , 547 N.W.2d 560, 566 , and here, the State "consented to suit in the same manner that any other party may be sued." SDCL 21-32-16. [¶ 46.] Contrary to Howard's assertion in the conclusion to his brief, made without supporting authority, it was not necessary for Hansen to implead any of Howard's subordinates in order to invoke the doctrine of respondeat superior: A governmental body subject to liabilit

2019Id. at 476 ; Cohen v. Alliant Enters., Inc. , 60 S.W.3d 536 , 538-39 (Ky. 2001). [¶10.] Similarly relying on principles attendant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Delaware Supreme Court emphasized that "the employer's liability hinges upon the employee's culpability -as distinguished from the employee's liability. " Verrastro v. Bayhospitalists, LLC , No. 233, CIV., 208 A.3d 720 , 725, 2019 WL 1510458 , *3 (Del.

2012The students also alleged the Diocese was directly liable under theories of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence in failing to properly hire, train, and supervise those who worked at the school. *237 All abuse was alleged to have occurred before the Yankton Sioux Tribe acquired ownership and control of the school in 1975 and 1976. [¶ 6.] After a prior appeal and remand from this Court, see Zephier v. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, 2008 S.D. 56 , 752 N.W.2d 658 , the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Diocese on all substantive and some procedural issues.

1994It has been clearly established for over a decade that the theory of respondeat superior is not applicable in § 1983 actions. “[A] municipality cannot be held hable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Brown v. Wallace, 957 F.2d 564 (8th Cir.1992) (the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 actions); Darrow v. Schumacher, 495 N.W.2d 511, 516 (S.D.1993).

1994It has been clearly established for over a decade that the theory of respondeat superior is not applicable in § 1983 actions. “[A] municipality cannot be held hable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Brown v. Wallace, 957 F.2d 564 (8th Cir.1992) (the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 actions); Darrow v. Schumacher, 495 N.W.2d 511, 516 (S.D.1993).

1994It has been clearly established for over a decade that the theory of respondeat superior is not applicable in § 1983 actions. “[A] municipality cannot be held hable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Brown v. Wallace, 957 F.2d 564 (8th Cir.1992) (the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 actions); Darrow v. Schumacher, 495 N.W.2d 511, 516 (S.D.1993).

1976See Pacific & Atlantic Shippers, Inc. v. Schier, 1969, 109 N.H. 551 , 258 A.2d 351 ; Small v. Bailey, 1962, Ky., 356 S.W.2d 756 ; Luther v. National Investment Co., 1936, 222 Iowa 305 , 268 N.W. 589 .

1976See Pacific & Atlantic Shippers, Inc. v. Schier, 1969, 109 N.H. 551 , 258 A.2d 351 ; Small v. Bailey, 1962, Ky., 356 S.W.2d 756 ; Luther v. National Investment Co., 1936, 222 Iowa 305 , 268 N.W. 589 .

1976See Pacific & Atlantic Shippers, Inc. v. Schier, 1969, 109 N.H. 551 , 258 A.2d 351 ; Small v. Bailey, 1962, Ky., 356 S.W.2d 756 ; Luther v. National Investment Co., 1936, 222 Iowa 305 , 268 N.W. 589 .

1976See Pacific & Atlantic Shippers, Inc. v. Schier, 1969, 109 N.H. 551 , 258 A.2d 351 ; Small v. Bailey, 1962, Ky., 356 S.W.2d 756 ; Luther v. National Investment Co., 1936, 222 Iowa 305 , 268 N.W. 589 .

1976Field & Co., 1975, 5 Cir., 516 F.2d 952, 958-59 , where the court held: “Under general tort and agency law, where an agent commits a tort while acting within the scope of his employment as the agent of another, he will be personally liable in damages, even though his principal is also liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior * * * In addition, the particular facts in this case indicate that Field acted in an individual capacity in addition to acting as president of Field Co., and therefore has incurred liability beyond that of a mere agent.” This general rule has been applied to action

1976Field & Co., 1975, 5 Cir., 516 F.2d 952, 958-59 , where the court held: "Under general tort and agency law, where an agent commits a tort while acting within the scope of his employment as the agent of another, he will be personally liable in damages, even though his principal is also liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior * * * In addition, the particular facts in this case indicate that Field acted in an individual capacity in addition to acting as president of Field Co., and therefore has incurred liability beyond that of a mere agent." This general rule has been applied to action

1957IIstrup’s negligence, insofar as the rights of Mrs. Bierman are concerned, is that of Lunderberg Motor.” See also Rozmajzl v. Northland Greyhound Lines, 242 Iowa 1135 , 49 N.W.2d 501 . *532 It follows that a reversal of the judgment against Wurnig will adversely affect Baker in that he will lose his right to be indemnified by Wurnig should he be compelled to pay the judgment.

1957IIstrup’s negligence, insofar as the rights of Mrs. Bierman are concerned, is that of Lunderberg Motor.” See also Rozmajzl v. Northland Greyhound Lines, 242 Iowa 1135 , 49 N.W.2d 501 . *532 It follows that a reversal of the judgment against Wurnig will adversely affect Baker in that he will lose his right to be indemnified by Wurnig should he be compelled to pay the judgment.

1932“The substance of the doctrine is that when the father or other head of a famly supplies an automobile for the use and pleasure of the family, permitting the members .thereof to use it at will, those members thus using the automobile become the agents of the head of the family, and that each one using it, even for his sole personal pleasure, is carrying out the purpose for which the automobile is furnished, and is the agent or servant of the head of the family, so that the latter is liable for injuries resulting from negligence, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Norton v. Hall et al,

1932“The substance of the doctrine is that when the father or other head of a famly supplies an automobile for the use and pleasure of the family, permitting the members .thereof to use it at will, those members thus using the automobile become the agents of the head of the family, and that each one using it, even for his sole personal pleasure, is carrying out the purpose for which the automobile is furnished, and is the agent or servant of the head of the family, so that the latter is liable for injuries resulting from negligence, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Norton v. Hall et al,