Three Reversals

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning: 1) Defense verdict in personal injury action reversed; 2) 2nd ruling for liability insurer reversed; 3) Expert on “false confessions” rejected. Summaries follows: HAMER v. DUFFY, CORNERSTONE POURED FOUNDATIONS, INC., 2026 S.D. 4: This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The jury ruled against the plaintiffs. The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial judge committed several errors: 1) error to exclude the testimony of two expert witnesses tendered by Plaintiffs; 2) error in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to “to assert violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations [as set forth at] 49 C.F.R. § 392.3”; 3) error to not instruct jury in regard to of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney KAISER TRUCKING, INC. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL, 2026 S.D. 5: In this case the tortfeasor’s liability insurer is contesting coverage. In a previous appeal, the SD Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the insurer. Kaiser Trucking, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 S.D. 64, 981 N.W.2d 645. On remand, the trial court once again granted summary judgment for the liability insurer. Once again, the SD Supreme Court reverses. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney. STATE v. HUANTE, 2026 S.D. 6: This is a 1st degree murder prosecution in Rapid City. The Defendant finally gave a confession, after being told that he failed his polygraph and that the investigators “knew” he shot the victim. The Defense claimed a “false confession” and put forward an expert witness to provide testimony on false confessions. The trial court ruled that the “false confessions expert” would be allowed to testify. The State took an intermediate appeal to the SD Supreme Court which reversed the trial judge’s decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a (4-1) decision with the majority opinion authored by Justice Salter on reassignment. Justice Myren filed a dissenting opinion in which he states: [¶90.] In my view, the majority opinion requires [the Defense] to satisfy a standard that is more demanding than Daubert requires and does not apply the appropriate level of deference required by the abuse of discretion standard of review applicable to this case. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .