Hedel-Ostrowski v. City Of Spearfish

679 N.W.2d 491 (2004)

Free access to 20,000 Casebriefs

Nature Of The Case

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Facts

On September 18, 1999, P took her two children to a D city park. P fell when the swing she was using broke. The fall caused nerve damage in her lower leg. P retained counsel, and timely submitted a claim against D for her injuries. D denied her claim. P was referred to another attorney who failed to pursue her claim in court. P then retained a third attorney who commenced an action on her behalf on September 12, 2002. The complaint named D, Miracle Recreation Company, Playpower, Inc., and Cameron Holdings Corp. as defendants. P filed a Motion to Amend on November 7, 2002, to add D1, head of Spearfish Parks and Recreation, as a defendant. It also added a claim for nuisance against D in addition to her initial negligence claim. D filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming the negligence action was barred by SDCL 9-24-5 which requires commencement of an action against a municipality within two years of the occurrence. D also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that the negligence action against D1 was barred by the three-year statute of limitations in SDCL 15-2-14(3) and that the nuisance action against D should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted P's Motion to amend. It then granted summary judgment to D and D1 dismissing the negligence and nuisance claims. P appealed.

Issues

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Holding & Decision

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal Analysis

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner

© 2025 Casebriefsco.com. All Rights Reserved.