Truman v. Griese
2009 SD 8, 762 N.W.2d 75 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public official's decision regarding the initial placement of a highway warning sign is a discretionary function protected by sovereign immunity unless a specific duty to erect a sign is mandated by pre-existing, applicable "standard uniform traffic control practices."
Facts:
- The case arises from an accident at a complex intersection of three highways known as 'Four Corners,' which includes a 'T' intersection and a curved 'Y' junction.
- On February 13, 2004, a vehicle driven by Monny Truman was traveling westbound on U.S. 14 and followed the highway as it curved south.
- At the same time, a vehicle driven by Richard Giago was traveling northbound on S.D. 63 and continued straight, crossing the path of the curving U.S. 14.
- The two vehicles collided nearly head-on at the junction.
- The collision resulted in the deaths of Patricia Truman and Sue Ann Giago, severe injuries to Monny Truman, Dee Ann Rounds, Richard Giago, and his son, and the loss of an unborn child.
- At the time of the accident, the intersection did not have certain warning signs that the plaintiffs alleged were necessary due to its design being a sharp turn, blind crossing, or other point of danger.
Procedural Posture:
- Monny Truman and other plaintiffs sued Darren Griese, a South Dakota Department of Transportation engineer, in a state trial court.
- The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, wrongful death, and loss of consortium.
- Griese filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
- The trial court granted Griese's motion for summary judgment.
- Truman, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a Department of Transportation engineer's decision on whether to place additional warning signs at a complex highway intersection a discretionary act protected by sovereign immunity under South Dakota law?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbertson, C.J.
Yes. A Department of Transportation engineer's decision on whether to place additional warning signs is a discretionary act protected by sovereign immunity. State employees are immune from suit for discretionary functions, which involve judgment and policymaking, but not for ministerial functions, which are absolute, certain, and imperative. The relevant statute, SDCL 31-28-6, mandates signs only 'at points in conformity with standard uniform traffic control practices.' This means the duty to place a sign is not triggered by the mere existence of a hazard, but by a specific directive in a manual like the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The plaintiffs failed to identify any such standard that applied to the unique 'Four Corners' intersection. Therefore, without a clear, pre-existing rule dictating his actions, the engineer's decision about whether signs were needed was an exercise of professional judgment and discretion, which is shielded by sovereign immunity.
Dissenting - Sabers, J.
No. The duty to place warning signs under SDCL 31-28-6 is a ministerial, not discretionary, act when certain factual conditions exist, and summary judgment was therefore improper. The statute uses the word 'shall,' which is a mandatory directive, not a grant of discretion. It requires an officer to erect a sign if a 'sharp turn, blind crossing, or other point of danger' exists. The officer's role is not to make policy, but to make a factual determination of whether the road condition meets the statutory criteria, which is an operational, ministerial function. The plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence, including MUTCD diagrams, to create a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide whether the intersection was dangerous. Furthermore, the fact that a violation of the statute is a Class 1 misdemeanor is inconsistent with the idea that the duty is discretionary, as one cannot be criminally prosecuted for exercising judgment.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a high bar for plaintiffs suing government entities in South Dakota for the failure to place traffic signs. It clarifies that the duty to act under SDCL 31-28-6 becomes ministerial only when a plaintiff can point to a specific, pre-existing, and applicable standard in a uniform traffic control manual. This makes it very difficult for plaintiffs to overcome sovereign immunity in cases involving unique or non-standard intersection designs where no explicit manual provision applies. The ruling reinforces judicial deference to the professional judgment of state engineers and significantly narrows the scope of potential state liability for highway design and signage omissions.
