Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-18-2024
Case Style:
Kevin Jucht v. Nathan Schulz
Case Number:
Judge: Chris Giles
Court: Circuit Court, First Judicaial Circuit Court, McCook CCounty, South Dakota
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Elizabeth S. Hertz and Mitchell A. Peterson
Description:
Salem, South Dakota personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a negligence theory.
[¶2.] The following facts are as set out in Jucht's complaint. Schulz farms land next to Jucht. Schulz "sprayed fields adjacent to Jucht's property with a chemical mixture in such a manner as to cause severe drift on Jucht's property." "That day at around 11:07 a.m., [Schulz] called Jucht to inquire what Jucht had planted on his property." Schulz "continued spraying, finishing around 6:00 p.m." Subsequently, Jucht's soybeans were damaged.
[¶3.] Jucht reported the incident to the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR). DANR advised Jucht to refrain from any involvement in the DANR's investigation of the report. Jucht subsequently sued Schulz for negligence, strict liability, trespass, and nuisance, requesting actual and punitive damages. Jucht's complaint alleged Schulz "had actual notice of DANR's investigation of Jucht's complaint." Jucht's complaint also alleged: "At no time did [Schulz] request entry to Jucht's property to inspect the damaged vegetation, and at no time did Jucht deny [Schulz] entry to his property."...
Jucht v. Schulz, 2024 S.D. 46, 30441-r-SPM (S.D. Aug 14, 2024)
[¶4.] Schulz filed a motion to dismiss under SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5), asserting that Jucht failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Schulz argued the circuit court must dismiss Jucht's complaint because Jucht failed to provide
notice to Schulz as required by SDCL 38-21-46.
Outcome: The motion was granted.
Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: