Guillaume by Guillaume v. Staum, No. 13709

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtFOSHEIM
Citation328 N.W.2d 259
Parties8 Ed. Law Rep. 487 Linda Lee GUILLAUME, by Ileen GUILLAUME, Guardian of Linda Lee Guillaume, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Darmon STAUM, George Donnelly, Charles Donnelly, Steve Taylor, Paula Boilard, and Elk Point Public School District, Defendants and Appellees. . Considered on Briefs
Docket NumberNo. 13709
Decision Date19 November 1982

Page 259

328 N.W.2d 259
8 Ed. Law Rep. 487
Linda Lee GUILLAUME, by Ileen GUILLAUME, Guardian of Linda
Lee Guillaume, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Darmon STAUM, George Donnelly, Charles Donnelly, Steve
Taylor, Paula Boilard, and Elk Point Public School
District, Defendants and Appellees.
No. 13709.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs Nov. 19, 1982.
Decided Dec. 28, 1982.

Page 260

R. Scott Rhinehart, N. Sioux City, and James R. Minick, Elk Point, for plaintiff and appellant.

James Doyle, Delvin N.J. Welter, Yankton, John Simko, Sioux Falls, John Murphy, Elk Point, and Lyle Wirt, Sioux Falls, for defendants and appellees.

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice.

Linda Lee Guillaume (appellant) brought this action in tort against the Elk Point School District and Paula Boilard and Steve Taylor (appellees), as its employees, for personal injuries received while under Ms. Boilard's and Mr. Taylor's supervision. Appellant was a member of the Elk Point School band and was injured while engaged in a required, supervised act: picking corn to raise money for the school band. Appellees' motion for summary judgment was granted on the basis of our recent decision in Merrill v. Birhanzel, 310 N.W.2d 522, 523 (S.D.1981), wherein we said, "No permission to sue the defendants (a school district and its employees) in tort on this type of action had then been granted by the legislature. Appellants cite no such statute nor are we aware of any. Absent such permission no suit could prevail." (Emphasis added, footnotes deleted).

Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal. However, this court granted her petition for intermediate appeal based on her statement therein that the only issue was the effect of SDCL 13-5-1. Accordingly, our review is confined to that public interest question. We affirm.

Appellant contends we erred in Birhanzel by overlooking SDCL 13-5-1, which states:

Any territory heretofore or hereafter organized for the express purpose of operating not less than a twelve-year school program and governed by a duly elected school board is defined to be a school district. It may sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with, purchase, hold, and use personal and real property for school purposes, and sell and dispose of the same. (Emphasis added).

SDCL 13-5-1 has been codified in essentially its present form since 1887. CL 1887 Sec. 1811. The import of SDCL 13-5-1 is to confer the powers necessary and incident to contracting. This statute, which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Dank v. Benson, No. 94,166.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 23, 2000
    ...303 Ark. 120, 792 S.W.2d 604, 606 (1990); Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 420 Mich. 567, 363 N.W.2d 641, 651-52 (1984); Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259, 261 (S.D.1982); Miller v. Chou, 257 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Minn.1977); State v. F.W. Fitch Co., 236 Iowa 208, 17 N.W.2d 380, 384 28. Powell, sup......
  • Aune v. B-Y Water Dist., B-Y
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 12, 1990
    ...immunity, create a cause of action in tort against the state college board. SDCL 13-49-11. Before Kringen, we held in Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259 In absence of a statute waiving sovereign immunity from tort liability, a statute authorizing a school district to sue and be sued did not......
  • Bego v. Gordon, No. 15295
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • November 17, 1986
    ...and enjoyed sovereign immunity protection in their decisions and actions in the schoolhouse. Holland, 375 N.W.2d 199; Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259 (S.D.1982). See also Merrill v. Birhanzel, 310 N.W.2d 522 (S.D.1981). Were this not jurisprudentially true, both would still be immune bas......
  • Kleinsasser v. Weber, #27454
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 2, 2016
    ...2005 S.D. 122, ¶ 18, 707 N.W.2d at 825. Likewise, "voluntary intoxication is not a defense to [a] general intent crime[ ]." Primeaux, 328 N.W.2d at 259. At Kleinsasser’s request, Reimers did present Dr. Renner’s report at sentencing as mitigation evidence.¶25.] While it is true that Reimers......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Dank v. Benson, No. 94,166.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 23, 2000
    ...303 Ark. 120, 792 S.W.2d 604, 606 (1990); Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 420 Mich. 567, 363 N.W.2d 641, 651-52 (1984); Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259, 261 (S.D.1982); Miller v. Chou, 257 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Minn.1977); State v. F.W. Fitch Co., 236 Iowa 208, 17 N.W.2d 380, 384 28. Powell, sup......
  • Aune v. B-Y Water Dist., B-Y
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 12, 1990
    ...immunity, create a cause of action in tort against the state college board. SDCL 13-49-11. Before Kringen, we held in Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259 In absence of a statute waiving sovereign immunity from tort liability, a statute authorizing a school district to sue and be sued did not......
  • Bego v. Gordon, No. 15295
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • November 17, 1986
    ...and enjoyed sovereign immunity protection in their decisions and actions in the schoolhouse. Holland, 375 N.W.2d 199; Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259 (S.D.1982). See also Merrill v. Birhanzel, 310 N.W.2d 522 (S.D.1981). Were this not jurisprudentially true, both would still be immune bas......
  • Kleinsasser v. Weber, #27454
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 2, 2016
    ...2005 S.D. 122, ¶ 18, 707 N.W.2d at 825. Likewise, "voluntary intoxication is not a defense to [a] general intent crime[ ]." Primeaux, 328 N.W.2d at 259. At Kleinsasser’s request, Reimers did present Dr. Renner’s report at sentencing as mitigation evidence.¶25.] While it is true that Reimers......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT