Pedestrian Accident Complaint - South Dakota

PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — SOUTH DAKOTA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. General Factual Allegations
4. Count I — Negligence (Against Defendant Driver)
5. Count II — Negligence Per Se (Against Defendant Driver)
6. Count III — Negligent Entrustment / Vicarious Liability (Against Defendant Owner)
7. Comparative Fault Allegation
8. Damages
9. Prayer for Relief
10. Jury Demand
11. Reservation of Rights
12. Signature and Service Blocks
13. Certificate of Service
14. South Dakota Practice Notes
15. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

IN CIRCUIT COURT

[________] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

CIV. NO. [________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (PEDESTRIAN COLLISION)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, complaining of Defendants, alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an adult resident of [COUNTY] County, South Dakota, and at all material times was lawfully present as a pedestrian upon or alongside the public roadways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, upon information and belief, an adult resident of [COUNTY / STATE] and may be served with process at [SERVICE ADDRESS] pursuant to SDCL § 15-6-4 (Rule 4).

3. Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner Defendant") is [an individual / a corporation / an LLC] that, at all material times, owned, controlled, and/or maintained the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant and/or employed Driver Defendant. Owner Defendant may be served at [SERVICE ADDRESS / REGISTERED AGENT].

4. This action arises under South Dakota tort law for personal injuries sustained when a motor vehicle struck Plaintiff, a pedestrian, in [COUNTY] County, South Dakota, on [__/__/____].

5. Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in this Circuit Court under S.D. Const. art. V, § 5 and SDCL § 16-6-9 because the Circuit Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction and the claims sound in tort.

6. Venue is proper in this county under SDCL § 15-5-8 because this is an action for the recovery of damages to the person and one or more Defendants resides in, or the cause of action arose in, this county.

7. This action is timely commenced within the three-year limitations period of SDCL § 15-2-14(3), the Collision having occurred on [__/__/____].

3. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully crossing / walking [DESCRIBE — e.g., within the marked crosswalk at the intersection of ___ and ___; within an unmarked crosswalk (the prolongation of the sidewalk lines) at the intersection of ___; along the highway facing traffic on ___], in [CITY], South Dakota (the "Collision").

9. At the same time and place, Driver Defendant was operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] [passenger vehicle / pickup truck / SUV / commercial vehicle] owned by Owner Defendant, traveling [direction] on [ROADWAY] within a [business / residence] district.

10. [Where applicable] A pedestrian-control or traffic-control signal [displayed "WALK" / displayed a green light in Plaintiff's direction of travel / was not in place or not in operation], and Plaintiff had the right-of-way and was crossing within the crosswalk.

11. Traffic, lighting, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight; or dusk / nighttime, with Plaintiff in or near a marked crosswalk].

12. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER — e.g., failed to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff in the crosswalk; turned left or right across the crosswalk into Plaintiff's path; failed to keep a proper lookout and struck Plaintiff; was traveling at an excessive or unsafe speed; was distracted by a mobile device; failed to stop for Plaintiff carrying a cane or guided by a service dog; ran a red light or stop sign].

13. Plaintiff was plainly visible to Driver Defendant, who failed to see Plaintiff in time, misjudged the situation, and/or failed to exercise the reasonable care that South Dakota law requires of every driver to avoid colliding with a pedestrian.

14. Plaintiff was exercising reasonable care for Plaintiff's own safety at all material times, and any negligence on Plaintiff's part, if any, was slight in comparison with the negligence of Defendants.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff — an unprotected pedestrian struck by the mass and force of a motor vehicle — sustained severe, painful, and permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to [LIST INJURIES — e.g., orthopedic fractures, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, internal injuries, degloving / road rash, and disfiguring scarring].

16. Because a pedestrian has no structural protection, restraint system, or crumple zone, the forces of the Collision caused Plaintiff to suffer catastrophic injuries materially more severe than those typically sustained by occupants of vehicles.

17. Plaintiff received emergency care at [HOSPITAL / EMS PROVIDER] and has since undergone [SURGERIES / HOSPITALIZATION / REHABILITATION / ONGOING TREATMENT], and will require future medical care.

18. All injuries and damages alleged were the foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of Defendants' conduct.

4. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 18 as if fully set forth herein.

20. Driver Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle, to obey the South Dakota rules of the road, to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians, to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian lawfully crossing within a crosswalk, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon the roadway.

21. Driver Defendant breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff, a pedestrian crossing within a crosswalk in a business or residence district;
• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for pedestrians;
• Operating the vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent for the conditions and the presence of pedestrians;
• Driving while distracted, inattentive, or impaired;
• Failing to slow down or stop as necessary to avoid striking a pedestrian, and failing to sound the horn when necessary;
• Failing to stop for a pedestrian using a guide dog or white cane; and
• Failing to take reasonable evasive action to avoid striking Plaintiff.

22. Each of the foregoing acts and omissions, separately and in combination, was the actual and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

5. COUNT II — NEGLIGENCE PER SE (Against Defendant Driver)

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.

24. The South Dakota motor-vehicle laws impose specific statutory duties on Driver Defendant for the protection of pedestrians such as Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• SDCL § 32-27-1 — the driver of a vehicle within a business or residence district shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the highway within any clearly marked crosswalk or any regular pedestrian crossing at the end of a block (the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk), except at intersections where movement is regulated by traffic officers or devices; a violation is a petty offense;
• SDCL § 32-27-2 — duties to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at intersections controlled by traffic-control signals; and
• SDCL § 32-27-7 — a motorist shall stop for a pedestrian carrying a cane or guided by a dog.

25. Plaintiff is within the class of persons the foregoing statutes were enacted to protect, and the Collision is the type of harm those statutes were designed to prevent.

26. Driver Defendant violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE] without lawful excuse or justification. Plaintiff alleges that the violation was a direct and proximate cause of injury to a person the statute was enacted to protect and therefore constitutes negligence per se under South Dakota law. See Hamer v. Duffy, 2026 SD 4, ¶ 31.

6. COUNT III — NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT / VICARIOUS LIABILITY (Against Defendant Owner)

27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein.

28. Owner Defendant entrusted the subject vehicle to Driver Defendant when Owner Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that Driver Defendant was an incompetent, inexperienced, reckless, or otherwise unfit driver.

29. Alternatively, at the time of the Collision, Driver Defendant was operating the vehicle as the agent, servant, or employee of Owner Defendant and within the scope of that agency or employment, rendering Owner Defendant vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

30. Owner Defendant's negligent entrustment and/or vicarious liability was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. COMPARATIVE FAULT ALLEGATION

31. Plaintiff was free from fault and did nothing, and failed to do nothing, that proximately caused or contributed to the Collision.

32. In the alternative, and without admitting any fault, pursuant to SDCL § 20-9-2, any contributory negligence on the part of Plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of Defendants and therefore does not bar recovery; Plaintiff's damages, if reduced at all, are to be reduced only in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence, if any, attributable to Plaintiff.

8. DAMAGES

33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and seeks recovery of the following:

• Past and future medical expenses — emergency, ambulance, hospital, surgical, diagnostic, rehabilitative, pharmaceutical, and physician care;
• Future medical and life care — anticipated surgeries, therapy, assistive devices, prosthetics, and long-term or attendant care, to be proven at trial;
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity — past lost income and the permanent impairment of Plaintiff's ability to earn;
• Physical pain, suffering, and mental anguish — past and future;
• Permanent physical impairment and disfigurement, including scarring from road rash and surgical intervention;
• Loss of enjoyment of life; and
• Property damage to Plaintiff's personal effects, as applicable.

34. Plaintiff pleads each category of damage separately and in the alternative.

35. Should the evidence establish qualifying conduct under SDCL § 21-3-2, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages subject to § 21-1-4.1's required hearing and clear-and-convincing reasonable-basis finding before punitive discovery or submission to the factfinder.

9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

• A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court;
• B. Punitive damages, if and when permitted under SDCL § 21-1-4.1 and proven;
• C. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law (SDCL § 21-1-13.1);
• D. Costs and disbursements of this action; and
• E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.

11. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add or substitute parties, to seek leave to assert a claim for punitive damages under SDCL § 21-1-4.1 should discovery support it, and to conform the pleadings to the evidence as discovery proceeds.

12. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Respectfully submitted this [____] day of [MONTH], 20[____].

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME] (S.D. Bar No. [________])

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the [____] day of [_______________], 20[____], I served (or will cause to be served with the summons) a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT upon the following by [personal service / certified mail / electronic service through the Odyssey system]:

[NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) OF DEFENDANT(S) / COUNSEL]

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

14. SOUTH DAKOTA PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations — three years. Personal-injury actions in South Dakota must be commenced within three years of accrual. SDCL § 15-2-14(3). If the pedestrian was killed, the wrongful-death period runs separately (SDCL § 21-5-3 — three years); verify before filing.
• SLIGHT/GROSS COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — the central liability issue, and unique to South Dakota. Under SDCL § 20-9-2, the plaintiff's contributory negligence bars recovery unless it was "slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant." If the plaintiff's negligence is more than slight, recovery is barred entirely — a far more restrictive rule than the 50%/51% comparative-fault regimes used elsewhere. When recovery is allowed, damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's fault, but the jury makes the slight-vs-defendant comparison without disclosing any percentage of the plaintiff's fault by special interrogatory (the 1998 amendment superseded Woods v. City of Crooks, 559 N.W.2d 558 (S.D. 1997)). In a pedestrian case, the defense will argue the pedestrian jaywalked (§ 32-27-4), crossed against a signal, or "darted out" to push the pedestrian's fault above "slight." Develop the driver's gross fault (speed, distraction, impairment, failure to yield in a crosswalk) and frame any pedestrian conduct as slight by comparison.
• The pedestrian's own duties. A pedestrian crossing within a business or residence district at a point other than a crosswalk or intersection must yield to vehicles (§ 32-27-4, a petty offense); a pedestrian on a highway without sidewalks must walk on the left side facing traffic (§ 32-27-5); and a pedestrian must not suddenly leave a curb into the path of a close vehicle (§ 32-27-1). A violation supplies the defense's slight/gross argument. Investigate the precise crossing location, district classification, signal phase, conspicuity, and speed.
• Statutory protections are crosswalk-specific. Unlike most states' uniform-act analogues, SDCL ch. 32-27 does not contain a single free-standing "due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian" statute applicable at all locations; the statutory duties focus on crosswalks (§§ 32-27-1, -2) and the cane/guide-dog stop duty (§ 32-27-7). Outside a crosswalk, rely primarily on the common-law duty of reasonable care, the general speed/reasonable-control statutes (SDCL ch. 32-25, e.g., § 32-25-3 reasonable and prudent speed), and last clear chance. Confirm the current chapter contents before filing.
• Multi-party liability. Under SDCL § 15-8-15.1, a party allocated less than fifty percent of total fault allocated to all parties may not be jointly liable for more than twice that party's percentage of fault. Address contribution, release effects, setoff, and any vicarious-liability relationship under the provisions actually applicable to the parties.
• UM/UIM and hit-and-run. A pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle may recover under their own automobile uninsured/underinsured-motorist (UM/UIM) coverage — and under the UM/UIM coverage of a resident relative's policy — even though the pedestrian was not in a vehicle, because pedestrians are "insureds" for UM/UIM purposes. UM coverage also responds to a hit-and-run / phantom vehicle, subject to prompt-reporting and (in many policies) physical-contact requirements. South Dakota requires UM coverage and mandates UIM (SDCL §§ 58-11-9, 58-11-9.4). Promptly identify and notify every applicable policy, preserve the UM/UIM claim, and comply with consent-to-settle / subrogation procedures before resolving the liability claim.
• Punitive damages — hearing required. Section 21-1-4.1 requires a hearing and clear-and-convincing reasonable-basis finding before punitive discovery or factfinder submission; it does not itself bar an initial punitive request. Section 21-3-2 supplies the substantive oppression, fraud, or malice standard.
• Governmental defendants. If a public roadway design, signal timing, or maintenance defect contributed, sovereign-immunity and notice limitations may apply against the State or a public entity (SDCL ch. 3-21 notice; SDCL ch. 21-32 / 21-32A immunity); identify and preserve any such claim promptly.
• Service. Service is governed by SDCL § 15-6-4 (Rule 4). Out-of-state defendants may be served under South Dakota's long-arm statute (SDCL § 15-7-2) and the nonresident-motorist provisions.

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• South Dakota Codified Laws (Title 15 — Civil Procedure; Title 20 — Personal Rights and Obligations; Title 32 — Motor Vehicles) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes
• SDCL § 15-2-14 (three-year limitations)
• SDCL § 20-9-2 (comparative negligence — reduction of damages) — https://law.justia.com/codes/south-dakota/title-20/chapter-09/section-20-9-2/
• SDCL § 32-27-1 (yielding right-of-way to pedestrian) — https://law.justia.com/codes/south-dakota/title-32/chapter-27/section-32-27-1/
• SDCL § 32-27-2 (controlled intersections); § 32-27-4 (jaywalking — pedestrian to yield); § 32-27-5 (walk facing traffic); § 32-27-7 (stop for cane/guide dog) — https://law.justia.com/codes/south-dakota/title-32/chapter-27/
• SDCL § 15-8-15.1 (joint-liability limitation); § 21-1-4.1 (punitive damages procedure); §§ 58-11-9, 58-11-9.4 (UM/UIM)
• South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure (SDCL ch. 15-6 — Rules 4, 8, 38)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in South Dakota must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.