Hedel-Ostrowski v. City of Spearfish
South Dakota Supreme Court
679 N.W.2d 491 (2004)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
On September 18, 1999, Dawn Hedel-Ostrowski (plaintiff) visited a public park in the City of Spearfish (City) (defendant) with her children. A swing Hedel-Ostrowski was using broke; her resulting fall caused nerve damage. On September 12, 2002, Hedel-Ostrowski sued the City for negligence and filed claims against Miracle Recreation Company, Playpower, Inc., and Cameron Holdings Corp. (defendants). On November 7, 2002, Hedel-Ostrowski moved to amend her complaint to add a nuisance count against the City and negligence and nuisance claims against an additional defendant, Keith Hepper (defendant), who headed the City’s parks and recreation department. The City moved for summary judgment, contending that the negligence claim against it and both claims against Hepper were barred by the statute of limitations. The City further argued that the nuisance claim against it should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City and Hepper. Hedel-Ostrowski appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Meierhenry, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
