Walz v. City of Hudson

Supreme Court of South Dakota · 1982 · Corporations

327 N.W.2d 120 (1982)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsMunicipal liabilityNegligenceAlcohol sales liabilityWrongful deathSDCL 35-4-78(2)negligence per seintoxicated person

Facts

Appellant alleged that the Hudson Municipal Liquor Store sold intoxicating beverages to Larry VanEgdom when the store knew or could have ascertained by observation that he was intoxicated. Immediately afterward, VanEgdom drove a car and collided with Guy William Ludwig, who was stopped on his motorcycle at a stop sign. Ludwig died from the collision. Appellant claimed the death was caused by the city's negligence in selling alcohol to VanEgdom.

Issue

Does a complaint state a cause of action for wrongful death against a liquor seller when it alleges the seller violated SDCL 35-4-78(2) by selling alcohol to an intoxicated person who then caused a fatal traffic collision? Also, does SDCL 9-24-2's sixty-day notice requirement apply to this wrongful death action against a municipality?

Rule

Negligence is the breach of a legal duty imposed by statute or common law. Violation of a statute is negligence as a matter of law if the statute was intended to protect the class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member against the type of harm that occurred; SDCL 35-4-78(2) establishes such a standard of care, and its violation may support civil liability if it is a proximate cause of the injury. SDCL 9-24-2 does not apply to wrongful death actions.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sioux Falls, Prairie Lantern Tavern served several shots to Evan Morse after he was slurring his words, swaying, and unable to sign his credit slip steadily. Ten minutes later, Evan drove away and struck Nina Patel as she lawfully crossed a marked crosswalk.

If Nina sues the tavern for negligence, which is the strongest statement under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the statute forbidding sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person establishes a standard of care. Its violation is negligence as a matter of law when the plaintiff is within the protected class and suffers the kind of harm the statute was designed to prevent. But the plaintiff must still prove proximate cause; liability is not automatic.