 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mergen v. Northern States Power Co.1/31/2001
South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from the Circuit Court of The Second Judicial Circuit Minnehaha County, South Dakota Hon. WILLIAM J. SRSTKA, Judge
Considered on Briefs November 27, 2000
Opinion Filed 1/31/2001
[ .] The City of Sioux Falls ("City") appeals the trial court's determination to condition the City's right to intervene on the payment of costs, including attorneys' fees to James Mergen, the plaintiff. City appeals. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
[ .] On May 13, 1998, James Mergen, an employee with the City's Lights Department, was called by Northern States Power ("NSP") regarding an electrical connection in need of repair. Following NSP's instructions, Mergen was electrocuted while attempting to repair the electrical connection. Soon thereafter, he filed an injury report with City, his employer, for the purpose of claiming medical expenses and lost compensation under the workers' compensation laws. City accepted Mergen's claim and paid approximately $19,000 in medical bills and $9,200 in temporary total disability benefits. Approximately one year later, on April 8, 1999, Mergen brought a personal injury suit against NSP as an alleged third-party tortfeasor in Minnehaha County Circuit Court. Mergen's Complaint specifically excluded a request for recovery of worker's compensation expense payments incurred by City.
[ .] On June 7, 1999, nearly two months after Mergen filed his original complaint against NSP, City filed a Motion to Intervene, pursuant to SDCL 15-6-24(a), in the lawsuit between Mergen and NSP. In response to City's motion, Mergen filed a Brief in Resistance to such intervention by City and a hearing was held on September 20, 1999. The trial court conditioned City's motion, finding that City could only intervene if it agreed to pay Mergen reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. City now appeals, raising the following issue:
Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it conditioned City's right to intervene by mandating the payment of reasonable expenses incurred by Mergen, including attorneys' fees.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ .] "Statutory interpretation presents a question of law." Satellite Cable Serv. v. Northern Elec. Coop., Inc., 1998 SD 67, , 581 NW2d 478, 480. "The construction of statute and its application to facts present questions of law, which we review de novo." State v. Springer-Ertl, 1997 SD 128, , 570 NW2d 39, 40. A trial court's findings of fact are to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Karlen, 1999 SD 12, , 589 NW2d 594, 597; State v. Westerfield, 1997 SD 100, , 567 NW2d 863, 866. Because this case depends on our interpretation of SDCL 15-6-24(a), we will review this matter de novo.
DECISION
[ .] A party's right to intervene in a lawsuit between a plaintiff and a third party tortfeasor is controlled by SDCL 15-6-24(a). SDCL 15-6-24(a) provides:
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action:
(1) When a statute of the state confers an unconditional right to intervene; or
(2) When the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
The purpose of intervention is to obviate delay and multiplicity of suits by creating an opportunity to persons directly interested in the subject matter to join in an action or proceeding already instituted. The
Page 1 2 3 South Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|