South Dakota
South Dakota Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 23, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 23, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

South Dakota has no dog bite statute that imposes automatic liability. Victims must prove their claim under the one-bite rule, requiring proof the owner knew of the dog's dangerous tendencies, or under negligence. In Sybesma v. Sybesma (1995), a case about a trampling by a stock cow, the South Dakota Supreme Court said a person injured by a domestic animal can sue under strict liability, which requires showing the owner knew or had reason to know of the animal's abnormally dangerous propensities, or under negligence. A three-year filing deadline applies under SDCL 15-2-14.
Estimate your claim: Use our free South Dakota Dog Bite Settlement Calculator to see a rough settlement range based on the medical bills, the bite location, the victim's age, and South Dakota's liability rule.
How South Dakota Dog Bite Liability Works
South Dakota does not have a general dog bite statute that imposes automatic liability on dog owners. Instead, the state relies on two legal theories that victims can use to recover compensation: scienter (the common law one-bite rule) and negligence.
This dual framework means victims have more than one path to holding a dog owner accountable. Understanding both theories is important because the evidence required for each one differs.
The One-Bite Rule (Scienter)
Under the one-bite rule, a dog owner becomes liable when they know or have reason to know that their dog has dangerous propensities that are abnormal to its class. This standard comes from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 509, which South Dakota courts have adopted.
The term "one-bite rule" is somewhat misleading. A dog does not literally get one free bite. If an owner has any prior knowledge that the dog is aggressive, whether through past lunging, growling, snapping, or attacking other animals, they can be held liable for a bite even if the dog has never bitten a person before.
Evidence that can establish an owner's knowledge includes:
- Previous bite incidents or aggressive behavior toward people
- History of lunging at or chasing passersby
- The owner keeping the dog chained or muzzled due to temperament concerns
- Complaints from neighbors about the dog's aggression
- Warning signs posted on the property, which can serve as an admission of knowledge
Negligence Claims
South Dakota also allows dog bite victims to pursue claims under a standard negligence theory. Under this approach, the victim does not need to prove the dog was previously vicious. Instead, the victim must show that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling or restraining the dog.
In Sybesma v. Sybesma (1995), the South Dakota Supreme Court treated strict liability and negligence as separate theories for injuries caused by domestic animals. It held that a plaintiff who sued in negligence did not have to prove the owner knew the specific animal had dangerous propensities.
Examples of negligence that can support a dog bite claim include:
- Allowing a dog to roam off-leash in a public area
- Failing to maintain a secure fence or enclosure
- Violating a local leash law or animal control ordinance
- Leaving a gate open or a door unsecured
- Entrusting a dog to a person who cannot control it
Local Ordinance Violations as Evidence
Many South Dakota cities and counties have their own leash laws, confinement requirements, and animal control ordinances. Violating a local ordinance can serve as strong evidence of negligence in a dog bite case. Some courts treat ordinance violations as negligence per se, meaning the violation itself establishes the owner's fault.
Check with your local municipal government for specific animal control rules that apply in your area.
South Dakota's Vicious Dog Laws
South Dakota codified law addresses vicious dogs in SDCL 40-34-13 through 40-34-15. These statutes define what makes a dog "vicious" and establish consequences for owners.

Vicious Dog Definition (SDCL 40-34-14)
Under SDCL 40-34-14, a vicious dog is defined as:
- Public places: Any dog that, when unprovoked, approaches in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack, or bites, inflicts injury, assaults, or otherwise attacks a person on streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds
- Private property (authorized visitors): Any dog that, when unprovoked, approaches in a vicious or terrifying manner, or bites, inflicts injury, or otherwise attacks a mail carrier, meter reader, delivery person, or other employed person who is on private property with the owner's permission or by reason of a course of dealing
Public Nuisance (SDCL 40-34-13)
Keeping a vicious dog constitutes a public nuisance under SDCL 40-34-13. Owners of vicious dogs are subject to the remedies outlined in SDCL 21-10-5 and 21-10-9, which allow for judicial abatement of the nuisance. This means a court can order the dog removed, confined, or destroyed if the owner does not take adequate steps to protect the public.
Exceptions to the Vicious Dog Label (SDCL 40-34-15)
A dog cannot be declared vicious under SDCL 40-34-15 if the person who was injured:
- Was committing a willful trespass or other tort on the premises
- Was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog
- Was committing or attempting to commit a crime
These exceptions protect dog owners from liability when the victim's own wrongful conduct caused or provoked the incident.
Statute of Limitations for Dog Bite Claims
Under SDCL 15-2-14, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in South Dakota is three years from the date of the injury. This deadline applies to dog bite lawsuits.

If you do not file your lawsuit within this three-year window, the court will almost certainly dismiss your case. There are limited exceptions:
| Situation | Effect on Filing Deadline |
|---|---|
| Victim is a minor (under 18) | The deadline is the longer of three years from the injury or one year after the minor turns 18 |
| Victim has a mental incapacity | The deadline may be tolled (paused) during the incapacity, but SDCL 15-2-22 limits that extension to five years and to no more than one year after the disability ceases |
| Defendant leaves the state | Time spent outside South Dakota may not count toward the three-year period |
| Claim against a government entity | Shorter notice requirements may apply (often 180 days) |
The rule for children is the one most often misstated. SDCL 15-2-22 does pause the clock during minority, but the same statute provides that the period cannot be extended in any case longer than one year after the disability ceases. The practical result, applied by the South Dakota Supreme Court in Crisp v. Schultis, 507 N.W.2d 567 (S.D. 1993), is that a minor's deadline is three years from the injury or one year after turning 18, whichever is longer. A child bitten at age six therefore has until age 19, while a teenager bitten at 17 keeps the full three years.
With a firm three-year deadline, get a free consultation with a South Dakota dog bite lawyer and file well before the window closes (attorney advertising).
South Dakota's Comparative Fault System
South Dakota uses a unique comparative fault rule under SDCL 20-9-2 that can affect how much a dog bite victim recovers. Unlike most states that use a 50% or 51% bar, South Dakota applies a "slight negligence" standard.
Under this system, a victim can recover damages only if their own contributory negligence was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. If the victim's negligence was more than slight in that comparison, they cannot recover anything. The statute does not require the dog owner's negligence to be gross; that older wording was removed from SDCL 20-9-2 in 1964.
When the victim does qualify for damages, the award is reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.
How This Applies to Dog Bite Cases
A victim's damages may be reduced or barred if they:
- Approached a dog they knew to be aggressive
- Ignored warning signs posted on the property
- Reached through a fence to pet a confined dog
- Ran from the dog in a way that triggered a chase response
- Interacted with the dog while intoxicated
The slight negligence standard can be difficult to apply in practice, and juries have significant discretion in deciding what counts as slight when weighed against the dog owner's negligence.
Damages Available to Dog Bite Victims
Dog bite victims in South Dakota can pursue both economic and non-economic damages.

Economic Damages
Economic damages compensate for financial losses that can be documented with receipts, bills, and records:
- Emergency room visits and hospitalization
- Surgery, including reconstructive or plastic surgery
- Prescription medications and medical devices
- Physical therapy and rehabilitation
- Future medical treatment related to the injury
- Lost wages during recovery
- Reduced earning capacity if the injury causes lasting limitations
- Property damage (torn clothing, broken eyeglasses, damaged electronics)
Non-Economic Damages
Non-economic damages compensate for subjective losses:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress and mental anguish
- Scarring and disfigurement
- Development of a fear of dogs (cynophobia)
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
- Loss of enjoyment of life
South Dakota does not impose a statutory cap on damages in most dog bite cases. However, there are caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, so victims should confirm that no special limitations apply to their specific situation.
Dog Owner Responsibilities Under South Dakota Law
South Dakota imposes several obligations on dog owners that go beyond bite liability.
Livestock Protection Laws
Under SDCL 40-34-1, any person may lawfully kill a dog found actively chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing poultry or domestic animals, as long as the dog is not on its owner's premises at the time.
Under SDCL 40-34-2, a dog owner whose animal chases, worries, injures, or kills poultry or domestic animals is:
- Guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor (punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both)
- Liable for civil damages to the animal's owner
Joint Liability for Dog Packs (SDCL 40-34-3)
When dogs owned by different people participate together in chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing livestock, the owners can be sued jointly under SDCL 40-34-3. A joint verdict and judgment may be entered against all owners. Owners who pay more than their share have the right to seek contribution from the other owners.
Rabies Control, Vaccination, and Licensing
SDCL Chapter 40-12 is South Dakota's rabies control chapter. It requires confinement of animals in localities where rabies exists (SDCL 40-12-1), destruction of a rabid animal (SDCL 40-12-2), confinement of a dog or cat that has bitten a person (SDCL 40-12-5), and confinement of a pet bitten by an animal suspected of having rabies (SDCL 40-12-6).
The chapter does not impose a statewide rabies vaccination requirement for dogs. In South Dakota, rabies vaccination and dog licensing requirements come from city and county ordinances, and most municipalities require both. Failure to comply with those local requirements can result in fines and strengthen a victim's case in a bite lawsuit.
Breed-Specific Legislation in South Dakota
South Dakota is one of a small number of states that prohibits breed-specific legislation (BSL) at the local level. Under state law, no city, county, or other local government may enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance, policy, resolution, or other rule that is specific to the breed or perceived breed of a dog.
This means that:
- No South Dakota municipality can ban pit bulls, Rottweilers, or any other breed
- Local governments can regulate dangerous dogs based on individual behavior, but not breed identity
- Homeowners and renters may still face breed restrictions from private landlords or insurance companies, which are not covered by the state preemption
This approach reflects a growing national trend away from breed-based restrictions and toward behavior-based dangerous dog regulations.
Landlord Liability for Tenant Dog Bites
A landlord in South Dakota can be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog under certain conditions. Landlord liability in dog bite cases generally requires the victim to prove:
- The landlord had actual knowledge that the tenant's dog was dangerous
- The landlord had the authority to remove the dog or impose restrictions (through the lease or property management rights)
- The landlord failed to take reasonable steps to protect others
Simply renting property to a tenant who owns a dog does not create liability by itself. A landlord who had no reason to know a dog was dangerous is generally not responsible for bite injuries.
Steps Landlords Can Take to Reduce Liability
- Include pet policies and breed-neutral behavior standards in lease agreements
- Require tenants with dogs to carry renter's insurance with liability coverage
- Respond promptly to complaints about aggressive dogs on the property
- Document all reports of dog-related incidents
- Take action to address known dangerous dogs, up to and including requiring removal of the animal
Criminal Penalties for Dog Owners
South Dakota law imposes criminal penalties on dog owners in several situations.
Class 1 Misdemeanor (Ignoring a Post-Bite Confinement Notice)
South Dakota's "vicious dog" statutes (SDCL 40-34-13 to 40-34-15) treat keeping a vicious dog as a civil public nuisance, addressed through court-ordered abatement under SDCL 21-10-5 and 21-10-9 rather than as a criminal charge. State law does, however, criminalize ignoring a post-bite confinement order.
Under SDCL 40-12-5, the department may serve written notice on the owner of a dog or cat that has attacked or bitten a person, directing the owner to confine the animal at the owner's expense on the owner's premises, at a city pound, or at another place named in the notice, for at least ten days after the attack. An owner who fails to comply with a notice served under that section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $2,000, or both, under SDCL 22-6-2.
Many South Dakota cities and counties also impose their own confinement and animal control requirements, so a local ordinance charge can apply alongside the state one. Check your local municipal code for those rules.
Class 2 Misdemeanor (Livestock Damage)
Under SDCL 40-34-2, an owner whose dog chases, injures, or kills livestock or poultry faces a Class 2 misdemeanor:
- Up to 30 days in county jail
- A fine of up to $500
- Or both
When More Serious Charges May Apply
While South Dakota does not have a specific felony-level dog bite statute, more serious criminal charges could apply in extreme situations:
- If an owner intentionally uses a dog as a weapon, assault or battery charges may be filed
- If a dog kills a person and the owner knew the dog was dangerous, reckless conduct charges are possible
- Animal cruelty with intent (such as training a dog to fight) is a Class 6 felony under South Dakota law (SDCL 40-1-10.1)
Steps to Take After a Dog Bite in South Dakota
If a dog bites you or a family member in South Dakota, taking the right steps immediately can protect your health and strengthen any future legal claim.
-
Get medical treatment right away. Dog bites carry risks of infection, nerve damage, and scarring. Visit an emergency room or urgent care, and follow up with your doctor.
-
Report the bite to animal control. Contact your local animal control agency or law enforcement to file a formal report. This creates an official record of the incident.
-
Photograph your injuries. Take clear photos of the bite wound, any bruising, and the scene where the attack happened. Continue photographing your injuries as they heal.
-
Identify the dog and its owner. Get the dog owner's name, address, phone number, and homeowner's or renter's insurance information. If you cannot identify the owner, note the dog's appearance, color, size, and any collar or tag details.
-
Collect witness information. If anyone saw the attack, get their names and contact information. Witness testimony can be valuable if the owner disputes what happened.
-
Preserve physical evidence. Keep torn or bloodied clothing, and do not wash them. These items can serve as evidence.
-
Track all expenses. Save every medical bill, pharmacy receipt, and record of missed work. Document transportation costs for medical appointments.
-
Consult a personal injury attorney. An experienced lawyer can evaluate whether you have a viable claim under the one-bite rule, negligence, or both, and can handle communications with the dog owner's insurance company.
More South Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does South Dakota have strict liability for dog bites?
No. South Dakota does not have a strict liability dog bite statute. Liability is based on the common law one-bite rule (scienter) or negligence. Under the one-bite rule, the victim must prove the owner knew or should have known the dog had dangerous tendencies. Under negligence, the victim must prove the owner failed to exercise reasonable care.
How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit in South Dakota?
You have three years from the date of the bite to file a personal injury lawsuit under SDCL 15-2-14. If the victim is a minor, SDCL 15-2-22 pauses the clock but caps any extension at one year after the disability ceases, so the deadline is three years from the injury or one year after the child turns 18, whichever is longer. The South Dakota Supreme Court applied that rule in Crisp v. Schultis, 507 N.W.2d 567 (S.D. 1993). Claims against government entities may have shorter notice deadlines.
Can I recover damages if I was partially at fault for the dog bite?
It depends on how much fault you bear. Under SDCL 20-9-2, you can recover only if your own contributory negligence was slight in comparison with the dog owner's negligence. The statute does not require the owner's negligence to be gross. If your fault was more than slight in that comparison, you are barred from recovering anything, and if you do recover, the award is reduced in proportion to your share of fault.
What is the penalty for owning a vicious dog in South Dakota?
Under SDCL 40-34-13, keeping a vicious dog is a public nuisance, and a court can order abatement, which may include confining, removing, or destroying the dog. Failing to confine a dog after a bite is a separate matter and it is a state offense: under SDCL 40-12-5, the department may serve written notice requiring the animal to be confined for at least ten days, and an owner who fails to comply with that notice is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $2,000, or both, under SDCL 22-6-2. Local ordinances may add their own confinement requirements.
Can a city in South Dakota ban pit bulls or other specific breeds?
No. South Dakota state law prohibits any local government from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing breed-specific legislation. Cities and counties can regulate individual dangerous dogs based on behavior, but they cannot target any specific breed or perceived breed.
Updates
Corrected the description of Sybesma v. Sybesma (1995), a stock-cow case, to what the South Dakota Supreme Court actually said about strict liability and negligence claims for injuries caused by domestic animals.
Corrected South Dakota's post-bite confinement rule (SDCL 40-12-5 makes ignoring a state confinement notice a Class 1 misdemeanor), the filing deadline for injured minors, the comparative fault standard under SDCL 20-9-2, and the statement that state law requires rabies vaccination for dogs.
Corrected a KeyTakeaways bullet that wrongly claimed state law makes failing to confine a biting dog a Class 1 misdemeanor; South Dakota's vicious-dog statute is a civil public-nuisance remedy, and that criminal charge only exists where a local ordinance creates it.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the 'fails to confine after a bite = Class 1 misdemeanor' claim: South Dakota's state-level vicious-dog statutes (SDCL 40-34-13 to 40-34-15) are a civil public-nuisance framework, not a state criminal charge; this offense is created by local city/county ordinances, not state law. Also added the missing statutory citation (SDCL 40-1-10.1) for the correct dogfighting felony claim.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 40-34: DOG LICENSES AND REGULATION
§ 40-34-13Ownership of vicious dog as public nuisance.In force
Any person owning or keeping a vicious dog as defined in §§ 40-34-13 to 40-34-15, inclusive, has committed a public nuisance and is subject to the provisions of §§ 21-10-5 and 21-10-9.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Davies v. Gphc, LLC (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 55)“…s owning or keeping a “vicious dog” a public nuisance. See SDCL 40-34-13. [¶12.] In its answer, GPHC deni…”
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor (South Dakota Supreme Court 1997, 567 N.W.2d 351)“…us dogs also constitutes a public nuisance under state law. SDCL 40-34-13. South Dakota law provides the followin…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 40-34-14Vicious dog defined.In force
For the purposes of §§ 40-34-13 to 40-34-15, inclusive, a vicious dog is: (1) Any dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious or terrorizing manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, inflicts injury, assaults, or otherwise attacks a human being upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds or places; or (2) Any dog which, on private property, when unprovoked, in a vicious or terrifying manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, or inflicts injury, or otherwise attacks a mailman, meter reader, serviceman, journeyman, delivery man, or other employed person who is on private property by reason of permission of the owner or occupant of such property or who is on private property by reason of a course of dealing with the owner of such private property.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor (South Dakota Supreme Court 1997, 567 N.W.2d 351)“…ourse of dealing with the owner of such private property. SDCL 40-34-14. But see SDCL 40-34-15 (“No dog may b…”
- Davies v. Gphc, LLC (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 55)“…ng with the owner of such private property. SDCL 40-34-14(2). An owner or keeper of a dog found t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 40-34-15Injury to person trespassing, teasing dog, or attempting to commit crime.In force
No dog may be declared vicious if an injury or damage is sustained to any person who was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or who was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1997
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor (South Dakota Supreme Court 1997, 567 N.W.2d 351)“…owner of such private property. SDCL 40-34-14. But see SDCL 40-34-15 (“No dog may be declared vicious if an…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 40-34-1Killing of dog lawful when disturbing domestic animals.In force
It shall be lawful for any person to kill any dog found chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing poultry or domestic animals except on the premises of the owners of said dog or dogs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
§ 40-34-2Liability of owner for damages by dog disturbing domestic animals--Property subject to execution--Violation as misdemeanor.In force
Any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog that chases, worries, injures, or kills any poultry or domestic animal is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor and is liable for damages to the owner thereof for any injury caused by the dog to any such poultry or animal. All property except such as is absolutely exempt, is subject to execution issued upon a judgment for such damages and costs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gehrts v. Batteen (South Dakota Supreme Court 2001, 620 N.W.2d 775)“…for damages inflicted upon "poultry or domestic animal[s]." SDCL 40-34-2. While one may question the application…”
- City of Onida v. Brandt & Meyer (South Dakota Supreme Court 2021, 2021 S.D. 27)“…er Appellants violated state and municipal laws, including SDCL 40-34-2 (criminalizing the ownership of a dog t…”
- Ross v. Hanson (South Dakota Supreme Court 1972, 86 S.D. 654)“…ecution issued upon a judgment for such damages and costs." SDCL 40-34-2. Strict liability is thereby imposed up…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 40-34-3Joint liability of owners for damages by dogs in packs--Right of contribution among dog owners.In force
In case dogs owned by different persons participate in the chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing of poultry or domestic animals, the owners of the respective dogs may be sued jointly for damages caused thereby in a joint action against the owners of such dogs, and a joint verdict, decision, and judgment may be rendered against the owners of such dogs. In case of joint liability for same, which joint liability is paid, the owner of the dogs jointly liable may have contribution among themselves in an appropriate action in which the respective damages committed by their respective dogs may be prorated.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 20-9: LIABILITY FOR TORTS
§ 20-9-2Comparative negligence--Reduction of damages.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
In all actions brought to recover damages for injuries to a person or to that person's property caused by the negligence of another, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence does not bar a recovery when the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant, but in such case, the damages shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of plaintiff's contributory negligence. Notwithstanding Woods vs. City of Crooks, 559 N.W.2d 558 (SD 1997), the determination of whether the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant shall be made without disclosing any determination of percentage of plaintiff's fault by special interrogatory.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 54 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Isaac v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (South Dakota Supreme Court 1994, 522 N.W.2d 752)“…urer from its duty of good faith and fair dealing." Under SDCL 20-9-2, contributory negligence of the plainti…”
- Chambers v. Dakotah Charter, Inc. (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 488 N.W.2d 63)“…slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. SDCL 20-9-2. [1] Based upon the three special co…”
- Westover v. East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 488 N.W.2d 892)“…Under South Dakota’s comparative negligence statute, SDCL 20-9-2 10 , a plaintiff may recov…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, South Dakota Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, Medical Malpractice Laws in South Dakota (2026): Caps
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 15-2: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS GENERALLY
§ 15-2-14Action against sheriff, coroner, or constable--Action for statutory penalty or forfeiture--Action for personal injury.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
Except where, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute, the following civil actions other than for the recovery of real property can be commenced only within three years after the cause of action shall have accrued: (1) An action against a sheriff, coroner, or constable upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in his official capacity and in virtue of his office, or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution. But this subdivision shall not apply to an action for an escape; (2) An action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture where the action is given to the party aggrieved, or to such party and the state except where the statute imposing it prescribes a different limitation; (3) An action for personal injury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 60 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P. A. (South Dakota Supreme Court 1978, 262 N.W.2d 508)“…year statute of limitations for personal injuries found in SDCL 15-2-14(3). The defendant argues that to excl…”
- Pitt-Hart v. Sanford USD Medical Center (South Dakota Supreme Court 2016, 878 N.W.2d 406)“…ake, or failure to cure shall have occurred . . . .”), with SDCL 15-2-14(3) (“[An action for personal injury] c…”
- Stratmeyer v. Stratmeyer (South Dakota Supreme Court 1997, 567 N.W.2d 220)“…barred by the three-year statute of limitation provided in SDCL 15-2-14. 7 The trial court denied his motion,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, South Dakota Motorcycle Accident Laws (2026): Deadlines, South Dakota Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability
§ 15-2-22Tolling of statute during disability--Maximum period of extension--Actions excepted.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
If a person entitled to bring an action other than for the recovery of real property, except for a penalty or forfeiture, or against a sheriff or other officer for an escape, was at the time the cause of action accrued, either: (1) Within the age of minority as defined in chapter 26-1; or (2) Mentally ill; the time of the person's disability is not a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action. The period within which the action shall be brought cannot be extended more than five years by any disability except infancy, nor can it be extended in any case longer than one year after the disability ceases. The provisions of this section do not apply to actions for the foreclosure of any real estate mortgage, either by action or by advertisement.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lyons v. Lederle Laboratories (South Dakota Supreme Court 1989, 440 N.W.2d 769)“…period was prescribed as the limitation subject however to SDCL 15-2-22, which provided for the tolling of the…”
- Shippen v. Parrott (South Dakota Supreme Court 1993, 506 N.W.2d 82)“…roving discovery within two years of this action? V. Does SDCL 15-2-22(2) toll the statute of limitations? V…”
- M.S. v. Dinkytown Day Care Center, Inc. (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 485 N.W.2d 587)“…tion should have been tolled as to the children’s claims by SDCL 15-2-22(1) which provides: If a person e…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 21-10: REMEDIES AGAINST NUISANCES
§ 21-10-5Remedies against nuisances enumerated.In force
Remedies against any nuisance are: (1) A civil action; (2) Abatement; and (3) In cases of public nuisance only, the additional remedy of indictment or information as prescribed by statute and rules relating thereto.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- City of Rapid City v. Hoogterp (South Dakota Supreme Court 1970, 85 S.D. 176)“…that abatement is one of the remedies against any nuisance. SDCL 21-10-5. They further provide that “No lapse of…”
- Atkinson v. City of Pierre (South Dakota Supreme Court 2005, 706 N.W.2d 791)“…ation as prescribed by statute and rules relating thereto." SDCL 21-10-5. *796 [¶ 13.] The RESTATEMENT SECON…”
- Davies v. Gphc, LLC (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 55)“…h provide a variety of remedies. 4 4. The text of SDCL 21-10-5 provides as follows: Rem…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 21-10-9Persons entitled to maintain civil action against nuisance--Injunction and damages recoverable.In force
The remedy by civil action against public nuisance may be maintained by any public body or officer authorized thereto by law or official duty, or by any private person if it is specially injurious to himself. Such remedy also may be used by any person whose property is injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by any nuisance public or private. In all such actions the nuisance may be enjoined, or ordered abated, and damages recovered in addition.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Shipley v. City of Spearfish (South Dakota Supreme Court 1975, 89 S.D. 559)“…10 contemplates the enjoining of a continuing nuisance and SDCL 21-10-9 authorizes damages for the duration of…”
- Davies v. Gphc, LLC (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 55)“…rules relating thereto. The provisions of SDCL 21-10-9 describe the civil action remedy of…”
- Douville v. Christensen (South Dakota Supreme Court 2002, 641 N.W.2d 651)“…See SDCL 21 — 10— 3 (defining public nuisance); SDCL 21-10-9 (stating remedy in civil action for pub…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-6: AUTHORIZED PUNISHMENTS
§ 22-6-2Misdemeanor classes and penalties--Restitution--Misdemeanor when no penalty imposed.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
Misdemeanors are divided into two classes which are distinguished from each other by the following maximum penalties which are authorized upon conviction: (1) Class 1 misdemeanor: one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both; (2) Class 2 misdemeanor: thirty days imprisonment in a county jail or five hundred dollars fine, or both. The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of a misdemeanor, shall order, in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of this section, that the defendant make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28. Except in Titles 1 to 20, inclusive, 22, 25 to 28, inclusive, 32 to 36, inclusive, 40 to 42, inclusive, 47 to 54, inclusive, and 58 to 62, inclusive, if the performance of an act is prohibited by a statute, and no penalty for the violation of such statute is imposed by a statute, the doing of such act is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 39 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Feiok (South Dakota Supreme Court 1985, 364 N.W.2d 536)“…t of the penalty imposed under SDCL 32-22-55 might warrant. SDCL 22-6-2(2) fixes the maximum penalty for a Clas…”
- State v. Auen (South Dakota Supreme Court 1984, 342 N.W.2d 236)“…imprisonment in a county jail or $100 fine, or both. See SDCL 22-6-2. The South Dakota Unified Judicial Syst…”
- State v. Beck (South Dakota Supreme Court 2000, 619 N.W.2d 247)“…ne of one thousand dollars. See SDCL 22-42-6 (Supp.1997); SDCL 22-6-2(1). After plea bargaining, Beck entered…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Assault Laws: Simple vs Aggravated Assault and Penalties, Is Disorderly Conduct a Misdemeanor in South Dakota? Trespass (2026), South Dakota Crime Classes: Felony and Misdemeanor Sentences (2026)
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 40-1: CRUELTY, ABUSE AND INJURY TO ANIMALS
§ 40-1-10.1Animal fighting exhibitions or for amusement or gain prohibited--Felony or misdemeanor.In force
No person may: (1) Own, possess, keep, or train any animal with the intent to engage the animal in an exhibition of fighting with another animal; (2) For amusement or gain cause any animal to fight with another animal or cause any animal to injure another animal; or (3) Permit the activity prohibited by this section to be done on any premises under the person's charge or control, or aid, or abet any activity prohibited by this section. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor to be present at any violation of subdivision (2) of this section as a spectator.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 40-12: RABIES CONTROL
§ 40-12-1Confinement of animals required in localities where rabies exists--Neglect as misdemeanor.In force
In localities where rabies exists, the Animal Industry Board may require that any animal deemed likely to spread such disease shall be muzzled, caged, tied, or confined in any manner that may be deemed necessary. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor for any owner or person in charge of any animal so ordered to be muzzled, caged, tied, or confined, to refuse or neglect to carry out such order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
§ 40-12-2Destruction of rabid animal required.In force
If the Animal Industry Board determines that rabies exists in any animal, the board may kill such animal and any animal there is reason to believe has been bitten by any animal affected with rabies.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
§ 40-12-5Confinement of pet after attack upon person--Violation as misdemeanor.In force
The department may serve written notice upon the owner of any dog or cat which has attacked or bitten a person to confine the animal at the owner's expense upon his premises or at a city pound or other place designated in the notice for a period of at least ten days after the animal has attacked or bitten any person. The department may examine the animal at any time within the ten-day period of confinement to determine whether such animal shows symptoms of rabies. In the case of any pet other than a dog or cat, which has attacked or bitten a person, the department may serve written notice upon the owner of such animal that the owner shall have the animal euthanized immediately and submit the brain to an approved laboratory for rabies examination. Any owner who fails to comply with a written notice served pursuant to this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
§ 40-12-6Confinement of pet bitten by animal suspected of having rabies--Violation as misdemeanor.In force
The department may serve written notice upon the owner of a dog or cat known to have been bitten by an animal known or suspected of being affected by rabies, requiring the owner to confine such dog or cat for a period of not less than six months. However, if such dog or cat had been properly treated with an antirabic vaccine, confinement shall be for a period of not less than three months. In the case of any pet other than a dog or cat, the department may serve written notice upon the owner of such animal that the owner shall have the animal euthanized immediately. Any owner who fails to comply with a written notice served pursuant to this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 21-10: REMEDIES AGAINST NUISANCES § 21-10-1 (Acts and omissions constituting nuisances.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 40-34: Dog Licenses and Regulation(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 15-2-14: Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 20-9-2: Contributory Negligence Comparative Fault(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 40-34-1: Killing of Dog Lawful When Disturbing Domestic Animals(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL Chapter 21-10: Remedies Against Nuisances(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- South Dakota Vicious Dog Provisions - Animal Legal and Historical Center(animallaw.info)
- South Dakota Department of Health: Rabies Information(doh.sd.gov).gov
- SDCL 40-12-5: Confinement of Pet After Attack Upon Person, Violation as Misdemeanor(sdlegislature.gov)
- SDCL 15-2-22: Personal Disability Tolling the Limitations Period(sdlegislature.gov)
- Crisp v. Schultis, 507 N.W.2d 567 (S.D. 1993)(courtlistener.com)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.