Start with S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2. In South Dakota, South Dakota applies modified comparative fault. A plaintiff more negligent than the defendant is barred from recovery; lesser fault reduces damages proportionally. That is the question this guide answers for being sued after a car accident. The personal-injury deadline is Three years for personal injury actions under S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-14(3).. Auto liability insurance is mandatory; fault findings under § 20-9-2 affect insurer liability and settlement values.
Can you be sued after a car accident in South Dakota?
Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.
You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2.
Comparative fault and negligence in South Dakota
South Dakota applies modified comparative fault. A plaintiff more negligent than the defendant is barred from recovery; lesser fault reduces damages proportionally.
In South Dakota, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
Practical consequences:
- Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
- Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
- Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under South Dakota allocation rules.
How the South Dakota rule applies
Apply the South Dakota authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
Two drivers collide in South Dakota. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In South Dakota, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: South Dakota applies modified comparative fault. A plaintiff more negligent than the defendant is barred from recovery; lesser fault reduces damages proportionally.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: Three years for personal injury actions under S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-14(3)..
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Auto liability insurance is mandatory; fault findings under § 20-9-2 affect insurer liability and settlement values.
In South Dakota the accident lawsuit turns on S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2 and the modified 51 rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Auto liability insurance is mandatory; fault findings under § 20-9-2 affect insurer liability and settlement values.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where South Dakota uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
Three years for personal injury actions under S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-14(3).
Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.
What to do after a crash in South Dakota
- Get medical care and document injuries.
- Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
- Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
- Calendar the SOL: Three years for personal injury actions under S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-14(3)..
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to South Dakota) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in South Dakota
Charlotte CHAMBERS and Glenn Norman Chambers, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DAKOTAH CHARTER, INC., a South Dakota
…her the trial court should have applied the Missouri law of comparative negligence in an action between South Dakota domicili-aries arising from an* accident on a bus in Missouri. The trial court declined to follow lex loci delecti, and it applied the South Dakota law of comparative negligence. We affirm. In May 1989, Charlotte and thirty-four other South Dakota residents chart…
Practitioners open Charlotte CHAMBERS and Glenn Norman Chambers, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DAKOTAH CHARTER, INC., a South Dakota when South Dakota car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Missouri law of comparative negligence in an action between South Dakota domicili-aries arising from an* accident on a bus in Missouri. The trial court declined to follow lex loci delecti, and it applied the South Dakota law of comparative negligence. We affirm." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
John Duane SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A. Kenneth SMITH, Bernard Dodd, Inc., a Corporati — Henderson, J
…interposed as a defense; (c) although South Dakota has the comparative negligence doctrine, which is akin to the comparative fault theory now adopted by California and Alaska to reduce a plaintiff’s recovery, this is not available as a defense in a strict liability action; and (d) “contributory fault” is just another way of saying “contributory negligence” and should not be av…
South Dakota opinions such as John Duane SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A. Kenneth SMITH, Bernard Dodd, Inc., a Corporati — Henderson, J are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "interposed as a defense; (c) although South Dakota has the comparative negligence doctrine, which is akin to the comparative fault theory now adopted by California and Alaska to reduce a plaintiff’s recovery, this is not available as a defense in a strict liability action; and (d" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Roger LOVELL; Earl Lovell and Blanche Lovell, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. OAHE ELECTRIC
….1983). That deference, however, is not absolute. Under our comparative negligence statute[3] a plaintiff may recover if his negligence was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. SDCL 20-9-2. When facts show that the plaintiff, beyond reasonable dispute, was guilty of negligence more than slight, it is the function of the trial court to hold, as a matter of…
On car-accident / fault, Roger LOVELL; Earl Lovell and Blanche Lovell, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. OAHE ELECTRIC speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "That deference, however, is not absolute. Under our comparative negligence statute[3] a plaintiff may recover if his negligence was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. SDCL 20-9-2." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Garold PETERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAFWAY STEEL SCAFFOLDS COMPANY of South Dakota and — Henderson, J
…rring). As regards the defenses of contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and contributory fault, I attempted to break these down as not being available in the defense of a strict liability case. In Smith, 278 N.W.2d at 162, this author noted: I would further hold that in the State of South Dakota under a given set of facts that: *916(a) the classical negligence defen…
Practitioners open Garold PETERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAFWAY STEEL SCAFFOLDS COMPANY of South Dakota and — Henderson, J when South Dakota car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "As regards the defenses of contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and contributory fault, I attempted to break these down as not being available in the defense of a strict liability case. In Smith, 278 N.W." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Coyle W. DUNCAN, Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. PENNINGTON COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY — Morgan, J
…uct from the initial verdict the plaintiff’s percentage for comparative negligence, then deduct the PCHA contribution, and then apply the 7.5%. I am hereby authorized to state that Justice FOSHEIM joins in this dissent. In this case the horizontal scheme of adjustment among the joint tort-feasors was not triggered by the filing of any cross complaints.
Practitioners open Coyle W. DUNCAN, Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. PENNINGTON COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY — Morgan, J when South Dakota car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "PCHA contribution, and then apply the 7.5%. I am hereby authorized to state that Justice FOSHEIM joins in this dissent. In this case the horizontal scheme of adjustment among the joint tort-feasors was not triggered by the filing of any cross complaints." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 51% bar (recovery barred if you are more than 50% at fault).
- Controlling authority: S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2.
- In South Dakota, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
- Personal-injury filing deadline: Three years for personal injury actions under S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-14(3)..
- Insurance: Auto liability insurance is mandatory; fault findings under § 20-9-2 affect insurer liability and settlement values.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?
Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming South Dakota’s modified 51 rules under S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2.
What if I was partly at fault?
In South Dakota, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in South Dakota?
Three years for personal injury actions under S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-14(3).
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Auto liability insurance is mandatory; fault findings under § 20-9-2 affect insurer liability and settlement values. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.