Looks like the key deposition in the Falls Park death case was from a SFPD Detective

Now we can see why the city is trying to throw out the case, it seems, this detective’s deposition could be damaging to their case.

I want to applaud the detective for being honest and transparent in his interview, not that we shouldn’t expect that from any Sioux Falls police officer, but it was refreshing to see. They could have easily been vague.

Keloland-TV Screenshot


13 comments ↓

#1 Jimmy Doxx on 10.03.19 at 10:26 pm

And people wonder why we can’t have nice things. When people aren’t willing to take on even the smallest amount of responsibility and continue to look to blame others, we find just about every aspect in our lives bloated to cover the litigious nature of our society today. Remember when lawsuits were reserved for actual negligence and not quick paydays? Remember when people had pride and actually felt they had to work to get rich? Nature is no one’s fault so respect it. The city did nothing wrong.

#2 l3wis on 10.03.19 at 10:45 pm

I will agree the city didn’t do anything ‘wrong’. But sometimes negligence is determined by not doing anything to protect the innocent. But the laws are clear about personal responsibility in parks in our state. This is a tough one, because I see both sides of the argument, on one hand, people need to watch their children, on the other hand, the foam was deceptive, as the detective mentioned. If I were a judge or jury, I would really be racking my brain.

Even though several deaths have occurred at Falls Park, people still don’t get it, every time I go down there, all times of the year, rain, snow or shine, people, adults and children are screwing around on the rocks to close to the Falls, I’m even guilty of it. Where I think this is different is that the foam was ‘deceptive’.

But I have also agree with some peeps opinion on the matter that there should be some ‘Why Die’ signs down there to warn people of what can happen. I have also thought the DENR’s suggesting of posting toxicity signs would be a good idea. If people are not scared of the rushing water, they certainly are scared of poison.

As for your argument about wanting a monetary settlement, I get your argument, but in this case, you can’t put a price on a young child’s life, no amount of money will ever replace this girl.

#3 "'Extremely' (and now 'Very') Stable Genius" on 10.04.19 at 12:21 am

The city established, or created an enhanced, legal duty by making Falls Park more attractive. The city’s inability to address this newly established duty makes it blatantly liable for such tragic events. Any contributory negligence caused by a patron at that city park – from such a tragic event – is at best a negligence assigned a percentage basis contribution to the event and does not demonstrate full responsibility for the tragic mishap upon the victim or their family. Thus, the city is still partially responsible for this mishap, because it is very foreseeable.

#4 D@ily Spin on 10.04.19 at 8:08 am

When there’s foam at the Falls, it’d be easy to get to close. I suspect the child, parent, or the city are not at fault. At foamy times in the future, the city could put cones out within 50’ of waters edge. Likely, the city will stretch this case out 4 years and eventually settle out of court without an admission of guilt.

#5 Conservative Here on 10.04.19 at 8:29 am

Completely disagree Scott, there is only one side, watch your kids! Its nature, would you sue the state of SD if your out in the middle of nowhere and your child wonders off and is mauled by a Bobcat or Coyote, no!!! Even if we put signs up, many small children cannot read. My guess is most 5 year olds cannot read or if they can its very limited. I am actually losing sympathy for the parents as now you think the citizens of Sioux Falls should pay financially because you didn’t watch your kid. This sounds harsh but, come on parents, its not our fault and while we dont want to place blame and make you feel bad due to the loss of a child, its now warranted because YOU refuse to take responsibility. If these folks win this cause the Jurors need their voting privileges revoked. We as a society have just refused to use common sense or take responsibility anymore.

#6 Jimmy Doxx on 10.04.19 at 10:52 am

It’s nature. What responsibility does any gov’t have to protect us from something that naturally exists? Are we going to fence off the entire rim of the grand canyon? Gov’t shouldn’t have any responsibility of protecting us from natural risks. The mitigation of those risks solely relies on the individual putting themselves into that position. Suggesting that the city is somehow responsible is pure nanny statism.

#7 "Very Stable Genius" on 10.04.19 at 11:01 am

It’s 11 AM and the first Friday of the month and I just hear the sirens while being indoors…. 🙂

#8 l3wis on 10.04.19 at 12:40 pm

I get the watch your kid argument, but other factors are involved. It is not naturally occurring, the chemical runoff that creates the foam is from man made processes.

#9 matt johnson on 10.04.19 at 1:41 pm

so lets sue all of the manufacturers, farmers, and others upstream of the falls as well; WATCH YOUR KIDS

#10 LJL on 10.04.19 at 2:42 pm

Another example of the “other factors involved” excuse. That’s why the lawyers run this country.

So now foaming chemicals are to blame for the child’s death? It’s not nature or human error. There must always be a foolish governing body or evil corporation in the narrative of the people with no self responsibility.

Always a hapless victim in an unjust world.

BTW. How many pets have been killed at the falls? I’m starting to think dogs and cats have more worth in our society than the children. I don’t recall of ever hearing about a pet abortion now that I’m pondering this subject.

#11 Jimmy Doxx on 10.04.19 at 6:20 pm

I will not hold the city responsible for the environmental disaster that is chemical runoff. Once again, not shaming these people and making it the norm for people to be able to sue for everything is why every industry is full of paper pushing, non revenue producing jobs.

#12 l3wis on 10.04.19 at 6:40 pm

VSG, we were laughing today about hearing the sirens indoors. The girl working next to me said, “I thought you were not supposed to hear the sirens indoors?”

She said, “The sirens were how we heard things before cell phones and weather radio.”

#13 "Very Stable Genius" on 10.04.19 at 9:44 pm

l3wis,

That’s right. The sirens are apart of our “Triad” defense system against adverse weather: Sirens, cell phones, and KDLT weather radios.

( – and Woodstock states: “I believe it was that ‘B’ student, who once really didn’t know what the ‘Triad’ defense system was all about during a Republican debate.”)

Leave a Comment