Were Wolffs required to give notice as to all of their causes of action?
[¶19] Wolffs next contend that, even though they might have been required to give notice of injury as to their cause of action for trespass, they were not required to give notice as to their remaining causes of action. Accordingly, Wolffs contest the trial court’s summary judgment on those causes of action. [¶20] In support of their contention, Wolffs rely on the language of SDCL 3-21-2 emphasized below: No action for the recovery of damages for personal injury, property damage, error or omission or death caused by a public entity or its employees may be maintained against the public entity or its employees unless written notice of … the injury is given … (emphasis added). This Court has interpreted SDCL 3-21-2 as requiring notice of injury for all causes of action sounding in tort. Finck v. City of Tea, 443 NW2d 632 (SD 1989). While the verbiage in Wolffs’ complaint is inartful, it appears to be sufficient to request injunctive relief and to raise the causes of action they contend
