Kappenman v. Klipfel
aka Julie Kappenman, on behalf of
their minor son, Brason Kappenman,
deceased, and Alfred Kappenman and
Julie Kappenman on behalf of the
heirs and next-of-kin of Brason
Kappenman, deceased, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Brent Klipfel, and Albion Township,
a political subdivision of the
State of North Dakota, Defendants and Appellees
Judge John T. Paulson
| Appellee: | Vogel Law Firm | |
| Appellee: | Smith Bakke Porsborg Schweigert & Armstrong | |
| Appellant: |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. The trial court erred when it ruled that North Dakota's recreational use immunity statute bars the Kappenmans' claims against the township for Brason's death.
A. At issue is whether Albion Township had a duty to warn of a known hazardous condition, not whether the Township had a duty to repair the section line.
B. The intent of North Dakota's recreational use statute was to protect private landowners and not political entities.
C. The trial court improperly applied the Leet test when it granted Albion Township and Klipfel immunity from suit by the Kappenmans.
II. The trial court erred when it ruled that Albion township is protected from suit by discretionary immunity.
A. Albion Township's failure to warn travelers of a known hazard was a ministerial act not covered by discretionary immunity.
B. A township's budget constraints alone do not control whether Albion Township breached its duty to warn travelers of a dangerous section line hazard.
III. The trial court erred when it ruled that North Dakota's recreational use immunity statute bars the Kappenmans' claims against Klipfel for Brason's death.
A. Landowner Klipfel had a duty to warn travelers of known hazards which exist on an open and publically-traveled section line road.
B. Brason did not "enter" Klipfel's land such that Klipfel can avail himself of North Dakota's recreational use immunity statute.
C. Brason's purpose of travel is a jury questions and inappropriate for summary judgment.
D. Whether Klipfel acted willfully and maliciously is a jury question and inappropriate for summary judgment.
IV. The trial court erred when it ruled that neither Albion township nor Klipfel had a duty to abate a public nuisance on a section line road. A. Neither Albion Township nor Klipfel can impede the public's right to travel on a section line road, and each has a duty to warn travelers of a known hazard. B. The public's right to travel a section line road is not thwarted by the recreational use immunity exception to liability. V. The trial court erred when it denied the Kappenmans' motion to amend their complaint.
Reply Brief Issues
I. Recreational use immunity does not bar the Kappenmans' claims against the township.
A. Whether Brason was coming home is a material fact which precludes summary judgment.
B. The Township's N.D.C.C. 24-06-31 obligation precludes its use of recreational use immunity.
C. Neither Olson nor the 1995 amendments to N.D.C.C. 53-08 absolves the Township from liability.
II. Discretionary immunity does not protect the township.
A. The Township's failure to warn travelers of a known hazard was ministerial, not discretionary.
B. Public policy dictates that the Township cannot be shielded from responsibility for Brason's death.
III. Recreational use immunity statute does not bar the Kappenmans' claims against Klipfel.
A. Whether Klipfel negligently dug or maintained the section line trench is a material fact for the jury.
B. Whether Klipfel opened his property to Brason is a material fact for the jury.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Appellee Brent Klipfel - Whether the district court properly ruled that Brent Klipfel did not have a duty to keep an unimproved section line trial safe or to warn section line travelers of a known hazard.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Appellee Albion Township - I. Whether the trial court's ruling Kappenmans' claims against Albion Township are barred by North Dakota's recreational use immunity was in error
II. Whether the trial court's ruling Albion Township is protected from suit by discretionary immunity was in error
IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Kappenmans' motion to amend their complaint
Add Docket 20080184 RSS