Kappenman v. Klipfel
Alfred Kappenman and Julie Ness,
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
Brent Klipfel, and Albion Township,
a political subdivision of the
State of North Dakota, Defendants and Appellees
Southeast Judicial District,
Judge John T. Paulson
|Nature of Action:||Personal Injury|
|Term:||12/2008  Argument: 12/01/2008 10:45am|
|ND cite:||2009 ND 89|
765 N.W.2d 716
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
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|
|1||07/25/2008||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 07/24/2008|
|2||07/25/2008||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 07/24/2008|
|3||07/25/2008||ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|4||08/04/2008||TRANSCRIPT DATED April 14, 2008 (E-mail)|
|5||08/04/2008||DISK - tra (4-14-08) (e-mailed)|
|6||08/25/2008||RECORD ON APPEAL (3 volumes).|
|7||08/27/2008||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF & Affidavit of David R. Bliss w/Affidavit of Service|
|8||08/27/2008||ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 10/01/2008|
|9||10/01/2008||APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)|
|10||10/01/2008||E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)|
|11||10/01/2008||APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed)|
|12||10/01/2008||E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)|
|13||10/03/2008||Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt #18265)|
|14||10/07/2008||Received $47 surcharge for ATA (receipt #18271)|
|15||10/07/2008||Received copies of Appellant's Brief from Central Duplicating Services|
|16||10/07/2008||Received copies of Appellant's Appendix from Central Duplicating Services|
|17||10/31/2008||APPELLEE BRIEF - Klipfel (PDF)|
|18||10/31/2008||E-FILED BRIEF - AEB - Klipfel (PDF)|
|19||10/31/2008||APPELLEE APPENDIX - Klipfel|
|20||11/04/2008||APPELLEE BRIEF - Albion Township|
|21||10/31/2008||E-FILED BRIEF - AEB - Albion Township|
|22||10/31/2008||APPELLEE APPENDIX - Albion Township|
|23||11/03/2008||Received $25 Surcharge for AEB - Klipfel (Receipt 18602)|
|24||11/03/2008||Received $89 Surcharge for AEB & AEA - Albion Township (Receipt #18603)|
|25||11/04/2008||Received copies of AEB - Klipfel from Central Duplicating|
|26||11/04/2008||Received copies of AEA - Klipfel from Central Duplicating|
|27||11/05/2008||Received copies of AEB - Albion Township - from Central Duplicating Services|
|28||11/05/2008||Received copies of AEA - Albion Township - from Central Duplicating Services|
|29||11/14/2008||REPLY BRIEF of Appellants (E-filed)|
|30||11/14/2008||E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)|
|31||11/18/2008||Received 7 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating.|
|32||11/19/2008||SITTING WITH THE COURT: Bekken, James M.|
|33||12/01/2008||APPEARANCES: David R. Bliss, Al Kappenman, Julie Tharan; Carlton J. Hunke; Randall J. Bakke|
|34||12/01/2008||ARGUED: Bliss; Hunke; Bakke|
|35||12/01/2008||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|36||05/26/2009||DISPOSITION (AND REMANDED): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|37||05/26/2009||SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|38||05/26/2009||(CONCUR IN THE RESULT): Crothers, Daniel John: CON/RES|
|39||05/26/2009||(CONCURRING): VandeWalle, Gerald W.: CONCUR|
|40||05/26/2009||(JOIN IN CONCURRENCE): Bekken, James M.: JN/CON|
|41||05/26/2009||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellants|
|42||05/29/2009||Judgment e-mailed to Parties|
|44||06/23/2009||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|