Personal Injury

Kessel v. Rutherford , 2007 ND 55, 734 N.W.2d 342
Personal injury judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).
Gisvold v. Windbreak Inc. , 2007 ND 54, 730 N.W.2d 597
In considering a motion for a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence, a district court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the jury, or act as a thirteenth juror when the evidence is such that different persons would naturally and fairly come to different conclusions; rather, a district court may set aside a jury verdict when, in considering all the evidence, the court's judgment tells it the verdict is wrong because it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
A district court's decision on a motion for a new trial must concisely state the grounds on which the ruling is based.
Klimple v. Bahl , 2007 ND 13, 727 N.W.2d 256
Although there generally is no requirement in ordinary negligence cases for expert testimony to establish the elements of the tort, expert testimony is required if the issue is beyond the area of common knowledge or lay comprehension.
Although hypertechnical words are not necessary for admission of expert medical testimony, the test for admissibility is whether the expert's testimony demonstrates the expert is expressing a medical opinion that is more probable, or more likely than not.
A doctor's testimony that a certain thing is "possible" is no evidence at all.
Lee v. Buehner , 2006 ND 204, 725 N.W.2d 588
A judgment awarding damages in a personal injury action is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).
Leet v. City of Minot , 2006 ND 191, 721 N.W.2d 398
For recreational use immunity statutes to apply, a person's presence on the landowner's property open for public recreation must be for "recreational purposes," which includes any activity engaged in for the purpose of exercise, relaxation, pleasure, or education.
A vendor's employee who was present at the City's auditorium for purposes of his employment is not engaged in any activity for the purpose of exercise, relaxation, pleasure, or education.
Rekkedal v. Feist , 2006 ND 147, 718 N.W.2d 10
Dismissal of a lawsuit for failure to timely file the complaint requires that the demand to file has been served under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d); N.D.R.Civ.P. 5 service of the demand is not sufficient.
A party will be sanctioned for including in its appendix material not in the district court record.
Haugen v. BioLife Plasma Services , 2006 ND 117, 714 N.W.2d 841
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows a fact finder to infer negligence if the plaintiff can establish three foundational elements: (1) the accident was one that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the instrumentality or agent that caused the plaintiff's injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) there was no voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
When a plaintiff can present specific evidence of negligence and the cause of an accident, the plaintiff has no need to rely on a res ipsa loquitur inference.
Beckler v. Bismarck Public School Dist. , 2006 ND 58, 711 N.W.2d 172
The party resisting summary judgment cannot merely rely on pleadings, briefs, unsupported and conclusory allegations, or speculation to defeat a summary judgment motion but must present enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff.
To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge that duty, and the plaintiff has suffered an injury that was proximately caused by the defendant's negligence.
A landowner owes a duty of care to lawful entrants to keep its property in a reasonably safe condition, considering all the circumstances, which include the likelihood of injury to another, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.
A proximate cause is a cause which, as a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any controlling intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which it would not have occurred.
Perez v. Nichols , 2006 ND 20, 708 N.W.2d 884
To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge that duty, and the plaintiff has suffered an injury that was proximately caused by the defendant's negligence.
The driver of an automobile has a duty to keep a proper lookout, and failure to discharge that duty is negligence.
In a negligence claim, when the evidence permits a reasonable fact-finder to reach only one reasonable conclusion, negligence becomes a question of law and is appropriate for summary judgment.
Beaudoin v. South Texas Blood & Tissue Center , 2005 ND 120, 699 N.W.2d 421
A nonresident defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota so the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Defendants cannot be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or from the unilateral activity of a third party.
North Dakota courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants only if they purposefully directed their activities toward North Dakota and the cause of action arises out of or relates to the defendant's activities in the State.
A defendant's conscious and repeated decision to ship a product to North Dakota constitutes sufficient minimum contacts required to ground personal jurisdiction.
Rule 60(b)(i), N.D.R.Civ.P., which establishes grounds for vacating a default judgment, permits relief where a party itself has erred.
A trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of our law must be reversed as an abuse of discretion.
Smith v. Kulig , 2005 ND 93, 696 N.W.2d 521
A landowner's only duty to a trespasser is to refrain from harming the trespasser in a willful and wanton manner.
A landowner is not under any affirmative duty to give a trespasser warning of concealed perils, although, by the exercise of reasonable care, the landowner might have discovered the defect or danger that caused the injury.
Ernst v. Burdick , 2004 ND 181, 687 N.W.2d 473
The statutory provisions for criminal history record collection and dissemination under N.D.C.C. ch. 12-60 do not create a private cause of action for violations.
Flatt v. Kantak , 2004 ND 173, 687 N.W.2d 208
A physician must disclose material risks to obtain a patient's informed consent for a medical procedure.
On appeal, a trial court's rulings on expert testimony are reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard.
A trial court is not required to instruct a jury in the exact language sought by a party if the court's instructions correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law.
A physician's duty of disclosure in an informed consent case is measured under the reasonable patient standard.
A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must allege an injury traceable to the statute.
Gonzalez v. Tounjian , 2004 ND 156, 684 N.W.2d 653
When a judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal, post-judgment interest on the affirmed portion runs from the date of the original judgment.
Duma v. Keena , 2004 ND 104, 680 N.W.2d 627
Unopposed instructions become the law of the case.
A special verdict will be set aside only if it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence. Reconciliation of a verdict includes an examination of both the law of the case and the evidence in order to determine whether the verdict is logical and probable and thus consistent, or whether it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence.
Fast v. State , 2004 ND 111, 680 N.W.2d 265
The state may be held liable for money damages for an injury caused from some condition or use of tangible property under circumstances in which the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant.
Landowners owe a general duty to lawful entrants to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to another, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.
Landowners are not liable for snow removal efforts that do not create an unreasonably dangerous or more hazardous condition.
Riemers v. Anderson , 2004 ND 109, 680 N.W.2d 280
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, generally forecloses the relitigation, in a second action based on a different claim, of particular issues of either fact or law which were, or by logical and necessary implication must have been, litigated and determined in the prior suit.
Questions unnecessary to the determination of an appeal are not answered.
Jaste v. Gailfus , 2004 ND 94, 679 N.W.2d 257
A court errs by deciding summary judgment on a legal doctrine other than those raised by the parties unless the parties are given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The error is reversible if not harmless.
Groleau v. Bjornson Oil Co. , 2004 ND 55, 676 N.W.2d 763
Under premises liability law, a defendant must have had control over the property where the injury occurred in order to find the defendant owed a duty to entrants upon the property.
Although a landowner generally owes a duty to lawful entrants to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition, the landowner's duty is limited when a dangerous condition is known or obvious to the entrant.
A landowner is not liable to entrants for injury caused by a known or obvious danger unless the landowner should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.
The determination whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is generally a question of fact for the trier of fact.
Beaudoin v. South Texas Blood & Tissue Center , 2004 ND 49, 676 N.W.2d 103
Removing, preserving, and delivery of body parts involves science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons and is governed by the two-year statute of limitations for malpractice.
A process server's service of process upon a corporation's Executive Office Manager will be deemed valid if a corporate employee identifies the Executive Office Manager as a proper person to accept service, the process server reasonably relies on that identifying representation, the Executive Office Manager served is of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the defendant will be apprised of the service made, and the service results in actual delivery to a person responsible for protecting the corporation's interests in litigation.
Harfield v. Tate , 2004 ND 45, 675 N.W.2d 155
The commission of an act cannot be proved by showing the commission of similar acts by the same person at other times, or by showing the act was in conformity with the person's character or a character trait.
Muhammed v. Welch , 2004 ND 46, 675 N.W.2d 402
Service on a decedent's widower is not service on the decedent's estate.
The fraudulent concealment necessary to extend a statute of limitations an additional year under section 28-01-24, N.D.C.C., relates to concealment of the cause of action, not concealment of the death of a party.
Equitable estoppel may preclude application of a statute of limitations as a defense by one whose actions mislead another, inducing that person to not file a claim within the statutory period.
An insurance adjuster acting for an insurance company may be considered the agent of the insured so as to estop the defendant-insured from raising the statute of limitations defense.
Representatives of a deceased defendant may have an affirmative duty to inform the plaintiff of the defendant's death.
Winer v. Penny Enterprises, Inc. , 2004 ND 21, 674 N.W.2d 9
A dismissal without prejudice is appealable if it has the practical effect of terminating the litigation in the plaintiff's chosen forum.
A state district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-Indian plaintiff against Indian defendants for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident on a state highway within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation.
Green v. Mid Dakota Clinic , 2004 ND 12, 673 N.W.2d 257
Assumption of the risk is no longer an affirmative defense in North Dakota but is one part of the analysis in determining comparative fault.
Negligence and proximate cause are fact questions unless the evidence is such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion.
Fish v. Dockter , 2003 ND 185, 671 N.W.2d 819
To be defamatory, a statement must be false, but there is no liability for defamatory statements that are privileged.
There is a qualified privilege for communications made, without malice, to an interested person by one who is also interested so as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication innocent.
There is an absolute privilege for communications made incident to and during administrative proceedings.
Weiss v. Collection Center, Inc. , 2003 ND 128, 667 N.W.2d 567
The least-sophisticated-consumer standard is used to determine whether a debt collector has used false or misleading practices to collect a debt.
A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of extreme and outrageous conduct that is intentional or reckless and causes severe emotional distress.
Langness v. Fencil Urethane Systems , 2003 ND 132, 667 N.W.2d 596
N.D.R.Ev. 702 envisions generous allowance of the use of expert testimony if proffered witnesses have some degree of expertise in the field in which they are to testify, and they need not have a formal title or be licensed in any particular field to qualify as an expert if their actual qualifications establish knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the field.
A trial court may allow the introduction of evidence that there was a settlement to explain the absence of a former party to a lawsuit.
A witness may not be questioned about wholly irrelevant matters merely for the purpose of contradicting those matters with other extrinsic evidence, and if irrelevant questions are asked and answered, the answer cannot be contradicted by cross-examination.
Gonzalez v. Tounjian , 2003 ND 121, 665 N.W.2d 705
A lessor who retains control over common areas of an apartment building has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the common areas safe.
An expert witness need not be a specialist in a particularized field, have a formal title or specific certification, or be licensed in any particular field. Expert testimony is admissible if the trial court determines the expert's knowledge, training, education, or experience will assist the trier of fact.
The trier of fact in a tort case may award interest on past noneconomic damages.
Interest on future damages is not allowed in a tort case.
Simpson v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. , 2003 ND 31, 657 N.W.2d 261
A trial court's discovery decision and denial of a motion for new trial will not be reversed on appeal unless the court abused its discretion.
Rittenour v. Gibson , 2003 ND 14, 656 N.W.2d 691
A tenant knowing of a dangerous condition on the premises has a duty to warn a social guest.
A district court abuses its discretion when it submits instructions to the jury that, taken as a whole, contain an error in the law that makes a material difference in how the jury might have understood the law.
Wagner v. Squibb , 2003 ND 18, 656 N.W.2d 674
Without a sufficient transcript of the trial court proceedings, this Court cannot make a meaningful and intelligent review of a trial court's decision.
Kondrad v. Bismarck Park District , 2003 ND 4, 655 N.W.2d 411
While the law does not favor contracts exonerating parties from liability for their conduct, parties are bound by clear and unambiguous language evidencing an intent to extinguish liability.
Kimball v. Landeis , 2002 ND 162, 652 N.W.2d 330
Summary judgment is not appropriate in a negligence action if the disputed facts and permissible inferences from those facts are such that reasonable persons could reach different conclusions from those facts and inferences.
Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(b)(2)(c), personal service upon an individual for whom a guardian has been appointed is accomplished by serving the individual's guardian.
Absent valid service of process, actual knowledge of a lawsuit is insufficient to effectuate personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
For equitable tolling of a statute of limitations, a plaintiff must have several legal remedies and reasonably and in good faith pursue one of the remedies, thereby tolling the limitation for the other remedies.
Brandt v. Milbrath , 2002 ND 117, 647 N.W.2d 674
Although prior driving behavior may be probative of negligence and comparative negligence, it may be excluded because of a witness's uncertainty as to the identity of the vehicle or driver.
The district court and appellate court apply different standards when considering a motion for a new trial.
When considering a motion for a new trial, based on insufficient evidence, the district court must weigh the evidence and examine the evidence supporting the verdict and the evidence challenging the verdict.
On appeal, the standard for reviewing an order denying a motion for new trial is, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.
Olson v. Bismarck Parks and Recreation District , 2002 ND 61, 642 N.W.2d 864
The recreational use immunity statutes do not violate the state equal protection clause when applied to winter sledders injured on a hill owned, operated, and maintained by a public landowner.
Gepner v. Fujicolor Processing, Inc. , 2001 ND 207, 637 N.W.2d 681
N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is to be liberally construed and applied, and trial courts should be more lenient in granting motions to vacate default judgments than in vacating judgments in cases which have been tried on their merits.
The Workers Compensation Bureau's determination of benefits to be awarded under the Act are not res judicata on the issue of damages available in an injured worker's separate civil action against an uninsured employer under N.D.C.C. 65-09-02.
A defendant may seek an independent mental examination of the plaintiff under N.D.R.Civ.P. 35(a) by presenting evidence placing the plaintiff's mental condition in controversy.
Trottier v. Bird , 2001 ND 177, 635 N.W.2d 157
When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action under Rule 12(h)(3).
Twogood v. Wentz , 2001 ND 167, 634 N.W.2d 514
Satisfaction of a cost judgment after an execution has been issued does not bar an appeal to reverse a summary judgment on the merits.
For a landlord to be liable for injury caused by a tenant's dog, the landlord must have had control of the property and knowledge of the vicious tendencies of a tenant's dog.
Myer v. Rygg , 2001 ND 123, 630 N.W.2d 62
A trial court's decision on qualification of a witness as an expert will not be reversed on appeal unless it was an abuse of discretion.
If an expert's knowledge, training, education, and experience will assist the trier of fact, the expert need not be a specialist in a highly particularized field or have a formal title or particular license.
The trial court has wide discretion to determine an appropriate sanction for violation of discovery rules.
Sollin v. Wangler , 2001 ND 96, 627 N.W.2d 159
A trial court should give an ultimate-outcome instruction informing the jury how its liability apportionment will affect an award of damages if the instruction is properly requested and the instruction will not confuse or mislead the jury.
Albrecht v. Metro Area Ambulance , 2001 ND 61, 623 N.W.2d 367
It is inappropriate to bring a motion for judgment as a matter of law, under N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(a), in a bench trial.
A court can award damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other noneconomic losses even though the plaintiff has not introduced evidence of economic damages, such as loss of earnings or medical expenses.
Rogstad v. Dakota Gasification Co. , 2001 ND 54, 623 N.W.2d 382
An employer who retains the right to control the method, manner, and operative detail of an independent contractor's work is subject to liability for physical harm to employees of the independent contractor for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care.
An employer's duty to exercise reasonable care for the employee of an independent contractor may arise through express contractual provisions retaining the right to control some part of the operative details of the independent contractor's work or through the employer's actual exercise of retained control of the work.
Fetch v. Quam , 2001 ND 48, 623 N.W.2d 357
Summary judgment is appropriately granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact that an insurer acted in bad faith by intervening in a lawsuit to defend its own interests against its insured under an uninsured motorist provision in the insurance policy or by investigating and refusing to settle a claim by its insured which is fairly debatable as to liability.
Anderson v. Jacobson , 2001 ND 40, 622 N.W.2d 730
A jury special verdict will be set aside on appeal only if it is perverse and contrary to the evidence.
The court on appeal will reconcile alleged inconsistent findings of a jury by examining both the law of the case and the evidence to determine whether the verdict is logical and probable.
Unopposed jury instructions become the law of the case.
Belisle v. Gibson , 2000 ND 191, 622 N.W.2d 432
The trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial and its judgment entered on a jury verdict finding defendants not liable in a personal injury action are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
Schaefer v. Souris River Telecom. , 2000 ND 187, 618 N.W.2d 175
A stipulation as to foundation does not eliminate a trial court's discretion to reject evidence on grounds of relevance.
Allowing a party to read the deposition of an opposing party's witness into evidence is not necessarily an abuse of discretion.
Denying a motion for new trial brought on the ground a party abused discovery by failing to provide a document relating to liability is not an abuse of discretion when liability is not at issue in the trial.
Coleman v. Goulet, f/k/a Chase , 2000 ND 171, 622 N.W.2d 432
The trial court's summary dismissal of a damage action because the plaintiff did not meet the threshold requirements under the Auto Accident Reparations Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 26.1-41, was summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
Kreidt v. Burlington Northern Railroad , 2000 ND 150, 615 N.W.2d 153
Although a party is entitled to instructions which present that party's theory of the case, the trial court is not required to instruct the jury in the exact language sought by a party if the court's instructions adequately and correctly inform the jury of applicable law.
Refusal to give a sudden emergency instruction is not by itself error.
The trier-of-fact may award interest in tort cases.
Reid v. Cuprum SA, de C.U. , 2000 ND 108, 611 N.W.2d 187
To invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling of a statute of limitations, a plaintiff must have several legal remedies and reasonably and in good faith pursue one of the remedies, thereby tolling the limitation for the other remedies.
Dinger v. Strata Corporation , 2000 ND 41, 607 N.W.2d 886
Where multiple parties are involved, a court may order dismissal of some of the defendants; however, the order remains subject to revision until either a final judgment adjudicating all the claims against all the parties is entered or the court certifies there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs entry of judgment in favor of the dismissed defendants.
A motion to reconsider may be treated like a motion to alter or amend a judgment.
Braunberger v. Interstate Engineering, Inc. , 2000 ND 45, 607 N.W.2d 904
A party cannot be awarded costs and disbursements under a vacated judgment.
A prevailing parties who receives a judgment less favorable than the N.D.R.Civ.P. 68 offer are entitled to pre-offer costs, but must pay both parties' post-offer costs.
Recovery of costs is not limited to admissible evidence.
Unless authorized by statute, attorney meal and hotel expenses cannot be awarded as costs and disbursements.
Pierce v. Shannon v. Hulstrand Construction , 2000 ND 54, 607 N.W.2d 878
Absent an allegation of concerted action, there is no action for contribution among joint tortfeasors.
Boudreau v. Estate of Miller , 2000 ND 30, 606 N.W.2d 514
Political subdivisions have a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep their roads and streets reasonably safe for use by the public and to guard against unreasonably dangerous conditions.
Where the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices makes a recommendation by using the word "may," locating signs inconsistently with the recommendation does not in itself result in a breach of a county's duty to users of an intersection.
Lyon v. Ford Motor Company , 2000 ND 12, 604 N.W.2d 453
A party who voluntarily pays and satisfies a judgment waives the right to appeal from the judgment.
Lemer a/k/a Hager v. Campbell , 1999 ND 223, 602 N.W.2d 686
The prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs and disbursements is based upon success upon the merits, not upon damages, and a party may be the prevailing party although recovering no award of damages.
The scope and substance of counsel's opening and closing arguments lie within the trial court's discretion.
Prejudice due to the probative force of evidence is not unfair prejudice.
Generally, a court should not disturb a jury's damages verdict unless it is so excessive or inadequate as to be without support in the evidence.
St. Yves v. DJ's Dance & Arcade, Inc. , 1999 ND 211, 606 N.W.2d 137
Jury verdict summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
Nelson v. Johnson , 1999 ND 171, 599 N.W.2d 246
The agent under the family purpose doctrine is not entitled to have the amount of the principal's settlement with the plaintiffs deducted from the jury's award of damages against the agent.
Harfield v. Tate , 1999 ND 166, 598 N.W.2d 840
The "distracting circumstances" doctrine may be relevant to determine negligence and apportion fault under comparative fault principles.
A jury instruction on distracting circumstances resulting in a driver's inattention to the road is not proper when the distraction was of the requesting party's own making.
Gullickson v. Torkelson Brothers, Inc. , 1999 ND 155, 598 N.W.2d 503
An employer does not breach a duty to an injured employee when the employer is not aware of the danger that injures the employee.
Symington v. Mayo , 1999 ND 48, 590 N.W.2d 450
A jury award of future economic damages will not be overturned if there is record evidence upon which the jury could infer with reasonable certainty the injured plaintiff will incur those future damages.
A jury can infer the necessity of future nursing care based upon record evidence showing severe injuries sustained by the plaintiff and disabilities caused by those injuries.
Leingang v. George , 1999 ND 32, 589 N.W.2d 585
Under Rule 10, N.D.R.App.P., the appellant is required to file the trial transcript. The appellant assumes the risks associated with failure to submit a transcript if the Court is incapable of meaningful review of alleged error without a transcript.
When the district court has provided counsel with a written copy of proposed jury instructions and an opportunity to object, under N.D.R.Civ.P. 51., an objection must be made to any instruction or part of an instruction given or omitted to preserve the issue for appeal.
Hovland v. McCabe , 1999 ND 21, 592 N.W.2d 923
Summary judgment in a negligence case summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
Roise v. Kurtz , 1998 ND 228, 587 N.W.2d 573
An objection not made in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Swenson v. Raumin , 1998 ND 150, 583 N.W.2d 102
The party seeking rescission of a settlement agreement under N.D.C.C. 9-09-04 has the burden of proving reasonable diligence to promptly rescind upon discovering facts entitling the party to rescind, as well as proving an offer to restore to the other contracting party everything of value received under the settlement agreement.
Cervantes v. Drayton Foods, L.L.C. , 1998 ND 138, 582 N.W.2d 2
A company using a temporary employee, whose workers compensation premiums are paid by the labor broker, is not a "contributing employer" and is not immune from liability under N.D.C.C. 65-01-08 for negligently causing a work-related injury to the employee.
Albrecht v. Metro Area Ambulance , 1998 ND 132, 580 N.W.2d 583
In determining its own jurisdiction, the Supreme Court may sua sponte consider whether the district court properly had jurisdiction over the matter.
A district court lacks jurisdiction to proceed with a bench trial and enter a judgment of dismissal with prejudice after ordering the same matter dismissed without prejudice approximately six months earlier.
Phillips v. Dickinson Management, Inc. , 1998 ND 123, 580 N.W.2d 148
When, as a matter of law, employment was at will, without a specified term, a jury verdict finding an employee was wrongfully terminated without cause is not supported by substantial evidence.
Nesseth v. Omlid , 1998 ND 51, 574 N.W.2d 848
Failure to object or request a curative instruction to improper arguments forfeits the right to raise the issue on appeal.
A trial court has an independent duty to intervene if improper comments affect a litigant's substantial rights.
A trial court's denial of a new trial on damages is not an abuse of discretion where the jury's award is supported by sufficient evidence.
A trial court must make a clear statement of the reasons for a denial of a new trial.
Tuhy v. Schlabsz , 1998 ND 31, 574 N.W.2d 823
Summary judgment is improper where genuine disputes of material fact exist about whether a claimant suffered a "serious injury," a threshold for recovery under the no-fault auto reparations law, NDCC ch. 26.1-41.
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the trial court may not weigh the credibility of the evidence presented by each litigant.
Morton v. Fladeland , 1998 ND 1, 576 N.W.2d 524
Trial court's judgment in an automobile accident case summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
Wolf v. Estate of Seright , 1997 ND 240, 573 N.W.2d 161
A trial court's failure to instruct a jury on a motorist's statutory duty to signal an intention to turn not less than 100 feet before turning was not reversible error when the jury was instructed on a motorist's duty to use an appropriate turn signal and the plaintiff was not precluded from arguing the motorist failed to give an appropriate signal.
A trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude expert testimony that a party claims was not disclosed during discovery.
Gowin v. Trangsrud , 1997 ND 226, 571 N.W.2d 824
A trial court does not err in refusing to give a requested instruction which misstates the law.
If a trial court errs in refusing to give a requested instruction, the error is harmless if the result would have been the same if the alleged error had not occurred.
Zimmerman v. Valdak Corp. , 1997 ND 203, 570 N.W.2d 204
The Workers' Compensation Act does not preclude a civil cause of action against an employer for true intentional injuries.
Dismissal of an employee's civil lawsuit against his employer is appropriate when there is no evidence to support a claim his employer had knowledge an injury was certain to occur.
Blessum v. Shelver , 1997 ND 152, 567 N.W.2d 844
Counsel should not make derogatory remarks about opposing counsel. To preserve an objection to improper remarks, a party should object at the time they are made and should ask for a curative instruction.
Pechtl v. Conoco, Inc. , 1997 ND 161, 567 N.W.2d 813
An employer that does not retain control of the method, manner, and operative details of the work of its independent contractor does not owe a duty to the independent contractor's employees under Restatement (Second) of Torts 414.
Hassan v. Brooks , 1997 ND 150, 566 N.W.2d 822
Ordinary due care is the correct standard to determine liability, if any, for a collision between plaintiff's motor vehicle and defendant's cattle, which were not in a designated grazing area. Section 36-11-07(3), N.D.C.C., does not impose strict liability on the livestock owner in this case.
Hovland v. City of Grand Forks , 1997 ND 95, 563 N.W.2d 384
Personal injury claim based on an in-line skating accident occurring on a public bike path was improperly dismissed on summary judgment. North Dakota's recreational use statute did not shield political subdivision from liability.
Huber v. Dooher , 1997 ND 87, 569 N.W.2d 288
The trial court's finding defendant negligent in a car accident in which plaintiff was injured affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Endresen v. Beretta USA Corp. , 1997 ND 38, 560 N.W.2d 225
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the gun design testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness. The trial court's findings the Beretta Model 92F pistol is unreasonably dangerous to users of defective, reloaded ammunition because of a design defect, and the design defect proximately caused the plaintiff's eye injury, were not clearly erroneous. The benefit of the design of the Model 92F to persons who purchase handguns for self-protection does not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design to persons who purchase and use the handgun with reloaded ammunition for recreational purposes. Because of an inconsistency between the trial court's findings and order for judgment about the total amount of the plaintiff's damages, the damages are reversed and remanded for clarification.
Sailer v. Goodno , 1997 ND 26, 565 N.W.2d 505
Affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
Larson v. Kubisiak , 1997 ND 22, 558 N.W.2d 852
When a motion for new trial is made in the trial court, the moving party is limited on appeal to a review of the grounds presented to the trial court, even if the appeal is also from the judgment itself. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict finding the defendant, whose vehicle collided with the plaintiff's car, was not negligent.
Johansen v. Anderson , 555 N.W.2d 588 (N.D. 1996)
Employer owes employee a nondelegatable duty to exercise ordinary care to furnish the employee with a reasonably safe workplace and tools.
Liability cannot be based on negligent failure to inspect when there is no showing a reasonable inspection would have revealed a problem.
Affidavit that modication was 'deficient' was sufficient to raise fact question as to negligent modification.
Kristianson v. Flying J Oil & Gas, Inc. , 553 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 1996)
One who hires an independent contractor is liable for the negligence of the contractor under the 'retained control' theory of Section 414, Restatement (Second) of Torts, only if he retains control over the manner, method, or operative detail of the work.
Merely providing an isolated piece of equipment, without directly supervising or controlling its use, does not constitute control sufficient to create a duty under the retained control doctrine.
Wyatt v. Adams , 551 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1996)
The trial court's certification of the dismissal of a defendant as an appealable final order under Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., was improvidently granted because the need for review could be mooted by future developments in the district court.
Stratton v. Medical Center Rehabilitation Hosp. , 547 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 1996)
Diegel v. City of West Fargo , 546 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1996)
Burgener v. Bushaw , 545 N.W.2d 163 (N.D. 1996)
Fontes v. Dixon , 544 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 1996)
Medd v. Fonder , 543 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 1996)
Zueger v. Carlson , 542 N.W.2d 92 (N.D. 1996)
Walter E. Mitchell v. Art Sanborn , 536 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1995)
Horstmeyer v. Golden Eagle Fireworks , 534 N.W.2d 835 (N.D. 1995)
Reiger v. Wiedmer , 531 N.W.2d 308 (N.D. 1995)
Messmer v. Olstad , 529 N.W.2d 873 (N.D. 1995)
Ingalls v. Glass Unlimited, Inc. , 529 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 1995)
Gessner v. City of Minot , 529 N.W.2d 868 (N.D. 1995)
Kieffer v. Huebner , 525 N.W.2d 250 (N.D. 1994)
Fleck v. ANG Coal Gasification Co. , 522 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 1994)
Usry v. Theusch , 521 N.W.2d 918 (N.D. 1994)
Ferris v. ND Centennial Commission , 521 N.W.2d 643 (N.D. 1994)
Hosman v. ND State University , 521 N.W.2d 643 (N.D. 1994)
Crowston v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company , 521 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 1994)
Miller v. Breidenbach , 520 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 1994)
Swenson v. Raumin , 520 N.W.2d 858 (N.D. 1994)
Thedin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co. , 518 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 1994)
Ceartin v. Ochs , 516 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1994)
Schroeder v. Praska , 512 N.W.2d 667 (N.D. 1994)
Ebach v. Ralston , 510 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 1994)
Maurer v. Wagner , 509 N.W.2d 258 (N.D. 1993)
Dewitz v. Emery , 508 N.W.2d 334 (N.D. 1993)
Thomas v. Stickland , 500 N.W.2d 598 (N.D. 1993)
Ellingson v. Knudson , 498 N.W.2d 814 (N.D. 1993)
Filloon v. Stenseth , 498 N.W.2d 353 (N.D. 1993)
Nesvig v. Anderson Brothers Construction Co. , 490 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 1992)
Ertelt v. EMCASCO Insurance Company , 486 N.W.2d 233 (N.D. 1992)
Oanes v. Westgo, Inc. , 476 N.W.2d 248 (N.D. 1991)
Barth v. Schmidt , 472 N.W.2d 473 (N.D. 1991)
Slaubaugh v. Slaubaugh , 466 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1991)
Kronberger v. Zins , 463 N.W.2d 656 (N.D. 1990)
Marohl v. Osmundson , 462 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1990)
Farmers Union Oil Company of Williston v. Harp , 462 N.W.2d 152 (N.D. 1990)
Jacobs v. Dakota Academy of the Arts , 459 N.W.2d 384 (N.D. 1990)
Farrell v. Miller , 458 N.W.2d 513 (N.D. 1990)
Erickson v. Scotsman, Inc. , 456 N.W.2d 535 (N.D. 1990)
Anderson v. Otis Elevator Co. , 453 N.W.2d 798 (N.D. 1990)
Smith v. Anderson , 451 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 1990)
Olmstead v. Miller , 449 N.W.2d 804 (N.D. 1989)
Newhouse v. Allard , 449 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 1989)
Kavadas v. Lorenzen , 448 N.W.2d 219 (N.D. 1989)
Cullen v. Williams County , 446 N.W.2d 250 (N.D. 1989)
Sathren v. Behm Propane, Inc. , 444 N.W.2d 696 (N.D. 1989)
Karst v. Vickers , 444 N.W.2d 698 (N.D. 1989)
Knudtson v. McLees , 443 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1989)
Haugen v. Schneider , 442 N.W.2d 447 (N.D. 1989)
Swiontek v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. , 432 N.W.2d 893 (N.D. 1988)
Wagner v. Peterson , 430 N.W.2d 331 (N.D. 1988)
Berger v. Gratz , 430 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1988)
Ganzer v. Woodbury , 427 N.W.2d 353 (N.D. 1988)
Finch v. Gillette , 430 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1988)
Jacobs v. Anderson Building Company , 430 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1988)
First Trust Co. of ND v. Scheels Hardware & Sports Shops, Inc. , 429 N.W.2d 5 (N.D. 1988)
Sjolin v. Frojen , 429 N.W.2d 19 (N.D. 1988)
Barsness v. General Diesel v. First Assembly of God Church , 422 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1988)
Bellemare v. Gateway Builders, Inc. , 420 N.W.2d 733 (N.D. 1988)
Davis v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company , 420 N.W.2d 347 (N.D. 1988)
Garrett v. Nagel , 417 N.W.2d 855 (N.D. 1988)
Fronk v. Meager , 417 N.W.2d 807 (N.D. 1987)
Priel v. R.E.D., Inc. , 392 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 1986)
Keyes v. Amundson , 391 N.W.2d 602 (N.D. 1986)
Barsness v. General Diesel & Equipment Co., Inc. , 383 N.W.2d 840 (N.D. 1986)
Olmstead v. Miller , 383 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 1986)
Loken v. Magrum , 380 N.W.2d 336 (N.D. 1986)
Lange v. Cusey , 379 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1985)
Keller v. Gama , 378 N.W.2d 867 (N.D. 1985)
Buurman v. Central Valley School District , 371 N.W.2d 146 (N.D. 1985)
Holte v. Albers, Inc. , 370 N.W.2d 520 (N.D. 1985)
Richard v. Fliflet , 370 N.W.2d 528 (N.D. 1985)
Layman v. Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt, Inc. , 356 N.W.2d 102 (N.D. 1984)
Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc. , 354 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 1984)
Felchle v. Felchle , 351 N.W.2d 447 (N.D. 1984)
Haugo v. Haaland , 349 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 1984)
Patch v. Sebelius , 349 N.W.2d 637 (N.D. 1984)
Umpleby v. State, ex rel. Game and Fish Department , 347 N.W.2d 156 (N.D. 1984)
Fee v. Richmond Manufacturing Co. , 346 N.W.2d 290 (N.D. 1984)
Andersen v. Teamsters Local 116 Building Club, Inc. , 347 N.W.2d 309 (N.D. 1984)
Mauch v. Manufacturers Sales & Service, Inc. , 345 N.W.2d 338 (N.D. 1984)
Layman v. Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt, Inc. , 343 N.W.2d 334 (N.D. 1983)
Keyes v. Amundson , 343 N.W.2d 78 (N.D. 1983)
Staroba v. Heitkamp , 338 N.W.2d 640 (N.D. 1983)
Halvorson v. Voeller , 336 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 1983)
Winkler v. Gilmore & Tatge Mfg. Co., Inc. , 334 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1983)
Gauer v. Klemetson , 333 N.W.2d 436 (N.D. 1983)
St. Aubbin v. Nelson , 329 N.W.2d 874 (N.D. 1983)
State, ex rel. Moug v. North Dakota Automobile Assigned Claims Plan , 322 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 1982)
Senger v. Hulstrand Construction, Inc. , 320 N.W.2d 507 (N.D. 1982)
Neibauer v. Well , 319 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 1982)
Dahlen v. Landis , 314 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1981)
Besette v. Enderlin School District No. 22 , 310 N.W.2d 759 (N.D. 1981)
Lumpkin v. Streifel , 308 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1981)
Allen v. Kleven , 306 N.W.2d 629 (N.D. 1981)
Moser v. Wilhelm , 300 N.W.2d 840 (N.D. 1980)
Knorr v. K-Mart Corporation , 300 N.W.2d 47 (N.D. 1980)
South v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation , 290 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1980)
Besette v. Enderlin School District No. 22 , 288 N.W.2d 67 (N.D. 1980)
McCommon v. Hennings , 283 N.W.2d 166 (N.D. 1979)
Weiss v. Bellomy , 278 N.W.2d 119 (N.D. 1979)
Herman v. Magnuson , 277 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 1979)
Chewakin v. St. Vincent , 275 N.W.2d 300 (N.D. 1979)
Gegelman v. Reiersgaard , 273 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 1979)
Hart v. Kern , 268 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 1978)
Helbling v. Helbling , 267 N.W.2d 559 (N.D. 1978)
Belinskey v. Hansen , 261 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 1977)
Olson v. A. W. Chesterton Co. , 256 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 1977)
Cook v. Stenslie , 251 N.W.2d 393 (N.D. 1977)
Starr v. Morsette , 236 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 1975)
Schantz v. White Lightning , 231 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 1975)
Kresel v. Giese , 231 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 1975)
Nitschke v. Barnick , 226 N.W.2d 785 (N.D. 1975)
Francis v. Pic , 226 N.W.2d 654 (N.D. 1975)
Waletzko v. Herdegen , 226 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 1975)
Eriksen v. Boyer , 225 N.W.2d 66 (N.D. 1974)
Dimond v. Kling , 221 N.W.2d 86 (N.D. 1974)
King v. Montz , 219 N.W.2d 836 (N.D. 1974)
Wock v. Kuhn , 221 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 1974)
Wentz v. Deseth , 221 N.W.2d 101 (N.D. 1974)
Johnson v. Hassett , 217 N.W.2d 771 (N.D. 1974)
Johanson v. Nash Finch Co. , 216 N.W.2d 271 (N.D. 1974)
Johanson v. Nash Finch Co. , 212 N.W.2d 372 (N.D. 1974)
Schuh v. Allery , 210 N.W.2d 96 (N.D. 1973)
Tang v. Ping , 209 N.W.2d 624 (N.D. 1973)
Kleinjan v. Knutson , 207 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 1973)
Gourneau v. Smith , 207 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 1973)
Armstrong v. Miller , 200 N.W.2d 282 (N.D. 1972)
Schock v. Northern Tank Line , 196 N.W.2d 60 (N.D. 1972)
Issendorf v. Olson , 194 N.W.2d 750 (N.D. 1972)
Hogan v. Knoop , 191 N.W.2d 263 (N.D. 1971)
Lacy v. Grinsteinner , 190 N.W.2d 11 (N.D. 1971)
Kunze v. Stang , 191 N.W.2d 526 (N.D. 1971)
Wright v. State , 189 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 1971)
Gieser v. Hambek , 188 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 1971)
Roquette v. North American Van Lines , 187 N.W.2d 78 (N.D. 1971)
Haugen v. City of Grand Forks , 187 N.W.2d 68 (N.D. 1971)
Klein v. Harper , 186 N.W.2d 426 (N.D. 1971)
Brauer v. James J. Igoe and Sons Construction, Inc. , 186 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 1971)
Tennyson v. Bandle , 181 N.W.2d 687 (N.D. 1970)
Bohn v. Eichhorst , 181 N.W.2d 771 (N.D. 1970)
Mertz v. Weibe , 180 N.W.2d 664 (N.D. 1970)
Dodd v. Greyhound Bus Lines Inc. , 180 N.W.2d 240 (N.D. 1970)
Koistinen v. Farmers Union Oil Co. of Rolla , 179 N.W.2d 327 (N.D. 1970)
Sand v. Farmers Union Oil Company of Rolla , 179 N.W.2d 334 (N.D. 1970)
O'Brien v. Farmers Union Oil Company of Rolla , 179 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 1970)
Zerr v. Sommer , 179 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1970)
Simon v. Woodland , 179 N.W.2d 422 (N.D. 1970)
Fowler v. Delzer , 177 N.W.2d 756 (N.D. 1970)
Mitzel v. Schatz , 175 N.W.2d 659 (N.D. 1970)
Holecek v. Janke , 171 N.W.2d 94 (N.D. 1969)
Shermoen v. Lindsay , 163 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1968)
Thomspon v. Nettum , 163 N.W.2d 91 (N.D. 1968)
Koland v. Johnson , 163 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1968)
Mitzel v. Schatz , 167 N.W.2d 519 (N.D. 1968)
Holten v. Wysocki , 161 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 1968)
Thornburg v. Perleberg , 158 N.W.2d 188 (N.D. 1968)
Glatt v. Feist , 156 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1968)
Wolff v. Light , 156 N.W.2d 175 (N.D. 1968)
Chambers v. Satrom , 154 N.W.2d 913 (N.D. 1967)
Titus v. Titus , 154 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. 1967)
Nuelle v. Wells , 154 N.W.2d 364 (N.D. 1967)
Wheat v. Patterson , 154 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1967)
Steuber v. Hastings , 153 N.W.2d 804 (N.D. 1967)
Johnson v. Frelich , 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967)
Sucher v. Oliver-Mercer Electric , 151 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1967)
Braun v. Riskedahl , 150 N.W.2d 577 (N.D. 1967)
Linington v. McLean County , 150 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 1967)
Froemke v. Hauff , 147 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 1966)
Peterson v. Rude , 146 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 1966)
Haga v. Cook , 145 N.W.2d 888 (N.D. 1966)
Jasper v. Freitag , 145 N.W.2d 879 (N.D. 1966)
Degenstein v. Ehrman , 145 N.W.2d 493 (N.D. 1966)
Monson v. Nelson , 145 N.W.2d 892 (N.D. 1966)
Willert v. Nielson , 146 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 1966)
Linington v. McLean County , 146 N.W.2d 45 (N.D. 1966)
Haugen v. Mid-State Aviation, Inc. , 144 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 1966)
Bertsch v. Zahn , 141 N.W.2d 792 (N.D. 1966)
Mikkelson v. Risovi , 141 N.W.2d 150 (N.D. 1966)
Manock v. Donley , 139 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. 1966)
Kaezor v. City of Minot , 138 N.W.2d 784 (N.D. 1965)
Meyer v. Robb , 138 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 1965)
Teegarden v. Dahl , 138 N.W.2d 668 (N.D. 1965)
Lindenberg v. Folson , 138 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1965)
Granger v. Deaconess Hospital , 138 N.W.2d 443 (N.D. 1965)
Stradinger v. Hatzenbuhler , 137 N.W.2d 212 (N.D. 1965)
Renner v. Murray , 136 N.W.2d 794 (N.D. 1965)
Murray v. Renner , 136 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1965)
Kuntz v. Stelmachuk , 136 N.W.2d 810 (N.D. 1965)
Wanna v. Miller , 136 N.W.2d 563 (N.D. 1965)
Holcomb v. Striebel , 133 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 1965)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 09/05/2008