Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In an action stemming from a failed sale of land from Greg and Shelly Schwab to Raymond Zajac, Zajac appealed the judgment entered after a jury awarded the Schwabs $4,000 on their slander of title claim against Zajac, after the district court ordered disbursement of Zajac's payment of $10,000 in earnest money to the Schwabs and after the court ordered Zajac to execute a document disclaiming any interest in the Schwabs' land. Zajac argued the district court erred in not admitting evidence at trial involving the Schwabs' attempt to cure a waterfowl easement on the land as an accommodation to complete the transaction, the court erred in not admitting evidence at trial of the present value of the Schwabs' land and denying him due process and a fair trial by taking over Zajac's self-represented case. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the district court to determine the Schwabs' attorney fees on appeal for their slander of title claim. View "Schwab v. Zajac" on Justia Law

Richard Herring appealed a district court summary judgment dismissing his action against Lisbon Partners Credit Fund, Ltd. Partnership ("Lisbon Partners") and Five Star Services ("Five Star") for nuisance, negligence, and civil trespass. Herring owned a commercial building in Lisbon. The adjoining property, including an apartment building, was owned by Lisbon Partners and managed by Five Star. Branches from a large tree located on Lisbon Partners' property overhang onto Herring's property and brush against his building. For many years Herring trimmed back the branches and cleaned out the leaves, twigs, and debris that would fall from the encroaching branches and clog his downspouts and gutters. Herring claimed that the encroaching branches caused water and ice dams to build up on his roof, and eventually caused water damage to the roof, walls, and fascia of his building. Herring contended that, after he had the damages repaired, he requested compensation from Lisbon Partners and Five Star but they denied responsibility for the damages. Herring sued Lisbon Partners and Five Star for the cost of the repairs to his building, alleging Lisbon Partners and Five Star had committed civil trespass and negligence and had maintained a nuisance by breaching their duty to maintain and trim the tree so that it did not cause damage to his property. The district court granted Lisbon Partners and Five Star's motion for summary judgment dismissing Herring's claims, concluding Lisbon Partners and Five Star had no duty to trim or maintain the tree and Herring's remedy was limited to self-help. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded: "[a]lthough … we provide a framework for resolution of disputes arising from encroaching trees which authorizes judicial and self-help remedies, we stress that it is preferable for the parties to cooperate and agree on an amicable resolution to such disputes. Under the rule we adopt today, Lisbon Partners and Five Star, as the owners of the encroaching tree, are not liable for any damages caused merely by the tree dropping leaves, flowers, or fruit. Herring alleged damages caused by branches from the offending tree physically scraping against the building. If Herring [could] present evidence establishing damages caused by the intruding branches physically contacting the building, Lisbon Partners and Five Star would be liable for such damages under the 'Hawaii' rule." The case was remanded for a determination of whether there was a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. View "Herring v. Lisbon Partners" on Justia Law

Karl Moseng and his wife Vicki Moseng were employed by Hartland Mutual Insurance Company. Lynn Frey was Vicki Moseng's supervisor from 1985 to 2008. Karl Moseng alleged Frey used his position as a supervisor with Hartland to arrange sexual liaisons with Vicki Moseng from 1988 through 1991. Specifically, Karl Moseng alleged Frey sent Karl Moseng on geographically distant employment assignments to more easily allow the liaisons between Frey and Vicki Moseng. Karl Moseng brought claims of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Frey and Hartland. Frey and Hartland moved to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The trial court granted the dismissal with prejudice. Karl Moseng thereafter appealed, arguing his claims were legally sufficient to survive dismissal with prejudice. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Karl Moseng's claims were legally insufficient, and affirmed. View "Moseng v. Frey" on Justia Law

Merwin Carlson appealed a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") decision that denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits after remand. Under the law of the underlying case, the Supreme Court held that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") erred in concluding WSI properly exercised its continuing jurisdiction under N.D.C.C.65-05-04 to deny Carlson benefits on remand. The Court reversed and remanded for WSI to award Carlson benefits based on the ALJ's calculation that Carlson's average weekly wage was $722. View "Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Ins." on Justia Law

Carol Forsman appealed a judgment which dismissed as a matter of law under N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(a) her dram shop and negligence action against Blues, Brews and Bar-B-Ques, Inc., doing business as Muddy Rivers, and Amanda Espinoza. Forsman argued the district court erred in granting Muddy Rivers' motion for judgment as a matter of law, claiming she introduced sufficient evidence to establish Muddy Rivers knowingly provided alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, Espinoza, and Espinoza caused Forsman's injuries. Forsman also claimed the court erred in sustaining Muddy Rivers' hearsay objections to several police reports and she was denied the opportunity to call a rebuttal witness to challenge inconsistent statements by witnesses associated with Muddy Rivers. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on Forsman's dram shop claim, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Forsman v. Blues, Brews and Bar-B-Ques, Inc." on Justia Law

Sheryl Fines appealed a judgment that dismissed her action against Ressler Enterprises, Inc. (doing business as Ressler Siding and Windows (Ressler)). Fines argued the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her action against Ressler as a sanction for spoliation of evidence. She contended dismissal was not appropriate because the court erred in determining Ressler was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence and the court failed to consider the availability of less severe sanctions. Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction of dismissal and accordingly affirmed. View "Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

James Mickelson appealed a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") decision denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits. He argued WSI erred in deciding he did not suffer a compensable injury. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded WSI misapplied the definition of a compensable injury, and the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mickelson v. Workforce Safety & Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert and Susan Hale appealed a district court summary judgment that dismissed their nuisance and governmental takings claims against Ward County and the City of Minot. The Hales own property on what is otherwise agricultural land approximately one mile southeast of a shooting range used for training Minot area local, state and federal law enforcement officers. Mr. Hale brought suit against Ward County and Minot alleging the law enforcement shooting range was a private and public nuisance and the shooting range devalued his property, resulting in a governmental taking. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. "When viewed in the light most favorable to the Hales, the maps, photographs and additional evidence raise[d] a genuine issue whether the terrain surrounding the shooting range prevents bullets from exiting the shooting range." The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the Hales' public nuisance claim, but affirmed in all other respects.

Plaintiff-Appellant Danni Lynch appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing her action against The New Public School District No. 8 for breach of contract, damage to professional reputation, intentional infliction of emotional harm and negligent infliction of emotional harm. Appellant had taught fifth grade classes at Stony Creek school for eighteen years. In 2008, she was informed she would be transferred to Round Prairie school to teach second grade. She sent a letter to the District's superintendent asking why she was being transferred. The District responded that the decision to transfer her was made "to promote the best interests of the students" and that the decision would not be changed. Appellant did not show on the first day she was to teach second grade; the District construed Appellant's letter explaining why she was a no-show as a resignation. Appellant then filed suit against the District. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that: (1) Appellant was not entitled to a notice of nonrenewal; (2) the District did not violate its grievance procedures; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to compel discovery. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Appellant Robert Johnson appealed a district court's judgment affirming an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that North Dakota Workforce Safety Insurance (WSI) was not liable for his right shoulder condition, and that he had a retained earnings capacity of $290.00 per week. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "a reasoning mind" reasonably could have found Appellant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his right shoulder pain was substantially accelerated or substantially worsened by his work injury and vocational training, and that WSI proved Appellant had a retained earnings capacity of $290.00 per week. Accordingly, the Court affirmed WSI's judgment.