Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

K & L Homes appealed a district court judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of Neal Leno and Susan Leno ("the Lenos"). On appeal, K & L Homes argued: (1) the district court erred by deciding K & L Homes had not sufficiently raised the defense of fault by the Lenos in its answer; (2) the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, the court erred by denying K & L Homes' request for inspection and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during a jury viewing; and (3) the court erred by ruling K & L Homes had not disclaimed any implied warranties as a matter of law. The Lenos purchased a newly-constructed house from K & L Homes. The Lenos alleged they noticed cracks, unevenness, and shifting due to improper construction not long after purchasing the house from K & L Homes. Initially, the Lenos claimed K & L Homes was negligent, breached the parties' contract, and breached implied warranties. The Lenos claimed the parties' contract implied warranties that the house would be built according to the applicable codes, that it would fit its purpose as a residence, and that it would be constructed according to engineering standards and in a workmanlike condition. K & L Homes requested the jury be instructed on comparative fault, but the district court denied the proposed comparative fault instruction. The district court decided K & L Homes had not adequately pled fault, and comparative fault did not apply to Lenos' cause of action. The district court also found, as a matter of law, that K & L Homes had not disclaimed any implied warranties in a Homeowners' Guide given to the Lenos at the closing on the house. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the findings made by the district court and affirmed its decisions as to all issues raised on appeal.

Plaintiff Randy Holkesvig appealed a judgment that dismissed his malicious prosecution action against Defendants Peter Welte, Meredith Larson, and Chris Smith, and awarded the defendants costs, disbursements, and attorney fees. Because Plaintiff pled guilty to one of the charges that formed the basis of his malicious prosecution action, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in ruling Plaintiff could not prevail in this action as a matter of law. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the defendants costs, disbursements, and attorney fees.

Plaintiffs Calvin and Laurie Wahl ("the Wahls") appealed the district court's amended judgment entered after a jury found Defendants Northern Improvement Company and United Rentals Highway Technologies, Incorporated were not liable for injuries the Wahls sustained in a motorcycle accident. The Wahls argued the district court abused its discretion by scheduling the trial for four days, by allowing the jury to separate for twelve days before hearing closing arguments and deliberating and by awarding Northern Improvement's expert witness fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the district court's amended judgment that was entered after the jury's verdict that found Northern Improvement and United Rentals were not liable for the Wahl's injuries. The Court remanded the case for the lower court's determination of whether Northern Improvement's expert fees were reasonable.

G.K.T. appealed the district court's judgment granting T.L.T.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint against T.L.T. and T.K. for intentional infliction of emotional distress. T.M.T. was born in 1997 to T.L.T. and T.K., the child's biological mother and father. T.L.T. and T.K. did not have a continuing relationship. G.K.T. moved to a house near T.L.T. and they became friends. In 1998, they began to live together with the child, and they married in 2000. G.K.T. adopted the child with T.K.'s consent in 2001. In 2007, G.K.T. and T.L.T. divorced; the court awarded T.L.T. primary residential responsibility and G.K.T. received parenting time. According to G.K.T., the divorce occurred because T.L.T. tried to re-establish T.K.'s relationship with the child. In 2008, T.L.T. began a new relationship with T.K., who began to spend time with the child. G.K.T. believed his relationship with his adopted child deteriorated because of the new relationship between T.L.T. and T.K, whom he sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claimed T.L.T. and T.K. tried to "spoil and ruin [his] father-daughter relationship." G.K.T. asserted, as a result, that he "lost the love and affection of his daughter who is now acting in a hateful manner towards [him by] stating [he] is not her father." G.K.T. asserted that T.L.T. and T.K. acted outrageously, causing him to experience severe emotional distress. G.K.T. claimed to have lost sleep, experienced heartache and stress, and lost his job as a result of his emotional distress. On appeal to the Supreme Court, G.K.T. argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of T.L.T. and T.K. because it did not consider the differences between the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress and the elements of alienation of affections in a parent-child relationship. He also argued the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to recognize intentional infliction of emotional distress as an actionable tort in North Dakota. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that G.K.T.'s his claims against T.L.T. and T.K. did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing the case.

Appellant Richard Landrum appealed a district court judgment affirming an order of Appellee Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) which denied him benefits. Appellant received pain management care sporadically for a series of work related injuries stemming from 1990 until 2001. In 2001, Appellant began to see Dr. John Daugherty for pain from headaches, low back and leg problems and vision problems. In 2002, Dr. Daugherty prescribed Viagra to treat Defendant's sexual dysfunction. WSI questioned the Viagra prescription's connection to the 1990 work injury, and Dr. Daugherty sent WSI a letter indicating a causal connection between the work injury and Appellant's sexual dysfunction. WSI denied payment for the Viagra, ultimately issuing an order denying benefits for the Viagra. Appellant sought reconsideration of the order and requested a formal hearing, after which an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined WSI was not liable for the Viagra because another Workers' Compensation Commission already awarded benefits for the Viagra. In April of 2009, WSI determined Appellant's vision problems were not causally connected to the 1990 work injury. Accordingly, WSI refused to pay for treatment regarding Appellant's vision problems. Appellant asked WSI to reconsider this denial of benefits. In the meantime, after a review of Landrum's medical records by WSI's independent medical consultant, WSI also denied benefits concerning Landrum's headaches. An ALJ held a formal hearing where Dr. Peterson testified why Landrum's 1990 work injury was not the cause of his headaches and vision problems. Ultimately, the ALJ upheld WSI's decision denying payment for Appellant's treatment for his headaches and vision problems. Appellant appealed to the district court, which affirmed the ALJ's order. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant argued WSI's 2009 denial of benefits for his headaches and vision problems is barred by administrative res judicata because WSI considered, or should have considered, these benefits during the proceeding in 2004 when WSI refused to pay for Viagra. The Supreme Court concluded that administrative res judicata did not bar WSI from denying further benefits and that a reasonable fact-finder could have concluded that Appellant failed to prove his work injury was a substantial, contributing factor to his headaches and vision problems.