Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In January 2010, Kory Clark received a telephone call around 3 a.m. from his brother asking for assistance with his pickup, which was stuck in a snowdrift. According to Clark's deposition, after the brothers were unable to pull the pickup out of the snowdrift, he drove to their grandfather's nearby farm to get a tractor to pull it out. Clark stated that after proceeding a short way down the road, the tractor broke down and he was unable to get over to the shoulder of the road or restart it. He then walked back to the farm to get his pickup and pick up his brother, who took him home and said he would take care of the tractor. Before the tractor was removed from the road, Rita Fred collided with it while driving to work. Fred sued Clark and his grandfather to recover for her injuries. At the time of the accident, Clark's grandfather had a farm liability policy with Farmers Union Mutual Insurance. Farmers Union defended the grandfather in the action brought by Fred, but declined to defend Clark, claiming he was not insured under the policy. Clark sought a declaratory judgment that Farmers Union had a duty to defend or indemnify him. He also sought damages for bad-faith refusal to defend. QBE Americas, Inc., joined as the third-party claims administrator for Farmers Union. Both Farmers Union and QBE moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Clark appealed, arguing the district court erred in granting summary judgment and holding he was not entitled to coverage under a farm liability policy. He also argued the district court should not have dismissed his claim for breach of duty to defend. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court correctly held Clark failed to present evidence sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact in regard to his claims, it affirmed the judgment. View "Clark v. Farmers Union Mutual Ins." on Justia Law

Michelle Tidd appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict dismissing her negligence action against Scott Kroshus arising out of a collision between Tidd's bike and Kroshus' car. Tidd was riding her bike on a sidewalk in Fargo when she collided with Kroshus' car. Kroshus was entering the street from the alley when he collided with Tidd. Tidd sued Kroshus alleging Kroshus' negligence caused the collision and Tidd's bodily injuries. Over Tidd's objection, the district court instructed the jury on “sudden emergency.” Tidd argued on appeal that the sudden emergency instruction was unnecessary because there was no evidence of a sudden emergency. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding under the facts presented, the district court erred in instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine. View "Tidd v. Kroshus" on Justia Law

Seventy-year-old James Higginbotham was employed by Industrial Contractors, Inc. ("ICI") as a welder and pipefitter in May 2010 when he sustained an injury to his left rotator cuff. The medical records demonstrated that Higginbotham's injury arose out of and in the course of his work for ICI. Prior to his injury, Higginbotham made $34.61 per hour, but only worked part time. He often traveled to work sites some distance from his home near Hazen, including a site north of Mandan. Since his injury, Higginbotham was no longer able to make the trip from Hazen to Bismarck without stopping, and he could no longer perform welding or pipefitting work. Higginbotham lived in a mobile home near Hazen, approximately 70 miles from Bismarck and 80 miles from Minot. He indicated he was having difficulty paying bills, which he did not have before the injury, and he wanted to maintain the lifestyle he had prior to his injury. Following left rotator cuff surgery, WSI referred Higginbotham to vocational rehabilitation with Kim Hornberger, a vocational rehabilitation consultant, who identified the first appropriate rehabilitation option for Higginbotham and developed a vocational consultant's report ("VCR"). The VCR concluded that it was appropriate for Higginbotham to return to an occupation in the statewide job pool suited to his education, experience, and marketable skills: cashier, telephone sales representative, gaming dealer, and greeter, and the expected income of $332 per week exceeded 90% of Higginbotham's pre-injury income of $227 per week. WSI approved the vocational plan and notified Higginbotham that it intended to discontinue his benefits. Higginbotham asked for reconsideration, and WSI issued an order affirming the rehabilitation plan and denying further disability benefits. Higginbotham appealed, and an ALJ affirmed the WSI order. Higginbotham appealed the ALJ's decision, and the district court affirmed. Higginbotham now appeals the district court judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Higginbotham v. WSI" on Justia Law

Robert Hale, individually and on behalf of the State of North Dakota, and Susan Hale appealed a summary judgment dismissing their public nuisance claim against Ward County and the City of Minot. The Hales had a house on agricultural land about one mile southeast of a shooting range in Ward County, which was used to train local, state, and federal law enforcement officers. Several other farms and homes are located near the Hales' property and the law enforcement shooting range, and County Road 12 runs adjacent to the west side of that shooting range. In "Gowan v. Ward Cnty. Comm.," (764 N.W.2d 425), the Supreme Court affirmed a Ward County Commission zoning decision denying an application to rezone neighboring land, which is about one-quarter mile downrange from the law enforcement shooting range, from agricultural to residential for construction of a residential subdivision. The Ward County Commission denied Gowan's application, citing safety concerns resulting from the proximity of his land to the law enforcement shooting range. In "Hale v. Ward Cnty.", the Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Hales' public nuisance claim. The Court discussed the differences between a private and a public nuisance and explained different evidence was relevant to the Hales' claims for a private and a public nuisance. The Court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the Hales' private nuisance claim, concluding they failed to present competent evidence supporting their claim the law enforcement shooting range posed a danger to their property. The Court reversed the summary judgment on the Hales' public nuisance claim about use of County Road 12 and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. The Court recognized, however, that Ward County and Minot had not argued the Hales failed to meet the "specially injurious" requirement for a public nuisance claim under N.D.C.C. 42-01-08, and neither the parties nor the district court had addressed the propriety of the Hales bringing an action to abate the law enforcement shooting range under N.D.C.C. ch. 42-02. On remand, the district court concluded "private citizens can bring an action 'ex rel.', but as a threshold matter, such citizens must first satisfy the special injury showing of N.D.C.C. § 42-01-08 or their public nuisance claim must be dismissed." The court granted Ward County and Minot summary judgment on the remanded claim for public nuisance regarding the Hales' use of County Road 12, concluding as a matter of law they failed to meet the "specially injurious" requirement for a private person to maintain a public nuisance claim under N.D.C.C. § 42-01-08. The court also denied the Hales' request to join additional neighbors as parties to their action. The Hales argue the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their public nuisance claim, and in denying their joinder request. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Hale v. Ward County" on Justia Law

In 2011, defendant S.G.'s vehicle collided with a motorcycle driven by John Allmer. S.G. was fifteen years old at the time. The parties stipulated Allmer suffered significant injuries, had medical expenses in excess of $1 million and continued to incur medical expenses for his care and treatment. Defendant Sandy Goetz and S.G.'s father were divorced, and S.G.'s father owned and insured the vehicle S.G. was driving. S.G. had exclusive possession of the car for six months prior to the accident. Her father's policy had an underlying liability limit of $250,000 and an umbrella policy of $1 million, which her father's insurance company offered in settlement of the claims against him. Goetz had an insurance policy with State Farm that listed Goetz and her vehicle as covered under the policy. Goetz signed S.G.'s driver's license application sponsorship form for drivers under the age of eighteen, assuming financial liability for S.G.'s negligent acts arising from operation of a motor vehicle under sections 39-06-08 (2011) and 39-06-09 (2011), N.D.C.C. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing no dispute existed that S.G.'s vehicle was not covered under Goetz's policy. Goetz and S.G. filed a motion for summary judgment and Allmer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the language in Goetz's State Farm's insurance policy should be construed to provide coverage for the accident. State Farm did not dispute Goetz was liable for S.G.'s negligent acts; therefore, the district court addressed only whether State Farm's policy provided coverage for the claim. The district court found for the purposes of Goetz's policy that S.G. was considered a "resident relative" and S.G.'s Oldsmobile was a "non-owned" vehicle. The district court also determined State Farm was not required to cover S.G.'s vehicle because the vehicle was not designated on the policy. The district court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, and denied Goetz and S.G.'s motion for summary judgment and Allmer's motion for summary judgment. Allmer appealed, arguing that Goetz's signature on S.G.'s sponsorship form for her driver's license application imputed S.G.'s negligence to Goetz and created coverage for S.G.'s accident under Goetz's insurance policy. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Gruebele" on Justia Law

Roger Frith appealed a district court judgment affirming an order of Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") denying him medical benefits. In September 2010, Frith filed a claim for a work injury, alleging that on August 18th or 19th he hurt his back at work while lifting and moving a large desk backwards up some stairs. Frith was working for DMI Industries. In June 2011, WSI denied Frith's claim for benefits, concluding he had not proven that his condition was causally related to a work injury or that his work activities substantially accelerated the progression or substantially worsened the severity of his preexisting spine condition. WSI found the medical records reflected a pre-existing condition which exhibited symptoms well before Frith alleged he injured his back at work. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a reasoning mind could have reasonably concluded Frith failed to show his work activities substantially accelerated the progression or substantially worsened the severity of a preexisting condition. View "Frith v. WSI" on Justia Law

Dennis Whedbee appealed a district court judgment affirming Workforce Safety and Insurance's ("WSI") binding dispute resolution denying Whedbee's request for a myoelectric prosthesis and approving a body-powered prosthesis. Whedbee argued the binding dispute resolution was an abuse of discretion and violated his due process rights. He argued that WSI should have selected an independent medical examiner located closer to his residence and that his treating physician's opinion should have been given controlling weight. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Whedbee v. WSI" on Justia Law

In 2010, Mary Gwyther was in a multi-vehicle accident while driving a pickup she co-owned with her mother, Peggy Gwyther, who died in the accident. The claimants allegedly suffered injuries and property damage as a result of the accident. The Gwyther vehicle was insured under a policy issued by Nodak Mutual Insurance Company, issued to Peggy as the named insured. Peggy lived in a home she co-owned with Mary in Bismarck. Although Mary was listed as a co-owner of the Bismarck property, she had never actually lived in the home, and had not lived with her parents since 1972. Mary had been living in Switzerland since 2000. She owned a business in Switzerland, owned and insured a vehicle there, and had a Swiss driver's license and residence permit. However, Mary voted by absentee ballot in North Dakota as a resident, declaring in applications and affidavits that she was a resident at her mother's Bismarck address. She also designated the Bismarck address as her permanent home address with the State Department. Nodak brought an interpleader action seeking a declaration it was only liable to pay the reduced step-down policy limits because Mary was not a resident of Peggy's household at the time of the accident and therefore was not a "family member" under the policy. The case was tried as a bench trial on stipulated facts. The district court found Mary was not a resident of Peggy's household, concluded the policy did not violate North Dakota law, and concluded Nodak was required to pay only the lower step-down policy limits. The claimants appealed that decision, but the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous and the step-down endorsement to the insurance policy did not violate North Dakota law. View "Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bahr-Renner" on Justia Law

Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") denied Rick Brockel medical benefits and terminated his disability benefits. Upon review of Brockel's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded WSI's finding that Brockel's condition was not causally related to his work injury was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded Brockel was denied a fair hearing because he was not provided notice that one of the grounds for terminating his disability benefits would be the failure to submit medical verification of his disability. In addition, the Court concluded WSI's finding that Brockel failed to show his wage loss was the result of his compensable injury was not in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for retroactive reinstatement of Brockel's disability benefits and for further proceedings. View "Brockel v. WSI" on Justia Law

Warren Parsons appealed a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance Fund ("WSI") decision that denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Parsons applied for workers' compensation benefits from WSI, alleging he sustained an injury to his left shoulder and neck while working for Ames Construction. He claimed he developed pain at the base of his neck and into his left shoulder from hitting the seat belt repeatedly while driving the dump truck on rough roads. Parsons argued his cervical spine and left shoulder injuries were "compensable injuries" by law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded WSI erred in determining Parsons' injury was not a compensable injury and in denying his claim for benefits. View "Parsons v. WSI" on Justia Law