Summer 2019 Summer 2019 Gavel | Page 24

North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights By Michael J. Morley Author’s Note and Caveat: The following cases of interest were recently decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Because the following contain the author’s summary of the decisions, the reader is encouraged to read the entire published decision to determine its precedential value, if any, in a given case. Condon v. St. Alexius Medical Center, 2019 ND 113, 926 N.W.2d 136. Filed 4-22-19. In this medical malpractice case, the jury awarded the plaintiff, among other damages, the sum of $1.5 million in combined past and future noneconomic loss. The Supreme Court held that N.D.C.C. § 32-42-02, which limits total compensation for noneconomic damage to not more than $500,000, was constitutional and did not violate the equal protection provisions of the North Dakota Constitution. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court to reduce the noneconomic damages consistent with the statute. Moreover, among other matters, the Supreme Court held the plaintiff ’s testimony, that she reviewed the medical bills and they were related to her medical condition, was proper foundation for admission of past medical expenses. The Court stated evidence of past medical expenses can be admitted on that foundation without the need for an expert medical opinion that the expenses were necessitated by the defendant’s conduct. State v. Gardner, 2019 ND 122, 927 N.W.2d 84. Filed 5-16-19. In this criminal case, a package was delivered to a United Parcel Service (UPS) facility in Fargo. UPS thought the package looked suspicious and notified the Fargo Police Department. The police had a canine drug search conducted. After obtaining a search warrant, the officers opened the package and found meth inside. The defendant was arrested based upon information given to the police by the addressee of the package. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that even though the defendant was not the addressee of the package, nor did he live at the address the package was sent to, he had a sufficient possessory interest in the package to assert a violation of his personal rights due to the search and seizure of the contents of the package. The case was remanded back to the district court. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, denying the defendant’s motion to suppress, and allowed the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steffes, 2019 ND 130, 927 N.W.2d 81. Filed 5-16-19. In an insurance coverage declaratory judgment action, the district court granted Nodak a new trial under Rule 59, N.D.R.Civ.P., because the evidence did not justify the jury verdict. The defendants appealed that grant of a new trial. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that absent a certification under Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., an Order granting a new trial is not appealable. Therefore, Steffes’ appeal was dismissed and the case remanded back to the district court for a new trial. Frontier Fiscal Services, LLC v. Pinky’s Aggregates, Inc., 2019 ND 147, 928 N.W.2d 449. Filed 5-28-19. In this breach of contract action, the Supreme Court held that even though an entity and an individual person are unable to legally guarantee their own respective debts, an individual could legally guarantee the debt of a corporate entity. Even though the individual signing the guaranty was the president of the corporate entity whose debt he guaranteed, he signed the obligation for the corporation in his representative capacity as president of the corporation, not individually. James Vault & Precast Co. v. B & B Hot Oil Service, Inc., 2019 ND 143, 927 N.W.2d 452. Filed 5-16-19. In a suit over a lease agreement, and in a matter of first impression, the North Dakota Supreme Court held that a clause in a lease agreement purporting to exempt one from liability for one’s own willful or negligent violation of law, violates the plain language of N.D.C.C. § 9-08-02 and is unenforceable, whether or not the violation of law is willful or negligent. The unenforceability of the clause is not limited to an intentional or willful violation of law, because the plain language of the statute applies to “violation of law, whether willful or negligent.” Michael J. Morley received his juris doctor with distinction and was admitted to the Order of the Coif upon graduation from the University of North Dakota School of Law in 1979. That same year, he was admitted to practice law in North Dakota State Courts and the United States District Courts for the District of North Dakota. In 1981, he was admitted in the Minnesota State Courts and the United State District Court for the District of Minnesota, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He is a member of the State Bar Associations of North Dakota and Minnesota and is currently president and shareholder of Morley Law Firm, Ltd., in Grand Forks. 24 THE GAVEL