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