Notable Items:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Venue: Supreme Court of North Dakota
Issue(s) Before the Court:
Petitioner's Claim(s):
The defendant had negligently and carelessly failed to eliminate the holes or to warn attendees about the holes.
Contend that the district court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to them and erred in finding, as a matter of law, that Jacqueline Schmidt's use of the land was recreational ....
Respondent's Claim(s):
Defendant claims action barred by NDCC statute regarding recreational use immunity.
Holding(s) and Disposition:
Held: We therefore conclude resolution of the issue by summary judgement was inappropriate and a reman is necessary for the trier of fact to apply the balancing test to this mixed-use case ....
Disposition: Reverse the summary judgement and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Material Facts:
- Schmidts alleged that Jacqueline Schmidt injured her right ankle when she stepped in a hole in a paved parking lot while attending an outdoor auto show and skateboarding exhibition.
- The parking lot in which the exhibition took place had been an enclosed lumberyard. The enclosure and its posts had been removed, leaving behind holes and depressions in the concrete.
- Schmidts sued alleging that the defendant had negligently and carelessly failed to eliminate the holes or to warn attendees about the holes.
- Defendant claims action barred by NDCC statute regarding recreational use immunity.
- A full recounting of the facts is available below
Procedural History:
- Defendant moved for summary judgement due to recreational use immunity.
- District court granted summary judgement due to Schmidt entering for recreational purpose and not being charged to enter the premises.
- North Dakota has abandoned common-law categories of licensee and invitee for premises liability and retains no duty of care to a trespasser but to refrain from willful and wanton harm.
- Landowner or occupier owes a duty of reasonable care to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.
- Recreational use statues "an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by other for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of dangerous ....
- Intent of both the owner and the user are relevant to the analysis and that the location and nature of the injured person's conduct when the injury occurs are also relevant.
- ..., we decline to construe our recreational use statutes to necessarily provide a commercial landower immunity where there is a recreational and commercial component to the landower's operation.
- We therefore conclude resolution of the issue by summary judgement was inappropriate and a reman is necessary for the trier of fact to apply the balancing test to this mixed-use case ....
Rationale
Majority Opinion
-
-
-
- A full description of the rationale is available below
?? Concurrance in part, dissent in part (??)
?? Dissent (??)
Full Recounting of Facts
-
-
-
-
- A list of the material facts is available above
Majority Full Argument
-
-
-
-
- The core of the rationale is available above