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 .
Larimore Public School District No . 44 v . Aamodt , 2018 ND 71
In January 2015 , a collision occurred between a Larimore Public School District bus and a BNSF Railway train . There were 13 school district students riding home from school on the bus and the driver . One child died as a result of injuries from the accident and the other children suffered serious injuries . The accident resulted in the potential for multiple damage claims in excess of the school district ’ s aggregate cap on liability under N . D . C . C . § 32-12.1-03 ( 2 ) in effect at the time of the accident . That statute limited the liability of political subdivisions ( at that time ) to a total of $ 250,000 per person and $ 500,000 for injury to three or more persons during any single occurrence .
The school district and its government self-insurance pool , the North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund , deposited the $ 500,000 damage cap monetary limit with the District Court . The parents and guardians of some of the injured children asserted the damage cap was unconstitutional and sought damages against the school district in excess of the statutory cap .
The District Court ruled the statutory damage cap did not violate the open court , jury trial , equal protection , or special law provisions of the North Dakota Constitution . The District Court confirmed the $ 500,000 deposit and discharged the school district and the Insurance Reserve Fund from any further liability for damages from the accident . The parents appealed , arguing the statutory damage cap provisions for political subdivisions violated the North Dakota Constitution .
The North Dakota Supreme Court rejected the parents ’ arguments on appeal and affirmed the District Court Judgment , concluding the statutory cap on damages of a political subdivision , in effect at
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 .
18 THE GAVEL the time of the accident , advanced legitimate governmental and legislative goals and interests , and did not violate the North Dakota Constitution on the grounds advanced by the parents / injured parties or otherwise .
Tarabochia v . Workforce Safety & Insurance , 2018 ND 39 , 906 N . W . 2d 912
An employee was injured on the job and sustained a traumatic brain injury . His employer made him a transitional job offer under the restrictions provided by the employee ’ s physician and accommodated by the employer . The employee refused that offer . Because of that refusal , WSI denied the employee ’ s disability benefit claim for wage loss , which was affirmed by the District Court .
In a Per Curiam opinion , the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the District Court judgment because there was no objective medical evidence , even after a traumatic brain injury , that the employee was not able to return to work under restrictions provided by his physician and accommodated by his employer . The employee was denied disability benefits because he voluntarily limited his income , without justification .
State v . Rende , 2018 ND 56 , 907 N . W . 2d 361
The defendant was found guilty of the crime of simple assault on a peace officer and driving under the influence of alcohol . When the defendant was stopped by the officer and detained , she was not particularly cooperative with the trooper . In addition to the charge of driving under the influence , she was also charged with the Class C felony of simple assault on a peace officer . She was found guilty at trial and appealed , primarily on the basis of an allegedly faulty jury instruction given by the District Court at trial .
The problem with the defendant ’ s appeal , however , was her counsel failed to object to the District Court ’ s jury instructions , and therefore , waived the right to seek a reversal of the judgment on appeal , because of that claimed error .
Moreover , the jury instruction requested by defendant at trial failed to include an element of the crime charged , that the defendant alleged was also prejudicially missing from the trial court ’ s instruction .
The Supreme Court stated the defendant may not obtain a reversal of a judgment resulting from an error invited by the defendant .
Finally , the Supreme Court refused to review the defendant ’ s argument the trooper lacked sufficient probable cause to believe she was under the influence of alcohol at the time of her arrest because that issue was not addressed in the District Court and could not be raised for the first time on appeal .