Bornsen v. Pragotrade, LLC, 804 N.W.2d 55

Bornsens sued Pragotrade and Cabela’s in state court for negligence, strict liability, and warranty after Ruth Bornsen injured by a Pragotrade meat grinder purchased at Cabela’s; action removed to federal court in ND.
Cabela’s moved to dismiss under ND Century Code § 28-01.3-04 as a nonmanufacturing seller; Pragotrade admitted participation in design/distribution but not manufacture.
Bornsens argued Cabela’s was an apparent manufacturer under Restatement theories and should not be dismissed.
Federal court certified whether ND would adopt the apparent manufacturer doctrine (Restatement Second § 400 or Restatement Third § 14).
ND Supreme Court noted lack of controlling precedent and that adoption would conflict with ND product liability statute and definitions.
Court’s analysis focused on statutory scheme in ND Century Code ch. 28-01.3 and its express definitions of manufacturer and seller and the related dismissal provision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ND would adopt apparent manufacturer doctrine	Bornsen argues doctrine aligns with ND law	Cabela’s argues statute precludes such doctrine	No; ND rejects apparent manufacturer doctrine.

Reiss v. Komatsu America Corp., 735 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D.N.D. 2010) (federal district court decision cited by Bornsens)
Vandall v. Trinity Hosp., 2004 ND 47 (ND) (statutory principles govern over common law when in conflict)
Hill v. Weber, 1999 ND 74 (ND) (statutory enactments take precedence over prior case law)
Rath v. Burr, 1999 ND 31 (ND) (statutory principles govern over common law if conflict)
Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 (ND) (common law rule abrogated by statute)
Nuelle v. Wells, 154 N.W.2d 364 (ND 1967) (statutory provisions prevail over certain common law rules)