Hale v. Ward County
2014 ND 126
| N.D. | 2014Background
- The Hales own a home ~1 mile SE of a Ward County law-enforcement shooting range; County Road 12 runs adjacent to the range's west side. Several neighbors and farms are nearby.
- The Hales sued Ward County and the City of Minot alleging the range was both a private and public nuisance and claimed a taking; they sought abatement/injunction.
- The district court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the Hales' claims; this Court in a prior appeal affirmed dismissal of the private-nuisance claim but remanded limited public-nuisance issues tied to users of County Road 12. See Hale v. Ward Cnty., 2012 ND 144.
- On remand the district court required that a private person show the nuisance is “specially injurious” under N.D.C.C. § 42-01-08 to maintain a public-nuisance action and granted summary judgment to defendants for failure to meet that threshold.
- The Supreme Court affirms: Robert Hale, who used County Road 12 infrequently, failed to show injury “different in kind” from the public at large; Susan Hale’s claim was also dismissed for lack of evidence of special injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private persons may maintain a public-nuisance action absent special injury | Hales: Robert’s use of County Rd. 12 and evidence (bullet holes, proximity) show special injury permitting suit ex rel. | County/Minot: Private plaintiffs must show special injury under § 42-01-08; Hales lack such individualized harm. | Held: Private persons may sue only if they suffer harm different in kind from the public; Robert and Susan Hale failed to show special injury, so summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether risk of injury (rather than actual injury) suffices for special-injury standing | Hales: Risk to third persons and evidence of danger should permit suit without actual special injury to Hales. | Defendants: Statutory text and precedent require actual special injury to the private plaintiff. | Held: Court requires special injury to the plaintiff (actual, of a kind different from public); speculative or third-party risk does not suffice. |
| Whether evidence of bullet holes and proximity raised factual issue of special injury | Hales: Bullet holes and closeness to road create factual dispute about danger specially injuring Hale. | Defendants: Such evidence does not show that Hale personally suffered a harm different in kind from others. | Held: Evidence raised public-safety concerns generally but did not establish that Robert Hale suffered special injury; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying joinder of neighbors | Hales: Neighbors are necessary parties to vindicate community injury. | Defendants: Joinder untimely and similar issues can be brought in other pending litigation (Gowan). | Held: No abuse of discretion; denial was timely and reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gowan v. Ward Cnty., 764 N.W.2d 425 (N.D. 2009) (zoning denial affirmed because of safety concerns from proximity to law-enforcement range)
- Hale v. Ward Cnty., 818 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 2012) (prior appeal: private-nuisance dismissed; remanded limited public-nuisance issues tied to County Road 12)
- Frandsen v. Mayer, 155 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 1967) (private plaintiff may not maintain public-nuisance action absent evidence of special injury)
- Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 99 Cal. Rptr. 350 (Cal. Ct. App.) (California construction of "specially injurious": plaintiff must show injury different in kind from public)