Krueger v. Grand Forks County, 2014 ND 170

Background

Krueger sued Grand Forks County for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, trespass to chattel, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision after Zavala, the county public administrator, was appointed guardian, allegedly causing Krueger to lose over $300,000.
Krueger sought discovery including a 2011 letter from Debbie Nelson to Detective Flannery and other County records; the district court denied most requests but found the Nelson letter should be produced and awarded the County fees.
County moved for summary judgment; argued Zavala was a county employee but County lacked authority to supervise her as guardian; court allowed vicarious liability under statute but denied some claims and dismissed emotional distress and negligent supervision.
Krueger sought a 90-day continuance due to a companion case involving Zavala and Westensee-Fisk; the court denied the continuance.
County moved to exclude non-economic damages evidence; court barred mental anguish damages and related evidence, finding late disclosure prejudicial.
Jury trial in Sept. 2013 found Zavala breached fiduciary duty, was negligent, and converted Krueger’s property, but found those acts were not the proximate cause of damages; other claims were dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discovery denial was an abuse of discretion	Krueger contends the subpoena and certification satisfied Rule 37(a)(1) and the court erred in denying relief.	County argues there was no proper certification and the court acted within its discretion.	No abuse; court properly denied discovery relief.
Whether denial of a continuance affected due process	Krueger claims prejudice from trial proximity to companion case and publicity.	County argues precautions sufficed and no demonstrated prejudice.	No abuse; trial precautions adequate and no showing of prejudice.
Whether evidentiary exclusions (Nelson letter, bond letters, Wamstad, Medd) were proper	Krueger asserts relevance to agency/authority and supervisory role.	County contends evidence was irrelevant or privileged and would confuse jury.	Evidentiary rulings upheld; no reversible error.
Whether non-economic damages for mental anguish were properly excluded	Krueger contends damages for mental anguish were properly pled and should be allowed.	County argues late disclosure prejudiced defense and discovery deadlines were breached.	Damages for non-economic harms excluded; no reversible error.
Whether proximate cause instructions and special verdict form properly conveyed law	Krueger argues proximate cause instruction and form misled on causation and allocation of fault.	County contends instructions were consistent with precedent and adequate.	Instructions and verdict form sufficiently conveyed law; no reversible error.

Key Cases Cited

Lynch v. New Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 8, 2012 ND 88 (ND 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery decisions)
Leno v. K & L Homes, Inc., 2011 ND 171 (ND 2011) (burden on party claiming district court abuse)
State v. Ellis, 2000 ND 177 (ND 2000) (presumption about juror impartiality; voir dire considerations)
M.M. v. Fargo Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 ND 102 (ND 2010) (proximate cause and jury instruction review standards)
Grager v. Schudar, 2009 ND 140 (ND 2009) (jury instruction adequacy standard)
Perius v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 ND 80 (ND 2010) (proximate cause/causal connection in nondirect-intent cases)
Klimple v. Bahl, 2007 ND 13 (ND 2007) (proximate cause definition use beyond personal injury)
Beckler v. Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist., 2006 ND 58 (ND 2006) (proximate cause and standard of review)
Peek v. Berning, 2001 ND 34 (ND 2001) (timeliness of discovery responses and prejudice)
Moen v. Thomas, 2004 ND 132 (ND 2004) (waiver and verdict-form considerations)
Blessum v. Shelver, 1997 ND 152 (ND 1997) (role of closing arguments in trial fairness)
City of Bismarck v. Mariner Constr., Inc., 2006 ND 108 (ND 2006) (limits on appellate review of evidentiary decisions)