Saltsman v. Sharp
2011 ND 172
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Saltsman rode a bicycle on a public sidewalk adjacent to Hasche's apartment complex and parking lot, where Hasche's fence with privacy slats was placed parallel to the sidewalk.
- The fence allegedly obstructed visibility for motorists exiting the parking lot and for pedestrians on the sidewalk.
- Saltsman collided with Lisa Sharp, who exited the parking lot, and Saltsman was injured.
- Saltsman sued Sharp and Hasche; Sharp settled and was dismissed, leaving Hasche as the remaining defendant.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Hasche, holding no duty existed toward Saltsman as a matter of law and that Saltsman could not prove a premises-liability duty; Saltsman appealed.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to address whether Hasche owed Saltsman a duty under general negligence or premises-liability principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Hasche owe a duty to Saltsman as a matter of law? | Saltsman contends Hasche, as a landowner, owed a duty to her as a lawful entrant. | Hasche contends there is no duty to protect Saltsman from another driver's negligence and the fence is lawful. | Duty may exist under premises liability or general negligence; not decided as a matter of law on appeal. |
| Did the district court err by addressing only Sharp’s negligence and not Hasche’s potential separate duty? | Saltsman argues Hasche owed a separate duty to her and the court should consider both parties’ duties. | Hasche argues no duty to Saltsman existed beyond any duty to avoid Sharp’s negligence. | District court erred by not analyzing Hasche’s potential separate duty toward Saltsman. |
| Was Saltsman a lawful entrant and did Hasche have control over the premises for premises-liability duty? | Saltsman was a lawful entrant on the sidewalk and Hasche controlled the relevant premises. | Hasche argues disputed ownership/control over the sidewalk area and premises. | Questions of control and status may affect duty; issues of fact may be resolvable at trial. |
| Were the district court’s summary-judgment findings improper on disputed facts and inferences? | Saltsman contends the court improperly weighed evidence and drew improper inferences. | Hasche contends the undisputed facts supported summary judgment. | Summary judgment improper where inferences and credibility are at issue; remand for fact-finding. |
| Should Saltsman’s claim be analyzed under general negligence or premises-liability law? | Saltsman asserts a duty under general negligence or premises liability toward a lawful entrant. | Hasche asserts no duty exists or is limited by the fence’s legality. | Court allows consideration of either theory on remand; not limited to one theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Botner v. Bismarck Parks & Recreation Dist., 782 N.W.2d 662 (ND 2010) (premises liability duty and complexity of negligence issues)
- Doan v. City of Bismarck, 632 N.W.2d 815 (ND 2001) (issues of fact may become issues of law; duty analysis)
- Groleau v. Bjornson Oil Co., Inc., 676 N.W.2d 763 (ND 2004) (premises liability control over the premises required for duty)
- Azure v. Belcourt Pub. Sch. Dist., 681 N.W.2d 816 (ND 2004) (duty elements and foreseeability in negligence claims)
- O'Leary v. Coenen, 251 N.W.2d 746 (ND 1977) (distinction among invitee, licensee, trespasser; duty relevance)
- Schmidt v. Gateway Cmty. Fellowship, 781 N.W.2d 200 (ND 2010) (general negligence governs duty to non-trespassers)
- Jones v. Ahlberg, 489 N.W.2d 576 (ND 1992) (fault allocation under comparative-fault principles)
- Fast v. State, 680 N.W.2d 265 (ND 2004) (premises liability duty considering likelihood and severity of injury)