946 N.W.2d 718
N.D.2020Background
- On January 8, 2017, Brooke Schroeder’s vehicle left the eastbound passing lane on I-94 (Barnes County), struck a snowbank adjacent to a guardrail on an overpass, vaulted over the guardrail, and died from her injuries.
- Schroeder’s parents sued the State alleging negligence/gross negligence in winter road maintenance and snow removal that created/failed to remove a hazardous snowbank adjacent to the guardrail.
- The State moved for summary judgment invoking statutory immunities: public duty immunity and snow-and-ice immunity under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-02(3)(f) and (i).
- Department evidence showed plow policies prioritized clearing travel lanes; snow compacted against the guardrail over multiple storms, hardened into ice, and removal would require lane closures/special equipment and risk damaging the guardrail.
- Plaintiffs argued the snowbank was affirmatively created by State plowing (and could have been removed), fitting the statutory exception for conditions affirmatively caused by negligent acts of state employees.
- The district court granted summary judgment, concluding the State was immune either because (a) the condition resulted from performance of a public duty (road maintenance/plowing), or (b) the failure to remove the snowbank was an omission, not an ‘‘affirmative’’ negligent act; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of public-duty immunity for highway maintenance | Schroeder: statute’s listed duties don’t mention road maintenance; immunity shouldn’t extend to this conduct | State: maintaining state highways is a public duty unique to DOT and falls within §32-12.2-02(3)(f) immunity | Held: public-duty immunity applies to the State’s duty to maintain the highway system and precludes liability |
| Applicability of snow-and-ice immunity when plowing created adjacent snowbank | Schroeder: plowing affirmatively created the snowbank; exception for conditions ‘‘affirmatively caused’’ by negligent acts applies | State: plowing was done pursuant to policy and any resulting condition is covered by the snow-and-ice immunity; no affirmative negligent act shown | Held: snow/ice immunity applies; although plowing helped form the bank, plaintiffs did not show an affirmatively negligent act |
| Whether failure to remove the snowbank is an ‘‘affirmative’’ negligent act | Schroeder: omission to remove the snowbank was negligent and caused the hazard | State: failure to act is not an affirmative act; removal decisions followed policy and posed safety/resource constraints | Held: omission to remove is not an ‘‘affirmative’’ act under the statute; immunity remains |
| Whether a "special relationship" exception to public-duty immunity applies | Schroeder: (argued generally) immunity shouldn’t apply absent a unique duty to the public or if a special relationship exists | State: no special relationship alleged or shown; immunity stands | Held: plaintiffs did not allege or prove a special relationship; exception does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Devore v. Am. Eagle Energy Corp., 937 N.W.2d 503 (N.D. 2020) (summary judgment standard and reviewing questions of law de novo)
- Bjerk v. Anderson, 911 N.W.2d 343 (N.D. 2018) (issues of fact may become issues of law when only one reasonable conclusion exists)
- APM, LLLP v. TCI Ins. Agency, Inc., 877 N.W.2d 34 (N.D. 2016) (statutory interpretation principles; construe related statutes to give effect to both)
- Fast v. State, 680 N.W.2d 265 (N.D. 2004) (refusal to impose liability for ordinary snow removal absent an act creating an unreasonably dangerous condition)
- In re Alexandria Accident of Feb. 8, 1994, 561 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (snow-and-ice immunity shields government for natural consequences of snowplowing done under policy)
- Hennes v. Patterson, 443 N.W.2d 198 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (affirmed snow-and-ice immunity where plowing occurred pursuant to policy and decision not to remove was discretionary)