State v. Woodrow
2011 ND 192
N.D.2011Background
- The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota certified whether North Dakota would adopt the 'apparent manufacturer' doctrine under ND law.
- Bornsen plaintiffs sue Pragotrade and Cabela’s for negligence, strict liability, and warranty over a meat grinder injury.
- Cabela’s moves to dismiss as a nonmanufacturing seller under N.D.C.C. § 28-01.3-04, asserting Pragotrade manufactured the grinder.
- Pragotrade admits involvement in design/distribution but denies manufacturing; Bornsens contest Cabela’s dismissal.
- The district court cites lack of controlling precedent in ND and predicts the question’s impact on pending federal proceedings.
- ND Supreme Court limits its role to answering the certified question and interpreting ND statute-based liability framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ND adopts the apparent manufacturer doctrine | Bornsen argues adoption aligns with Restatement doctrine. | Cabela’s contends statutory scheme precludes common-law apparent manufacturer liability. | No adoption of apparent manufacturer doctrine. |
| Whether ND's product liability act preempts or limits common-law apparent manufacturer liability | Bornsen asserts statutory language permits broader liability including apparent manufacturers. | Cabela’s argues statute restricts liability of nonmanufacturing sellers and disallows apparent manufacturer theory. | Statute controls; no apparent manufacturer liability recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandall v. Trinity Hosps., 2004 ND 47 (2004) (statutory principles govern over common law when conflict exists)
- Hill v. Weber, 1999 ND 74 (1999) (statute prevails over inconsistent common law)
- Rath v. City of Fargo, 1999 ND 31 (1999) (statutory principles govern over general common law if conflict)
- Burr v. Trinity Med. Ctr., 492 N.W.2d 904 (ND 1992) (statutory framework limits equitable tolling and other common-law doctrines)
- Nuelle v. Wells, 154 N.W.2d 364 (ND 1967) (statutory provisions prevail over certain common-law rules)
- Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 (1932) (common law rules abrogated by statute when inconsistent)
- Reeves & Co. v. Russell, 28 N.D. 265 (ND 1914) (earlier common-law context referenced in statutory interpretation)
- Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W.I. Southern, Inc., 306 U.S. 563 (1939) (certified questions require necessary facts; caution against hypothetical questions)
- White Swan Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 313 U.S. 23 (1941) (certification questions should be grounded in complete facts)