Tangedal v. Mertens, 883 N.W.2d 871

In Jan 2014 a septic tank collapsed on land Joan and Shane Tangedal had bought from William and Mavis Mertens in 2009. The Tangedals sued the Mertens, Lake Region District Health Unit (Lake Region), and Ramsey County alleging nondisclosure and negligent inspection/certification of the septic system.
Allen McKay, Environmental Health Supervisor for Lake Region, inspected the septic system for the real estate agent and certified it as "expected to function satisfactorily."
The Tangedals sought to amend their complaint to add McKay in his personal capacity, alleging his inspection was reckless, grossly negligent, or willful/wanton.
Lake Region asserted statutory governmental immunity under N.D.C.C. ch. 32-12.1; the district court denied the motion to amend as futile and granted summary judgment for Lake Region.
The district court found no evidence of a "special relationship" under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-03(3)(g), and held public-duty immunity under § 32-12.1-03(3)(f) applied; thus amendment to sue McKay personally would not survive summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to add McKay personally	Tangedal: newly discovered evidence shows McKay’s inspection was reckless or grossly negligent, so amendment is not futile	Lake Region: amendment is futile because public-duty immunity bars the claim and no special relationship exists	Denied — amendment would be futile; no special relationship alleged so immunity applies
Whether Lake Region is immune from suit for McKay’s conduct or whether gross negligence within scope pierces immunity	Tangedal: § 32-12.1-04(3) (employee personal liability for gross/reckless conduct) should limit immunity and allow liability despite § 32-12.1-03(3)(f) public-duty immunity	Lake Region: § 32-12.1-03(3)(f) bars liability for acts tied to public duties unless a special relationship under § 32-12.1-03(3)(g) exists	Affirmed — public-duty immunity applies; without a special relationship the subdivision and employee are immune, so summary judgment proper

Kitto v. Minot Park Dist., 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D. 1974) (abolished governmental immunity for political subdivisions prior to legislative response)
Binstock v. Fort Yates Pub. Sch. Dist., 463 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1990) (political subdivision and employee may be jointly liable when employee acts recklessly or with gross negligence within scope)
Ficek v. Morken, 685 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 2004) (discussed public duty doctrine and declined to judicially adopt broad public-duty immunity)
Olson v. University of N.D., 488 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1992) (noting ch. 32-12.1’s purpose to limit exposure to governmental liability)
M.M. v. Fargo Pub. Sch. Dist., 783 N.W.2d 806 (N.D. 2010) (explaining § 32-12.1-03 provides two independent grounds for political-subdivision liability)