Woody v. Pembina County Annual Fair and Exhibition Association
2016 ND 56
N.D.2016Background
- Plaintiff Audra Woody attended a free fireworks display at the Pembina County Fairgrounds and was injured after stepping on a rotten grandstand board.
- The Pembina County Annual Fair and Exhibition Association (the Fair) is a non-profit, tax-exempt public entity that owns and operates the fairgrounds and grandstand.
- Woody did not pay any fee or charge to enter the fairgrounds, grandstand, or to view the fireworks.
- Parties stipulated to the facts; the Fair moved for summary judgment asserting recreational-use immunity under N.D.C.C. ch. 53-08.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Fair; Woody appealed only on statutory-immunity and related-duty grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recreational-use immunity applies when the landowner is a fair offering a free fireworks display | Woody: Fair engaged in commercial activity (vendors pay fees that effectively admit attendees), so immunity excluded | Fair: It is a public entity operating public lands; no direct charge was imposed on attendees, so immunity applies | Court: Immunity applies — the statute excludes public-entity operations from “commercial purpose” unless there is a direct charge for goods/services, which was absent |
| Whether watching a fireworks display is a recreational purpose under the statute | Woody: (implicit) viewing may not qualify in this context | Fair: Viewing fireworks is recreational under § 53-08-01(5) | Court: Watching fireworks is a recreational activity and covered by the statute |
| Whether statutory duty under N.D.C.C. § 53-03-05 imposes a separate safety obligation on the Fair board | Woody: Fair board has supervisory duties when granting carnival permits and must ensure safe premises | Fair: § 53-03-05 imposes supervision/crowd-control duties, not a blanket premise-safety duty; recreational immunity still controls | Court: § 53-03-05 does not overcome recreational-use immunity for the hazardous grandstand condition at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Woll, 823 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 2012) (summary-judgment review standard)
- Wenco v. EOG Resources, 822 N.W.2d 701 (N.D. 2012) (summary-judgment review standard)
- Saltsman v. Sharp, 803 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 2011) (landowner duty to lawful entrants)
- Olson v. Bismarck Parks and Recreation Dist., 642 N.W.2d 864 (N.D. 2002) (purpose of recreational-use immunity)
- Leet v. City of Minot, 721 N.W.2d 398 (N.D. 2006) (definition and scope of recreational purposes)
- Schmidt v. Gateway Community Fellowship, 781 N.W.2d 200 (N.D. 2010) (precedent prompting statutory amendment)
- In re G.R.H., 711 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 2006) (statutory-interpretation is a question of law)
- Hale v. Ward County, 848 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles)