Anderson v. Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson

C.J., WALLE, VANDE JJ., KAPSNER, NEUMANN, MARING

concur. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,

Toni M. ANDERSON, by through his E. Rory guardian, and natural

ANDERSON, In- and Milbank Mutual Company,

surance Defendants 980251.

No. of North Dakota. Court

April 1999.

Rehearing April Denied 1999. Weir, Hagen Office,

H. Patrick Lee Law Ltd., ND, plaintiff. Fargo, Porsborg (argued) and Daniel L. Scott K. Hovland, Oppegard, Bakke Hovland & Smith Bismarck, ND, for defendants. WALLE, Chief Justice. VANDE following case raises the certified [¶ 1] This negligence of law: Whether injured passen- to an minor driver N.D.C.C., 39-06-09, However, ger under section face the statute. Id. the injured passenger the is the language ambiguous, is or if adher- application the minor for driver’s an ence to the pro- strict letter of the statute permit, instructional in accordance with sec- result, or duces an absurd ludicrous 39-06-08, trial tion N.D.C.C. The court an- 1-02-38(3), use extrinsic aids to negative. question swered We interpret the statute. question in the answer the affirmative. argues 5] Toni Anderson N.D.C.C. 39- [¶ The statement facts are detailed in liability, In the district court’s certification order. negligence, or injured riding Anderson Toni was application a minor driver’s for an in- passenger a in as a vehicle driven her permit structional and is not intended to bar fourteen-year-old son, Derrik At Anderson. injured parent guardian. of an claims or accident, the time of the Derrik Anderson objective maintains in She shown is operating an the vehicle with instruction- language permit application, which permit upon application signed al an issued party signing application states the “as- Following his Toni Anderson. sumes the financial for the negligent accident, Toni Anderson filed a claim designated acts minor” as well as Company, with Milbank Mutual Insurance N.D.C.C. 39-06-10. family’s insurer. Milbank denied Toni provision Century 6] The Code grounds Anderson’s claim on the section 39- N.D.C.C., coverage Milbank denied 06-09, under is N.D.C.C. imputes Derrik Anderson’s Anderson, 39-06-09 which reads: barring Toni her injuries. claim Any negligence of a minor when a against highway Toni motor brought [¶ 3] Anderson suit vehicle a must be person Anderson Milbank. Milbank summary judgment. Following moved a of such minor for a or hearing, license, the district person jointly court denied Milbank’s must be summary judgment. parties motion for The severally any liable with such minor for stipulated remaining factual issues ex- certifying an order cept the above issue was filed provided 39- section under N.D.C.C. 32-24-02 and Rule 06-10. N.D.R.App.P. 39-06-10, Under section N.D.C.C.: Our answer to the certified If a minor question and the outcome of this case minor responsibil- dependent interpretation our ity for the of motor vehicle As in Ryd we stated by minor, owned or for the ¶ Johnson, berg v. ND any required motor 631, statutory interpretation vehicle financial statute, law. state, may accept of this then the director duty legisla is to ascertain the intent of the of the minor. See, e.g., Singha v. ture. State Bd. Medi signature requirement The is outlined in sec- Examiners, cal 39-06-08, N.D.C.C., providing: legislative N.W.2d 838. To ascertain the in tent, we look first in- statute as a whole. operator’s Id. We construe stat struction license must plain, ordinary ute’s words their and com and verified before Id.; monly sense. 1- understood authorized to administer oaths or the di- father, mother, agent, by If a statute’s is clear and rector’s or, unambiguous, disregard legal guardian, we do not that lan the event there is no guage pretext pursuing legal guardian, another intent, legislative responsible be adult who is to assume presumed chapter cause the intent is clear obligation imposed from the under this son, (imputing application of a 561 S.W.2d at upon person signing the minor. driving permit sanc- the instructional plain language We believe potential- placing tions the adult’s action 39-06-09 of N.D.C.C. instrumentality ly dangerous in the hands of mother, his Toni negligence to Anderson’s failing impute negligence emphasized in Caldwell As we Anderson. escape would allow the adult to conse- Inc., Son, 422 v. & N.W.2d

Banker Meide proximately quences his own 375, (N.D.1988), legislature’s 379 gence) Tilghman, v. 342 N.C. with Stanfield from face of the stat apparent is intent (1995) 389, 294, (imputing 464 S.E.2d 297 ute, no for construction and room permittee’s negligent operation of a vehicle interpreta rule literal follow the court will supervising make adults to the adult would of a statute. Sec applying tion in the words supervisors over a less inclined serve as N.D.C.C., provides specifically tion driving). permittee’s practice minor ... must be “any negligence of a case, imputed Under the circumstances of this 9] authority for a line application of such minor we need not decide which added). only because, terms, by its (emphasis persuasive ...” Not the most license “any neg requires imputation include the words does the statute 39-06-09 solely liability, ligence,” contain but the statute does not of all not Furthermore, limiting Despite scope. signing parent guardian. its “any” used line urging the word Toni follow the prior cases indicate Anderson’s we “every” responsibility, generally imputing only “all” or in a means cases statute expansive meaning. statutory interpreta- suggests broad our established rules Bismarck, 476 City require go beyond expressed v. we not See Christianson (N.D.1991) (citing v. legisla- State 690 of the statute where (N.D.1990)). Zueger, 235 face ture’s intent is clear from the statute. recognize first the issue is one of [¶ We

impression split in North plain Accordingly, conclude the [¶ 10] among jurisdictions authority developed requires language of 39-06-09 statutory provisions. Some similar Derrik Anderson’s be negligence of a Anderson, held that all courts have who his Toni parent or inju- minor driver permit application, barring her claim for driving signs guardian who the instructional ries the accident. sustained Funderburk, See, v. permit. e.g., Garrison (1978); Ruiz v. 262 Ark. 561 73 S.W.2d KAPSNER, J., [¶ 11] concurs. Ruiz, (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); 427 298 So.2d SANDSTROM, Justice, concurring Brint, App. 140 Hartough v. 101 Ohio result. (1955); Chenault, v. 98 McCants N.E.2d (1954). App. N.E.2d 382 How Ohio ¶ 4, majority, mis- [¶ 12] Because the at ever, jurisdictions have held these stat other 1-02- states of N.D.C.C. negli liability, impute utes 38(3), I concur the result. guardian gence, to the [¶ 13] Dale V. Sandstrom See, application. e.g., v. Otto (Utah 1981); v. Phillips Leany, 635 P.2d 410 Justice, MARING, dissenting. City Corp., 2d P.2d Tooele 28 Utah Adm’r., (1972); respectfully I an- Bailey’s [¶ 14] dissent and would v. Sizemore negative, question in the (Ky.1956); swer the certified S.W.2d 165 v. Wenisch Hoffmeis ter, concluding Ind.App. 342 N.E.2d 665 per- application for distinguishable be an instructional Some decisions mit in 39-06-08 language. Further accordance with cause of the from more, arguments persuasive policy is not barred par- recovery Compare sustained on both sides of the issue. Garri- the minor having custody ent from the driver such byor of an automobile. employer or in the event employer there is no majority is correct insofar as it responsible person who is recognizes interpretation of statute is a obligation imposed assume the under this Johnson, v. Rydberg law. See person signing act 1998 ND 583 N.W.2d 631. We of a minor. construe statutes to ascertain the intent of Legislature by looking first to the lan (b) Any negligence or willful misconduct guage Singha of the statutes as a whole. years of minor under the of 18 Bd. State Medical Examin a highway ers, 42, 16, If N.W.2d 838. person shall be to the language of the statute is clear and un application of such minor for a ambiguous, of letter the statute cannot be license, permit person or which shall be disregarded pretext pursuing under the of its jointly severally and with liable such minor Id.; “If, intent. 1-02-05. how any damages by for negli- caused such ever, ambiguous of a statute is gence (except or willful misconduct oth- or if adherence to the of strict letter provided erwise succeeding in the next injustice absurdity, statue would lead to or paragraph). spirit prevails of the law over the literal (c) In the event a minor or meaning particular of of the proof his behalf purposes for statute the statute responsibility respect in to the give legislative effect to the intent.” Lo him, by of a motor vehicle owned ney v. Grass Lake Public Sch. Dist. No. or if not the owner of a motor then (N.D.1982). Moreover, respect any with motor consider statutes “as whole and in vehicle, in and in form amounts as re provi provisions, relation with each quired under the motor vehicle financial harmonized, possible, sion if to avoid con State, responsibility then the Balvitsch, flicts.” Mut. Dundee Ins. department may accept application (N.D.1995). signed by minor such one or I believe our rules of con- minor, guardian of such and while such require struction us to consider N.D.C.C. guard is maintained such together counterparts, 39-06-09 with its subject ian shall not be sections and 39-06-08 39-06-10. These stat- imposed preceding paragraph pari utes are materia considered this section.5 together ambiguity arises as to whether adoption 5. Subsection is suitable for and not that would bar adopt those States which vehicle finan- damage of a law. claims permit. for an instruction These were codified as sections 39-0608, 39-0610, 39-0609 and N.D.R.C. In Legisla- (Supp.1957); 1955 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. Assembly adopted nearly tive verbatim the §§ and 10. While have been language of section 6-107 of the Uniform changes, today minor textual the statutes (UVC), Vehicle Code which read: nearly they read the same as did when —Applications § 6-107 of minors adopted. (a)The application any person years Application of 18 for an instruction 39-06-08. of Minors. The operator’s any license shall be minor for an instruction person operator’s verified before authorized to license must be by person administer oaths both the father and and verified before autho- applicant, of the living mother both are rized to administer oaths the director’s him, father, custody by and have agent, legal or in the event or, living by neither then person guardian, par- event there is no required by license has been another minor’s driver’s guardian, legal ent or its in 1926. See assume since who is adult responsible chapter Licensing Annotated 6-107 imposed under this Driver Laws obligation . (b) of a subsections upon person provide “to that unless were added minor. depos- were Liability negligence of for 39-06-09. responsibili- ited on Any negligence of a mi- minor —General. behalf of damages the minor’s caused ty for driving a motor vehicle nor when imput- operation of motor vehicle would person highway must be (emphasis consenting parent.” application of such ed to the signed the added). license, Clearly draft- the intent of the UVC permit or minor for a severally provide jointly and liable must be ers was persons any damages third sustained minor such pro- except part negligence on the event of (b) intended to make vided 39-06-10. section driver. Subsection guardian responsi- consenting parent or Liability any damages caused responsibility. ble minor —Proof the minor and subsection was deposited gence of there is If of financial responsibil- the proof of financial intended relieve the re- proof of financial responsibility provided a motor vehicle ity of for the minor, deposited. sponsibility for the of the owned required under the (b) excepted specifically [¶ 20] Subsection responsibility laws financial responsibility with the lan- parental financial state, may accept then the director of this proved in the guage “(except as otherwise application of the minor. the succeeding paragraph).” The “next suc- next significant be- difference [¶ 18] The (c) which ceeding paragraph” was subsection provisions and the corre- the tween imposed upon dispensed liability the the statutes is that sponding North (b) proof if of financial parent in subsection § omitted certain 39-0610 N.D.R.C. deposited. N.D.C.C. responsibility was 107(c). following § lan- from UVC 6— 6-107(b) 39-06-09, corollary to UVC the 6-107(c) omitted in guage of UVC liability exception to of contains this the also in the current N.D.R.C. 39-0610 except reading “... consenting parent, the § 39-06-10. N.D.C.C. provided in section 39-06-10.” (e) parent or signed by ... one the when provides “the director minor, and while such of such may of minor” if accept guard- parent or proof is maintained such proof responsi- subject liability ian shall not be bility. preceding paragraph of imposed under the certainly § 39-06-10 can [¶ 21] N.D.C.C. this section. depart- interpreted provide language from Although exclusion of this accept minor’s with- ment can blush, lend at first signature of out Legislature intended im- impression willing to assume putation negligence to the even proof if finan- of the responsibility is proof de- where deposited. In other as a analysis of the statutes posited, an words, imposition exception to the UVC; whole; of the the intent the drafters is the liability on the provisions interpretation and the of similar responsibility. deposit of jurisdictions the conclusion leads to Legislature statutes as intended these interpretation of two Another these remedial. Legislature in- be that our statutes would liability require parental even 6-107 tended to Historical Note to section 19] The deposit- responsibility was parental consent for a of the UVC indicates Why language referring (b) ed. to UVC deleted subsection of section (a) exception section 39-06-10 as to section 6-107 and deleting revised subsection Why referring appli- phrase 39-06-09? “who is to assume the Legislature obligation would the imposed cation leave out the this act requirement signature? parental of a minor.” These deletions were made “because of the Rodgers Freborg, Our Court compulsory insurance (N.D.1976), opportuni- had an See Licensing Code.” Driver Laws ty consider the Annotated §§ 39-06-09 and Therein we in- adopted compulsory automobile in- terpreted exception language at the end § 39-08-20, surance in of section 39-06-09 to mean: “[unless the Laws, 2; yet N.D. Sess. ch. Legis- proven responsi- minor has his own financial repealed §§ lature has not 39-06-09 and 39- bility pursuant 39-06-10].” Section Id. at Recognizing Legislature may “[c]learly, further 64. We concluded parental have wanted consent in order for a Legislature intended these sections to minor to obtain a driver’s license or learner’s preclude issuing permits and licenses to permit, it is nevertheless difficult to under- population members of a class that is stand to impute negligence the need ordinarily judgment proof.” Id. at 65. We — signing parent state law makes it approval cited with the Utah mandatory to have automobile cover- statute, conclusion Court’s that Utah’s “simi- for the being respond able to sections, lar to the above ‘was enacted to in damages liability. legis- Enactment protect public requiring proof of fi- lation in North Dakota making uninsured nancial persons behalf of coverage underinsured motorist manda- eighteen years before issu- ” tory also clouds policy rationale for a ance of driver’s (citing Rog- license.’ imputes that negligence child’s 136, Wagstaff, ers v. 120 Utah 232 P.2d an automobile to the even (1951)). responsibility financial is de- It must also be noted that when posited. §§ See N.D.C.C. 26.1-40-15.2 and (c) § subsection was added to UVC 6-107 in 26.1-40-15.3. 1934 a explained: footnote to subsection Interestingly stipulation of facts “Subparagraph adoption [is] suitable for clearly the record indicates at the time of adopt in those states accident, the by motor vehicle driven responsibility financial law.” When North by minor was insured Milbank Mutual Insur- 6-107(c) adopted § our UVC finan Company ance and underin- cial law found in coverage. motorist sured/uninsured It, therefore, ch. makes sense that Legislature only adopt interpret would not 27] subsec adopted [¶ When we statutes (b), but exception acts, also the subsection from uniform guided we are the rule (c) recognizing respon that § of construction in N.D.C.C. 1-02-13: sibility purpose would fulfill the stat Any provision in this which is part code acknowledged utes. We have that Leg aof uniform statute must be so construed purpose enacting islature’s our financial general as to purpose effectuate its protect laws was to innocent make uniform the law of those states which victims of motor vehicle accidents fi from enact it. Hughes nancial disaster. v. State Farm appropriate We have it concluded is for us to Ins., (N.D. Mut. Auto. 236 jurisdictions look to other for decisions inter 1975). preting similar uniform their construing 25] When uniform guide as acts our statutes. may look to the drafters’ official of Opatz Speldrich, comments Estate v. 554 N.W.2d See, (N.D.1996). e.g., and historical notes. out, State v. majority points Carl- As the son, 1997 ND split authority among 802. developed jurisdictions the drafters of the revisions to the with similar A statutes. close cases, however, that reveals analysis of those ND 58 majority, by the cited jurisdictions two of the HAWKINSON, Plaintiff Donald Lee of a minor holding Appellant, of dam signing parent to bar claims adopted not UVC parent, had ages that responsibility excep 6-107(e), § HAWKINSON, Lynda as now known Ann 6-107(b). Ann. Ark. § See Stat.

tion to UVC Lynda McAllister, Defendant Ann 75-315; Fla. 27-16-702, formerly A.S.A. Appellee. fact, 322.09(2) (1979). In lack of Stat. exception in No. 980281. “convincing evi cited Florida statute is of North Dakota. Court only is not that the statute’s dence Ruiz, remedial, Ruiz v. prophylactic.” but April 1999. Dist.1983) (Fla.App. 3 So.2d (Pearson, J., concurring). hand, three of the four

[¶ 28] On the other majority, holding

jurisdictions cited only and not the finan-

application, adopt in some form did 6- responsibility exception (re-

107(c). §Ann. Utah Code See 41-2-10); Ky.

codifying Ann. Code Utah 186.590(2); Ann. S.C.Code Ann.

Rev.Stat. jurisdiction cited fourth 56-1-110. The Indiana, specifically majority, responsibility and

gence. Ind.Code 9-24-9-4. See It is clear exception, give an as a was to

of the statutes whole against a

injured action party a cause of deny To

financially responsible defendant. non-negligent parent to re- right purpose and results not serve this

cover does injustice.

in an reasons, respectfully I For these

dissent. NEUMANN, J., concurs.

Case Details

Case Name: Anderson v. Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson

Court Name: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Apr 6, 1999

Citation: 591 N.W.2d 138

Docket Number: 980251

Court Abbreviation: N.D.