[¶ 13.] The North Dakota Supreme Court, in a case which dealt with the right to bring a private nuisance claim against a farmer for the spread of weeds onto neighboring land, held that "there is a duty to use ordinary care when attempting to control or remove weeds." Kukowski v. Simonson Farm, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 68, 70 (ND 1993). The court stated that the landowner's duty of care in controlling weeds is "the care an ordinary, prudent, and careful person would use in similar circumstances."

Koriel again correctly argues that Mull and Binder did not deal with a duty owed by an adjacent landowner.        Krug cites Kukowski v. Simonson Farm, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 68 (N.D.1993), in which the defendant's land had a stand of kochia and Russian thistle growing on it. In an attempt to control the weeds, the defendant combined the kochia and Russian thistle.

"[T]he court may examine the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, interrogatories, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate." Kukowski v. Simonson Farm, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 68, 71 (N.D. 1993). "Summary judgment is inappropriate if neither party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law or if reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts." Larson v. Baer, 418 N.W.2d 282, 286 (N.D. 1988) (citing Garcia v. Overvold Motors, Inc., 351 N.W.2d 110 (N.D. 1984)).