Lang v. Wonnenberg

16 Citing cases

  1. Luger v. Luger

    2009 N.D. 84 (N.D. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    See, e.g., Vande Hoven, 399 N.W.2d at 859-60 (a motion seeking a change of custody was sufficient to apprise the defaulting party of possible modification of the moving party's visitation rights and assessment against the defaulting party of transportation costs to facilitate visitation). In Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 1990), this Court reversed an award of exemplary damages when those damages had not been sought in the complaint. The Court in Lang was not convinced "the matter of exemplary damages and the facts upon which the plaintiffs intended to rely were set forth in the complaint sufficiently to give notice to [the defendant] of the facts upon which plaintiffs intended to rely."

  2. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Lynne

    2004 N.D. 166 (N.D. 2004)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that "that particular part" of house on which contractor was working when house fell off support jacks was the entire structure

    Our Court has stated that "[i]f an act of God and the negligence of the defendant combine to produce the injury, the defendant is liable." Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832, 836 (N.D. 1990) (citation omitted). Therefore, not only is there a duty to defend the insured under the Grinnell policy, but arguably, there is a duty to indemnify.

  3. Robert v. Aircraft Inv. Co., Inc.

    575 N.W.2d 672 (N.D. 1998)   Cited 13 times
    Declining to address question about damages for cost of repairs presented for first time on appeal

    Id. Additional damages are thus allowed for loss of use if it "can be established by competent evidence." Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832, 840 (N.D. 1990) (quoting Weld County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Slovek, 723 P.2d 1309, 1317 (Colo. 1986)).

  4. McLean v. Kirby Co.

    490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992)   Cited 31 times
    Holding manufacturer has duty to customer for rape by manufacturer's independent distributer

    In First Trust Co. v. Scheels Hardware Sports Shop, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 5, 8 (N.D. 1988), we said that "[t]he intervening negligence of another cannot be a superseding cause which extinguishes a tortfeasor's liability if that negligence was a foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the tortfeasor." In Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832, 837 (N.D. 1990), we said: "An intervening cause must be both independent and unforeseeable."

  5. Poitra v. U.S.

    Case No. 4:09-cv-048 (D.N.D. Apr. 4, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    The Government also argues that the hysterectomy Poitra underwent at Altru Health Systems in Grand Forks constitutes an intervening, superseding cause. "To relieve a defendant of the responsibility for the consequences of his negligence, an intervening cause must be one that is both independent and unforeseeable. Champagne v. United States, 513 N.W.2d 75, 81 (N.D. 1994) (citing Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832, 837 (N.D. 1990)). The North Dakota Supreme Court described the standard for determining the existence of an intervening cause as follows:

  6. Atkinson v. McLaughlin

    Case No. 1:03-cv-091 (D.N.D. Feb. 15, 2007)   Cited 4 times
    Applying North Dakota's punitive damage statute in a case in which jurisdiction was predicated upon diversity of citizenship

    Finally, they cite to a case entitled Lange v. Wonnenberg for the proposition that intentional or willful conduct is not synonymous with oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. See 455 N.W.2d 832, 842 (N.D. 1990). The McLaughlins have failed to respond to the evidence set forth in Atkinson's supplemental brief.

  7. Loper v. Adams

    795 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    Miller, at ΒΆ 13; First Trust Co. v. Scheels Hardware Sports Shop, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 5, 8 (N.D. 1988). The intervening cause must be one which severs the connection of cause and effect between the original negligent act and the injury. Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832, 837 (N.D. 1990). The party alleging that he is relieved from liability for his negligence by an intervening cause bears the burden of establishing the existence of a superseding, intervening cause.

  8. Aasmundstad v. State

    2008 N.D. 206 (N.D. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Stating that "[i]nverse condemnation actions are a property owner's remedy, exercised when a public entity has taken or damaged the owner's property for a public use without the public entity's having brought an eminent domain proceeding"

    [ΒΆ 19] This Court's decisions have recognized that to prevail on an act-of-God defense, a defendant must prove the claimed act of God was the sole proximate cause of the damage, and if the act of God and a defendant's fault or negligence combined to produce the damage, the defendant was still liable. Huber v. Oliver County, 1999 ND 220, ΒΆ 9, 602 N.W.2d 710; Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832, 836 (N.D. 1990); Hoge v. Burleigh County Water Mgmt. Dist., 311 N.W.2d 23, 29 (N.D. 1981); Dempsey v. City of Souris, 279 N.W.2d 418, 420 (N.D. 1979). Whether an act-of-God defense has been established is a question of fact.

  9. Haugenoe v. Workforce

    2008 N.D. 78 (N.D. 2008)   Cited 10 times

    rant of summary judgment for the defendant, holding the district court erred in finding a superseding, intervening cause as a matter of law instead of submitting issue to the jury for its factual determination); Champagne v. United States, 513 N.W.2d 75 (N.D. 1994) (in case in which certified question of whether a court should compare the fault of a mental health provider who had discharged a patient with the fault of the patient who then committed suicide the court stated the comparison should be made generally by the trier of fact); Jones v. Ahlberg, 489 N.W.2d 576 (N.D. 1992) (in case in which police officers' negligence in hot pursuit of suspect was followed by suspect's erratic driving, all of which resulted in an automobile accident which injured a passenger in suspect's vehicle, the court rejected the argument the suspect's action constituted a superseding, intervening cause as a matter of law, instead ruling reasonable minds could differ on the foreseeability of the accident); Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 1990) (in case in which upstream landowner's actions in draining land without authorization was followed by township's alleged negligence in raising downstream road without allowing drainage through the road the court stated the district court did not err in rejecting the contention that the act of the township was an intervening cause as a matter of law); Layman v. Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt, Inc., 343 N.W.2d 334 (N.D. 1983) (in case in which negligence of company supervising construction of plant was followed by alleged negligence of company operating plant before completion of construction the court found the lower court's factual findings on foreseeability and causation were not clearly erroneous); Steckler v. Miller Holmes, Inc., 303 N.W.2d 560 (N.D. 1981) (in case in which alleged negligence of fuel tanker company in overflowing gas station's storage tank was combined with gas station's negligence in maintaining cap measuring port of storage tank the court rejected the cla

  10. Sullivan v. Pulkrabek

    2000 N.D. 107 (N.D. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    The plaintiff has the right to elect the measure deemed more accurate when either method is an appropriate measure of damages. Lang v. Wonnenberg, 455 N.W.2d 832, 839 (N.D. 1990). The defendant then has the burden of proving the alternative measure is more appropriate.