Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligenceliabilitysummary judgmenttrustduty of care
negligenceliabilitypleatrustduty of care

Related Cases

Barclay v. Briscoe, 427 Md. 270, 47 A.3d 560
View Case »
Nolasco v. Malcom, 307 Neb. 309, 949 N.W.2d 201
View Case »
Palermo v. LifeLink Foundation, Inc., 152 So.3d 1099, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,511
View Case »
Clark v. Southview Hosp. & Family Health Ctr., 68 Ohio St.3d 435, 628 N.E.2d 46, 62 USLW 2616, 58 A.L.R.5th 929, 1994 -Ohio- 519
View Case »
Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764, 248 P.3d 1170, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 313, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2627, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3140
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bjerk v. Anderson, 911 N.W.2d 343, 2018 ND 124

Facts

Christian Bjerk, an eighteen-year-old, died from a drug overdose after consuming illegal substances at a house owned by Kenton Anderson. On June 11, 2012, Bjerk and his friends purchased drugs and consumed them at Anderson's property, which was occupied by others at the time. Anderson had not lived at the property for several years and was unaware of the drug activity occurring there. The Bjerks filed a wrongful death action against Anderson, claiming negligence based on premises liability and negligent entrustment.

Christian drove Wesley Sweeney [“Sweeney”] and C.J. (a minor) in Christian or Bjerk's vehicle, to a Grand Forks location, between approximately 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., June 11, 2012, where Sweeney and C.J. purchased and received acid and ketamine, the latter a hallucinogenic dissociative drug.

Issue

Did Kenton Anderson owe a duty of care to Christian Bjerk under premises liability, and could the Bjerks maintain a negligent entrustment claim against him?

Did Kenton Anderson owe a duty of care to Christian Bjerk under premises liability, and could the Bjerks maintain a negligent entrustment claim against him?

Rule

Under North Dakota premises liability law, a landowner owes a general duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, but this duty does not extend to activities conducted by others on the property if the landowner is not engaged in those activities.

Under North Dakota premises liability law, 'general negligence principles govern a landowner's duty of care to persons who are not trespassers on the premises.'

Analysis

The court determined that Anderson did not owe a duty of care to Bjerk because he was not present at the property during the drug consumption and had no control over the activities taking place. The court also found that the Bjerks failed to establish that Anderson's actions or inactions were the proximate cause of Bjerk's death, as he voluntarily engaged in the illegal drug use.

The district court concluded the Bjerks had not provided sufficient admissible evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact whether Anderson breached any duty of care to Christian Bjerk under any theory pleaded.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment in favor of Anderson, concluding that he did not owe a duty of care to Bjerk under premises liability and that the negligent entrustment claim was not applicable.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

Kenton Anderson prevailed in the case because the court found that he did not owe a duty of care to Christian Bjerk and that the claims against him were not supported by the law.

Anderson was not present at the property at the time of the drug consumption, and was not aware of the drug purchase, consumption and gathering of the individuals.

You must be