Moum v. Maercklein
North Dakota Supreme Court
201 N.W.2d 399 (1972)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
A minor (plaintiff) filed a negligence action against Soo Line Railway Company and its probationary employee Evan Dockter (defendants) for the wrongful death of her parents and for personal injuries suffered by the minor. The deaths and injuries occurred when the automobile in which the minor and her parents and sister were riding collided with an automobile that was being driven by Dockter, who was on his way to work at Soo Line. The accident occurred on a highway during a snowstorm when travel conditions were extremely hazardous and Dockter was attempting to pass another vehicle. The minor alleged that Soo Line was negligent when, during a snowstorm that made driving conditions hazardous, it called and ordered Dockter to report to work in less than two hours to a location approximately 70 miles away. The issues of Dockter’s negligence were disposed of before trial. The jury returned a verdict for the minor against Soo Line. The trial court denied Soo Line’s post-verdict motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial. Soo Line appealed and argued that its negligence, if any, was not the proximate cause but at most it was a prior, remote cause and argued that the deaths and the minor’s injuries resulted from Dockter’s negligence, which was an intervening, unrelated, and unforeseen cause.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Strutz, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
