from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Wade L. Webb, Judge.
Frith (argued) and Karisa Frith (appeared), self-represented,
plaintiffs and appellants.
F. Fischer (argued) and Daniel L. Gaustad (on brief),
defendants and appellees.
1] Karisa and Roger Frith appealed from a judgment dismissing
their complaint against the Park District of the City of
Fargo and the North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund. We affirm,
concluding the district court did not err in concluding the
Friths' claims against the Park District were precluded
by the statute of limitations.
2] The Friths sued the Park District and Insurance Reserve
Fund seeking monetary damages for injuries Karisa Frith
allegedly sustained while rollerblading in a Fargo park on
July 7, 2012. The Friths alleged Karisa Frith was injured
when she tripped on soft patching material used to fill a
crack in the park pathway. The summons and complaint were
originally served on July 2, 2015, but the service did not
comply with the requirements of N.D.R.Civ.P. 4. In September
2015, the Park District and Insurance Reserve Fund moved for
dismissal under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b), arguing the court lacked
personal jurisdiction because they were not properly served
and the Friths failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. On October 5, 2015, the Friths properly served
the summons and complaint.
3] In November 2015, the Park District moved for summary
judgment, arguing the Friths' claims were barred by the
statute of limitations because the three-year statute of
limitations for claims against a political subdivision
expired before the Friths commenced the action. The Friths
responded to the Park District's motion, arguing the
three-year statute of limitations does not apply and their
claims for relief did not accrue until September 12, 2013,
when they received information from an expert witness that
there was reasonable cause to believe the Park District was
4] After a hearing, the district court granted the motions to
dismiss and for summary judgment. The court concluded the
Friths' claims against the Park District were barred by
the statute of limitations because the three-year statute of
limitations for actions against a political subdivision
applied to the Friths' claims and the statute of
limitations expired before the action commenced. The court
also dismissed the claims against the Insurance Reserve Fund,
concluding the claims fail as a matter of law because the
Insurance Reserve Fund does not owe any duties to the Friths.
A judgment was entered dismissing the complaint with
5] Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine
issues of material fact or inferences that can reasonably be
drawn from undisputed facts, or if the only issues to be
resolved are questions of law. Ferguson v. City of
Fargo, 2016 ND 194, ¶ 7. Whether summary judgment
was properly granted is a question of law that is reviewed de
novo on appeal. Id. We view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and
give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that
can be reasonably drawn from the record. Tangedal v.
Mertens, 2016 ND 170, ¶ 7, 883 N.W.2d 871. We
decide whether the information available to the district
court precluded the existence of a genuine issue of material
fact and entitled the moving party to judgment as a matter of
6] The Friths argue the district court erred in dismissing
their complaint because it applied ...