State of North Dakota, by and through the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the North Dakota Youth Correctional Center v. Honorable Bruce Haskell, Judge of the District Court, South Central Judicial District, and Delmar Markel

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for a supervisory writ and directed the district court to dismiss Delmar Markel’s negligence claim against the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Court held that the Workers Safety and Insurance Act barred the claim because Markel had not shown an intentional act undertaken with a conscious purpose to inflict injury, and it denied Markel’s cross-petition concerning his constructive and retaliatory discharge claim.

Holdings

1. The Court exercised original supervisory jurisdiction because the State asserted statutory immunity from suit and otherwise would have to fully litigate the action before obtaining review, while extensive discovery would be required.
2. Markel failed to allege and support facts showing that the State engaged in an intentional act with the conscious purpose of inflicting his injuries. His negligence claim therefore fell outside the statutory exception, and the State was immune from the civil claim.
3. The Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the discharge claim because Markel did not establish the absence of an adequate alternative remedy, and the dismissal could be reviewed on appeal after resolution of the negligence claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the North Dakota Supreme Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to review the denial of the State's motion for summary judgment or dismissal when the State claimed statutory workers' compensation immunity and no adequate alternative remedy existed.
2. Whether Markel's negligence allegations and supporting evidence established an intentional act done with the conscious purpose of inflicting injury, thereby satisfying the statutory exception to workers' compensation immunity.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to review dismissal of Markel's constructive and retaliatory discharge claim when an appeal was available after resolution of the negligence claim.

Disposition

writ_granted