Court Opinion

ID: 9705085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:56:09.019505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.824683
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
Although I agree with the statements of the legal principles presented by Justice Vogel, I do not agree that we should permit Rule 56, N.D.R.Civ.P., to be utilized when there is some doubt, which arises from an inference from evidence before the court, that justice may not thereby be served.
The pertinent part of Rule 56(c), which is involved, provides:
“Judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” [Emphasis added.]
In Farmers Elevator Company v. David, 234 N.W.2d 26, 29 (N.D.1975), we said:
“ ‘However, under this rule a motion for summary judgment will be granted only if, after taking the view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom the summary judgment is sought, it appears there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party seeking the summary judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law.’ ”
Giving Logosz the benefit of all favorable inferences which can be reasonably drawn from statements made by him when his deposition was taken — even though it appears that he has much difficulty in articulating his position and has some obvious misconceptions of the law — there appears to be a fact dispute. It is possible that if the matter was presented at a full trial and Logosz was fully examined by his counsel, the trier of the facts might believe that the amount of Logosz’s liability is not as great as Rugby Milling Company alleges. The mixed-up transactions between these two parties may never be satisfactorily explained. To impose all of the consequences of the confusion upon Logosz without an opportunity for a trial does not appear to be just. See the discussion of inferences from *667depositions in Mondy v. Gjesdal, 123 N.W.2d 33, 36 (N.D.1963).