Court Opinion

ID: 9711417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:31:26.669464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:04.771662
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Justice.
Donald and Joyce Larson, d/b/a Nova Management (the Larsons) appealed from a summary judgment dismissing their third-party complaint against Robert Reetz, Robert Ehli, and Dion Ehlis, individually, and in their capacity as state employees of the North Dakota Boiler Inspection Department of the North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau (the Boiler Inspectors). We affirm.
The Larsons owned an apartment building in Bismarck that was destroyed by fire on January 27, 1988. Lynn Schloesser, a tenant in the building, sued the Larsons for damage to his personal property and additional expenses incurred as a result of the fire. The Larsons then filed a third-party complaint against the Boiler Inspectors asserting that the fire, which began in the boiler room of the apartment building, was caused by the improper installation of the boiler on combustible flooring and that the Boiler Inspectors “were negligent in failing to observe and report the improper installation of the boiler.” The Larsons sought contribution or indemnity from the Boiler Inspectors for any judgment awarded in favor of Schloesser against the Larsons.1
On a motion for summary judgment dismissal the trial court concluded that the Larsons’ action against the Boiler Inspectors in their capacity as state employees was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The court also concluded that the Larsons’ action against the Boiler Inspectors, individually, was barred because there was no allegation of conduct which could be found to constitute gross negligence and, therefore, under Section 32-12.-1-15(2), N.D.C.C., the Boiler Inspectors, as state employees, could not be held personally liable.
On appeal the Larsons urge this court to abolish the doctrine of sovereign immunity, at least with respect to the circumstances of this case where the Boiler Inspectors allegedly were engaged in proprietary or ministerial functions in conducting boiler inspections. Art. I, § 9, of the North Dakota Constitution, provides in relevant part that “[sjuits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct.” We have consistently construed this provision as investing the Legislature with the power to modify or waive the State’s sovereign immunity from suit, and we have held that no suit may be maintained against the State *259unless the Legislature authorizes it. Dickinson Public School District v. Sanstead, 425 N.W.2d 906 (N.D.1988); Senger v. Hulstrand Construction, Inc., 320 N.W.2d 507 (N.D.1982). We refuse to invade the Legislature’s domain on this issue, and, accordingly, we decline the Larsons’ invitation to abrogate the State’s sovereign immunity in this ease.
The Larsons assert that application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity is a violation of their federal and state constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process, to a legal remedy, and to receive just compensation for a public taking of their property. The Larsons have failed to cite any persuasive authority for the proposition that application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity violates constitutional guarantees. We are unpersuaded that the application of the doctrine in this case violates the Larsons’ rights under the federal or state constitutions.
The Larsons also assert that sovereign immunity has been waived in this case, because Section 65-01-12, N.D.C.C., operates as a consent to be sued by the Boiler Inspectors and because the requirement that the State Boiler Inspector obtain a bond under Section 65-12-13, N.D.C.C., constitutes the acquisition of insurance and consequential waiver of sovereign immunity-
Section 65-01-12, N.D.C.C., provides that upon request of the Workers Compensation Bureau the Attorney General “shall defend all suits, actions, or proceedings brought against the bureau or any of its employees_” On its face, this provision does not constitute a waiver of the State’s immunity or a legislative authorization to sue the State. Section 65-12-13, N.D.C.C., requires the State Boiler Inspector to furnish a $2,000 bond “conditioned upon the faithful performance of his duties.” The purchase of a performance bond does not constitute acquisition of insurance or waiver of sovereign immunity. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the Larsons’ rationalizations for asserting waiver of sovereign immunity are without merit.
The Larsons also assert that because the Boiler Inspectors represented that the boiler was properly and safely installed they should be estopped from asserting the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Larsons have not cited any authority in support of applying the doctrine of estop-pel to avoid application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This suggested application of the doctrine under the circumstances of this case is without merit.
The Larsons assert that they have a valid contract action against the Boiler Inspectors. Under Section 32-12-02, N.D. C.C., the Legislature has authorized actions “arising upon contract” to be brought against the State the same as against a private person. The Boiler Inspectors’ duty to inspect the Larsons’ boiler in this case arose under Section 65-12-03, N.D. C.C., which requires the State, through the Chief Boiler Inspector, to inspect all nonexempt boilers to ensure their safe operation. Under Section 65-12-06, N.D.C.C., a certificate of inspection for each inspected boiler must be issued where the inspection report certifies that the boiler is in a safe condition to be operated. Section 65-12-11, N.D.C.C., requires the owner of a boiler to pay inspection fees as determined by the Workers Compensation Bureau. The rights and obligations arising under Chapter 65-12, N.D.C.C., did not create a contractual relationship between the Larsons and the Boiler Inspectors. See Dickinson Public School District v. Sanstead, 425 N.W.2d 906 (N.D.1988). While the failure to make a careful inspection may constitute a breach of duty under tort principles, it does not, under these circumstances, constitute a breach of any contractual promise or obligation. There being no contractual relationship, express or implied, this action is not one “arising upon contract” for which an action can be brought against the State under Section 32-12-02, N.D.C.C.
The Larsons assert that they have a valid claim against the Boiler Inspectors, personally, in their individual capacities, for *260being grossly negligent. Section 32-12.1-15(2), N.D.C.C., provides:
“2. No employee of the state may be held liable in the employee’s personal capacity for actions or omissions occurring within the scope of the employee’s employment unless such actions or omissions constitute reckless or grossly negligent conduct, malfeasance, or willful or wanton misconduct.”
As defined under Section 1-01-17, N.D. C.C., gross negligence consists in the want of slight care and diligence. This court has embellished upon that definition, defining gross negligence as constituting,
“no care at all, or the omission of such care which even the most inattentive and thoughtless seldom fail to make their concern, evincing a reckless temperament and lack of care, practically willful in its nature.” Wysoski v. Collette, 126 N.W.2d 896, 898 (N.D.1964).
The third-party complaint filed by the Lar-sons merely alleges that the Boiler Inspectors “were negligent in failing to observe and report the improper installation of the boiler” and that this conduct “constituted gross negligence.”
Under Rule 56, N.D.R.Civ.P., a movant for summary judgment must show that there is no dispute as to either the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the facts shown. Northwestern Equipment, Inc. v. Badinger, 403 N.W.2d 8 (N.D.1987). If the movant satisfies this initial burden, the adverse party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials but must respond by affidavit or as otherwise provided under the rule, setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Asbridge, 414 N.W.2d 596 (N.D.1987).
Robert Reetz, the Chief Boiler Inspector, submitted an affidavit to the trial court stating, in relevant part:
“[Bjoiler inspections are limited to examination of the mechanical systems and components of boilers and do not include inspections for latent fire defects or hazards.
* * * * * *
“[T]he floor area immediately adjacent to the boiler inspected was covered with a floor covering and the floor area underneath the boiler where the fire appears to have originated was covered by the boiler itself. It would not have been visually apparent to anyone conducting a routine boiler inspection that the floor area underneath the boiler may have been an unshielded combustible floor surface. The building in question was built in 1962 or 1963 and the boiler in question was probably installed at the same time and no problems were apparent for the ensuing years until the fire.”
The Larsons did not submit any counter-affidavit to refute Reetz’s statement that the floor area beneath the boiler was not visible in a routine inspection and that the inspections were limited to an examination of the mechanical system and components of the boiler. Consequently, the Larsons have failed to raise a genuine issue whether the Boiler Inspectors acted in a grossly negligent manner.
Although the determination of negligence is generally a question of fact to be determined by the factfinder, we agree with the trial court that in this ease “[tjhere has been no allegations of gross or willful or reckless conduct which would take the matter out of the immunity section.” We conclude that, as a matter of law, the misconduct ascribed to the Boiler Inspectors in the third-party complaint, if proven, might constitute ordinary but not gross negligence. We further conclude, therefore, that the Larsons have not filed a claim for which the Boiler Inspectors could be held personally liable under Section 32-12.1-15(2), N.D.C.C.
The summary judgment dismissal is affirmed.
ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, J., concur.

. Schloesser settled his lawsuit against the Lar-sons and, pursuant to their stipulation, the trial court dismissed with prejudice Schloesser’s action against the Larsons.