Court Opinion

ID: 9666181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:07:13.203042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:24.476638
License: Public Domain

VOGEL, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the denial of reparation to Hughes for his unquestioned loss of three days’ pay while testifying against his assailant.
We are not here concerned with an ordinary criminal case or a tort action for damages, in both of which a victim is not allowed to recover compensation for the time taken from work to testify in his own behalf (although in the criminal case he would receive witness fees). We have, instead, a completely new remedy created by a special statute which provides that persons who are the victims of “criminally injurious conduct” may recover for certain economic losses including “work loss,” which is defined to include “loss of income from work the injured person would have performed if he had not been injured, . . ” [Sec. 65-13-03, subsec. 6-b, N.D.C.C.]
It seems to me that that statute plainly requires payment to Hughes. If Hughes had not been injured he would have worked on the three days in question. His loss of pay for those three days was caused by “criminally injurious conduct” and resulted in “loss of income from work the injured person would have performed if he had not been injured, . .
The majority opinion, after holding the language of the statute unambiguous and denying any intention to interpret it, proceeds to interpret it to say just the opposite of what (to me, at least) it says.
The majority opinion fails to explain how the “explicit terms” of Section 65-13-03, subsection 6-b, defining “work loss,” compel, or even permit, the result reached.1
Permitting the victim to be paid for time lost while testifying against his assailant may be novel, unsettling, or even unprecedented, but if the language of the statute permits it, I cannot agree to an opinion holding just the opposite.
In the absence of any explanation or analysis to justify upsetting the plain application of an unambiguous statute to undisputed facts, I dissent.

. The footnote in. the majority opinion to the effect that Hughes would have been required to testify even if he had not been injured does not explain the holding. If he had not been injured . he would not have presented a claim, since he would have been specifically excluded from compensation for “work loss” by the definition that such loss is “loss of income from work the injured person would have performed if he had not been injured, . [Emphasis added.] Sec. 65-13-03, subsec. 6-b, quoted in part above. It is the fact of injury which invokes the “work loss” provision.