Court Opinion

ID: 9806540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:11:53.533627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:25.822745
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 33] I concur in the result and most of the majority opinion. I am, however, concerned with the reliance on the California cases cited in part III of the opinion. While I agree that N.D.C.C. § 42-01-12 was derived from the California Civil Code and that court decisions interpreting that section are relevant, the cases cited in the majority opinion were decided after that provision became a part of the North Dakota statutes. Thus, while the California decisions may be relevant, where a statute is taken from another state and adopted without change the presumption that we adopted that state’s construction of that statute arises only when that construction was previously placed upon it by the courts of the state from which the statute was taken. State v. Dilger, 322 N.W.2d 461 (N.D.1982).
[¶ 34] My concern is the language under the California cases appears to negate the protection provided by the statute. For example, in the airport case the language might be read to require the statute must specifically provide an airport be built and make noise before the protection of the statute would apply. Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal.3d 86, 160 Cal.Rptr. 733, 603 P.2d 1329 (1979). It defies common sense to conclude that an airport would cause no noise. I would not conclude an airport that creates any noise is a nuisance; rather, only those airports that create excessive noise should constitute a nuisance. Cf. Eck v. City of Bismarck, 302 N.W.2d 739 (N.D.1981) (zoning ordinance was a reasonable attempt by the city to prohibit residential development in areas considered least suitable for such purposes because of excessive noise levels caused primarily by flying aircraft in vicinity of the airport).
[¶ 35] Although the previous cases of this Court may not define the scope of the immunity under N.D.C.C. § 42-01-12, I believe that scope can only be defined on a case-by-case basis and I would not rely on the California cases to define the extent of the immunity in a given case. Rather, I believe it is enough direction that we strictly construe the statute as the Court did in Messer v. City of Dickinson, 71 N.D. 568, 3 N.W.2d 241 (1942), discussed above in the majority opinion.
[¶ 36] In other respects I concur in the analysis and the result of the majority opinion.
[¶ 37] GERALD W. VÁNDE WALLE, C.J.