Court Opinion

ID: 9658913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:21:50.343058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:01.553973
License: Public Domain

STRUTZ, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. I cannot agree with the narrow definition placed upon the word “claimant” by the majority. The clear meaning of the statute, giving the words as used therein their ordinary and commonly understood meaning, is that no civil action shall be commenced arising out of the use or application of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, or agricultural chemicals by aircraft unless the claimant has filed a report of his loss with the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission, together with proof of service of such report upon the operator or applicator allegedly responsible, and the person for whom the work was done if that person was someone other than the claimant, within sixty days from the occurrence of the loss or within sixty days from the date claimant knew of the loss; and if the claimed damage is alleged to have occurred to growing crops, before fifty per cent of the crop has been harvested. The purpose of requiring such notice is to enable the person against whom such claim is to be made to check the crop and to determine if, in fact, it was damaged as claimed.
The majority now holds that the word “claimant” does not include the owner or occupant for whom the spraying was done. This conclusion is arrived at because the statute provides for service of notice of loss upon such owner or occupant. The Legislature obviously had in mind that where a claim is filed against the operator of the aircraft or the chemical company for damages caused by such spraying, where such claimant is a stranger to the spraying operation, a claim would also be made against the person for whom the spraying was done, and that therefore he, too, should have notice. However, where the claim is filed by the person for whom the spraying was done, such person then becomes the claimant. His claim still is a claim arising out of the use or application of such herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, or agricultural chemical, and it cannot be maintained unless the verified report required by statute was filed with the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission, together with proof of service of the report of loss upon the operator or applicator and the person for whom the work was done if it was done for someone other than the claimant. If the Legislature had intended to limit the meaning of “claimant” so as not to include the owner or occupant, it could easily have said so.
If we are to give the term “claimant” the meaning given to it by the majority opinion, the entire statute may well be unconstitutional, since it-might create an un*389reasonable classification of claimants, differentiating between those who are neighbors, who must file within sixty days, and those who are owners or occupants of the land which was sprayed, who would be subject only to the usual statute of limitations. Section 28-01-40, North Dakota Century Code, requires that service be made upon the person for whom the work was done, while Section 28 — 01—41 requires that the name of the owner,or occupant of the property for whom the work was done must be set out. To make any sense out of Section 28-01-41, the name of the owner or occupant would be necessary only where the claimant was someone other than the owner or occupant of the property for whom the operator or applicator was rendering labor or service.
This court has held that in construing a statute words used therein must be given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. Bronson v. Johnson, 76 N.D. 122, 33 N.W.2d 819 (1948); Berg v. Torgerson, 100 N.W.2d 153, 77 A.L.R.2d 1060 (N.D.1959). The court must interpret a plain and unambiguous statute as it is written, and cannot indulge in speculation as to probable or possible qualifications which might have been in the minds of the legislators. The statute must be given effect according to its plain and obvious meaning. Rausch v. Nelson, 134 N.W.2d 519 (N.D.1965).
There can be no valid argument made that the plaintiff in this case is not a claimant. Webster defines “claimant” as one who asserts a right. The plaintiff’s cause of action against the defendant clearly is the assertion of a claim, or right. This court has defined “claimant” as one who asserts a right or demand. Weisgerber v. Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 70 N.D. 165, 292 N.W. 627, 128 A.L.R. 1482 (1940).
It is therefore my view that the plaintiff in this case is a “claimant” within the meaning of the statute here under consideration. That being true, this court should have squarely faced the basic constitituonal issue raised by the plaintiff: Is the time within which a claimant must file his report unreasonable? The determination of that issue will now be delayed to some future controversy.
I am authorized to state that ERICK-STAD, J., joins me in this dissent.