Carlson v. Barta

• Decision Date: 20 October 2014
• Docket Number: A14-0003
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
• Parties: Gary Carlson, Respondent, v. Ray Barta, Appellant.

Gary Carlson, Respondent, v. Ray Barta, Appellant.

A14-0003

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

October 20, 2014

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

Reversed

Larkin, Judge

Olmsted County District Court

File No. 55-CV-12-412

William L. French, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent)

Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen Abdo, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Samantha O. Sutton, David M. Werwie & Associates, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LARKIN, Judge

In this appeal from judgment following a jury trial in a negligence action, appellant challenges the district court's denial of his pretrial motion for summaryjudgment. He argues that respondent's negligence claim arose from respondent's performance under the parties' timber-sale contract and that the claim is barred under a provision in the contract. We conclude that the district court erroneously determined that the parties' contract is irrelevant to respondent's negligence claim and that the relevant provision is unenforceable. And because the plain language of the provision bars respondent's negligence claim, we reverse the judgment against appellant.

FACTS

Respondent Gary Carlson is a "certified Minnesota educational program logging professional." He started logging in 1999, taking on small jobs in Rochester from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). His business has since grown to include larger jobs, which are still mostly sourced by the DNR. Around March of 2007, Carlson responded to a newsletter ad placed by appellant Ray Barta, which advertised the sale of "100+ cord [of] aspen trees." Soon after, Carlson visited Barta's property to inspect the property and the trees that Barta wanted to remove. Carlson informed Barta that he would need to find a purchaser for the wood before he would agree to remove the trees.

In January 2008, after finding a willing buyer, Carlson returned to Barta's property to remove the trees. On Carlson's first day, the parties signed a form contract that the DNR provides for private landowners. Barta supplied the contract, but Carlson wasfamiliar with the form, and he reviewed it before he began his work. The contract is titled "Timber Sale Contract," and it includes the following liability clause:¹

SECTION 8. IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

1. LIABILITY - The Purchaser agrees to save and hold harmless the Seller from any and all claims, penalties or expenses of any nature, type or description whatsoever, arising from the performance of this contract, whether asserted by itself or any individual, organization or governmental agency or subdivision.²

After working on Barta's property for one month, Carlson had removed all but a small patch of the targeted trees. On February 16, Carlson drove his 28,000-pound harvester toward the remaining patch of trees.³ He crossed an area that he thought was an open field, but the area contained a partially frozen pond covered in snow. The harvester broke through ice and sunk into the water below.

Carlson sued Barta for negligence, alleging that Barta failed to disclose the pond's location and that he had suffered property damage and lost income as a result. Barta moved to dismiss Carlson's lawsuit under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e). He argued, in part, that the suit was precluded by Carlson's agreement, under sections 7 and 8 of the parties' contract, to assume the risk of, and hold Barta harmless for, anydamages arising out of the performance of the contract. The district court denied Barta's motion, declining to consider the substance of the contract because it was a "mere reference" in Carlson's complaint. The district court also reasoned, "[Carlson's] claim is based on negligence, not breach of contract. These are fundamentally different legal theories . . . ."

Later, Barta moved for summary judgment under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 56, again arguing that the parties' contract precluded Carlson's lawsuit. The district court denied Barta's motion. It once again reasoned that "[Carlson's] claim is based on negligence, not breach of contract." It also concluded that the contract's "exculpatory clause" did not control because the alleged breach of duty occurred before the contract was executed and that the clause was unenforceable because "[r]elieving landowners of their obligation to repair dangerous conditions, or to provide invited persons with adequate warning of the same, not only contravenes public policy, but may in some situations constitute intentional, willful, or wanton behavior."

The case was tried to a jury. On the first day of trial, the district court addressed the relevance of the parties' contract. The district court judge stated, "Let's talk about this contract. I've issued a number of decisions on this case really identifying that the alleged breach here occurred prior to execution of the contract and that the exculpatory clause and the language within that contract really does not apply." The district court acknowledged that if the contract "did apply, it would be a different situation . . . especially considering that [Carlson] conceded the exculpatory clause was not ambiguous." Carlson argued that the contract was "superfluous" and "prejudicial."According to Carlson, it was prejudicial because Carlson had requested that it be backdated one year for his tax purposes. The district court ruled that the contract would not be admitted as an exhibit at trial because it "would be highly prejudicial" and "[i]t's completely unrelated to the negligence issue." The district court explained:

This case has become incredibly complicated because we have a breach—allegedly a breach of duty that allegedly occurred prior to the execution of the contract. We have a contract that has a solid exculpatory clause. At least it's not disputed that it's a solid exculpatory clause, especially considering that [Carlson] agrees that it's not ambiguous . . . But we need to focus on the theory of this case being negligence and not breach of contract because as the facts have been presented to the Court, this alleged breach all occurred prior to execution of the contract and that's why it survived summary judgment.

The jury returned a unanimous special verdict in Carlson's favor. The jury found that Barta was 65% at fault and that Carlson was 35% at fault. Barta moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), a new trial, and to stay entry of judgment, once more arguing that Carlson had assumed the risk of, and agreed to hold Barta harmless for, any damages arising from the performance of the contract. The district court denied Barta's motion in its entirety explaining, "[Carlson's] claim is based on negligence, not breach of contract. Moreover, there are facts in the record that support the breach [of duty] occurred prior to execution of the contract." The court then reiterated its prior ruling regarding the "exculpatory clause" and stated, "[o]ne of the most longstanding duties in our law is that of a landowner to its entrant, and this Court finds waiver of this duty through the use of an exculpatory clause violates public policy."

The district court ordered judgment against Barta in the amount of $110,898.39 for property damage and lost income, consistent with the jury's special verdict. Barta appeals, asking us to reverse the judgment against him and order dismissal of Carlson's action.

DECISION

Barta appeals from judgment, challenging the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment. Barta contends that because the "denial of summary judgment is based on a question of law, its denial is . . . reversible on appeal from the judgment." Carlson does not dispute that contention. In fact, Carlson addressed the merits of the district court's summary-judgment ruling in his brief and at oral argument.

A pretrial summary-judgment ruling is reviewable on appeal when it is based on a question of law. Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff, & Hobbs, Ltd., 783 N.W.2d 733, 744 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Sept. 21, 2010). The district court's summary-judgment ruling was based, in part, on its legal conclusion that the parties' contract does not bar Carlson's negligence claim.⁴ See City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 843 N.W.2d 577, 581 (Minn. 2014) (stating that contract interpretation presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo and that when contractual language is clear, a court enforces the parties' agreement as expressed in the language). We recognize that the district court also reasoned that "[t]he record is replete with conflicting averments that demonstrate the existence ofsignificant and genuine issues of fact," but the district court did not identify those factual issues. The district court appears to have been referring to factual disputes regarding Barta's duty of care as a landowner, which the district court discussed in its summary-judgment memorandum. However, we discern no factual dispute regarding the legal question of whether Carlson's negligence claim is contractually barred. And because the denial of summary judgment was based on that legal issue, the denial is within our scope of review. See Schmitz, 783 N.W.2d at 744.

"A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). "[Appellate courts] review a district court's summary judgment decision de novo. In doing so, we determine whether the district court properly applied the law and whether there are genuine issues of material fact...