Liability follows fault, not the name on the title. When borrowed or shared farm equipment injures someone in North Dakota, several parties come under scrutiny at once, including the person who lent the machine, the operator, an employer, a repair shop, and the manufacturer. More than one can be held responsible for the same injury. Sorting it out takes a hard look at how the machine was maintained, who knew its condition, and what the sharing arrangement required. Our North Dakota farm accident attorneys do that work every season.
How North Dakota Divides Fault Among Multiple Parties
North Dakota is a modified comparative fault state. Under N.D.C.C. Section 32-03.2-02, contributory fault does not bar recovery unless the injured person’s fault “was as great as the combined fault of all other persons who contribute to the injury.” That wording is stricter than most summaries suggest. Someone found 40% at fault still recovers, with the award cut by 40%. Someone found 50% at fault recovers nothing, because 50% is as great as the 50% left for everyone else.
The same statute splits the money once the percentages are set. Liability is several only and not joint, so each party is liable only for the damages attributable to its percentage of fault. The neighbor who lent an unsafe machine and the shop that serviced it are not automatically answerable for each other. One exception is worth knowing. Parties who act in concert in the tortious act, who aid or encourage it, or who ratify or adopt it for their benefit, are jointly liable for the damages attributable to their combined fault.
Fault is defined broadly under the same section. It reaches negligence, absolute liability, failure to warn, reckless or willful conduct, assumption of risk, misuse of product, and product liability grounded in negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty. One accident can put several of those theories before a jury.
Who a Farm Equipment Claim Can Reach
Because fault is apportioned rather than assigned to one person, the investigation examines everyone whose conduct touched the machine. A claim may reach:
- The equipment owner, who lent out a machine with a known defect, a disabled safety device, or a repair never completed.
- The operator, whose handling, speed, or decision to bypass a guard contributed to the injury.
- An employer or farm operation that put an untrained worker on unfamiliar equipment or failed to supervise the job.
- A dealer, repair shop, or maintenance contractor that serviced the machine and returned it unsafe.
- The manufacturer or seller of the equipment or a component part, if a defect made the machine unreasonably dangerous.
- A custom harvesting crew, hauler, or other contractor working the same ground under a separate agreement.
Naming the right parties early matters. Because liability is ordinarily several, leaving one out usually means that party’s share of the damages is never collected.
When the Machine Itself Is Defective
Claims against a manufacturer or seller run through N.D.C.C. Chapter 28-01.3, which carries rules that catch people off guard in a defective machinery case. Under Section 28-01.3-06, a product is not defective unless a defect or defective condition existed when the manufacturer or other initial seller sold it, and that condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
Section 28-01.3-03 then supplies a defense for alterations made after that sale, and it is narrower than it sounds. The change has to be a substantial contributing cause of the injury. It also has to shift the purpose, use, function, design, intended use, or manner of use away from what the product was originally designed, tested, or intended for.
That is why power take-off safety and rollover protection come up so often. Where a guard or an interlock is pulled and never replaced, and that removal meets both halves of the test, the manufacturer may drop out while the person who pulled the guard stays in the case.
Reaching a dealer is harder than it looks. Under Section 28-01.3-04, a seller that did not build the product must, when it answers or otherwise pleads, file an affidavit naming the manufacturer, and the court must then dismiss the claim against that seller. The injured person avoids that dismissal by showing the seller significantly controlled the design or manufacture, gave the manufacturer instructions or warnings about the alleged defect, knew of the defect, or created it. The statute leaves a second door open. Before trial, a dismissed seller can be brought back in if the statute of limitations now bars a claim against the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer the seller named turns out to be the wrong one.
Timing is the next trap. Section 28-01.3-08 sets a statute of repose. There is no recovery unless the injury occurs within 10 years of the date of initial purchase for use or consumption, or within 11 years of the date of manufacture. Older equipment can fall outside both windows. There is an exception for known defects. A recall issued in any state, or awareness of a defect at any time, followed by a failure to take reasonable steps to warn users, leaves the claim open for a user later injured by that defect. Section 28-01.3-09 adds a rebuttable presumption that a product is free of defects where its designs, warnings, and testing methods conformed to the government standards for that industry in force when they were adopted, or to industry standards where no government standard existed.
What Workers’ Compensation Covers and What It Leaves Open
Start with a question most farm families never ask: Does the operation carry coverage at all? Section 65-01-02 defines hazardous employment as any employment with one or more regular employees, and it excepts agricultural and domestic service outright. Section 65-01-17 preserves that exemption for custom agricultural operations, meaning the planting, care, or harvesting of grain or field crops on a contract-for-hire basis. That definition excludes hauling by a special contractor. The exemption is lost if the operation is based outside North Dakota or requires more than 30 actual working days of operation in the calendar year.
That answer decides who can be sued. Section 65-01-08 conditions employer immunity on the employer having secured the payment of compensation by contributing premiums to the fund. A farm inside that exception carrying no coverage has no immunity to assert, and an injured worker may bring an ordinary negligence claim against it. Where coverage was secured, Section 65-01-08 removes any damages claim against that employer, in state or out of state, and against any agent, servant, or other employee. The remedy is the fund, and the same immunity reaches a client company and a staffing service that secured coverage.
It stops there. Section 65-01-09 preserves the right to proceed at law when the injury happened “under circumstances creating in some person other than the organization a legal liability to pay damages.” The organization is Workforce Safety and Insurance. A neighbor who lent the equipment, a separate operation on the same job, a repair shop, or a manufacturer can be that other person. Workforce Safety and Insurance is generally subrogated to part of the recovery and holds a lien against it, although the director may decline in writing to participate, which eliminates both.
The Evidence and the Deadlines That Decide These Cases
Shared equipment cases turn on records that go missing fast, often because the machine goes straight back to work. The proof that matters most:
- Maintenance and repair records, work orders, and parts invoices for the machine.
- The operator manual, the safety decals, and any recall notice or service bulletin.
- Photographs of the equipment as it was at the time of the injury, before anything is repaired or scrapped.
- Messages, rental paperwork, or lease terms showing who agreed to maintain the equipment and train the operator.
- Statements from the crew and from anyone who ran the machine earlier in the season.
- An expert inspection of the machine itself.
The clocks run separately. A personal injury negligence claim generally must be commenced within six years under N.D.C.C. Section 28-01-16(5). When the injury causes death, Section 28-01-18(4) cuts that to two years from the date of death, and the products liability repose period runs on a separate schedule regardless. Waiting is the one choice that reliably shrinks a case.
Talk to a North Dakota Farm Accident Attorney
Pringle & Herigstad, P.C. has represented injured North Dakotans since 1909. Our personal injury practice covers the full range of these claims. We identify every party whose conduct contributed, we move quickly to preserve the machine and the paperwork, and we handle the wrongful death claims that follow the worst of them. Contact us for a free consultation. We work on contingency, so you pay no attorney fees unless we recover for you.