A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 28-01-17, of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to civil actions having three-year limitations.
SB2206 would make several changes to North Dakota law affecting civil claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, especially those involving commercial motor carriers. It adds a new limitations provision for actions against a commercial motor carrier for injury or death of someone other than the owner or operator of the commercial vehicle, and it amends the general three-year limitations statute to include actions against an employer for injury or death occurring during the operation of a commercial motor vehicle. The bill also creates a new damages rule limiting noneconomic damages in civil actions against a commercial motor carrier to $500,000, while preventing juries from being told about that cap and requiring courts to reduce any higher award to the statutory limit.
The bill also revises North Dakota’s safety belt law for certain passenger vehicles. It continues to require occupants of qualifying vehicles to wear properly adjusted safety belts, preserves existing exceptions for children, farm vehicles, rural mail carriers, certain medical conditions, emergency medical services personnel, and situations where all belts are in use, and states that a violation is not itself evidence of negligence. In addition, it creates a new evidentiary rule allowing failure to wear a safety belt to be considered comparative negligence and, with expert evidence, to mitigate damages in civil cases arising from motor vehicle ownership or operation. If supported by the evidence, a factfinder may reduce recovery by up to 1% of damages after comparative-negligence reductions.
The bill’s legal impact would be significant for trucking and motor-vehicle litigation in North Dakota. It would cap noneconomic damages in suits against commercial motor carriers, alter how safety-belt nonuse can be used in civil cases, and add or clarify limitation periods for certain claims involving commercial motor vehicles. It would also affect plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, trucking companies, employers, and trial courts by changing both the amount recoverable and the evidence admissible in personal injury and wrongful death actions.
Overall, the available record suggests little public debate in the provided materials, but the bill ultimately failed. The structure of the bill indicates a policy preference for limiting exposure of commercial motor carriers and allowing some consideration of seat-belt nonuse in damage calculations, which may appeal to business and transportation interests. At the same time, the noneconomic-damages cap and the seat-belt-related reduction provisions could be viewed as restricting recovery for injured plaintiffs, making those provisions the most likely sources of concern or opposition.
SB2206 would amend North Dakota’s civil limitations and motor vehicle liability statutes by adding a specific limitations rule for claims against commercial motor carriers and by expanding the three-year limitations statute to include certain claims against employers involving commercial motor vehicle operations. It would also create a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages in civil actions against commercial motor carriers, require courts to reduce verdicts above that amount, and bar juries from being informed of the cap. Separately, it would revise the state’s safety belt law and create a new evidentiary rule allowing seat-belt nonuse to be used as comparative negligence and, with expert support, to reduce damages in civil actions arising from motor vehicle ownership or operation.
There is no committee transcript or recorded vote information in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment must be inferred from its content and final status. The bill appears to reflect a pro-liability-limitation approach favored by commercial transportation interests, with provisions designed to reduce damages exposure and shape trial evidence. However, because it failed, the final legislative outcome suggests the proposal did not secure enough support to advance, likely due to concerns about limiting plaintiff recoveries and altering established tort rules.
The most notable points of contention are the $500,000 noneconomic-damages cap for commercial motor carrier cases and the new rule allowing safety-belt nonuse to affect comparative negligence and damage mitigation. Supporters would likely argue these provisions reduce litigation costs, improve predictability, and protect trucking and employer defendants from excessive verdicts. Opponents would likely focus on the reduced compensation available to injured plaintiffs and wrongful death claimants, the restriction on jury information about the damages cap, and the potential for seat-belt evidence to complicate or diminish recovery in personal injury cases. The bill’s failure suggests these liability-limiting provisions were not broadly accepted.