Lovro v. City of Finley

Annotate this Case

Elton Lovro appealed a judgment dismissing his complaint with prejudice after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Finley (“City”). Lovro owned a house and property in Finley, Steele County, North Dakota. In March 2020, the City’s water line connected to the curb stop leading to Lovro’s home broke. Water flowed onto the property, damaging Lovro’s driveway and basement. Lovro sued the City for negligence and gross negligence, alleging the damages were caused by the City’s failure to properly operate, maintain, repair, and inspect their water system. Lovro also sued the City for breach of contract based on the City’s failure to properly and safely deliver water to his home. The City responded by denying the allegations that it was negligent, grossly negligent or that its acts or omissions caused the damages. The City denied the existence of any contractual relationship between Lovro and the City. The City affirmatively alleged that it was immune from suit under chapter 32-12.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. Lovro argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing his claims because the ruling was premature and discovery was still ongoing. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court.

Download PDF

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JULY 21, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2022 ND 142 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Jerome Wesseh Koon, Jr., Defendant and Appellant No. 20220018 Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas R. Olson, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Joshua J. Traiser, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee. Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant. State v. Koon No. 20220018 Per Curiam. [¶1] Jerome Koon appeals from a criminal judgment in which he was found guilty of reckless endangerment and unlawful possession of a firearm, among other convictions, and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for those convictions. Koon argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for reckless endangerment because he acted in self-defense and withdrew from the encounter before he shot at the victim. Koon argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm because he was excused from the conduct. [¶2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdicts, we conclude substantial evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor of conviction. State v. Samaniego, 2022 ND 38, ¶ 7, 970 N.W.2d 222 (cleaned up) (“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal must show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, reveals no reasonable inference of guilt.”); State v. Eggleston, 2020 ND 68, ¶ 11, 940 N.W.2d 645 (When reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and recognizing there may be contradictory facts, we determine whether there were sufficient facts for a reasonable fact finder to determine that the defendant was not acting in selfdefense.). We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). [¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.