# Layman v. Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt, Inc.

> North Dakota Supreme Court · December 29, 1983 · 343 N.W.2d 334

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707625

## Case

- **Full name:** William LAYMAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee, v. BRAUNSCHWEIGISCHE MASCHINENBAUANSTALT, INC., a Corporation, and BMA MacHinery and Equipment Corporation, a Corporation, Defendants, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants
- **Court:** North Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 29, 1983
- **Citations:** 343 N.W.2d 334; 1983 N.D. LEXIS 434
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pederson
- **Judges:** Vande Walle, Sand, Erickstad, Pederson, Gierke
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707625

## Opinion text

PEDERSON, Justice,
concurring specialty-
I agree with the opinion authored by Chief Justice Erickstad. He has done a commendable job in analyzing the facts and the law and in justifying the results. Likewise, the trial court performed admirably in the trial of the ease and understanding the complexity of the applicable law, as reflected in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The trial court prepared 44 numbered findings of fact, several with subdivisions with up to 12 separately numbered paragraphs. As far as I can determine, no one urged that he adopt more, or less, or different findings of fact. Yet it is apparent that a critical finding “that the negligence of Minn-Dak should have been forseen by BMA” was overlooked. (See slip opinion by Chief Justice Erickstad, pages 18-19.)
Judicial economy prevents me from urging that the case be remanded to permit the trial court to make the necessary finding. At the same time, I am compelled to' point out that when appellate judges make findings of fact they encroach on the trial court function. Since Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Stangler, 7 N.D. 102 , 72 N.W. 1089, 1090 (1897) this court has been reiterating *351 that our system has “discarded all implied findings,” even before trial de novo on appeal was abolished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707625. Public record. Not legal advice.