## Facts

- Jace Reed, a Minnesota high-school hockey player, was recruited to play hockey at the University of North Dakota (UND) on an athletic scholarship and played for two years.
- UND incorporated a ten-kilometer charity road race sponsored by the North Dakota Association for the Disabled, Inc. (NDAD) into its preseason conditioning program.
- Before the September 15, 1991 race, Reed signed NDAD’s race registration form containing a liability release stating he assumed responsibility for injuries and releasing NDAD from negligence liability.
- During the race, Reed became severely dehydrated and suffered extensive kidney and liver damage, requiring significant medical treatment, including organ transplants, and incurring substantial expenses.
- Reed previously litigated related claims in Minnesota state court; NDAD was dismissed there for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Minnesota appellate court rejected Reed’s contract theory against UND on the merits.
- Reed later sued in North Dakota state court, asserting (among other claims) breach of contract against UND and negligence and “in concert” claims against NDAD; the district court entered summary judgment for UND and NDAD on the claims at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether res judicata barred Reed’s breach of contract claim against UND based on the prior Minnesota appellate decision.
2. Whether the race-registration release Reed signed was valid and enforceable to bar his negligence claim against NDAD.
3. Whether NDAD acted “in concert” with UND under N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02, supporting joint liability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed summary judgment for UND on the breach of contract claim.
- The court held res judicata applied because the Minnesota appellate court finally decided the contract claim on the merits between the relevant parties.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for NDAD on negligence, holding the release was supported by consideration, clear in covering ordinary negligence, and not contrary to public policy.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for NDAD on the “in concert” claim, holding the record lacked evidence of an agreement or common plan with UND to commit a tortious act.

## Legal Principles

- Res judicata bars relitigation of a claim when there is a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the later claim involves the same parties (or their privies) and the same claim that was or could have been litigated.
- A contractual release of liability is enforceable when supported by consideration and stated with sufficient clarity to cover the conduct at issue, including ordinary negligence.
- Public policy does not categorically prohibit exculpatory agreements for voluntary, nonessential activities; enforceability depends on clarity and the absence of coercion or unconscionability.
- “Acting in concert” under N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 requires proof of participation in a common plan or design to commit a tortious act; parallel conduct, coordination, or mutual awareness is insufficient without an agreement.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of Reed’s claims, holding the Minnesota judgment precluded relitigation of his alleged contract with UND, the race release barred negligence claims against NDAD, and NDAD could not be held jointly liable absent evidence it agreed with UND to commit a tortious act.


Reed v. Univ. of N.D., 1999 ND 25, 589 N.W.2d 880 (N.D. 1999)