Tornabeni v. Wold

N.D.December 6, 2018No. 20180164Cited 1 time

Plaintiff WinRoadrunner Hotshot & Services, LLC$623,057.02 awarded

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Jensen, Jon J.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Plaintiff Tornabeni prevailed on all claims. The court affirmed judgment awarding him $145,536.53 from Innis for breach of oral contract and $477,521.49 jointly and severally from Wold and RHS for unjust enrichment.

Excerpt

The existence and terms of an oral contract are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous rule. A district court's determination of whether the facts support a finding of unjust enrichment is fully reviewable on appeal. An award of damages for an unjust enrichment claim is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Issues not raised in the district court are waived.

What This Ruling Means

# Tornabeni v. Wold: Plain English Summary **What Happened** Tornabeni worked for Roadrunner Hotshot & Services, LLC and had a verbal agreement about payment and work terms with his employer. When disputes arose, Tornabeni claimed the company breached their spoken contract and unfairly kept money that rightfully belonged to him. **What the Court Decided** A lower court sided with Tornabeni, and an appeals court upheld that decision. The court ordered the company and its representatives to pay him a total of $623,057.02. This included $145,536.53 for breaking the oral contract and $477,521.49 for unjust enrichment—essentially, keeping money that should have gone to him. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that verbal agreements between workers and employers can be legally binding and enforceable in court. Even without written contracts, workers may have legal protection if they can prove what was promised. If employers fail to honor those promises or wrongfully keep earned money, workers can pursue court cases to recover what they're owed.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Tornabeni from the same court.

Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.

Section 65-01-02(11)(a)(3), N.D.C.C., requires claimants to prove a compensable heart-related injury by showing with reasonable medical certainty their employment caused the injury and unusual stress was at least 50% of the cause of the injury. Objective medical evidence may not be established solely by deductive reasoning.

Defendant Win

WSI

N.D.Mar 2021

Claimants must prove by a preponderance of evidence that they have sustained a compensable injury and are entitled to workers' compensation benefits. A claimant must prove that the condition for which benefits are sought is "causally related" to a work injury. To establish a "causal connection," a claimant must demonstrate the claimant's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury and need not show employment was the sole cause of the injury. A compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective medical findings, which may include a physician's medical opinion based on an examination, a patient's medical history, and the physician's education and experience.

Remanded

Read Full Opinion More Roadrunner Hotshot & Services, LLC Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.