SCOTT v ROBSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14606 IN THE SUPREME COUIiT O THE STATE O m A N A F F 1979 m, DONALD L. Plaintiff and Appellant, -VS- GAEiY R O, Defendant and Respondent. D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Appeal from: Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen L. W e a r argued, Bozeman, mntana For Respondent: Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole and Dietrich, Billings, Montana L. Randall Bishop argued, Billings, mntana Submitted: M y 4, 1979 a - Filed: r:. - -. 5 ,', -- Decided: r-. ;'i :Y & 4 . < . JUL 1 6 1979 J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court Mr. . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a summary judgment i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County o f M u s s e l s h e l l . The case i n v o l v e s a n a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g f r o m some l o g s f a l l i n g o n a workman. Following t h e t a k i n g of p l a i n t i f f ' s deposi- t i o n , d e f e n d a n t moved f o r a summary judgment, which m o t i o n was e v e n t u a l l y g r a n t e d . P l a i n t i f f moved t o s e t a s i d e , v a c a t e o r modify t h e summary judgment, which was d e n i e d , and p l a i n t i f f appeals. P l a i n t i f f S c o t t was i n j u r e d w h i l e working w i t h d e f e n d a n t Gary Robson and W i l l i a m Yount, J r . , on a l o g g i n g o p e r a tion. The men w e r e l o g g i n g a s p e c i f i e d p o r t i o n o f timber growing o n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r a n c h . b e e n h i r e d by Robson. P l a i n t i f f and Yount had S c o t t was t o f a l l t h e t r e e s , c u t t h e l i m b s from them, and saw them i n t o l e n g t h s c a p a b l e o f b e i n g hauled t o an a r e a sawmill. Y o u n t ' s j o b was t o s t a c k t h e l o g s h a u l e d by S c o t t i n t o d e c k s i n t o which t h e y w e r e t o be loads. The l o a d i n g and t h e h a u l i n g was d o n e e x c l u s i v e l y by d e f e n d a n t Robson. Deposition testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f S c o t t ' s p r i n c i p a l o c c u p a t i o n f o r some 20 y e a r s had been t h a t o f a t i m b e r sawyer. I n t h e l a t e f a l l of 1976 h e a p p r o a c h e d d e f e n d a n t Robson s e e k i n g work b e c a u s e t h e l o c a l l o g g i n g b u s i n e s s e s had been c l o s e d d u e t o i n c l e m e n t w i n t e r w e a t h e r . P r i o r t o t h a t t i m e h e had been w o r k i n g ' a t a s a w m i l l o p e r a t e d by M r . Yount, S r . The d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t S c o t t would u s e h i s own judgment i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e m e r c h a n t a b l e l o g s and t h e manner i n which t h e y would b e c u t , would u s e h i s own saw and o t h e r e q u i p m e n t , and would p u r c h a s e t h e g a s o l i n e and o i l f o r t h e saw. I t w a s f u r t h e r agreed t h a t S c o t t would b e p a i d s t r i c t l y on a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e l o g s c u t , r e c e i v i n g $10 p e r t h o u s a n d b o a r d f e e t . In addition Yount was t o r e c e i v e $10 p e r t h o u s a n d b o a r d f e e t f o r t h e work h e d i d i n s k i d d i n g and s t a c k i n g t h e l o g s . The d e p o s i - t i o n f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e w a s no w i t h h o l d i n g of a n y s o c i a l s e c u r i t y payments o r f e d e r a l income t a x i n t h e c h e c k s r e c e i v e d by S c o t t . S c o t t d e t e r m i n e d h i s own working h o u r s . The d e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t Robson d e s c r i b e d t h e a r e a t o b e logged, l e a v i n g t h e p r o c e s s of l o g s and t h e c o n t r o l of h i s movements e x c l u s i v e l y t o S c o t t . Scott indicated t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Robson was a s "contractors". On March 1 5 , 1 9 7 7 , Yount and S c o t t w e r e n e a r b y a s Robson l o a d e d t h e f i n a l t r u c k of a d a y ' s work. S c o t t had s e e n a number o f l o a d s o f l o g s g o o u t and t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e noticed nothing unusual about t h i s p a r t i c u l a r load. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e knew two o r t h r e e l o g s had r o l l e d o f f d u r i n g t h e l o a d i n g p r o c e s s , b u t d i d n o t f e e l t h i s added t o t h e p o s s i b l e danger of t h e l o g s r o l l i n g o f f a f t e r they had b e e n r e l o a d e d a n d had s e t t l e d some f i v e o r more m i n u t e s . According t o S c o t t every i n d i c a t i o n w a s t h a t t h e load w a s a good, t i g h t l o a d o f l o g s , no d i f f e r e n t from any o t h e r s which Robson had p r e p a r e d , a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t t h e r e w e r e no c r o o k e d l o g s o r a n y t h i n g t h a t would h a v e c a u s e d t h e l o a d t o have been u n s t a b l e . H e further testified that i n his expert o p i n i o n t h e s e l o g s w e r e l o a d e d i n a c u s t o m a r y manner o f t h e logging industry. F o l l o w i n g t h e l o a d i n g t h e t r u c k and t h e l o g s s a t motion- l e s s f o r a t l e a s t f i v e m i n u t e s w h i l e Robson p a r k e d h i s t r a c t o r and prepared t o bind t h e l o a d w i t h c h a i n s used f o r t h a t purpose. A f t e r p a r k i n g and g e t t i n g o f f t h e t r a c t o r , Robson t o o k t h e c h a i n s o v e r t o t h e l o a d and threw one of t h e chains over t h e top. S c o t t s t e p p e d o u t of h i s p i c k u p , and w i t h o u t b e i n g a s k e d t o do s o , walked o v e r t o hook t h e c h a i n on t h e s i d e of t h e t r a i l e r o p p o s i t e Robson. A s he b e n t t o hook t h e c h a i n , some of t h e t o p l o g s r o l l e d o f f t h e truck. Yount, who was nearby, y e l l e d a warning b u t S c o t t was u n a b l e t o r e a c t i n t i m e and was h i t by t h e f a l l i n g l o g s and i n j u r e d . Following t h e e n t r y of summary judgment, p l a i n t i f f s o u g h t t o depose a n a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s . Defendant f i l e d a motion t o q u a s h t h e t a k i n g of t h e d e p o s i t i o n , which w a s d e n i e d , and t h e d e p o s i t i o n was t a k e n t o p e r p e t u a t e t e s t i m o n y under Rule 2 7 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. In addition, plaintiff f i l e d a l e t t e r from H. B. S t e v e n s , S u p e r v i s o r of t h e U n d e r w r i t i n g D i v i s i o n , S t a t e Compensation I n s u r a n c e Fund, D i v i s i o n of Workers' Compensation, which was d a t e d August 24, 1978, c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e Department on t h e s t a c k i n g of logs. While p l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t sets forth five issues for c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s C o u r t , w e f i n d t h a t t h e i s s u e s c a n be p r o p e r l y r e s t a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner: 1. Whether a p p e l l a n t ' s opening b r i e f r e l i e s , i n p a r t , upon m a t e r i a l s n o t p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d which should be disregarded i n deciding t h i s appeal. 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d summary judgment f o r r e s p o n d e n t where a p p e l l a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t d i d n o t b r e a c h any d u t y owed a p p e l l a n t . 3. Whether t h e a p p e l l a n t was, a s h e b e l i e v e s , a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r w h i l e working f o r r e s p o n d e n t . The f i r s t i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e materials i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e r e c o r d by a p p e l l a n t a f t e r summary judgment. The o r d e r g r a n t i n g summary judgment on t h e m e r i t s was e n t e r e d on August 11, 1978. Judgment f o r r e s p o n d e n t was e n t e r e d upon t h e o f f i c i a l d o c k e t August 1 6 , 1978. On t h e s a m e d a y , a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l prepared a n o t i c e f o r t h e t a k i n g of t h e d e p o s i t i o n of W i l l i a m Yount, J r . , of Roundup, Montana. This n o t i c e was r e c e i v e d by r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o u n s e l on August 1 7 , a n d upon r e c e i v i n g t h i s n o t i c e r e s p o n d e n t s u b m i t t e d a motion t o q u a s h a l o n g w i t h a n o t i c e o f a h e a r i n g o n t h e motion which was s e t f o r August 23, 1978. R e s p o n d e n t ' s m o t i o n t o q u a s h a r g u e d t h a t , a judgment h a v i n g been e n t e r e d i n t h e c a s e , f u r t h e r d i s c o v e r y w a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e u n l e s s s p e c i f i c a l l y g r a n t e d u n d e r Rule 2 7 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., which s t a t e s : " ( b ) PENDING APPEAL. I f a n a p p e a l h a s been t a k e n from a judgment o f a d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r b e f o r e t h e t a k i n g of a n a p p e a l i f t h e t i m e t h e r e f o r h a s n o t e x p i r e d , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n which t h e judgment was r e n d e r e d m a y a l l o w t h e t a k i n g o f -e d e p o s i - th t i o n s of w i t n e s s e s t o p e r p e t u a t e t h e i r t e s t i m o n y fo u e n -r-s-i -t h e e v e n t o f f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n I n s u c h c a s e t h e p a r t y who dethe d i s t r i c t court. s i r e s t o p e r p e t u a t e t h e t e s t i m o n y may make a motion i n the d i s t r i c t court f o r leave t o take the d e p o s i t i o n s , upon t h e same n o t i c e and s e r v i c e t h e r e o f a s i f t h e a c t i o n w a s pending i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The m o t i o n s h a l l show (1) names and a d d r e s s e s o f p e r s o n s t o b e examined a n d t h e subs t a n c e of t h e t e s t i m o n y which h e e x p e c t s t o e l i c i t from e a c h ; ( 2 ) t h e r e a s o n s f o r p e r p e t u a t i n g t h e i r testimony. I f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e perpetuat i o n of t h e testimony i s proper t o avoid a f a i l u r e o r d e l a y o f j u s t i c e , i t may make a n o r d e r a l l o w i n g " (Emphasis t h e depositions t o be taken added. ) ... Here i t i s n o t e d by r e s p o n d e n t t h a t t h e o n l y p u r p o s e o f a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g a l e a v e under Rule 2 7 ( b ) i s t o p r e s e r v e t e s t i m o n y which may b e l o s t i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e r e l i e f req u e s t e d o n a p p e a l b e g r a n t e d and t h e case o n c e a g a i n h e a r d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . R e c e n t l y , i n Ash v . C o r t ( 3 r d C i r . ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 512 F.2d 909, a case r e v e r s e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , 442 U.S. 66, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s u p h e l d t h e d e c i - s i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n y i n g a R u l e 27 ( b ) m o t i o n t o p e r p e t u a t e testimony pending appeal. I n discussing the rule, t h e Court s t a t e d : "We r e i t e r a t e t h a t R u l e 27 i s n o t a s u b s t i t u t e I t i s available i n special cirf o r discovery. c u m s t a n c e s t o p r e s e r v e t e s t i m o n y which o t h e r w i s e could be l o s t The R u l e s t a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t 'may a l l o w t h e t a k i n g o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n s of w i t n e s s e s t o p e r p e t u a t e t h e i r testimony i f the court finds t h a t the perpetuation of t h e testimony i s proper t o avoid a f a i l u r e o r d e l a y of j u s t i c e .' . . . ... .. " W i t h o u t some showing t h a t c o n t i n u e d d e l a y i n granting discovery i s l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n a l o s s of e v i d e n c e , t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t no d i s c o v e r y h a s y e t t a k e n p l a c e i s p l a i n l y i r r e l e v a n t t o R u l e 27. A p p e l l a n t makes a l m o s t no a t t e m p t t o show why t h e r e q u e s t e d t e s t i m o n y must b e p e r p e t u a t e d . I n conclusory t e r m s , a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f merely s t a t e s : 'There e x i s t s a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k t h a t t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e w i l l become u n a v a i l a b l e i f d i s c o v e r y i s f u r t h e r postpone. I t i s probable t h a t t h e o f f i cers and d i r e c t o r s h a v i n g f i r s t hand knowledge a r e over f i f t y y e a r s of age. They a r e a l l s e n i o r o f f i c e r s of a l a r g e i n d u s t r i a l corporation. One d i r e c t o r h a s a l r e a d y d i e d . Memories may f a d e . ' "Although a g e may b e a r e l e v a n t f a c t o r i n showing t h a t t e s t i m o n y must b e p e r p e t u a t e d t o a v o i d l o s s , w e s i m p l y c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e s e c o n c l u s o r y remarks i n a n y way show t h a t e v i d e n c e i s l i k e l y t o be l o s t while t h e appeal i s pending. " S i n c e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o a s s e r t r e a s o n s why i t was n e c e s s a r y t o p e r p e t u a t e t h i s t e s t i m o n y , w e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motion." W e f i n d t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l made no a t t e m p t t o comply w i t h R u l e 2 7 ( b ) by r e q u e s t i n g l e a v e o f c o u r t t o t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f W i l l i a m Yount, J r . While t h e m o t i o n t o p e r p e t u a t e t e s t i m o n y was l a t e r s u b m i t t e d , no f a c t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d a s r e q u i r e d by t h e r u l e t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p e r p e t u a t i o n o f t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Yount w a s n e c e s s a r y t o avoid t h e f a i l u r e o r d e l a y of j u s t i c e . S u f f i c i e n t oppor- t u n i t y f o r d i s c o v e r y and e x a m i n a t i o n of w i t n e s s e s w a s prov i d e d t o a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l w h i l e r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r summary judgment was pending. Here, a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o do s o i n d i c a t e s h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o s t a n d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e summary judgment h e a r i n g . W e f i n d appel- l a n t ' s a c t i o n s improper and t h a t he c a n n o t supplement a n i n a d e q u a t e r e c o r d on a p p e a l by way of r e l i a n c e upon t h i s d e p o s i t i o n of Yount. Next t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i s t h e l e t t e r o f B. H. S t e v e n s which was s u b m i t t e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r summary judgment. T h i s l e t t e r from S t e v e n s of t h e S t a t e Compensation I n s u r a n c e Fund w a s i n t e n d e d t o show t h a t under w o r k e r s ' compensation law t h e S t a t e of Montana u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t i m b e r sawyers t o b e employees. The l e t t e r w a s improperly included i n a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f f o r s e v e r a l reasons: (1) i t w a s n o t p r e s e n t e d i n t h e p r o p e r a f f i d a v i t form a s r e q u i r e d by Rule 5 6 , M.R.Civ.P.; ( 2 ) t h e opinion set f o r t h i n t h e l e t t e r c o u l d e a s i l y have been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t i n t i m e l y f a s h i o n i n o p p o s i t i o n t o r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r summary judgment, r a t h e r t h a n s u b s e q u e n t l y i n s u p p o r t of a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e v e r d i c t which had been g r a n t e d on t h e merits; and ( 3 ) t h e l e t t e r s e t s f o r t h a g e n e r a l i z e d opinion offered without e i t h e r foundation o r regard t o t h e f a c t s of t h e c a s e . W e note t h a t i n a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f he admits t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e Yount d e p o s i t i o n i s w e l l t a k e n and f o r a l l i n t e n t s and p u r p o s e s s h o u l d n o t b e i n c l u d e d . However, he argues t h a t i n t h e c a s e of t h e Stevens letter w e should c o n s i d e r t h e s a m e under t h e Montana Rules o f ~ v i d e n c e ,~ u l e 8 0 3 ( a ) , which p r o v i d e s : "The f o l l o w i n g a r e n o t e x c l u d e d by t h e h e a r s a y rule ... ... "8. s t a t e m e n t s o r d a t a c o m p i l a t i o n s i n any form of p u b l i c o f f i c e r s o r agency s e t t i n g f o r t h i t s r e g u l a r l y conducted and r e g u l a r l y r e c o r d e d a c t i v i .'I ties . . A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d above, w e f i n d t h a t t h e l e t t e r was n o t p r e s e n t e d i n p r o p e r form and t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t be considered. The second i s s u e i s whether summary judgment was prope r l y g r a n t e d i n f a v o r of r e s p o n d e n t where a p p e l l a n t ' s t e s t i mony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t d i d n o t b r e a c h any l e g a l d u t y owed a p p e l l a n t . Rule 56 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., states i n pertinent part: "The judgment s o u g h t s h o u l d b e r e n d e r e d f o r t h w i t h i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e a f f i d a v i t s , i f any, show t h a t t h e r e i s no genui n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a matter o f law. " Under t h i s r u l e i t i s c l e a r t h a t summary judgment i s approp r i a t e o n l y where t h e p r e t r i a l r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t (1) t h e r e a r e no g e n u i n e i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t , and ( 2 ) t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. Batey Land & L i v e s t o c k Co. v . Nixon ( 1 9 7 7 ) , - Mont. 560 P.2d 1334, 34 S t - R e p . 105; 169 Mont. 447, I Harland v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 548 P.2d 613. Montana law i s e x c e e d i n g l y c l e a r i n i t s r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a p l a i n t i f f i s s u b j e c t t o summary judgment i f h e f a i l s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g c e r t a i n m a t e r i a l elements i n a negligence action. S t a t e ex r e l . B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , I n c . v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 295, 301, 496 P.2d 1152, 1156. As s t a t e d i n P i c k e t t v . Kyger ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 87, 100, 439 "Tt i s hornbook l a w r e q u i r i n g no c i t a t i o n of aut h o r i t y t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l elements t h a t t h e plaint i f f must p r o v e i n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l i n a damage a c t i o n of t h i s k i n d a r e : " ( 1 ) A d u t y owing from d e f e n d a n t t o p l a i n t i f f ; " (2) A b r e a c h o f t h a t d u t y by d e f e n d a n t ; " (3) C o n s t i t u t i n g proximate cause o f ; " ( 4 ) I n j u r i e s and damages t o p l a i n t i f f . " P l a i n t i f f must i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e p r o v i n g o r tendi n g t o prove each of t h e s e m a t e r i a l elements i n o r d e r t o b e e n t i t l e d t o have h i s case s u b m i t t e d t o t h e jury. I n t h e i n s t a n t case p l a i n t i f f ' s evidence, viewed most f a v o r a b l y t o p l a i n t i f f , t e n d s t o est a b l i s h t h e d u t y , b r e a c h , i n j u r y , and damages. But t h e r e i s a t o t a l a b s e n c e of any e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a p r o x i m a t e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between t h e b r e a c h e d d u t y and p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s and damages." I n P i c k e t t t h i s C o u r t d i r e c t e d summary judgment i n f a v o r of t h e d e f e n d a n t a s a r e s u l t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o e s t a b l i s h a proximate c a u s a l connection. I n F l a n s b e r g v . Montana Power Company ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 53, 58-60, 460 P.2d 263, t h e r u l e was e x p r e s s e d under c i r - cumstances s i m i l a r t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e : "The f a c t s a p p e a r i n g i n t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l a t o t a l a b s e n c e of n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t o r i t s employees. T h i s a l o n e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o author i z e summary judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t ... "To s u s t a i n a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f based on a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e , t h e p l a i n t i f f must p r o v e b o t h n e g l i g e n c e and p r o x i m a t e c a u s e . [Citations omitted.] F u r t h e r , n e g l i g e n c e i m p o r t s such a want of a t t e n t i o n t o t h e n a t u r e and p r o b a b l e consequences of t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n a s a p r u d e n t man o r d i n a r i l y bestows i n a c t i n g i n h i s own c o n c e r n s Here t h e p l a i n t i f f , h a v i n g p r e s e n t e d h i s e v i d e n c e on t h e i s s u e o f n e g l i g e n c e , h a s f a i l e d t o produce any s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m . Whether o r n o t t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by p l a i n t i f f i s a q u e s t i o n of l a w f o r t h e C o u r t and n o t a q u e s t i o n of f a c t f o r t h e j u r y . [Citations omitted. I ... " I f t h e r e - - e v i d e n c e of any n e g l i g e n t - t-r i s no ac o % defendant, a nonsuit i s proper1 omission aranted. [ C i t a t i o n s omTtted. ] T ~ r S l e i z u - e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o a motion f o r summary judgment under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i s c l o s e d h e r e . " - Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a c c i d e n t h e r e , w h e t h e r a p p e l l a n t S c o t t w a s a n employee o r a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r , t h e d u t y owed him by r e s p o n d e n t was t h a t o f a b u s i n e s s invitee. Under t h e case l a w o f t h i s s t a t e a n i n d i v i d u a l h a s b e e n h e l d t o b e a b u s i n e s s i n v i t e e i f t h e r e e x i s t s some common i n t e r e s t o r m u t u a l a d v a n t a g e g a i n e d by t h e i n v i t o r o r t h e p r o p e r t y owner. S t a t e ex r e l . B u r l i n g t o n Northern, I n c . v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 295, 304, 496 P.2d 1152, 1157-58. From a p p e l l a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y i t a p p e a r s t h a t a common i n t e r e s t i s shown: I n a s e n s e , t h e t h r e e o f you w e r e r e a l l y worki n g t o g e t h e r toward a common g o a l , i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. W e l l , y e s , t r y i n g t o make a d o l l a r , y e s . "Q. "Q. T r y i n g t o g e t a s many l o g s i n a s you c o u l d ? A. W e l l , y e s . "Q. I n t h e c o u r s e of p u r s u i n g t h a t g o a l would you occasionally help each o t h e r a t t a s k s , p a r t i c u l a r things? A. W e l l , I have s k i d d e d w i t h t h e c a t a B i l l d i d most of few t i m e s , b u t n o t v e r y much. i t . And I have h e l p e d Gary boom down i f I happened t o b e t h e r e o r something, t o hook a c h a i n o r somet h i n g s , you know, b u t t h a t w a s i t , you know. "Q. T h i s was j u s t a n o c c a s i o n a l t h i n g , n o t c o n s i s t e n t ? A. Y e s . T h a t w a s n ' t m job. y H e never t o l d m e t o do i t o r a n y t h i n g . I j u s t d i d i t . " The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a p r o p e r t y owner i s l i a b l e t o a n i n v i t e e f o r i n j u r i e s o c c a s i o n e d by u n s a f e c o n d i t i o n s upon p r e m i s e s e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e work which a r e known t o t h e p r o p e r t y owner b u t unknown t o t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n . I n d e p e n d e n t C o n t r a c t o r s 827, p . 781. 4 1 Am.Jur.2d This Court has held u n d e r t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t t h e d u t y owed t h e b u s i n e s s i n v i t e e i s t o e x e r c i s e o r d i n a r y care t o h a v e t h e p r e m i s e s r e a s o n a b l y s a f e o r t o warn t h e i n v i t e e o f any h i d d e n o r l u r k i n g d a n g e r s ; t h e i n v i t o r i s n o t , however, a n i n s u r e r a g a i n s t a l l a c c i d e n t s and i n j u r i e s t o i n v i t e e s . S e e , Dunham v . S o u t h s i d e N a t i o n a l Bank of M i s s o u l a ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 466, 548 P.2d 1383; Hackley v. Waldorf Hoerner P a p e r Co., ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 149 Mont. 286, 425 P.2d 712; and Cassaday v . C i t y o f B i l l i n g s ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 3 5 Mont. 390, 393, 340 P.2d 509, 510-11. I t i s undisputed t h a t a p p e l l a n t suffered h i s i n j u r i e s a s a r e s u l t o f a n i n c i d e n t which o c c u r r e d on r e s p o n d e n t ' s ranch. W e must l o o k t o t h e l a w o f Montana f o r t h e p r o p e r g u i d e l i n e s t o consider t h e f a c t s of t h i s case. I t h a s been l o n g e s t a b l i s h e d and i s a r u l e i n Montana t h a t " a n i n f e r e n c e o f n e g l i g e n c e c a n n o t b e drawn from t h e b a r e f a c t t h a t a n i n j u r y occurs." Thompson v . L l e w e l l y n ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 136 Mont. The method o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r r e s p o n d e n t w a s n e g l i g e n t i n t h i s i n s t a n c e i s d e s c r i b e d i n Mang v . E l i a s s o n ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 431, 436-38, 458 P.2d 777, 780-81, where t h i s Court s t a t e d : " I t h a s been w e l l s a i d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who c o u l d n o t f o r e s e e a n y d a n g e r of d i r e c t i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g from h i s c o n d u c t o r a n y r i s k from a n i n t e r v e n i n g f o r c e i s n o t n e g l i g e n t . T a y l o r v . Chicago, M i l waukee, S t . P a u l and P a c i f i c Ry. Co., 142 Mont. 365, 371, 384 P.2d 759; L e n c i o n i v . Long, 139 Mont. 1 3 5 , 361 P.2d 455 ... " F o r e s e e a b i l i t y i s o f prime i m p o r t a n c e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e e l e m e n t o f d u t y , and t h e q u e s t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n c e , i f a n y , must o f n e c e s s i t y If h i n g e on t h e f i n d i n g o f a b r e a c h o f t h a t d u t y . a reasonably prudent defendant can foresee n e i t h e r any d a n g e r o f d i r e c t i n j u r y n o r any r i s k f o r a n i n t e r v e n i n g c a u s e he i s simply n o t n e g l i g e n t ... " H a r p e r and James, The Law of T o r t s , [Vol. 21 a t p a g e 1018, s t a t e t h e p r e v a i l i n g view. The o b l i g a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t s t u r n s on w h e t h e r : .. "'. The o f f e n d i n g c o n d u c t f o r e s e e a b l y i n v o l v e d u n r e a s o n a b l y g r e a t r i s k o f harm t o t h e i n t e r e s t o f The o b l i g a t i o n someone o t h e r t h a n t h e a c t o r p a r t i c u l a r c o n d u c t i s owed t o r e f r a i n from o n l y t o t h o s e who a r e f o r e s e e a b l y e n d a n g e r e d by t h e c o n d u c t and o n l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h o s e r i s k s a n d h a z a r d s whose l i k e l i h o o d made t h e c o n d u c t unr e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s . Duty, & o t h e r words i s I t h e s c o p e - -e r i s k which n e g l z e n t of t h measured (Emphasis added. ) conduct f o r e s e e a b l y e n t a i l s . ' " ... . . . S e e a l s o , J a c k s o n v . William Dingwall Co. ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 145 Mont. 1 2 7 , 135, 399 P.2d 236, 240, where t h i s C o u r t upheld t h e d i s m i s s a l of p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n , s t a t i n g : "Negligence c a r r i e s w i t h i t l i a b i l i t y f o r consequences which i n l i g h t of a t t e n d a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have been a n t i c i p a t e d by a prud e n t man, b u t n o t f o r c a s u a l t i e s which, though p o s s i b l e , w e r e wholly improbable. [ C i t a t i o n omitted.] Negligence i s t h e a b s e n c e of c a r e , accordi n g t o t h e circumstance. . ." Here, a s i n J a c k s o n , t h e d e p o s i t i o n of a p p e l l a n t c l e a r l y shows t h a t r e s p o n d e n t d i d n o t b r e a c h any d u t y owed a p p e l l a n t . The f a c t t h a t a p p e l l a n t had no o b l i g a t i o n t o have a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e l o a d i n g of t h e t r u c k and b i n d i n g i t down i s f u l l y r e v e a l e d by h i s t e s t i m o n y . According t o a p p e l l a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y , t h e r e w a s no r e a s o n f o r him t o p e r c e i v e any danger from t h e l o a d of l o g s ; n o r was t h e r e any warning t h a t one of them would f a l l o f f t h e truck. The l o a d of l o g s had s e t t l e d f o r a t l e a s t f i v e m i n u t e s a s t h e men who w e r e t h e r e c o u l d s e e . It is further shown by t h e t e s t i m o n y t h a t r e s p o n d e n t g a v e no o r d e r s t o a p p e l l a n t t o a s s i s t him, n o r d i d h e have any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t a p p e l l a n t had walked up t o t h e t r u c k t o h e l p him i n b i n d i n g t h e load. Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e r e w a s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e l o a d i n g of t h e l o g s had c r e a t e d a d d i t i o n a l r i s k of harm o r t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s endangered by t h e l o a d . We c a n n o t p e r c e i v e t h a t r e s p o n d e n t b r e a c h e d any d u t y t o a p p e l l a n t t o keep t h e p r e m i s e s r e a s o n a b l y s a f e o r t o warn of any hidden o r l u r k i n g dangers. Under t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , t h e r e i s no showing t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was n e g l i g e n t o r t h a t l i a b i l i t y attached. F o r t h e above r e a s o n s , i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e t h i r d i s s u e p r e s e n t e d , t h a t of t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e independent c o n t r a c t o r . g r a n t i n g summary judgment The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t We concur: z-e%wL4 T ._ Ch' f Justice ' . - i Justices r\
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.
