Baird v. Remoir

Montana Supreme Court

Baird v. Remoir

480 P.2d 186, 156 Mont. 348, 1971 Mont. LEXIS 466

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1971

Docket11861

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 480 P.2d 186 (Baird v. Remoir) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baird v. Remoir, 480 P.2d 186, 156 Mont. 348, 1971 Mont. LEXIS 466 (Mo. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment for defendant.

On April 18, 1967, Nelson Baird, plaintiff and appellant, was injured while excavating a trench. At the time of the accident he was employed by Ace Equipment Company. He made claim for workmen’s compensation and received some $2,100 in bene *349 fits and a lump sum settlement of $10,000 for his injuries. He then brought an action against the owners of the real property upon which the construction was being carried out, the Four B’s Restaurants, Inc., which was having the building erected, and the subcontractors. Dismissal of that suit was affirmed by this Court in Baird v. Chokatos, Mont. 473 P.2d 547.

Baird then brought this action against Archie L. Remoir, Sr., individually, for the same injuries. Remoir is the owner of 98% of the stock of Ace Equipment Company. The remaining stock was owned by immediate members of Remoir’s family for purposes of qualifying under the old Montana Corporation Act. Remoir was president of the company, a director, and superintendent of its projects. Remoir personally ran the company and for all practical purposes it was a sole proprietorship. He was Baird’s boss and his employer, except insofar as the corporate structure was the employer. However, Baird claims that Remoir was a fellow employee; and, as such was susceptible to suit under section 92-204, R.C.M.1947, prior to July 1, 1969.

For the purpose of this opinion, we shall accept claimant Baird’s version that he was suing a fellow employee for an alleged tort.

In Madison v. Pierce, 156 Mont. 209, 478 P.2d 860, this Court held that the Workmen’s Compensation Act granted immunity to coemployees. This holding applies here.

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON and MR. JUSTICES JOHN C. HARRISON, DALY and HASWELL concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment for defendant.

On April 18, 1967, Nelson Baird, plaintiff and appellant, was injured while excavating a trench. At the time of the accident he was employed by Ace Equipment Company. He made claim for workmen’s compensation and received some $2,100 in bene *349 fits and a lump sum settlement of $10,000 for his injuries. He then brought an action against the owners of the real property upon which the construction was being carried out, the Four B’s Restaurants, Inc., which was having the building erected, and the subcontractors. Dismissal of that suit was affirmed by this Court in Baird v. Chokatos, Mont. 473 P.2d 547.

Baird then brought this action against Archie L. Remoir, Sr., individually, for the same injuries. Remoir is the owner of 98% of the stock of Ace Equipment Company. The remaining stock was owned by immediate members of Remoir’s family for purposes of qualifying under the old Montana Corporation Act. Remoir was president of the company, a director, and superintendent of its projects. Remoir personally ran the company and for all practical purposes it was a sole proprietorship. He was Baird’s boss and his employer, except insofar as the corporate structure was the employer. However, Baird claims that Remoir was a fellow employee; and, as such was susceptible to suit under section 92-204, R.C.M.1947, prior to July 1, 1969.

For the purpose of this opinion, we shall accept claimant Baird’s version that he was suing a fellow employee for an alleged tort.

In Madison v. Pierce, 156 Mont. 209, 478 P.2d 860, this Court held that the Workmen’s Compensation Act granted immunity to coemployees. This holding applies here.

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON and MR. JUSTICES JOHN C. HARRISON, DALY and HASWELL concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 P.2d 186, 156 Mont. 348, 1971 Mont. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baird-v-remoir-mont-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack