Larson v. Watters Construction Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Larson v. Watters Construction Co.

503 P.2d 996, 161 Mont. 48, 1972 Mont. LEXIS 344

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 8, 1972

Docket12321

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 503 P.2d 996 (Larson v. Watters Construction Co.) 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

Larson v. Watters Construction Co., 503 P.2d 996, 161 Mont. 48, 1972 Mont. LEXIS 344 (Mo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

*49 PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in the district court of Lewis & Clark County.

Prom the record it appears that plaintiff was injured while employed by an independent subcontractor who was working for the defendant contractor. The defendant contractor required the subcontractor to provide its employees with workmen’s compensation and the subcontractor had done so. Plaintiff has collected his workmen’s compensation benefits and medical benefits and then instituted this suit.

After completion of discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(b), M.R.Civ.P. Both parties submitted briefs, the matter was argued in the district court, the motion granted and this appeal followed.

Plaintiff admits that the action of the district court was based upon section 92-438, R.C.M.1947, as interpreted in Ashcraft v. Montana Power, 156 Mont. 368, 480 P.2d 812, and Buerkle v. Montana Power Co., 157 Mont. 57, 482 P.2d 564. However, plaintiff asserts that the holdings in these cases as to classification are repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Art. V, Sec. 26 of the Montana Constitution. Further, if the holdings are held to be constitutional they are not applicable in this case because of the Scaffold Act. (Sections 69-1401-1405, R.C.M.1947)

In spite of plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, we are of the opinion that this case falls squarely within our holdings in Ash-craft and BuerJcle and the immunity from suit granted a statutory employer, here the defendant, is to all causes of action “ * * * or statutory or common-law right or remedy, or proceeding whatever, for or on account of any personal injury * * *. ’ ’ Section 92-204, R.C.M.1947. This is also true in a vast majority of states. Larson in his work entitled “Workmen’s. Compensation Law,” Vol. 2, § 72.31, asserts that 44 states have similar provisions in their statutory law.

*50 We observe no necessity to enter into a lengthy discourse in this area since in the last few weeks we have rendered two opinions which further express our views. See Kelleher v. State, 160 Mont. 365, 503 P.2d 29, and State ex rel. Hammond v. Hager, 160 Mont. 391, 503 P.2d 52.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

*49 PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in the district court of Lewis & Clark County.

Prom the record it appears that plaintiff was injured while employed by an independent subcontractor who was working for the defendant contractor. The defendant contractor required the subcontractor to provide its employees with workmen’s compensation and the subcontractor had done so. Plaintiff has collected his workmen’s compensation benefits and medical benefits and then instituted this suit.

After completion of discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(b), M.R.Civ.P. Both parties submitted briefs, the matter was argued in the district court, the motion granted and this appeal followed.

Plaintiff admits that the action of the district court was based upon section 92-438, R.C.M.1947, as interpreted in Ashcraft v. Montana Power, 156 Mont. 368, 480 P.2d 812, and Buerkle v. Montana Power Co., 157 Mont. 57, 482 P.2d 564. However, plaintiff asserts that the holdings in these cases as to classification are repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Art. V, Sec. 26 of the Montana Constitution. Further, if the holdings are held to be constitutional they are not applicable in this case because of the Scaffold Act. (Sections 69-1401-1405, R.C.M.1947)

In spite of plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, we are of the opinion that this case falls squarely within our holdings in Ash-craft and BuerJcle and the immunity from suit granted a statutory employer, here the defendant, is to all causes of action “ * * * or statutory or common-law right or remedy, or proceeding whatever, for or on account of any personal injury * * *. ’ ’ Section 92-204, R.C.M.1947. This is also true in a vast majority of states. Larson in his work entitled “Workmen’s. Compensation Law,” Vol. 2, § 72.31, asserts that 44 states have similar provisions in their statutory law.

*50 We observe no necessity to enter into a lengthy discourse in this area since in the last few weeks we have rendered two opinions which further express our views. See Kelleher v. State, 160 Mont. 365, 503 P.2d 29, and State ex rel. Hammond v. Hager, 160 Mont. 391, 503 P.2d 52.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 P.2d 996, 161 Mont. 48, 1972 Mont. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larson-v-watters-construction-co-mont-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack