State Ex Rel. Bozeman v. District C
Opinion
No. 12946
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN
1975
STATE O MONTANA, e x r e l , THE CITY F OF BOZEMAN and WALTER L. BATES,
Relators,
THE DISTRICT COURT O THE EIGHTEENTH
F
JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE O F F
MONTANA, I N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF GALLATIN AND THE HON. 'W. W. LESSLEY, JUDGE THEREOF,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
Counsel o f Record:
For Relators :
Brown and G i l b e r t , Bozeman, Montana Gene I. Brown a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
F o r Respondents :
Anderson and Dasinger, Bozeman, Montana Douglas Dasinger, a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: J a n u a r y 22, 1975
F-; . ,- ,Y ' TS
Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This i s an o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g by t h e C i t y o f Bozernan and i t s employee f o r a writ of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . They s e e k t o r e v e r s e an o r d e r d e n y i n g them summary judgment i n two p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n s a g a i n s t them i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e i g h t e e n t h judicial d i s t r i c t .
R e l a t o r s a r e t h e c i t y of Bozeman and W a l t e r L . B a t e s , i t s employee. R e s p o n d e n t s a r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h e Hon. W . W. L e s s l e y , d i s t r i c t j u d g e , p r e s i d i n g .
The f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n i s d i s c l o s e d by t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , a n s w e r s 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 w i t h the d i s t r i c t court:
O n A u g u s t 1 7 , 1 9 7 3 , a t a b o u t 5 : 1 5 p.m. I d a Keneady and V i r g i n i a No11 were s e a t e d i n K e n e a d y ' s Ford s e d a n p a r k e d a t t h e c u r b on Babcock s t r e e t i n Bozeman, Montana. The Ford was s t r u c k from b e h i n d by a s t r e e t pavement r o l l e r owned by t h e s t a t e o f Montana, borrowed by t h e c i t y of Bozeman, and o p e r a t e d by W a l t e r L. B a t e s , a c i t y employee. T h e r e a f t e r , a t t h e scene of t h e a c c i d e n t , B a t e s f i l l e d o u t a form g i v i n g h i s name and a d d r e s s and I d a Keneady f i l l e d o u t a form g i v i n g h e r name, a d d r e s s , t e l e - phone number, and t h e d e t a i l s of t h e a c c i d e n t . I t i s unclear w h e t h e r V i r g i n i a No11 f i l l e d o u t a s i m i l a r f o r m o r w h e t h e r s h e was i n c l u d e d i n t h e form f i l l e d o u t by I d a Keneady. The f o r m s were e x c h a n g e d by B a t e s and I d a Keneady. A policeman a l s o f i l l e d o u t an a c c i d e n t r e p o r t , A f t e r r e t u r n i n g home, B a t e s r e p o r t e d t h e a c c i d e n t by phone t o t h e foreman o f t h e c i t y s t r e e t d e p a r t m e n t . The f o l l o w - i n g morning t h e a c c i d e n t was r e p o r t e d o r a l l y t o t h e s u p e r i n t e n - d e n t of t h e c i t y s t r e e t d e p a r t m e n t and t h e a s s i s t a n t c i t y m a n a g e r . The l a t t e r i n turn r e p o r t e d i t t o t h e c i t y ' s i n s u r a n c e company. The f o l l o w i n g e v e n i n g , t h e i n s u r a n c e a d j u s t e r c o n t a c t e d b o t h I d a
K e n e a d y d n d V i r g i n i a iqo11. He d i s c u s s e d e a c h o f the claims
w i t h them; was a d v i s e d o f 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 ;
t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f t h e i r i n j u r i e s s o f a r a s e a c h was
aware o f a t t h a t t i m e ; t h e names o f a l l p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d ; a n d
was a d v i s e d t h a t i t w o u l d be s e v e r a l months b e f o r e t h e e x a c t
n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f t h e i r c l a i m s c o u l d be p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e d .
T h e a d j u s t e r a d v i s e d t h e m t h a t when t h e i r d o c t o r s s u b m i t t e d
s u f f i c i e n t m e d i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e i r c l a i m s would be e v a l u a t e d
a t t h a t time. Additionally, a t t h a t time the adjuster attempted
t o s e t t l e I d a Keneady's c l a i m .
I d a K e n e a d y a n d V i r g i n i a No11 f i l e d s e p a r a t e p e r s o n a l
i n j u r y a c t i o n s on A p r i l 8, 1 9 7 4 , a g a i n s t t h e c i t y o f Bozeman,
B a t e s and t h e s t a t e o f Montana. S u b s e q u e n t l y summary j u d g m e n t
was g r a n t e d i n f a v o r o f t h e s t a t e o f M o n t a n a . The s t a t e i s n o t
involved i n the present proceeding..
The p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n s were based on t h e a l l e g e d
negligence o f Bates. Each c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s f o u r c l a i m s f o r
r e l i e f r e v o l v i n g around t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Montana T o r t C l a i m s
Act:
( 1 ) Compliance w i t h Act; (2) estoppel t o r a i s e the pro-
v i s i o n s o f t h e A c t i n b a r by reason o f t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e i n -
surance a d j u s t e r ; (3) i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f the Act t o the c i t y ,
and ( 4 ) u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e A c t . We d e c l i n e t o r e a c h t h e
issues of a p p l i c a b i l i t y o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f the Act as
summary j u d g m e n t i s p r e c l u d e d i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e s e i s s u e s .
T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d m o t i o n s f o r summary j u d g m e n t
by t h e c i t y a n d B a t e s . They s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p l i e d t o t h i s C o u r t
f o r supervisory control t o reverse t h i s r u l i n g . We a c c e p t e d
j u r i s d i c t i o n and i s s u e d a n a l t e r n a t i v e o r d e r t o show c a u s e . The
m a t t e r was a r g u e d b y c o u n s e l f o r a l l p a r t i e s a n d t a k e n u n d e r
ddvisement.
Ruie , 5 b ( c ) , M.R.Civ . P . p r o v i d e s t h e moving p a r t i e s , relators h e r e , a r e e n t i t l e d t o summary judgment 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 show t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i 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 m a t t e r of l a w . * * * " The burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a b s e n c e of any i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t i s o n t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g summary judgment. Roope v . The Anaconda Co., 159 M o n t . 28, 494 P . 2 d 922; Byrne v . P l a n t e , 1 5 4 Mont. 6 , 459 P . 2 d 266, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n .
The p e r t i n e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e Montana T o r t Claims Act a r e :
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State Ex Rel. Bozeman v. District C (State Ex Rel. Bozeman v. District C) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.