 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blain v. Stillwater Mining Co.6/7/2004
nd Health Administration conducted an investigation of the accident. Due to the curvature of the tracks, the report stated that the locomotive driver temporarily could not see any hazards in front of the cars, and when he was within thirty feet of the switch he did not see the brakeman. Failing to stop there, the locomotive driver traveled approximately sixty feet without knowing the location of his brakeman. The report concluded that the following factors contributed to the accident: (1) management's failure to implement work procedure that required the locomotive driver to be in communication or visual contact with the brakeman while pushing rail cars; and (2) failure of the locomotive driver to immediately stop the train when he realized that his brakeman was not waiting for him at the switch.
On October 22, 2001, Blain brought this action in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court to recover damages for the death of her father, pursuant to § 39-71-413, MCA (1999). On July 5, 2002, pursuant to Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., SMC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 5, 2002, Aafedt also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. After fully considering the record and arguments of all parties, the court granted the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. It is from this Order that Blain appeals.
We restate the issue on appeal:
Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment to SMC and Aafedt based on its conclusion that there was a complete absence of any facts from which it could be proven or inferred by a jury that Aafedt's actions were malicious under § 39-71-413, MCA (1999)?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of a summary judgment order is de novo. Summary judgment is an extreme remedy and is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. The initial burden is on the moving party to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact; and once met, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to establish otherwise. Erker v. Kester , 1999 MT 231, 17, 296 Mont. 123, 17, 988 P.2d 1221, 17. Furthermore, on review, all reasonable inferences that might be drawn from the offered evidence should be drawn in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Erker , 17. However, once the court determines that genuine issues of fact do not exist, "the court must then determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." We review this legal conclusion to determine whether the court erred. Wages v. First Nat. Ins. Co. of America , 2003 MT 309, 9, 318 Mont. 232, 9, 79 P.3d 1095, 9.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment to SMC and Aafedt based on its conclusion that there was a complete absence of any facts from which it could be proven or inferred by a jury that Aafedt's actions were malicious under § 39-71-413, MCA (1999)?
Section 39-71-413, MCA, provides the exception to workers' compensation exclusivity and immunity from tort liability for employers and co-workers for injuries and death occuring within the course and scope of employment. This statute, as it read at the time of this incident, stated in relevant part:
f an employee receives an injury while performing the duties of his employment and the injury or injuries so received by the employee are caused by the intentional and malicious act or omission of a servant or employee of his employer, then the employee or in case of his death his heirs or personal representatives shall, in addition to the right to receive compensation under the Workers' Compen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|