Case Title: MATHIE v MONTANA POWER CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-06-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12922 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 VIRGINIA MATHIE, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - T H E M O N T A N A P O W E R C O M P A N Y e t al., Defendants and Respondents, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For ~ ~ ~ e i l a n t : McKeon and Skakles , Anaconda, Montana Gregory J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana Kendrick Smith argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: May 5, 1975 Decided: dub 1 2 $!#I Filed: Ji'nW 1.2 1973 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . This is an appeal by p l a i n t i f f Virginia Mathie from an order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Park County, t h e Hon. Jack Shanstrom, judge presiding, granting summary judgment i n a personal i n j u r y a c t i o n t o defendant Montana Power Company. P l a i n t i f f i s t h e mother of one Ronnie Charles Harris who w a s f a t a l l y injured on June 2 1 , 1973, while employed by t h e Brogan Sand and Gravel Company. The amended complaint alleged t h e death was caused by t h e negligence of defendant Montana Power Company and defendants A, B, and C , (never i d e n t i f i e d ) . Several allega- t i o n s of negligence were alleged a s t o t h e Power Company: (1) It negligently advised t h e owner of t h e Sand and Gravel Company a s t o t h e proper method of grounding and wiring t h e crusher, on which decedent was working on o r a t . (2) It was negligent i n supplying e l e c t r i c i t y t o t h e crusher when it knew, o r should have known, t h a t t h e crusher was improperly wired and grounded and w a s dangerous t o those who came i n contact with it. ( 3 ) That defendant Power Company f a i l e d t o properly in- spect t h e wiring, grounding and t h e e l e c t r i c a l equipment of t h e Brogan Sand and Gravel Company and was negligent i n supplying e l e c t r i c i t y without proper inspection of t h e e l e c t r i c a l groundings, wirings and appliances. ( 4 ) That i f t h e Power Company d i d inspect t h e groundings, wiring and e l e c t r i c a l appliances, it knew o r should have known of t h e dangerous conditions presented t o Ronnie Harris and it was therefore negligent i n supplying e l e c t r i c i t y , i n view of t h e de- f e c t i v e condition of t h e grounding, wiring and appliances. (5) That t h e Power Company's negligence w a s t h e proximate cause of t h e death of Harris. --- - *_ - r' The only testimony i n t h e record i s t h e deposition of i - Welch Brogan, owner of t h e gravel p i t , f o r whom Harris w a s working. P l a i n t i f f took t h e deposition and p l a i n t i f f takes no i s s u e with Brogan's testimony. A reading of Brogan's testimony revealed t h a t he had operated a s a small gravel company a t Corwin Springs, Montana, s i n c e 1952. He purchased t h e crusher involved i n t h e accident i n e i t h e r 1956 o r 1957 and a t t h e t i m e of purchase it was a d i e s e l operated engine which he personally converted t o e l e c t r i c i t y , with t h e help of h i s employees. Brogan d i d not know t h e exact d a t e of conversion but an e x h i b i t , a c o n t r a c t with t h e Montana Power Company t o f u r n i s h e l e c t r i c service, was dated May 7 , 1956. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e l a s t time defendant energized t h e l i n e , brought about by a highway change causing c e r t a i n poles t o be changed, occurred i n 1968 and a t t h a t time defendant put i n a s e r v i c e pole on h i s property and he personally grounded t h e crusher. Further, t h a t t h e Power Company men were "probably" t h e r e a t t h e t i m e of t h e grounding but t h a t they had nothing t o do with t h e grounding of t h e crusher nor d i d he ask them how t o do it. He thought t h a t de- fendant Power Company knew how t h e crusher was grounded, but t h a t a l l t h e wiring on t h e crusher s i d e of t h e power pole was h i s , and t h a t he d i d a l l t h e work. From t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s propounded by both p a r t i e s and t h e accident r e p o r t s of defendant and t h e Montana Workmen's Com- pensation Division, t h e f a c t s of t h e accident a r e found. O n t h e day involved Ronnie Harris and a man named John Arabia were work- ing i n t h e gravel p i t and operating t h e crusher. Harris was on t h e machine and Arabia was operating a f r o n t end loader with which he was loading gravel from t h e p i t i n t o a hopper on t h e end of t h e crusher. After f i l l i n g t h e hopper Arabia could not see Harris on t h e crusher and thinking he had wandered away from t h e s i t e , he got off t h e loader and went over t o t h e crusher t o engage a c l u t c h t o s t a r t t h e machine. When he s t a r t e d up a ladder on t h e crusher he got a shock and c a l l e d t o have t h e power turned o f f . Shortly t h e r e a f t e r Harris was found lying i n a small pool of water near t h e crusher. A n autopsy revealed Harris had died of drowning and t h e r e were no s i g n s of any e l e c t r i c a l burns on h i s body. O n t h e b a s i s of t h e heretofore r e l a t e d f a c t s and plead- ings, Judge Shanstrom granted summary judgment t o defendant Power Company. P l a i n t i f f sets f o r t h only one i s s u e on appeal--Did t h e c o u r t err i n granting summary judgment? This Court has repeatedly upheld summary judgments where t h e record d i s c l o s e s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any material f a c t , holding t h a t t h e burden i s on the opposing p a r t y t o present evi- dence r a i s i n g t h e f a c t s of a material and s u b s t a n t i a l nature. S t a t e Mont . of Montana ex rel. City Motor Co., Inc. v. D i s t . C O U ~ ~ ~ O P . T I 486, 32 St.Rep. 34, 36; S t a t e ex r e l . Burlington Northern, Inc. v. D i s t . C t . , 159 Mont. 295, 496 P.2d 1152; DeWinter v. Capp Homes, Inc., 162 Ivlont. 19, 507 P.2d 1 0 6 1 . W e f i n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f had r a i s e d no f a c t u a l i s s u e a t t h e t i m e of t h e motion f o r summary judgment t h a t was e i t h e r m a t e r i a l o r of a s u b s t a n t i a l nature. From examination of t h e record, consisting of t h e plead- ings, answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and depositions, w e conclude t h e d i s t r i c t court was c o r r e c t i n determining t h a t defendant had borne its burden and shown t h e r e was no material d i s p u t e of f a c t . Brogan's deposition negates each of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of negligence on the p a r t of defendant Power Company. H i s testimony c l e a r l y established t h e Power Company had nothing t o do with t h e grounding o r t h e wiring of t h e gravel p i t o r of t h e crusher; it was done by Brogan o r some of h i s employees. There is absolutely no evidence ia the record t h a t defendant, through its employees, gave advice t o Brogan on h i s wiring o r grounding of t h e crusher, nor was t h e r e evidence t h a t t h e Power Company negligently supplied e l e c t r i c i t y without proper inspection by government o f f i c i a l s . I f any of t h e equipment, motors, wires o r grounds were not properly maintained t h a t was Brogan's f a u l t . During t h e e n t i r e business dealings Brogan had with defendant Power Company from 1956 t o when he sold o u t sometime a f t e r t h e accident, a l l d i d defendant Company/was supply him e l e c t r i c i t y t o t h e s e r v i c e pole adjacent t o his property. Brogan took it fromtiiere and d i d a l l of h i s own i n s t a l l a t i o n and service work. The a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e amended complaint standing alone do not r a i s e a genuine i s s u e of material f a c t precluding summary judgment. The cause of death given by t h e attending physician was drowning. The body showed no evidence of any e l e c t r i c a l burns. It was an unexplainable i n d u s t r i a l accident covered by t h e pro- v i s i o n s of Montana's Workmen's Compensation Act. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s order granting summary judgment i s affirmed. W e concur: i Chief J u s t i c e J u s t i c e s 0