Title: KISH v MONT STATE PRISON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12110 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 MONTANA 1972 J A M E S KISH, Plaint i f f and Appellant, M O N T A N A STATE PRISON and D O N A L D E. MICKELSON, et a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Knight, Dahood and Mackay, Anaconda, Montana. Wade J. Dahood argued, Anaconda, Montana. For Respondents: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Larry D. Huss argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana. William Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, appeared, Helena, Montana. Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana. R. D. Corette, Jr. argued, Butte, Montana. Filed : Submitted: November 28, 1972 Decided : JAN 2 5 I973 JAN 5 1973 Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. The plaintiff filed this case in Powell County d i s t r i c t court for severe and permanent injuries. H e alleged he had been damaged by permanent wage loss i n the s u m of $150,000, hospital and medical specials which a t the time of summary judgment exceeded $50,000, and general damages i n the sum of $700,000. A motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants and from this ruling plaintiff appeals. On September 19, 1967, a forest f i r e was burning about twenty miles north of Deer Lodge, Montana, in what i s called the Gold Creek area. The United States Forest Service took control of fighting the f i r e , and in order t o contain the blaze, several bulldozers were leased and borrowed from the local area. This equipment was necessary for the construction of f i r e lines. The f i r e lines were constructed and controlled by employees of the United States Forest Service and the drivers of the bulldozers were under the direct and exclusive supervision of the forest service, One of these bulldozers was leased from Mickelson, who owned and operated a construction business in Deer Lodge, Montana. Mickelson supplied an operator for the bulldozer, one Charles Fiske; however, while constructing the f i r e lines, Fiske was under the control and was paid by the United States Forest Service. Another bull- dozer was loaned to the f i r e fighting operation by the Montana State Prison. This loan was a t the request of the United States Forest Service; however, certain prison land was adjacent t o the f i r e area and the State Prison had an interest in protecting this grazing and timberland. In order t o operate the bulldozer, the prison provided a guard and two prisoner-operators t o run the equi pment . James Kish, a member of a f i r e crew from Butte, was on the f i r e line several days after the bulldozers had constructed the f i r e line. Alleg- edly, an uprooted tree was l e f t standing and was allowed to lean against another tree. When plaintiff Kish was i n the area, a wind caused the tree t o fall on h i m . Kish, 45 years of age a t the time of the accident, was paralyzed from the waist down as a result of the accident. T w o years later Kish died. Plaintiff contended the uprooted tree was negligently l e f t standing by defendants. This is the basis for the lawsuit. T w o issues are presented for review. First, was the t r i a l court correct i n ruling that Montana State Prison was imune from suit by reason of the doctrine of sovereign immunity? Second, was the t r i a l court correct in ruling that the loaned servant doctrine applied as t o release the de- fendants from 1 iabil ity? The t r i a l court was correct i n holding Montana State Prison was immune from suit by reason of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This doctrine was initially treated by this Court i n Mills v. Stewart, 76 Mont. 429, 436, 247 P. 332, wherein the Court stated: " * * * B u t the state is a public corporation, and out of considerations of public policy the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply t o i t unless assumed voluntarily. In other words, the state i s not liable for the negligent acts of its agents unless through the 1 egis1 ative department of government i t assumes such liability. (Citing authority) ," Since 1968 the Court has several times considered the issue of . sovereign immunity. In Longpre v. School District No. 2, 151 Mont. 345, 347, 443 P.2d 1 , the Court stated: ' * * * And, generally speaking, a l l public agencies; institutions or political subdivisions of the state partake of this sovereign irnmuni ty, a t least while performing governmental functions, since, while so engaged, they merely act for the benefit of the state and of the pub1 i c generally." In Three Forks v . State Highway, 156 Mont. 392, 398, 480 P.2d 826, the Court noted: " * * * B u t i n the absence of a waiver of immunity, the State may not be liable for torts committed whi 1 e engaged i n a purely governmental function. Coldwater v. State Highway Comm'n, 118 Mont. 65, 162 P.2d 722." A s can be seen from this authority, this Court has recognized and applied the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Montana legislature has also acted to bring formal recognition to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In 1959 the legislature adopted Chapter 7, Title 83, R.C.M. 1947, dealing w i t h t o r t actions against the state. Two sections i n this chapter are important to the question before us. Section 83-701, R.C.M. 1947, states i n perti- nent part: "The d i s t r i c t courts of the state of Montana shall have exclusive jurisdiction t o hear, determine, and render judgment to the extent of the insurance covera- by the state of Montana on any claim against the s t a t e * * *." (Emphasis supplied). Section 83-706, R.C.M. 1947, states: "Where coll ecti bl e insurance coverage from any insurer i s available to pay on behalf of, or t o indemnify, the state of Montana, for any settlement, compromise or judgment under this act, any cause of action shall be subject to the terms and conditions of such policy or policies of insurance applicable; and i n such event the state of Montana shall be immune under this act from any claim or demand, includinq judqments, i n ex- cess of such collectible insurance. " (Emphasis supplied) . I t is interesting that when House Bill 237, Thirty-sixth Legis- lative Assembly, now Chapter 7, Title 83, R.C.M. 1947, was introduced, the emphasized portion of section 83-701, R.C.M. 1947, was omitted. A senate amendment added that language and i t was concurred i n by the house of repre- sentatives and signed by the Governor. (For the amendment see Senate Jour- nal of the Thirty-sixth Legislative Assembly, page 452.) The Supreme Court i n Kaldahl v. St. Highway Comm'n, 158 Mont. 219, 221, 490 P.2d 220, spoke of the purpose of Chapter 7, Title 83: "As to legal actions against the state, the 1959 legislature passed Chapter 7, Title 83, R.C.M. 1947-- 'Tort Actions Against State', and i n seven sections, sections 83-701 through 83-707, careful l y determined how, why, and when the state could be sued i n tort - - action. These legislative enactments recognize t o r t liability and establish immunity of the state i n excess of its collectible insurance. Thus, these statutory provisions provide a remedy against the state under certain circumstances. he-legislature has spoken and w e are bound by i t s enactments." (Emphasis supplied). Other provisions of the Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, speak to the legis- lative existence of the doctfine of sovereign immunity: Sections 40-4401, 40-4402 and 75-5939, R.C.M. 1947. The legislature does not perform useless acts. Helena Valley Irrigation Dist. v. St. Hwy. Com'n, 150 Mont. 192, 433 P.2d 791. The legislature adopted Chapter 7, Title 83 for a purpose and that purpose was t o establish the doctrine of sovereign immunity and to provide certain waivers of that immunity. Prior t o the adoption of Chapter 7, Title 83, the standards for applying the doctrine of sovereign immunity were set forth in Coldwater v. State Highway, 118 Mont. 65, 74, 162 P.2d 772, where the Court stated: "Wk! hold that i n the performance of duties imposed upon i t by law the commission was acting i n a govern- mental capacity. " The Court went on to note: " W e have already held that the commission is an agency of the state, created for the general purpose of the establishment, construction and maintenance of a system of state highways." T h i s Court i n Coldwater required two conditions precedent to the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity: (1) that the body i n - volved be an agency of the state, and (2) that the agency of the state be engaged i n the performance of duties imposed upon it by law. The Court accepts this t e s t i n order t o determine whether or not a particular act f a l l s within the purview of the sovereign imnunity doctrine. Both of these conditions precedent are present in the instant situation. The plaintiff has brought suit against the Montana State Prison. Section 80-1401, R.C.M. 1947, provides for the creation of the State Depart- ment of Institutions. Section 80-1403, R.C.M. 1947, provides in part: "The following institutions are i n the state depart- ment of institutions: "(3) State Prison * * * . I 1 The Montana State Prison i s an agency of the State of Montana. Plaintiff alleged the construction of the f i r e line was a pro- prietary function of the state i n contrast to a governmental function; there- fore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply. According to plaintiff, pasturing and raising cattle and conducting logging operations by the state are proprietary i n nature; consequently, the protection of the land used i n such a function is also a proprietary act. T h i s Court does not accept this reasoning. First, pasturing and raising cattle and conducting logging operations by the state are, i n fact,governmental functions, and second, the protection of s t a t e land, regardless of its use, i s a governmental function. Section 80-1401, R.C.M. 1947, creating the State Department of Institutions, states: "The purpose of the legislative assembly i n creating a state department of institutions i s to utilize a t maximum efficiency the resources of state government i n a coiordinated effort t o restore the physically or mentally disabled, to rehabilitate the violators of law, * * * t o rededicate the resources of the state to the productive independence of its now dependent citizens, and to co-ordinate and apply the principles of modern institutional administration t o the institutions of the state. " (Emphasis suppl ied) . The purpose of Montana State Prison is to rehabilitate violators of law through maximum utilization of the resources of state government. The method of accomplishing this goal i s s e t forth by statute. Section 80- 1501, R.C.M. 1947, provides i n part: "The department of institutions may "(1) Establish industries i n institutions which will result i n the production or manufacture of goods that may be needed by institutions and other state agencies and that will assist i n the rehabilitation of residents i n institutions. " (Emphasis suppl i ed) . T w o of Montana's leading industries are agriculture and timber. What better way to rehabilitate prisoners than to train them to compete in the labor market of this s t a t e ' s leading industries by actual, on-the-job training of the necessary skills to compete? The state i s carrying out the duty of rehabilitation imposed upon i t by law. T h i s duty is again found i n section 80-1901, R.C.M. 1947, which provides: "The institution a t Deer Lodge i s the 'State Prison' If pasturing and raising cattle and conducting logging opera- tions, as rehabilitative functions, are governmental functions, then the protection of the property necessary to carry out those functions i s also a governmental function. The protection of state land i s a governmental function. Article XIX, Section 3, Constitution of Montana, states: "The legislative assembly shall enact suitable laws t o prevent the destruction by f i r e from any cause of the grasses and forest upon lands of the state or upon lands of the public domain the control of which may be conferred by congress upon this state, and to otherwise protect the same." The people of Montana required the legislature to provide for the protec- tion of state lands from f i r e and other forms of destruction. The people enjoined a further duty upon the State of Montana regarding state lands in Article XVII, Section 1, Constitution of Montana, which states in part: "All lands of the state that have been, or that may hereafter be granted to the state by congress, and all lands acquired by g i f t or grant or devise, from any person or corporation, shall be pub1 ic lands of the state, and shall be held in trust for the people * * *.I' (Emphasis supplied). I t i s incumbent upon the state, as trustee, to preserve and protect the corpus of the trust, in this case the land itself. The legislature, acting on the mandate of the people, did provide for protection of the lands of the state. Section 28-109, R.C.M. 1947, provides i n part: "Every owner of forest land classified as such by the board i s hereby required to furnish protection against the starting or existence, and t o suppress the spread, of f i r e on such land during the full period of each forest f i r e season defined by this act." (Emphasis suppl i ed) . The forest f i r e season runs from M a y 1 through September 30 of each year. See section 28-103, R.C.M. 1947. The f i r e in question occurred during the month of September. Further duties are imposed upon the various institutions of the state regarding protection of property under their control . Section 80-1501, R.C.M. 1947, provides i n part: "The department of institutions may "(5) Provide for the repair and maintenance of property and equipment of institutions by residents of institutions." The duty to maintain the property is mandatory, the method discretionary. Section 80-1406, R.C.M. 1947, provides i n part: "The warden or superintendents of institutions i n the department are responsible for the immediate manage- ment and control of their respective institutions * * *." The duty to maintain and control property of the state i s enjoined upon state agencies, both expressly and impliedly. I t is only reasonable to state that the protection of the resources and the property of the state is a governmental function. Because here w e have a state agency attempt- ing to protect the s t a t e ' s property, w e find the Montana State Prison was engaged i n a governmental function. The state has met the tests, both judicial and legislative, and the doctrine of sovereign imunity must be applied. For this reason, the decision of the d i s t r i c t court is affirmed. The second issue i s whether or not the t r i a l court was correct i n ruling that the loaned servant doctrine applied, so as to release de- fendants from liability. W e affirm the d i s t r i c t court's ruling on this issue. The loaned bu1 ldozer and operator (Montana State Prison inmates and equipment) and the 1 eased bull dozer and operator (Mickel son's bull - dozer w i t h Fiske as the operator) were fighting a forest f i r e under the request and direction of the United States Forest Service. Agents of the United States Forest Service directed a l l operations of the bulldozers and their drivers. The loaned servant rules this Court established i n Lewis v. Potter, 149 Mont. 430, 427 P.2d 306, and i n Devaney v. Lawler Corp., 101 Mont. 579, 56 P.2d 746, are control 1 ing. In these two cases the Court established two control 1 ing factors of the loaned servant doctrine. First, in whose business was the person engaged? Here, there can be no doubt that the bulldozers and operators were engaged in f i r e fighting for the United States Forest Service. Second, under whose control, domination or direction were the bulldozers and operators working? This Court agrees w i t h the district court that the bulldozers and drivers were under the control, domination and direction of the United States Forest Service through i t s employees and agents. hese reasons, plaintiff w correctly barred from asserting ainst either / M e concur: I