Title: WINTER v RHODES DIEHL GRIFFIN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 14262
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONE

1978

RICA P. WDWER and LINDA LEE WINTER,
husband and wife,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

(JUNE RRODES, DON DIEHL, and
DELBER? GRIFFIN,

Defendants and Appellants.

‘Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Juicial District,
Honorable Bivard T. Dussault, Judge presiding.

(Counsel of Record:

For Appellant

 

Garlinston, Lehn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana
Gary L. Graham argued, Missoula, Nontana

For Responlents:

Murray and Holt, Missoula, Montana
Harold L. Bolt argued, Missoula, Montana

Sumitted: October 13, 1978
peciaea: JAN 29 1979

Pie: YAN So 1979

 
Me. Chief Justice Frank I, Haswell delivered the Opinion of
the Court.

‘This negligence action was commenced on March 8, 1974.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted on February
18, 1975. on February 3, 1978, plaintiffs moved to set aside
the 1975 summary judgment. On February 21, 1978, exactly three
years after summary judgnent had been entered in favor of defen~
Gants, the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, the
Honorable Edward Dussault presiding, vacated the previous summary
judgment and placed the matter on the court's pretrial conference
calendar. Defendants appealed from this order and plaintiffs have
rd but limited

 

moved to dismi

 

the appeal. Oral argunent was hi
to the issue raised in plaintiff-respondents’ motion to dismiss
this appeal.

Plaintiff Richard Winter was permanently disabled when
defendant Delbert Griffin, employed by defendants June Rhodes and
on Diehl, knocked a log off Richard Winter's truck while he was
loading it. The log struck Winter, severing his spinal cord.

The District Court granted summary judgment on the author-

 

ity of Fiscus v. Beartooth (1974), 164 Mont. 319, 522 P.2a 87. on
January 8, 1978, the Fiscus decision was overruled by this Court's

decision in Piper v. Lockwood (1978), Mont. 573 P.2a

 

646, 35 St.Rep. 9. Subsequently, the District Court vacated the
previous summary judgment and defendants appealed.
‘his motion to dismiss concerns the appealability of the

February 21 order. More specifically, the issue presented in

 

plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss is whether an order vacating summary
judgment is appealable as an order entered after final judgment.
Plaintiffs, the moving party, argue that the decision in
Stensvad v. Montana National Bank (1975), 168 Mont. 167, 541 P.24
768, controls this situation. In Stensvad this Court found an

order vacating summary judgment interlocutory in nature and,

-2-
therefore, not appealable. Defendants contend the February 21,
1978 order is an appealable order as a “special order made after
final judgment" as delineated in Rule 1(b), M.R-App.Civ.P.

Rule 1, M-R.App.Civ.P., does not specifically mention
an order vacating summary judgment as an appealable order. ‘the
only time this Court has considered whether an order vacating
a summary judgment is appealable was in Stensvad. At that time
we expressly held that it was not

“the controlling issue before this Court is
whether the order vacating the summary judgment
is an order from which an appeal may be taken.

Rule 1, M.R-App.Civ.P., subsections (b) and
(c), set forth from what orders an aggrieved
party may appeal. The order from which appellant
wishes to appeal is not one of the enumerated
orders contained in Rule 1.

“The district court order is interlocutory in
nature, that is, it is not final. The order
vacates the sumary judgment and sets the cause
for trial. The rights of the parties have not
been adjudicated, and will not be until such
trial." Stensvad, 168 Mont. at 168, 541 P.2d
at 768.

 

 

‘The instant case falls within the rule enunciated in
Stensvad.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dis-
missed but without prejudice to the filing of an application

for a writ of supervisory control.

Dar Sd. Woseth2

Chief Justice

 

We concur:

  

Justices
Mr, Justice John C. Sheehy, deeming himself disqualified, did not
participate in the cause. |- 3 ~