No. 12589 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1974 

ROBERT McCREA, Administrator of the Estate 

of Bradley Arthur McCrea, Deceased, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

LARRY BUSCH, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant : 

Goldman, McChesney and Datsopoulos, Missoula, Montana 

Harold L. McChesney appeared, Missoula, Montana 

R, Anthony Rogers argued, Washington, D. C. 

For Respondent : 

Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana 

Larry E. Riley argued, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted: April 24, 1974 

Decided : a~., 

L 2 " ;974 

Filed : ! j$F4 
Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court, 

This appeal is from an order of the district court of the 

fourth judicial district, county of Lake, dismissing plaintiff's 

wrongful death action for lack of jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff Robert McCrea is a member of the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Defendant Larry 

Busch is a nonIndian. The alleged wrongful death of plaintiff's 

sixteen year old son took place on U.S. Highway 93 in Ravalli, 

Montana which is within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead 

Reservation. 

There is no fact dispute before the Court. The sole issue 

presented for review is whether the courts of Montana have jurisdiction to accept a civil action for wrongful death resulting from 

an automobile accident within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead 

Reservation brought by an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes against a nonIndJan defendant. 

The jurisdiction of state courts as it pertains to Indian 

problems has been placed in issue, Each party argued a different 

application of the problem and its relation to the jurisdictional 

question. 

Defendant has approached it from the premise that this is an 

attempted extension of the Montana courts' limited civil jurisdiction 

over Indians and Indian affairs within the exterior boundaries 

of the Flathead Reservation. For his principal authority defendant 

relies on this Court's holding in Security State Bank v. Pierre, 

Mont . , 511 P.2d 325, 30 St.Rep, 647. That case stands 

for the principle that Montana courts are limited in the exercise 

of jurisdiction over Indian affairs when it interferes with their 

self-government or impairs the rights granted, reserved or preempted 

by the United States Congress, as interpreted by the United States 

Supreme Court. The natural result as stated in Pierre was that 

because of federal limitations the state of Montana was unable to 
guarantee equal protection to the nonIndian plaintiff who was 

attempting to enforce a commercial transaction obligation against 

an Indian defendant which arose within the exterior boundaries of 

the Indian reservation controlled by the federal government. This 

resulted in a recognized and inequitable legal vacuum. 

The instant case, however, is just the opposite of Pierre 

and related cases. Here we are concerned with an Indian person 

seeking redress in Montana courts against a nonIndian person. 

Although defendant urges the subject matter to be without the 

jurisdiction of the Montana courts as an interference with 

Flathead tribal self-government and impairs a right granted, reserved 

or preempted by Congress, he offers no citation and it does not 

appear to this Court to be an invasion of any of the areas protected 

by the federal government. 

Therefore, this case falls within the class of cases that 

Montana courts must and traditionally have given free access to 

its courts and equal protection of its laws to all persons. The 

foundation case is Bonnet v. Seekins, 126 Mont. 24, 243 P.2d 317, 

relying on Art. 111, Sec. 6 of the 1889 Montana Constitution. 

Bonnet has been recently followed and affirmed in State ex rel. 

Iron Bear v. District Court, Mon t . , 512 P.2d 1292, 

30 St. Rep. 482; Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, Mont . , 517 P.2d 

893, 31 St.Rep. 22, relying on Art. 11, Sec. 16, 1972 Montana Constitution. 

This legal distinction that we meet here has been recognized 

and approved by the federal government as far back as Williams v, 

Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 3 L ed 2d 251, 79 S.Ct. 269, and as recent 

as Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Moe, F.S~PP. , 

31 St. Rep. 408. 

We have in recent cases cited herein fully discussed all 

aspects of this jurisdictional problem and since then nothing has 

changed in the federal sector to warrant burdening this opinion with 

more than the comments made herein. 
The order of the trial court is reversed and the cause 

remanded for further proceedings. 

Justice 

i Me Concur: 

Chief ~ustice