Case Name: DELLA YEAGER, individually and on behalf of her Minor Daughter, VERONICA RIPHENBURG, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MICHAEL MORRIS, JR., MICHAEL MORRIS, SR., and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants and Appellees
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2013-02-26
Citations: 369 Mont. 90
Docket Number: No. DA 12-0173
Parties: DELLA YEAGER, individually and on behalf of her Minor Daughter, VERONICA RIPHENBURG, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MICHAEL MORRIS, JR., MICHAEL MORRIS, SR., and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants and Appellees.
Judges: JUSTICES BAKER and RICE and DISTRICT JUDGE BAUGH, sitting for JUSTICE McKINNON, concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 369
Pages: 90–97

Head Matter:
DELLA YEAGER, individually and on behalf of her Minor Daughter, VERONICA RIPHENBURG, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MICHAEL MORRIS, JR., MICHAEL MORRIS, SR., and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants and Appellees.
No. DA 12-0173.
Submitted on Briefs November 14, 2012.
Decided February 26, 2013.
2013 MT 44.
296 P.3d 1164.
369 Mont. 90.
For Appellants: Dennis P. Conner, Gregory G. Pinski, Conner & Pinski, PLLP, Great Falls; Lynn D. Baker, Attorney at Law, Great Falls.
For Appellees: Michael A. Morris, Jr. (Self-Represented), Augusta; Michael H. Morris, Sr. (Self-Represented), Choteau.

Opinion:
JUSTICE COTTER
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Della Yeager and her minor daughter, Veronica Riphenburg, were injured when their vehicle was involved in a collision with a pickup truck driven by Michael Morris, Jr. (Morris, Jr.), a Glacier County resident. The pickup truck was owned by Michael Morris, Sr. (Morris, Sr.), a Teton County resident. The collision occurred in Teton County but Yeager's vehicle was then propelled across the county line and came to rest in Cascade County. Yeager filed a complaint in Cascade County against both men claiming Morris, Jr. was negligent in his operation of the vehicle and that Morris, Sr. negligently entrusted his son with the pickup truck. Morris, Jr., acting as a self-represented litigant, moved to change the venue to Glacier or Teton counties asserting Cascade County was not a proper venue. The Eighth Judicial District Court agreed and granted the motion, moving the proceeding to Glacier County. Yeager appeals. We affirm.
ISSUE
¶2 Did the District Court err in determining Cascade County was an improper place for trial?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 On March 19, 2011, Yeager and her daughter were traveling just inside the Teton County line when their vehicle was struck by a pickup truck driven by Morris, Jr., who had failed to stop at a stop sign. It is undisputed that the collision occurred in Teton County, and that Yeager's car came to rest in Cascade County. Yeager and her young daughter were injured in the accident.
¶4 On August 3,2011, Yeager filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Cascade County asserting that Morris, Jr.'s negligent driving caused the accident. She also asserted that based upon Morris, Jr.'s "poor driving record," Morris, Sr. negligently entrusted his son with the truck. Yeager demanded a jury trial and sought damages for medical expenses, past and future emotional distress, and for mental and physical pain, among other claims of injury.
¶5 On October 24, 2011, Morris, Jr., acting without counsel, filed an Answer, a Motion to Dismiss with a brief in support, and a Motion to Change Venue with a brief in support. The court clerk date-stamped and filed each document. The time of entry for all five documents was 12:40 p.m. Morris, Jr. later asserted that he presented his pleadings to the court clerk in a specific order with the Motion to Change Venue first, followed by the brief in support, the Motion to Dismiss, its brief in support, and the Answer. The Motion to Change Venue asked that the matter be transferred to either Teton County where defendant Morris, Sr. resided and where the accident occurred, or to Glacier County where defendant Morris, Jr. resided. Morris, Jr. argued that Cascade County was not a proper venue for the proceeding, and that the District Court must therefore grant his motion to change the place of trial to a designated county, as required under § 25-2-201, MCA.
¶6 Yeager opposed the motions to change venue and to dismiss. She first argued that Morris, Jr. waived his right to have venue changed because he did not file his Motion to Change Venue before he filed his Answer as required by applicable statutes. Moreover, she claimed that Morris, Jr.'s Answer did not raise venue as a defense. Yeager further argued that the injuries resulting from Morris, Jr.'s tortious negligence occurred in Cascade County, making Cascade County a proper venue for her action.
¶7 On February 16, 2012, the District Court granted Morris, Jr.'s motion to change venue and transferred the matter to Glacier County. As an initial matter, the court refused to deny Morris, Jr.'s motion to change venue based upon waiver, noting the circumstances under which Morris, Jr. presented multiple simultaneous pleadings to the court clerk. The District Court explained that the "order in which [the documents] were docketed by the Clerk of Court is purely a matter of chance which is dictated by the Clerk of Court and not the parties." The District Court then expressly determined that Cascade County was not a proper venue for this action because the tort of negligent driving was "committed" in Teton County and the defendants lived in Teton and Glacier counties. Lastly, the court declined to rule on Morris, Jr.'s motion to dismiss, determining it was proper to allow the District Court in Glacier County to render that ruling.
¶8 Yeager appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9 The determination of whether a county represents the proper place for trial presents a question of law that involves the application of the venue statutes to pleaded facts. Our review of a district court's grant or denial of a motion to change venue is plenary, and we determine whether the district court's ruling was legally correct. Deichl v. Savage, 2009 MT 293, ¶ 6, 352 Mont. 282, 216 P.3d 749.
DISCUSSION
¶10 Did the District Court err in determining Cascade County was an improper place for trial ?
¶11 This is a tort action. Section 25-2-122(1), MCA, sets forth the criteria for determining the proper place of trial for a tort action: (a) the county in which the defendants or any of them reside at the commencement of the action; or (b) the county in which the tort was committed. It is undisputed that neither of the defendants resided in Cascade County at the commencement of the action. Therefore, for Cascade County to be considered a proper place for trial, then the tort must have been committed in Cascade County. Yeager argues that since she sustained her injuries in Cascade County, the tort was arguably completed there, thus making Cascade County a proper venue for trial.
¶12 Yeager urges us to apply the venue rationale set forth in Circle S Seeds of Mont., Inc. v. Mont. Merch., Inc., 2006 MT 311, 335 Mont. 16, 157 P.3d 671. In Circle S, Circle S sued Montana Merchandising, Inc. (MMI) in Gallatin County for trademark infringement. A dispute on venue arose with Circle S, a Gallatin County company, arguing Gallatin County was the proper venue and MMI, the defendant whose corporate offices were located in Cascade County, asserting that the decisions leading to Circle S's claim of trademark infringement took place in MMI's Cascade County offices. The District Court ruled that Gallatin County was the proper venue for the action and MMI appealed. We affirmed the District Court by ruling that a "tort is committed . where there is a concurrence of breach of obligation and the occasion of damages." Circle S, ¶ 18. We held that Circle S experienced its damages in Gallatin County. Circle S, ¶ 19, 21.
¶13 Morris, Jr. argues on appeal that his "breach of obligation" or "cause of negligence" occurred in Teton County when the two vehicles collided. Morris, Jr. relies on Howard v. Dooner, 211 Mont. 312, 688 P.2d 279 (1984), and Deichl. He maintains that since the tort occurred in Teton County and the defendants resided in Glacier and Teton Counties, only those two venues are proper, and that the District Court was therefore correct in granting his motion to change venue.
¶14 In Howard, a Fergus County resident travelled to Yellowstone County to see an allergy doctor, who prescribed a particular medication. When the patient arrived home, she ingested the medication and suffered adverse reactions and injury. She sued the prescribing physician and the manufacturer of the medication, Dooner Labs, in the Tenth Judicial District Court of Fergus County. The defendant doctor moved to have venue changed to Yellowstone County. Howard, 211 Mont. at 313, 688 P.2d at 279. The doctor claimed that if he committed malpractice, he did so in Yellowstone County. Howard countered that the tort was not complete until she suffered injury which occurred in Fergus County. We noted that when a breach and the damages resulting from the breach occur in different counties, a "fundamental requirement" in determining venue is "fairness to the defendant." Howard, 211 Mont. at 315-16, 688 P.2d at 280.
¶15 Focusing on the location where the doctor "committed" the breach, we stated,
[W]e recognize but do not adopt the minority view-i.e., that a tort is "portable" and arises wherever the damages arise. States such as Florida which have adopted this approach have venue statutes that provide that an action may be brought wherever the tort "accrued," not where it was "committed." We may have reached a different conclusion had our venue statute provided that an action may be brought where the tort "accrued," as opposed to where it was "committed."
Dooner, 211 Mont. at 318, 688 P.2d at 282 (internal citation omitted). As a result, we reversed the district court in Howard and directed venue of the proceeding changed to Yellowstone County.
¶16 Subsequently, in Deichl, Deichl, a Butte-Silver Bow County resident, purchased ahorse from Yellowstone County residents Savage and Torgerson upon the sellers' representation that the gelding was gentle and would be a suitable horse for a young and inexperienced rider. Several months later, Deichl, while riding the horse in Butte-Silver Bow County, was thrown from the horse and sustained a head injury. He filed suit in the Second Judicial District Court for Butte-Silver Bow County. Savage and Torgerson moved to change venue to Yellowstone County, arguing that if they negligently misrepresented the fitness of the animal, the tort was committed in their county of residence, Yellowstone County. The district court denied their motion and they appealed. Deichl, ¶ 4-5. We reversed, analyzing several cases including Howard, Circle S, and Gabriel v. School Dist. No. 4, 264 Mont. 177, 870 P.2d 1351 (1994). We observed that unlike the wrongful death claim in Gabriel, "the tort of negligent misrepresentation does not contain an inherent 'accrual' element, but rather is committed in the location where the misrepresentation takes place." Deichl, ¶ 20. Moreover, we stated that "unlike the alleged actions covering multiple counties by the defendant in Circle S Seeds, Savage and Torgerson took no actions and committed no breach in [Butte-Silver Bow] county." Accordingly, we held that Savage and Torgerson "committed" the tort of negligent misrepresentation for venue purposes in Yellowstone County. Deichl, ¶ 20. Similarly, here, the defendants committed no tort in Cascade County; the tort was committed in Teton County.
¶17 As we noted at ¶ 18 in Deichl, Circle S presented a unique situation. In Circle S, the tort of trademark infringement took place in multiple counties, while here, the tort was indisputably committed in one county only-Teton County. We cannot ignore the language of § 25-2-122(1), MCA, which provides that the proper place for trial is the county in which the tort was committed. Circle S is inapposite here, and as we did in Deichl, we decline to apply the specific holding of that case to the simple, straightforward tort case before us.
¶18 If an action is brought in a county that is not a proper place for trial, then the court must, on motion, change the place of trial. Section 25-2-201(1), MCA. Given the clear requisites of § 25-2-122(1), MCA, Cascade County was not a proper place for trial. Therefore, the District Court did not err in granting the motion for change of venue filed by Morris, Jr.
¶19 Affirmed.
JUSTICES BAKER and RICE and DISTRICT JUDGE BAUGH, sitting for JUSTICE McKINNON, concur.
We do not address Morris, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss in this Opinion because after granting his motion to change venue, the District Court did not address the Motion to Dismiss nor did Yeager raise the court's failure to address the motion on appeal.