Title: BRADLEY v VALMONT INDUSTRIES INC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85-054
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 25, 1985

No. 85-54 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 MERILYN BRADLEY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of MICHAEL BRADLEY, deceased, and on behalf of all other heirs of MICHAEL BRADLEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- VALMONT INDUSTRIES, I I J C . , a Delaware corporation; TRIANGLE IRRIGATION, a Montana corp.; GLACIER ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE, INC., a Montana Corp.; FIRST CONTINENTAL CORP., a Montana corp.; JOHN GREYTAK; and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Cure, Borer & Davis; Maxon R. Davis, (Valmont Ind.) Great Falls, Montana Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver; James E . Aiken,(Triangle Irrigation), Great Falls, Fontana Emmons & Coder; Robert J. Emmons, (Glacier Electric), Great Falls, Montana Marra, Wenz, Johnson & Hopkins, Dan L. Spoon,(Greytak & First Continental Corp.), Great Falls, Montana For Respondent : Regnier, Lewis & Boland; James M. Regnier, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 4, 1985 Decided: June 25, 1985 Filed: A . M 2 3 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Defendant G l a c i e r E l e c t r i c C o - o p e r a t i v ~ , I n c . ( h e r e i n a f t e r G l a c i e r E l e c t r i c ) a p p e a l s from a d e n i a l of a motion f o r change o f venue by t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County. W e a f f i r m . Michael Bradley was e l e c t r o c u t e d w h i l e working on a c e n t e r p i v o t i r r i g a t i o n system on September 11, 1981, i n Pondera County. H i s widow, Merilyn B r a d l e y , f i l e d t h i s p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n f o r wrongful d e a t h and s u r v i v o r s h i p a g a i n s t t h e f i v e named d e f e n d a n t s i n Cascade County on September 7, 1984. Each o f t h e named d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e s i n a d i f f e r e n t county f o r purposes o f venue. Valmont I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . i s a f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n d o i n g b u s i n e s s i n Montana. T r i a n g l e I r r i g a t i o n h a s i t s p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i n Cascade County. F i r s t C o n t i n e n t a l Corporation i s engaged i n v a r i o u s b u s i n e s s e s throughout Montana, i n c l u d i n g t h e s i t e o f t h e a c c i d e n t i n Pondera County. John Greytak r e s i d e s i n Yellowstone County. G l a c i e r E l e c t r i c h a s i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i n G l a c i e r County. There i s no d i s p u t e a s t o t h e s i t u s o f t h e a l l e g e d t o r t , Pondera County, o r t h e r e s i d e n c e s of t h e v a r i o u s d e f e n d a n t s . F u r t h e r , no o t h e r d e f e n d a n t i s a p p e a l i n g t h e o r d e r denying t h e change o f venue. G l a c i e r E l e c t r i c ' s motion f o r change o f venue was heard on December 1 2 , 1.984 and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t denied t h e motion on December 1 3 , 1984. G l a c i e r E l e c t r i c f i l e d a n o t i c e o f appeal t o t h i s Court on J a n u a r y 7 , 1985. The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y denied G l a c i e r E l e c t r i c ' s motion t o change venue from Cascade County, a r e s i d e n c e o f one d e f e n d a n t , t o Pondera County, t h e s i t u s o f t h e a l l e g e d t o r t . The g e n e r a l r u l e f o r venue o f a c i v i l a c t i o n i s t h a t " t h e a c t i o n s h a l l b e t r i e d i n t h e county i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t s o r any o f them may r e s i d e a t t h e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n . . . " S e c t i o n 25-2-108, MCA. A p e r m i s s i v e s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s g e n e r a l ru1.e i s t h a t " [ a l c t i o n s f o r t o r t s may b e t r i e d i n t h e county where t h e t o r t was committed . . . " S e c t i o n 25-2-102, MCA. The f o r e r u n n e r o f t h e s e s t a t u t e s was s e c t i o n 93-2904, R.C.M. (1947). I n S e i f e r t v. Gehle ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 133 Mont. 320, 323 P.2d 269, t h e p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a t o r t a c t i o n i n Lake County. The t o r t had o c c u r r e d i n L i n c o l n County and t h e d e f e n d a n t r e s i d e d i n F l a t h e a d County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t t o have venue changed t o h i s r e s i d e n t county. T h i s C o u r t , i n r e v e r s i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s s e c t i o n a s follows: " I n t h i s c a s e t h e s t a t u t e means t h a t e i t h e r t h e c o u n t y o f d e f e n d a n t ' s r e s i d e n c e o r t h e county where t h e t o r t was committed i s a p r o p e r county f o r t h e t r i a l o f t h e a c t i o n , and had t h e p l a i n t i f f chosen e i t h e r o f t h o s e c o u n t i e s t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t have had it removed." 323 P.2d a t 270. I n Slovak v. Kentucky F r i e d Chicken ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 164 Mont. 1, 518 P.2d 791, t h i s Court a g a i n e x p l a i n e d t h e elective p r o c e d u r e a v a i l a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f " t o f i l e e i t h e r i n t h e county o f d e f e n d a n t ' s r e s i d e n c e o r i n t h e county where t h e t o r t was committed." ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) 518 P.2d a t 794. These c a s e s , a l o n g w i t h o t h e r s , make Montana's venue r u l e i n t o r t a c t i o n s c l e a r . So long a s t h e p l a i n t i f f f i l e s a t o r t a c t i o n i n a county where a d e f e n d a n t r e s i d e s or i n t h e county where t h e t o r t was committed, venue i s p r o p e r . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e p l a i n t i f f f i l e d h e r c a u s e o f a c t i o n i n Cascade County, t h e r e s i d e n c e o f d e f e n d a n t T r i a n g l e I r r i g a t i o n . W e hold t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f f i l e d t h e a c t i o n i n a p r o p e r county and G l a c i e r E l e c t r i c i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o removal. The 1985 r e v i s i o n s i n Montana's venue laws change t h e form, n o t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h i s r u l e . S e c t i o n 25-2-102, M C A (1985) s t a t e s : "The p r o p e r p l a c e o f t r i a l f o r a t o r t a c t i o n is: (1) The county i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t s , o r any o f them, r e s i d e a t t h e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n ; o r (2) The county where t h e t o r t was committed . . . " T h i s s e c t i o n c o d i f i e s t h e long-standing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Montana's t o r t e x c e p t i o n t o t h e b a s i c venue r u l e found i n S e i f e r t and Slovak, c i t e d above. The r e s u l t i n t h i s c a s e would b e t h e same under t h e s e new r u l e s . G l a c i e r E l e c t r i c c i t e d Whalen v. S n e l l (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 667 P.2d 436, 40 St.Rep. 1283 f o r i t s p o s i t i o n t h a t venue i n a t o r t a c t i o n "must" be b r o u g h t i n t h e county where t h e t o r t was committed. T h i s i s n o t t h e h o l d i n g o f Whalen. I n f a c t , Whalen r e p e a t s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t : ". . . t h e a c t i o n s h a l l b e t r i e d i n t h e county i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t r e s i d e s . . . P e r m i s s i v e s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e i n c l u d e p r o v i s i o n s t h a t . . . t o r t s may b e t r i e d i n t h e county where t h e t o r t was committed." 667 P.2d a t 437. (Emphasis added.) The o r d e r o f t h e District Court is h e r e b a f f i r m e d . fP& W e concur: /