Opinion ID: 3036664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government’s Duty

Text: [6] To establish a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must first demonstrate the existence of a duty of care. Gaudreau v. Clinton Irrig. Dist., 30 P.3d 1070, 1073 (Mont. 2001). “The existence of a legal duty can be determined as a matter of law.” Lopez v. Great Falls Pre-Release Servs., Inc., 986 P.2d 1081, 1087 (Mont. 1999). The Forest Service owed a duty of care to all persons which it could reasonably foresee would use the 5 The Forest Service does not dispute the trial court’s damage award. 2882 OBERSON v. USDA snowmobile trail. Id.; see Busta v. Columbus Hosp. Corp., 916 P.2d 122, 134 (Mont. 1996) (“Duty . . . is measured by the scope of the risk which negligent conduct foreseeably entails” (quoting Mang v. Elaisson, 458 P.2d 777, 781-82 (1969)). The government argues that Musselman cannot show the existence of a duty because Montana’s snowmobile statute places all legal responsibility for risks “inherent in the sport of snowmobiling” on the snowmobiler. MONT. CODE ANN. § 23-2-654 (1996). It argues that the statute relieved the government of liability for the failure to warn Musselman of the “variation in terrain” on which he was injured. § 23-2-654(1). The government, however, overstates the law. [7] We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of state law. See Rabkin v. Or. Health Scis. Univ., 350 F.3d 967, 970 (9th Cir. 2003). To determine whether the government had a duty to warn Musselman of the hill’s hazardous nature, we must interpret the meaning of “inherent risk” in the Montana snowmobile statute. Courts considering the meaning of “inherent risk” or similar language in similar statutes have held that language to shield defendants from liability for risks that are integral parts of a sport and, therefore, could not be eliminated by a defendant with ordinary care. See Brewer v. Ski-Lift, Inc., 762 P.2d 226, 231 (Mont. 1988); see also Bouchard v. Johnson, 555 N.W.2d 81, 84 (N.D. 1996); Knight v. Jewett, 834 P.2d 696, 705-06 (Cal. 1992); Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1047 (Utah 1991); Wright v. Mt. Mansfield Life, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 786, 791-92 (D. Vt. 1951). Here, the risk under consideration is not a variation in terrain but the lack of a warning sign at a hazardous variation in terrain. Given the Service’s comprehensive safety program designed to standardize hazard notification on trails, the negligent failure to post a warning sign is not an integral part of the sport of snowmobiling. The risk from such a failure could be eliminated by the exercise of ordinary care. We conclude that the snowmobile statute’s “inherent risk” provision did not OBERSON v. USDA 2883 shield the Forest Service from liability for failure to provide a warning of a known hazard on the Big Sky Trail.
To determine whether the government breached its duty to Musselman, the district court analyzed the Forest Service’s conduct under the ordinary care standard. The district court arrived at this standard of care only after rejecting two alternative standards prior to trial. To the extent relevant to the questions certified to the Montana Supreme Court, we recite the grounds upon which the district court based its pretrial rulings. [8] First, the district court barred affirmative defenses based upon the 1996 snowmobile statute’s gross negligence standard, MONT. CODE ANN. § 23-2-653, holding that standard of care to violate the Montana equal protection clause, MONT. CONST. art. II, § 4. In so doing, the district court relied on Brewer, in which the Montana Supreme Court held unconstitutional a statute eliminating legal recourse against ski area operators for skiers suffering injury by virtue of their participation in the sport of skiing “regardless of the cause [of injury] and regardless of the presence of negligence or intentional conduct on the part of the ski area operators.” 762 P.2d at 230. According to the district court, the “special rights” created by the 1996 snowmobile statutes gross negligence standard were the same as those created by the statute considered in Brewer— which removed all liability—and similarly were not rationally related to the statutes purpose. Here, the district court based its analogous treatment of the ski area operator and snowmobile statutes upon its unpublished order in Riska v. USDA, CV-96-63-BU-DWM (D. Mont. Oct. 14, 1997) (holding 1996 snowmobile statute’s gross negligence standard unconstitutional under Brewer). We have found no Montana court decisions resolving the constitutionality of the 1996 snowmobile statute’s gross negligence standard or Brewer’s 2884 OBERSON v. USDA applicability to gross negligence standards of care in other statutes. [9] Second, the district court barred affirmative defenses based upon the recreational use statute’s willful or wanton misconduct standard, MONT. CODE ANN. § 70-16-302(1). According to the district court, the parties agreed that the Montana legislature “carved snowmobiles out of the general recreational use statute by enacting the specific snowmobile liability statutes.” The government argued the recreational use statute’s willful or wanton misconduct standard still should apply in place of the snowmobile statute’s rejected gross negligence standard. The district court, however, held the recreational use statute to be preempted by the more specific snowmobile liability statute in this instance. Having found the recreational use statute’s standard of care inapplicable, the district court instructed the parties to proceed under the catchall ordinary care standard, MONT. CODE ANN. § 27-1-701, citing Brewer, 762 P.2d at 230, and Mead v. M.S.B., Inc., 872 P.2d 782, 786-87 (Mont. 1994). We have found no Montana court decisions addressing whether the snowmobile liability statute’s standard of care preempts the recreational use statute’s standard in this context. [10] The Montana Supreme Court’s decision regarding the appropriate standard of care will be dispositive of this appeal. If the Court endorses the application of the ordinary care standard, we find no reason to overturn the district court’s decision. However, if the Court holds the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct standard applicable, we must remand the case to the district court for a new trial under the appropriate standard of care.