Court Opinion

ID: 9507417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:22:38.515732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:19.501650
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL,
dissenting:
I dissent. In my view a jury question exists regarding whether the damage caused to the plaintiffs’ land was foreseeable. Accordingly, there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P.
The majority relies on Mang v. Eliasson (1969), 153 Mont. 431, 458 P.2d 777, to support the District Court’s granting summary judgment to defendants. However, this case is distinguishable on its facts from Mang.
*458In Mang there was no indication that the defendants’ summer-fallowing the ground in mid-September could have caused plaintiffs’ damage, absent a strong wind. In this case, Ben Mundie, a geologist employed by the State of Montana Department of Lands, stated by affidavit that, “an extreme danger of potential fire presently exists and will continue to exist so long as the coal gob pile continues to burn.” Mundie also concurred with the briefing papers of the Assistant Director of Abandoned Mine Lands that a “high probability of igniting future range and forest fire” existed and that the “fire is extremely dangerous to travelers using Highway 87, local ranchers, and the surrounding communities.”
In my view, the expert opinion evidence of Mundie raised a question of fact to be decided by the jury of whether defendants could have reasonably foreseen plaintiffs’ damage from the smoldering gob pile.
I would reverse for a trial on the merits.
MR. JUSTICE WEBER, concurs in the foregoing dissent of CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL.