Court Opinion

ID: 9508442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:32:06.283541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:32.931279
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE MORRISON,
dissenting:
This rather amazing majority opinion flies directly in the face of the first case before this Court entitled Massey v. Selensky (Mont. 1984), [212 Mont. 68,] 685 P.2d 938, 41 St.Rep. 1596. In that case we held there was a fact question about whether Selensky was at work when he temporarily stopped his pickup truck on the employer’s premises. Selensky walked into the clock house to “punch-in” and then was going to return to his vehicle so that he could take it to the employee parking lot. The trial court held that, as a matter of law, *105Selensky was not at work at the time he stopped the truck. He certainly had not punched in.
This Court finds as a matter of law that Selensky was “on the job” when he temporarily stopped the truck. The very most favorable view to the defense should result in a fact question that must be resolved by the jury. This would require reversing summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and remanding for a trial.
This Court, in finding there is no fact issue, runs directly contrary to our other decision. If there was no fact question for submission to a jury then the first case should have resulted in summary judgment for the defendant.
The majority opinion is but another example of the inconsistency of approaches emanating from this court. We do not follow the law. We simply make it up as we go.
I vigorously dissent.