LUNT v DIV OF WORKMEN S COMPENSAT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12900 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN GENE D. LUNT, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, DIVISION O WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, F F DEPARTMENT O L B R AND INDUSTRY O F AO THE STATE O MONTANA, F Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l Dis t r i c e , Honorable C . B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : H a r r i s , Jackson and Utick, Helena, Montana Andrew J. Utick argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: William T. K e l l y argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: June 17, 1975 Decided : .)?lh! 3 0 19'75 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s appeal by t h e Division of workmen's Compensation i s brought from t h e d e n i a l o f a motion f o r change of venue from Yellowstone County t o Lewis and Clark County. P l a i n t i f f Gene D. Lunt f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandate t o compel t h e Division t o s e t a h e a r i n g on h i s c l a i m f o r compensation b e n e f i t s . N e i t h e r t h e m e r i t s of t h e c l a i m f o r compensation nor t h e m e r i t s of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of mandamus a r e b e f o r e t h i s Court on t h i s appeal. In f a c t , those considera- t i o n s have been rendered moot by t h e s e t t l e m e n t of t h e c l a i m between p l a i n t i f f and h i s employer's i n s u r e r . However, s i n c e t h e s e t t l e m e n t occurred a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h e mandamus a c t i o n , t h e i s s u e of a t t o r n e y f e e s remains p r e s e r v i n g t h e venue q u e s t i o n f o r t h i s c o u r t ' s consideration. The proper forum t o b r i n g an a c t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandate i s governed by s e c t i o n 93-2902, R.C.M. 1947, which provides i n pertinent part: I 'Actions f o r t h e following causes must be t r i e d i n t h e county where t h e c a u s e , o r some part thereof, arose *** "* * fr "2. Against a p u b l i c o f f i c e r , o r person s p e c i a l l y appointed t o execute h i s d u t i e s , f o r an a c t done by him i n v i r t u e of h i s o f f i c e ; o r a g a i n s t a person who, by h i s command o r i n h i s a i d , does anything touching t h e d u t i e s of such o f f i c e r . 11 The Division a r g u e s s e c t i o n 93-2902 i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g h e r e s i n c e t h e defendant named i n t h e mandamus a c t i o n i s t h e 11 Division of Workmen's Compensation, Department o f Labor and I n d u s t r y of t h e S t a t e of Montana1' without mention of any of t h e "public o f f i c e r s 1 ' i n d i v i d u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e D i v i s i o n . However, t h e Division can a c t only through i t s p u b l i c o f f i c e r s and employees, and no meaningful d i s t i n c t i o n can be drawn be- tween t h e sum of t h e p a r t s and t h e whole f o r purposes of t h i s venue s t a t u t e . W hold t h e Division i s a "public o f f i c e r " w i t h i n e t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 93-2902. See: Ebenezer S o c i e t y v. Minne- s o t a S t a t e Board of Health, (Minn. 1974), 223 N.W.2d 385 and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n f o r s i m i l a r holdings under p a r a l l e l venue s t a t u t e s . A d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o g r a n t a motion f o r change of venue when t h e county d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e complaint i s n o t t h e proper county. S e c t i o n 93-2906, R.C.M. 1947; Johnson v. C l a r k , 131 Mont. 454, 311 P.2d 772. The language of s e c t i o n 93-2902 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e proper county i s t h e "county where t h e c a u s e , o r some p a r t t h e r e o f , a r o s e . " The cause of t h i s mandamus a c t i o n , a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t , i s "the wrongful, wanton, a r b i t r a r y and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y lai in tiff's * * * neglecting c a s e down f o r hearing. and f a i l i n g t o s e t II The p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t a s s e r t s t h a t i t i s t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o s e t a h e a r i n g a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 92-821, R.C.14. 1947. The D i v i s i o n i s headquartered i n Lewis and Clark County, a s evidenced by t h e a f f i d a v i t of t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' sadminist r a t o r and by t h e e x h i b i t s showing t h a t n o t i c e of h e a r i n g s i s s e n t from Lewis and Clark County. It i s apparent t h a t t h e a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o s e t a h e a r i n g i n v o l v e s only t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e D i v i s i o n ' s o f f i c e s i n Lewis and Clark County. Accordingly, t h e c a u s e a r o s e i n Lewis and C l a r k County and, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 93-2902 must be t r i e d t h e r e . This holding i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Gildroy v. Anderson, 159 Mont. 325, 497 P.2d 688, and S t a t e ex r e l . Fulton v. D i s t r i c t Court, 139 Mont. 573, 366 P.2d 435, although n e i t h e r i s s u f f i c i e n t l y analogous t o be c o n t r o l l i n g here. Any p o r t i o n s o f Montana-Dakota U t i l i t i e s Co. v. Public S e r v i c e Commission, 1 1 Mont. 78, 107 P.2d 533, 1 i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion a r e hereby e x p r e s s l y o v e r r u l e d . Operating under s i m i l a r venue s t a t u t e s , t h e Supreme Court of Oklahoma expressed i t w e l l when i t h e l d i n S t a t e ex r e l . S t a t e Dry c l e a n e r s r Board v. D i s t r i c t Court, (Okla.1959), "* 340 P.2d 939, * fc Since t h e cause of a c t i o n a r i s e s where t h e n e g l e c t o r r e f u s a l on t h e p a r t of t h e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l t a k e s p l a c e , i t might b e argued t h a t t h e a l l e g e d n e g l e c t i n t h i s c a s e took p l a c e i n Nowata County where t h e Board f a i l e d t o hold t h e h e a r i n g . However, we a r e of t h e opinion t h a t i n an a c t i o n f o r mandamus t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n a r i s e s i n t h e county where t h e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l o f f i c i a l l y r e s i d e s . It i s a t t h a t p l a c e where he o f f i c i a l l y r e f u s e s t o a c t o r n e g l e c t s t o a c t . 11 See a l s o : S t a t e ex r e l . Department of C o r r e c t i o n s v. Brock, Accordingly, t h e d e n i a l of t h e motion f o r change o f venue t o Lewis and Clark County i s r e v e r s e d . Justice W Concur: e Chief J u s t i c e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
