BRADLEY v VALMONT INDUSTRIES INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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, -vsVALMONT INDUSTRIES, I J . , a Delaware IC 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 Falls, Montana & Boland; James M. Regnier, Great Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: A.M April 4, 1985 June 25, 1985 2 3 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e L. Court. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f C. Defendant Glacier (hereinafter Glacier motion for change Electric Electric) of venue Co-operativ~, appeals by from center pivot Pondera Bradley was irrigation County. widow, His on while September Merilyn Inc. denial Court of a of the We affirm. electrocuted system a District the E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County. Michael the working 11, Bradley, on 1981, filed a in this 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 w r o n g f u l d e a t h and s u r v i v o r s h i p against the five named defendants in Cascade County on September 7 , 1984. Each of the named defendants county f o r purposes o f venue. foreign doing business its place of has Continental businesses accident in Pondera Yellowstone County. in a Montana, County. is in including the Greytak is a Inc. Triangle Cascade engaged John different Montana. business Corporation throughout in Valmont I n d u s t r i e s , corporation Irrigation First resides in County. various site of resides the in Glacier Electric has its principal place There i s no d i s p u t e a s t o t h e of b u s i n e s s i n G l a c i e r C o u n t y . s i t u s of t h e alleged t o r t , of t h e v a r i o u s d e f e n d a n t s . Pondera County, o r t h e r e s i d e n c e s Further, no o t h e r d e f e n d a n t is 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 m o t i o n f o r c h a n g e o f v e n u e was h e a r d o n December 1 2 , 1.984 a n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n on December 13, 1984. Glacier Electric filed a notice of a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t 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 i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t properly denied Glacier Electric's motion to 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 "the action rule shall a c i v i l action is t h a t f o r venue o f be tried in the county in which the d e f e n d a n t s o r a n y o f t h e m may r e s i d e a t t h e commencement o f ... " A permissive 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 " [alctions the for action torts be tried ... " S e c t i o n 25-2-102, statutes S e i f e r t v. plaintiff occurred was Gehle in 25-2-108, may committed these Section the section (1948), MCA. county where MCA. 93-2904, 1 3 3 Mont. the (1947). 3 2 3 P.2d f i l e d a t o r t a c t i o n i n Lake County. in Lincoln F l a t h e a d County. County and the was The f o r e r u n n e r o f R.C.M. 320, tort In 269, the The t o r t h a d defendant resided in 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 c o u n t y . This Court, this in reversing the district court, interpreted 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 either the county of defendant'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 c o u n t y f o r t h e trial of the action, and had the 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 h a v e had it removed." 3 2 3 P.2d a t 270. I n Slovak v. P.2d 791, available Kentucky F r i e d Chicken 1, 518 t h i s Court again explained t h e elective procedure to defendant's plaintiff residence committed." cases, ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 4 Mont. "to or file i n the either actions clear. the county where (Citations omitted.) along with others, in 5 1 8 P.2d the county of t o r t was a t 794. These make M o n t a n a ' s v e n u e r u l e i n t o r t So l o n g 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 c o u n t y where a d e f e n d a n t r e s i d e s o r i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e t o r t was committed, plaintiff venue i s p r o p e r . f i l e d h e r cause o f In t h i s case, the a c t i o n i n Cascade County, the residence of defendant Triangle I r r i g a t i o n . plaintiff filed the action W e hold t h a t t h e i n a p r o p e r c o u n t y 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 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 . (1985) s t a t e s : is: laws change t h e S e c t i o n 25-2-102, MA C "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 (1) The c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t s , 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 any o f them, or ( 2 ) The c o u n t y This s e c t i o n c o d i f i e s t h e long-standing interpretation w h e r e t h e t o r t was c o m m i t t e d of Montana's S e i f e r t and ..." 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 Slovak, cited above. The result in this Snell (Mont. case w o u l d b e t h e same u n d e r t h e s e new r u l e s . Glacier 6 6 7 P.2d 436, v. E l e c t r i c c i t e d Whalen 40 S t . R e p . 1983), 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 " m u s t " be b r o u g h t i n t h e c o u n t y w h e r e t h e t o r t T h i s i s n o t t h e h o l d i n g o f Whalen. was c o m m i t t e d . In fact, 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 i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t r e s i d e s . . . Permissive s t a t u t o r y exceptions t o t h i s general rule include provisions t h a t . . . t o r t s may b e t r i e d i n t h e c o u n t y county where t h e t o r t was committed." a t 437. (Emphasis added.) The order of the District Court 667 P.2d is hereb fP& W e concur: / affirmed.

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.