 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Renville v. Fredrickson8/31/2004
Submitted on Briefs: January 6, 2004
Janice Renville (Renville) sued the Estate of Sherlee York Frederickson (Frederickson or the Estate) seeking damages for emotional distress and loss of consortium arising out of the death of Renville's adult son who was killed in an automobile accident while a passenger in a car driven by Frederickson. Renville appeals the District Court's Order granting the Estate's Motion for Summary Judgment. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
ISSUE
We restate the issue as follows: Did the District Court err in concluding that Renville's claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and loss of consortium failed as a matter of law?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 1, 2001, forty-four year old Gary Sorenson (Sorenson) died in an automobile accident. The car in which Sorenson was a passenger was driven by Frederickson. Frederickson also died in the accident.
The record is unclear on Sorenson's marital status at the time of his death, but we know he was survived by two children, numerous siblings, and his mother. His son, Jason Sorenson, was named Personal Representative of his father's estate. Jason prosecuted a wrongful death claim against Frederickson's Estate. That action was settled in November 2001.
Sorenson's mother, Renville, learned of her son's death when a sheriff arrived at her home in the early morning hours of September 2, 2001, and notified her that Sorenson had died as a result of injuries sustained in the automobile accident. Renville reacted very emotionally. She began to scream and her body shook. She claims that she had to take tranquilizing medicine for several days and that six months after his death, she had no interest in her home and had repeated crying spells.
In March 2002, Renville filed suit against the Frederickson Estate, asserting that Frederickson's negligence had caused Sorenson's death. She sought damages for emotional distress and loss of consortium.
The Estate moved for summary judgment arguing that Renville's emotional distress claim failed as a matter of law because Renville's allegations of emotional distress did not rise to the level set forth by the Montana Supreme Court as necessary to establish a claim for emotional distress. Additionally, the Estate maintained that Renville's loss of consortium claim must fail because Montana does not recognize a loss of consortium claim for the death of an adult child. The District Court agreed and, in January 2003, granted Frederickson's Motion for Summary Judgment. Renville appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. Our standard in reviewing a district court's summary judgment ruling is de novo. Watkins Trust v. Lacosta, 2004 MT 144, 16, 321 Mont. 432, 16, 92 P.3d 620, 16 (citation omitted). Accordingly, such review affords no deference to the district court's decision and we independently review the record, using the same criteria used by the district court, i.e., Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. Moreover, all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the offered proof must be drawn in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Watkins Trust, 16.
DISCUSSION
Renville argued to the District Court that she suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of her son's death which she alleged was caused by Frederickson's negligence. The Estate countered Renville's allegations
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|