 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stanko v. Rowton10/30/2000
to dismiss Stanko's claims for monetary damages under the Montana Tort Claims Act.
10 It is well-settled that all tort claims against the State or its political subdivisions must first be filed with and adjudicated by the Department of Administration or the appropriate agent of the political subdivision, here the County Clerk. See, § 2-9-301 (3), and generally §§ 2-9-101 through -805, MCA, the State Tort Claims Act. The record shows that Stanko did not comply with this administrative requirement, and therefore the District Court had no jurisdiction to review the matter. See, Cottonwood Hills v. Dept. of Labor and Ind. (1989), 238 Mont. 404, 407, 777 P.2d 1301, 1303.
11 However, Stanko correctly cites Article II, Section 18, of the Montana Constitution for the proposition that no governmental entity shall have immunity from suit for injury to a person or property unless specifically provided by law by a 2/3 vote of each house of the Montana Legislature. See also § 2-9-102, MCA, codifying the constitutional requirement. House Bill 68 was signed into law by Montana's governor on April 22, 1997, after being passed by a margin of 67 to 29 in the Montana State House of Representatives, and by a margin of 45 to 5 in the Montana State Senate. Legislative history shows the bill was offered by its sponsor as a direct result of similar legislation signed into law by the President of the United States, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, attempting to reduce the number of lawsuits and appeals by incarcerated persons. House Bill 68 is now codified within the Montana Tort Claims Act as § 2-9-108 (2), MCA. It states:
The state, a county, municipality, taxing district, or any other political subdivision of the state is not liable in tort action for damages suffered as a result of negligence of an officer, agent, or employee of that entity by a person while the person was confined in or was otherwise in or on the premises of a correctional or detention institution or facility to serve a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense. The immunity granted by this subsection does not extend to serious bodily injury or death resulting from negligence or to damages resulting from medical malpractice, gross negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or an intentional tort.
12 Stanko's claims are based upon alleged damages arising from his detention as a prisoner in the FCDC. The record shows Stanko's claims do not arise due to his own death or others, or serious bodily injury resulting from negligence, or to damages arising from medical malpractice, gross negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or an intentional tort. Therefore even if Stanko had complied with the requirements of the Montana Tort Claims Act he would not be entitled to money damages under Montana law. We affirm the District Court's dismissal of Stanko's claims for money damages under the Montana Tort Claims Act.
Issue 3
13 Whether the District Court erred in dismissing all of Stanko's constitutional, statutory and administrative claims.
14 First, there appears to be some confusion among the parties as to whether Stanko is appealing the District Court's refusal to grant his motion for injunctive relief. Though County Attorney Meissner briefs this issue, Stanko emphatically states in his reply brief that, "Again, the Plaintiffs are not appealing the injunctive relief ruling. The respondents (sic) two page argument citing the Van Loan case is not relevant." This is consistent with his written statement to Judge Christensen, received by the court May 13, 1999, where Stanko stated, "it appears you should trash the preliminary injunctive pleading that I requested four months
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|