 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Saari v. Winter Sports2/25/2003
Submitted on Briefs: October 10, 2002
The Plaintiffs in the underlying action (collectively, the Saaris) appeal from the judgment entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, on its order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Winter Sports, Inc. (WSI). We affirm.
We address the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to WSI on all counts of the Saaris' complaint based on its determination that § 70-16-302, MCA, provides WSI with immunity from suit?
2. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to WSI on the Saaris' attractive nuisance claim?
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 1998, Jean Saari (Jean) went inner tube sledding with a church youth group at The Big Mountain, a ski resort owned by WSI. The youth group arrived at The Big Mountain when the ski resort had closed its operations for the day. Notwithstanding, the group selected a ski slope and began sledding. It did not pay any fees to WSI to use the sledding hill and did not rent or purchase equipment from WSI. At some point during the evening, the inner tube on which Jean was riding went out of control and crashed into a creek bed. As a result of the accident, Jean suffered injuries from which she eventually died.
The Saaris subsequently filed a complaint in the District Court against WSI alleging six negligence counts denominated as follows: survival action, wrongful death, negligence, premises liability, attractive nuisance and infliction of emotional distress. WSI answered the complaint. It then moved for summary judgment on all counts, arguing that, pursuant to § 70-16-302, MCA, it owed no duty of care to Jean and, consequently, the Saaris' claims were precluded. As to the attractive nuisance count, WSI also moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Saaris could not establish the requisite elements of the claim. After briefing by the parties, the District Court entered its order granting summary judgment to WSI on the grounds that all counts of the Saaris' complaint were precluded by § 70-16-302, MCA, and that the attractive nuisance count also failed as a matter of law. Judgment was entered accordingly and the Saaris appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., criteria applied by that court. Contreras v. Fitzgerald, 2002 MT 208, 10, 311 Mont. 257, 10, 54 P.3d 983, 10. In that regard, summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the absence of genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Once the movant does so, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present evidence establishing the existence of material issues of fact which preclude summary judgment. Contreras, 10. " he opposing party must present material and substantial evidence, rather than mere conclusory or speculative statements, to raise a genuine issue of material fact." Gonzales v. Walchuk, 2002 MT 262, 9, 312 Mont. 240, 9, 59 P.3d 377, 9.
DISCUSSION
1. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to WSI on all counts of the Saaris' complaint based on its determination that § 70-16-302, MCA, provides WSI with immunity from suit?
Section 70-16-3
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|