 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rule v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co.1/25/2005
Submitted on Briefs: August 25, 2004
In this Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) action, the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, granted the motion of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) for a change of venue. Lloyd E. Rule appeals. We affirm.
The issue is whether the District Court erred in granting BNSF's motion to change venue pursuant to §§ 25-2-122(2) and -201(1), MCA.
BACKGROUND
Rule filed this action in Cascade County District Court, seeking damages from BNSF for personal injury arising out of his railroad employment in Dawson County, where he resides. After Rule served BNSF through its registered agent in Yellowstone County, BNSF timely moved to change venue from Cascade County to either Yellowstone County or Dawson County, pursuant to §§ 25-2-122(2) and -201(1), MCA.
Relying on the referenced statutes, the District Court granted BNSF's motion to change venue and ordered the case transferred to either Dawson or Yellowstone County, at Rule's option. Rule appeals.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Proper venue is a question of law involving the application of venue statutes to pleaded facts. Our review of a district court's venue ruling is plenary; we simply determine whether the district court's ruling was legally correct. Sprinkle v. Burton (1996), 280 Mont. 358, 361, 935 P.2d 1094, 1096 (citations omitted).
Similarly, we review a conclusion that a statute is constitutional for correctness. See Powell v. State Compensation Ins. Fund , 2000 MT 321, 13, 302 Mont. 518, 13, 15 P.3d 877, 13 (citations omitted). The constitutionality of a legislative enactment is presumed, and the party challenging a statute bears the burden of proving it unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Powell , 13 (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err in granting BNSF's motion to change venue pursuant to §§ 25-2-122(2) and -201(1), MCA?
Venue issues relate to determining the proper place for trial of a legal action. The venue statutes at issue in the present case are § 25-2-122(2), MCA, and § 25-2-201(1), MCA. Subsections (a), (b) and (c), respectively, of § 25-2-122(2), MCA, provide that the proper place of trial for a tort action against a corporation incorporated in a state other than Montana is the county in which the tort was committed, the county in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the corporation's resident agent is located. Section 25-2-201(1), MCA, provides that, upon motion and when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county, a district court must change the place of trial.
In granting BNSF's motion, the District Court determined that venue was proper in either Dawson County or Yellowstone County. The apparent basis for that determination is that the alleged tort was committed--and Rule resided--in Dawson County, and BNSF's resident agent is located in Yellowstone County. The District Court implicitly concluded that, because Cascade County was not a proper venue under the plain meaning of § 25-2-122(2), MCA, § 25-2-201(1), MCA, required it to change the place of trial to a proper county.
Rule sets forth three arguments in support of his overall contention that the District Court erred in applying the terms of Montana's general tort venue statutes to his FELA action: (1) that the Legislature did not intend § 25-2-122(2), MCA, to apply to FELA cases; (2) that § 25-2-122(2), MCA, cannot coexist with the liberal forum selection policy under FELA; and (3) that § 25-2-122(2), MCA, is unconstitutional because it constitutes an arbitrary and ca
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|