No. 13520
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1977
N R A C.
OV L BONAWITZ,
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
LOIS BOURKE a s E x e c u t r i x o f t h e
E s t a t e o f PAT BOURKE,
D e f e n d a n t and T h i r d P a r t y P l a i n t i f f
and A p p e l l a n t ,
RUSSELL FLEHARTY, GENE MOSSEY,
WILLIAM H. WEBSTER, and WILLIAM J . WEBSTER,
Third Party-Defendants and R e s p o n d e n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
Cure and B o r e r , Great F a l l s , Montana
C h a r l e s B o r e r a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
P a t t e r s o n and M a r s i l l o , M i s s o u l a , Montana
F o r Respondent:
R o b e r t J o h n s o n Lewistown, Montana
T o r g e r Oaas a r g u e d , Lewistown, Montana
Marra, Wenz & Iwen, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
David Hopkins a r g u e d , Great F a l l s , Montana
Rapkoch and Knopp, Lewistown, Montana
R o b e r t L. Knopp a r g u e d , Lewistown, Montana
Submitted: A p r i l 1 9 , 1977
JFLL #fl
1!3L
Filed*
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court.
P l a i n t i f f N o r v a l Bonawitz b r o u g h t s u i t i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Cascade County, a g a i n s t t h e E s t a t e o f P a t Bourke, d e c e a s e d ,
t o r e c o v e r damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d when a s c a f f o l d upon
which he was working c o l l a p s e d . Bourke d i e d a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t ,
b u t p r i o r t o commencement o f t h i s a c t i o n . The E s t a t e o f Bourke
( ~ o u r k e )f i l e d a t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t f o r i n d e m n i t y a g a i n s t
t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s R u s s e l l F l e h a r t y , Gene Mossey, W i l l i a m H.
Webster and William J. Webster. After e x t e n s i v e f o r m a l d i s -
c o v e r y by a l l p a r t i e s , t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d m o t i o n s
f o r summary judgment. The c o u r t e n t e r e d summary judgment i n
favor of a l l t h i r d party defendants. Bourke a p p e a l s t h i s r u l i n g .
Bonawitz a n d Bourke were t h e s o l e s t o c k h o l d e r s o f a
c o r p o r a t i o n known a s Bonawitz & Bourke, I n c . Bourke was t h e
p r e s i d e n t and owned 75% o f i t s s t o c k . Bonawitz was t h e v i c e -
p r e s i d e n t a n d owned 25% o f t h e s t o c k . Bonawitz & Bourke, I n c .
owned a r a n c h s o u t h o f Lewistown, Montana known a s t h e " ~ e w i s
Place". Bourke was l e a s i n g t h i s r a n c h from t h e c o r p o r a t i o n
pursuant t o an o r a l l e a s e .
On t h e morning o f t h e a c c i d e n t , a work p a r t y c o n s i s t i n g
o f Bourke, Bonawitz, and t h e f o u r t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s met
a t a r a n c h house l o c a t e d on t h e Lewis P l a c e . The p u r p o s e o f
t h i s g a t h e r i n g was t o r e s h i n g l e t h e r o o f o f t h e r a n c h h o u s e .
The work was u n d e r t a k e n a t t h e r e q u e s t o f Bourke. There i s
some q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r Bourke i n d i v i d u a l l y , o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ,
s u p p l i e d t h e s h i n g l e s and a t l e a s t a p o r t i o n o f t h e m a t e r i a l s t o
be u s e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s c a f f o l d . A l l l a b o r was on a
volunteer basis.
The f o u r t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s a r r i v e d a t t h e Lewis
P l a c e f i r s t , and commenced b u i l d i n g t h e s c a f f o l d t o be u s e d i n
che r e s h i n g l i n g p r o c e s s . The Websters and Mossey had p r e v i o u s
experience i n the construction of s c a f f o l d s . N e i t h e r Bourke
rlor Bonawitz p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o r e r e c t i o n
01' the scaffold. D u r i n g t h i s time t h e y were engaged i n h a u l i n g
t h e s h i n g l e s from a s t o r a g e s h e d and v a r i o u s o t h e r d u t i e s
incidental t o the shingling operation.
When t h e s c a f f o l d i n g was f u l l y e r e c t e d , Bonawitz and t h e
thi1.d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s c l i m b e d upon i t and began removing t h e o l d
shingles. They had been working a b o u t a n h o u r and were j u s t
b e g i n n i n g t o p u t on t h e new s h i n g l e s when t h e c e n t e r s u p p o r t f o r
the scaffold collapsed. A s he f e l l , Bonawitz a p p a r e n t l y p u t
h i s arm t h r o u g h t h e g l a s s o f a n e a r b y window i n a n a t t e m p t t o
catch himself. S e v e r e and p a r t i a l l y d i s a b l i n g i n j u r i e s r e s u l t e d .
P r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y i n d i c a t e d t h e c a u s e of t h e s c a f f o l d f a i l u r e
was improper c o n s t r u c t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n weakness o f t h e component
parts.
B o n a w i t z ' s c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s he was i n t h e employ o f
P a t Bourke a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t and Bourke, a s t h e employer,
had a n o b l i g a t i o n t o f u r n i s h p l a i n t i f f w i t h a s a f e p l a c e t o work
and s a f e a p p l i a n c e s and i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s w i t h which t o work.
A f t e r d i s c o v e r y was completed, Bourke f i l e d a t h i r d p a r t y com-
p l a i n t f o r indemnity a g a i n s t t h e t h i r d p a r t y defendants a l l e g i n g
i t was t h e i r a c t i v e and primary n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
of t h e s c a f f o l d t h a t caused p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s .
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d upon a p p e a l :
I. Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g summary
judgment i n f a v o r o f t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s ?
2. Whether Bourke i s l i a b l e t o Bonawitz by v i r t u e o f
t h e S c a f f o l d Act u n d e r t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e ?
Rule 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ. P . , s t a t e s t h a t summary judgment
s h a l l be r e n d e r e d o n l y i f :
"* * * t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , a n s w e r s t o
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e show
t h a t t h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o a n y m a t e r i a l
f a c t a n d t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a
judgment as a m a t t e r o f law." * *"
The g e n e r a l purpose u n d e r l y i n g Rule 56, M.R.Civ. P., is
t o promptly d i s p o s e o f a c t i o n s which have no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f
f a c t , t h e r e b y e n c o u r a g i n g j u d i c i a l economy t h r o u g h t h e e l i m i n a -
t i o n o f u n n e c e s s a r y t r i a l , d e l a y and e x p e n s e . G u t h r i e v. D e p t .
o f S o c i a l and Rehab. S e r v i c e s , Mont . 9 563 P.2d 555,
34 S t . Rep. 255; S i l l o w a y v . Jorgenson, 146 Mont. 307, 406 P.2d
167. N e v e r t h e l e s s , summary judgment i s n o t a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a
trial. G u t h r i e , s u p r a ; Johnson v . Johnson, Mon t . J
5 6 1 P.2d 917, 3 4 S t . Rep. 1 6 2 .
T h i s C o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e p a r t y moving
f o r summary judgment h a s t h e burden of showing t h e complete
a b s e n c e o f a n y g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o a l l f a c t s which are deemed
m a t e r i a l i n l i g h t o f t h o s e s u b s t a n t i v e p r i n c i p l e s which e n t i t l e d
him t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r of l a w . H a r l a n d v. Anderson,
Mon t , , 548 P.2d 613, 33 St.Rep. 363. T h i s r u l e imposes a
s t r i c t s t a n d a r d upon t h e movant and i n Kober &. K y r i s s v.
B i l l i n g s Deaconess Hosp., 1 4 8 Mont. 13.7, 122, 417 P.2d 476, t h i s
C o u r t , q u o t i n g from 6 Moore's F e d . P r a c .2d 9 5 6 . 1 5 [ 3 ] , h e l d :
""* * *To s a t i s f y h i s burden t h e movant must make
a showing t h a t i s q u i t e c l e a r what t h e t r u t h i s ,
a n d t h a t e x c l u d e s a n y r e a l d o u b t as t o t h e
e x i s t e n c e o f a n y g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t . 'I1
It i s c l e a r t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e p a r t y o p p o s i n g t h e motion
w i l l be i n d u l g e d t o t h e e x t e n t o f a l l i n f e r e n c e s which may b e
r e a s o n a b l y drawn from t h e o f f e r e d p r o o f . H a r l a n d v. Anderson,
s u p r a ; Mally v. Asanovich, 1 4 9 Mont. 99, 423 P.2d 294; Johnson
v . S t . P a t r i c k ' s H o s p i t a l , 1 4 8 Mont. 125, 417 P.2d 469.
Considering t h e f a c t s of the i n s t a n t case, we f e e l
g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t remain u n r e s o l v e d . The t h i r d
p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s a r e t h e r e f o r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o summary judgment
as a m a t t e r o f law.
While we f i n d s e v e r a l material i s s u e s o f f a c t remain
u n r e s o l v e d , we f e e l t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t i s found i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f f a c t No. 4. This f i n d i n g s t a t e s :
"The m a t e r i a l s were f u r n i s h e d by Bourke, o r by
t h e C o r p o r a t i o n * * *."
C e r t a i n l y t h e f a c t o f w h e t h e r Bourke i n d i v i d u a l l y o r t h e c o r p o r a -
t i o n furnished t h e construction m a t e r i a l s is of relevance
d e t e r m i n i n g f o r whom t h e work was b e i n g d o n e . The f a c t o f
w h e t h e r Bourke i n d i v i d u a l l y o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was i n immediate
s u p e r v i s i o n o r c o n t r o l of t h e r e s h i n g l i n g o p e r a t i o n i s o f g r e a t
i m p o r t i n l i g h t o f p l a i n t i f f ' s r e l i a n c e on Montana's S c a f f o l d
Act, s e c t i o n 69-1401, e t s e q . , R,,C.M. 1947.
The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g i v e n Montana's S c a f f o l d Act i n r e g a r d
t o t h e p e r s o n who owes t h e d u t y o f c a r e t o w o r k e r s was d i s c u s s e d
i n S t a t e e x r e l . G r e a t F a l l s N a t i o n a l Bank v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
1 5 4 Mont. 336, 343, 463 P.2d 326, where t h e C o u r t s t a t e d :
'I* * * a g a i n s t whom i s t h e i n j u r e d workman e n t i t l e d
t o r e c o v e r ? Qr s t a t e d a n o t h e r way, who owes t h e
b a s i c d u t y imposed by t h e S c a f f o l d Act? W must e
l o o k t o t h e S c a f f o l d Act i t s e l f t o d e t e r m i n e t h e
answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . S e c t i o n 69-1402, R.C.M.
1947, imposes a d u t y on ' e v e r y owner, p e r s o n , o r
c o r p o r a t i o n who s h a l l have t h e d i r e c t a n d immediate
---
s u p e l~ ~ r : m i r \ n
VIDIVLI
hw
VL
n ~ m t n n l nf' t h n
bVLI bL VI UI VLLG
n n n n t - w r r n t i n n
CIVIIU Ub U I V I I
nr,
r e m o d e l i n g o f a n y b u i l d i n g h a v i n g more t h a n t h r e e
f'----
' ( u PL'UVL
-
framed L U U L ' Y I "r- -----' 2U-~ d 4-.e ~ i ~ p u ~ pLallncu
~
,
, n-ln".l.rrA
' a ~ - y
: 'which s h a l l be l a i d t o form a good sub-
s t a n t i a l temporary f l o o r f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of
employees a n d a l l p e r s o n s engaged above o r below,
o r on s u c h t e m p o r a r y f l o o r i n s u c h b u i l d i n g . '
( ~ m p h a s i ss u p p l i e d . )
" ~ e c t i o n69-1404, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s t h a t ' - It
s h a l l be t h e d u t y o f a l l owners, c o n t r a c t o r s ,
b u i l d e r s , o r p e r s o n s h a v i n g t h e d i r e c t and
immediate c o n t r o l o r s u p e r v i s i o n o f a n y b u i l d i n g s
under c o n s t r u c t i o n t o p r o t e c t stairways, e l e v a t o r
openings, f l u e s , and a l l o t h e r openings i n t h e .
floors . ( ~ m p h a s i ss u p p l i e d . ) I' 1 5 4 Mont 3 4 3.
See a l s o : Boyer v . K l o e p f e r , Mont . , , 554 P.2d 1116,
This Court has h e l d t h a t t h e f i r m , person o r c o r p o r a t i o n
h a v i n g d i r e c t a n d immediate c o n t r o l o f t h e work i n v o l v i n g t h e
u s e o f s c a f f o l d i n g i s t h e one upon whom t h e d u t y i s imposed b y
t h e S c a f f o l d Act. S t a t e e x r e l . G r e a t F a l l s N a t i o n a l Bank v .
D i s t r i c t Court, s u p r a . This is a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of dictum
c o n t a i n e d i n e a r l i e r c a s e l a w which a p p e a r e d t o impose a non-
d e l e g a b l e d u t y upon t h e landowner. See: P o l l a r d v . Todd, 148
Mont. 171, 418 P.2d 869; J o k i v . McBride, 150 Mont. 378, 463 P.
2d 78.
R e s o l u t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t i s s u e makes d i s c u s s i o n
o f t h e second i s s u e unnecessary. The summary judgment i s v a c a t e d
a n d t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o -
ceedings n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion.
W Concur:
e
@&A~+~~Chief J u s t i c e