Albert v. City of Billings, 282 P.3d 704

Albert, a 77-year-old with mental illness, faced repeated City Code enforcement actions against his property beginning in 1996.
July 2009, a fire destroyed Albert's Billings home; Billings Fire Department fought the fire per safety concerns and structural clutter.
Albert sued the City for negligence, age/disability discrimination, slander, and right-to-know violations; the District Court granted summary judgment on all claims.
The court deemed discrimination a repackaging of negligent firefighting and records requests, held no prima facie disparate treatment, and invoked the public duty doctrine against negligence.
The court found no slander due to lack of actionable statements and deemed the right-to-know claim moot after records were produced.
On appeal, Albert failed to submit sworn evidence supporting his claims; the court affirmed on evidentiary grounds, not mootness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether slander claim can survive summary judgment	Albert argues the Gazette statement about his living conditions injured him.	City contends the statement does not fit statutorily actionable slander categories.	No; statement not actionable slander.
Whether negligent firefighting claim survives summary judgment	Albert alleges firefighters negligently fought the fire and caused loss of his home.	Requires expert evidence on firefighting tactics; PDD may bar recovery.	No; failure to present expert testimony defeats negligence claim.
Whether discrimination claim survives summary judgment	City discriminated by withholding records, with age/mental-illness as motive.	Disparate-treatment proven by lack of evidence of different treatment for protected class members.	No; no evidence of different treatment compared to similarly situated individuals.
Whether right-to-know claim was moot	Delays in providing records violated Article II, Section 9 despite later production.	Records ultimately produced; mootness applies.	No; mootness factors avoided due to improper evidentiary showing; district court affirmed on grounds of evidentiary record.

Massman v. City of Helena, 237 Mont. 234, 773 P.2d 1206 (Mont. 1989) (firefighting expertise and liability standards for expert testimony)
Disler v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 302 Mont. 391, 15 P.3d 864 (Mont. 2000) (opposition to summary judgment requires sworn, substantial evidence)
Dayberry v. City of E. Helena, 2003 MT 321, 318 Mont. 301, 80 P.3d 1218 (Mont. 2003) (negligence expert testimony required when matter beyond common knowledge)
Wainman v. Bowler, 176 Mont. 91, 576 P.2d 268 (Mont. 1978) (unpleasant language alone not actionable slander)
Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 333 Mont. 331, 142 P.3d 864 (Mont. 2006) (right-to-know violations and remedy considerations)
Yellowstone County v. Billings Gazette, 333 Mont. 390, 14 P.3d 135 (Mont. 2006) (public records and denial of access concerns)