Dubiel v. Montana Department of Transportation, 2012 MT 35

Jerome Dubiel died after a tree fell on his car on MT Highway 35 during a high wind event in December 2008.
MDT was on site clearing debris and later closed the road after the incident; MDT claims it did not know of the accident when closing.
Keevy Dubiel filed a negligence and wrongful death suit on behalf of herself, Jerome’s estate, and two minor children.
Dubiel did not retain an expert to establish MDT’s standard of care (SOC) for highway safety; MDT designated four experts.
MDT moved for summary judgment asserting no expert would testify as to SOC; the district court granted summary judgment.
Dubiel appealed, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony was required to prove MDT’s SOC	Dubiel argues MDT's MMS 6205 policy sets SOC; no expert needed	MDT contends SOC is complex and requires expert explanation	Yes, expert testimony was required; summary judgment affirmed

Dayberry v. City of East Helena, 318 Mont. 301, 80 P.3d 1218 (Mont. 2003) (expert testimony required for SOC beyond common experience)
Dalton v. Kalispell Reg’l Hosp., 256 Mont. 243, 846 P.2d 960 (Mont. 1993) (establishes standard of care elements in negligence)
Dayberry (see above), 318 Mont. 301, 80 P.3d 1218 (Mont. 2003) (see Dayberry reiteration on expert necessity)
Western Sec. Bank v. Eide Bailly LLP, 2010 MT 291, 359 Mont. 34, 249 P.3d 35 (Mont. 2010) (four elements of negligence; summary judgment framework)
Peterson v. Eichhorn, 2008 MT 250, 344 Mont. 540, 189 P.3d 615 (Mont. 2008) (proper elements and proof in negligence actions)
Hinkle ex rel. Hinkle v. Shepherd Sch. Dist. #37, 2004 MT 175, 322 Mont. 80, 93 P.3d 1239 (Mont. 2004) (standard of care and summary judgment considerations)