Fasch v. M.K. Weeden Construction, Inc.
2011 MT 258
Mont.2011Background
- Fasch was injured in a single-vehicle ATV accident within a highway construction zone on U.S. Highway 59 in Montana.
- Plaintiff sued DOT, Weeden, and United Rental Technologies for negligence, with the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.
- Dispute centered on whether Fasch was driving on the old paved highway or on the fill dirt of the new, unpaved highway when he hit a culvert hole.
- Evidence included Fasch’s testimony about driving along the edge of the old highway and defendants’ assertion that the hole was off the edge and that Fasch drove on fill dirt.
- Signage and warnings at the site were disputed: Hirsch observed no signs at the time of the wreck, while later inspections noted signs near the hole.
- The District Court relied on physical traces (tire tracks) to discredit Fasch’s version, citing Scott v. Harris to support a finding against Fasch, but the evidence was not preserved or conclusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper given material facts in dispute about Fasch's location. | Fasch argues genuine issues exist about location and tracks. | Weeden/DOT contend tracks prove Fasch on fill dirt, away from old highway. | No; material facts present; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether the physical evidence (tracks) can resolve factual disputes about direction and location. | Tracks support Fasch's version that he returned after accident and may have hit hole on asphalt. | Tracks show he was off the traveled way on fill dirt; evidence insufficiently preserved. | Not dispositive; does not resolve credibility; issues remain for trial. |
| Whether signage at the culvert hole created a duty toward Fasch that foreclosed his claim. | Signage deficiencies breached duty to warn; Fasch unforeseeable in zone of risk. | Signage was adequate; Fasch failed to stay on the old highway. | Duty unresolved; remand to determine factual questions affecting duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prindel v. Ravalli County, 331 Mont. 338, 133 P.3d 165 (2006 MT 62) (summary judgment burden shifting; genuine issues of material fact)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when opposing parties’ stories are blatantly contradicted by record, court should not adopt version)
- Hajenga v. Schwein, 336 Mont. 507, 155 P.3d 1241 (2007 MT 80) (summary judgment is an extreme remedy; weigh evidence cautiously)
- Wiley v. City of Glendive, 272 Mont. 213, 900 P.2d 310 (1995) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and factual determinations)