Gatlin-Johnson Ex Rel. Gatlin-Johnson v. City of Miles City
2012 MT 302
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Riverside Park is City-owned and contains a children’s playground maintained by the City.
- Gatlin’s eight-year-old daughter was injured after a fall from a slide in Riverside Park.
- The City installed and maintained playground fall zones and surface material; it adopted safety standards in 2002.
- Gatlin sued the City for negligently failing to maintain a safe fall zone and for an alleged instruction-based requirement under the slide’s installation.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the City, applying the public duty doctrine and rejecting willful or wanton conduct liability under the recreational use statute.
- The Supreme Court reverses, holding that the public duty doctrine does not apply and that issues of foreseeability and possible willful or wanton misconduct under the recreational use statute must go to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public duty doctrine barred Gatlin’s claim | Gatlin asserts City owed a duty to her as a child user. | City contends duty was to the public at large, not Gatlin personally. | Public duty doctrine does not bar; duty to maintain safe premises exists. |
| Whether the recreational use statute applies | Gatlin can prove willful or wanton misconduct under the statute. | Statute limits liability unless willful or wanton misconduct shown. | Statute applies; willful or wanton misconduct claim survives for trial. |
| Whether foreseeability supports a duty to act | City knew of fall-zone risks and adopted standards. | Foreseeability weighed against a duty under public doctrine. | Foreseeability and policy factors support a duty to exercise reasonable care. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Driscoll, 1999 MT 193 (Mont. 1999) (public duty doctrine recognized; special relationships contemplated)
- Massee v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121 (Mont. 2004) (special relationship exceptions to public duty doctrine)
- Eklund v. Trost, 2006 MT 333 (Mont. 2006) (special relationship and public duty considerations)
- Kaiser v. Town of Whitehall, 221 Mont. 322, 718 P.2d 1341 (Mont. 1986) (premises liability duty to exercise ordinary care on public sidewalks)
- Richardson v. Corvallis Public School Dist., 286 Mont. 309, 950 P.2d 748 (Mont. 1997) (premises liability principles applied to public school property)
- Dobrocke v. City of Columbia Falls, 2000 MT 179 (Mont. 2000) (premises liability applied to city property; duty to invitees)
- Henricksen v. State, 2004 MT 20 (Mont. 2004) (premises liability; duty to patrons of state facilities)
- Bonilla v. Univ. of Mont., 2005 MT 183, 328 Mont. 41 (Mont. 2005) (university premises liability; duty to patrons)
- Jobe v. City of Polson, 2004 MT 183 (Mont. 2004) (willful or wanton misconduct standard in recreational context)