Harris v. Montana
2013 MT 16
Mont.2013Background
- Harris, a DOC correctional officer and 13-year SRT member, underwent a voluntary five‑second taser exposure during July 2006 training at MSP.
- Warden Mahoney implemented taser training policies; training was designed to educate and promote safe use, not to injure; exposure was voluntary with consent for trainees.
- The training consisted of a classroom component and a five‑second taser exposure, with risk disclosures and safety precautions.
- Harris alleges injuries to the thoracic and lumbar spine and received workers’ compensation benefits.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees on exclusive remedy grounds; Harris appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCA exclusivity barred Harris's claim | Harris contends intentional injury exception applies. | Appellees argue no intentional injury; training aimed to educate; risks disclosed; no certainty of injury. | No intentional injury; WCA exclusivity applies; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether spoliation claim can proceed as an independent action | DOC allegedly lost/destroyed videotape to hinder case. | Spoliation not an independent Montana cause of action against a direct party. | Spoliation claims not recognized as independent claims; district court correctly disposed of them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. CNH Am., LLC, 333 Mont. 181 (2006 MT 194) (defines intentional injury exception elements under current statute)
- Alexander v. Bozeman Motors, Inc., 356 Mont. 439 (2010 MT 135) (establishes new standard: actual knowledge of certainty of injury plus inference from conduct)
- Lockwood v. W.R. Grace & Co., 900 P.2d 314 (1995 MT) (pre-amendment analysis distinguishing knowledge of harm vs high risk; concealment matters)