Steichen v. Talcott Properties, LLC
2013 Mont. LEXIS 1
Mont.2013Background
- Talcott owned a building in Great Falls and leased space to Bresnan Communications; Steichen, an independent contractor for Bresnan, cleaned the premises three nights weekly; Steichen had no contract with Talcott; he slipped on water in the men’s room floor on July 17, 2005, injuring himself; Bresnan reported leaks and Talcott intermittently addressed them, with no formal maintenance schedule or written policy; Bresnan was responsible for interior upkeep while Talcott handled building-wide maintenance after notice; Steichen alleged chronic leaks and dim lighting in the building; the lease obligated Talcott to maintain structural and utility aspects of the premises; Talcott moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, on the duty-of-care issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Talcott owed Steichen a duty of care as a property owner | Steichen: Talcott owed ordinary care to maintain premises and warn of hidden dangers | Talcott: construction-industry duty standards apply due to independent contractor status | Talcott owed a duty of ordinary care; construction-specific duties did not apply; question of breach for a jury |
| Whether Steichen’s independent-contractor status forecloses premises-liability duty | Status should not negate premises liability duty | Status absolves owner under construction-case rules | Independent-contractor status not dispositive; duty remains fact-dependent for premises liability |
| Whether the case was properly decided on summary judgment given disputed facts | There were factual questions about maintenance and foreseeability | No genuine issues of material fact about duty Breach | District Court erred; question for jury to determine whether duty was breached |
| Whether Richardson v. Corvallis Premises liability standard controls | Richardson sets duty to maintain premises and warn of dangers | Richardson should not override construction-case distinctions | Richardson applies; duty requires ordinary care and potential foreseeability; breach for jury to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Corvallis Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 286 Mont. 309 (1997) (premises liability duty of ordinary care; warned dangers; open/obvious dangers not automatic absolution)
- Limberhand v. Big Ditch Co., 218 Mont. 132 (1985) (abandoned outdated invitee/licensee/trespasser distinctions; focus on ordinary care)
- Welton v. Lucas, 283 Mont. 202 (1997) (fact-specific premises-liability inquiry; foreseeability and open hazards; summary judgment not always proper)
- Cunnington v. Gaub, 2007 MT 12 (2007) (construction-industry duties and exceptions)
- Fabich v. PPL Montana, 2007 MT 258 (2007) (application of industry standards in premises-related injuries)
- Beckman v. Butte-Silver Bow, 2000 MT 112 (2000) (premises liability standards; ordinary care question for jury)