Weaver v. State
2013 MT 247
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Wildland fire Ryan Gulch Fire started Aug 7, 2000 in Granite County; back burn used to contain fire and reduce fuel.
- On Aug 13, 2000 fire spread onto the Weavers’ property causing substantial damage to timber, grazing land, and other resources.
- Weavers filed suit Dec 17, 2002 alleging State failed to exercise ordinary care in control and containment; inverse condemnation claim added Feb 2011.
- State answered denying negligence; discovery occurred; case lay dormant ~6 years before new counsel in 2010; scheduling order issued in Nov 2010.
- Pretrial briefing in 2012 focused on inverse condemnation; State raised public duty doctrine defense three weeks before trial, which the court struck.
- Jury returned verdict against Weavers on inverse condemnation; but found State negligent in amount of $730,000; Weavers sought sanctions for discovery issues; district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred in denying dismissal of the negligence claim | Weavers contend the trial brief contained a judicial admission against negligence | State argues the brief, including amended language, admitted reasonableness of firefighting | No abuse; no unequivocal judicial admission found |
| Whether the public duty doctrine defense could be struck | Weavers argues late, improper assertion prejudiced fair notice | State claims public duty doctrine is an appropriate defense and timing was permissible | District court did not abuse discretion in striking the defense given prejudice and timing |
| Whether the jury could find negligence without expert standard-of-care proof | Weavers sufficient lay understanding or error mentored by expert testimony not required | State argues expert testimony required to establish standard of care for wildfire suppression | Weavers waived review; insufficient objection; no reversible error |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a change of venue | State alleged prejudicial publicity required change of venue | District court properly weighed presumed/actual prejudice and voir dire results | No abuse; venue denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying sanctions against the State | Weavers claim prejudicial discovery abuses impacted trial and merits sanctions | State argues no bad faith or prejudice shown; sanctions inappropriate | No abuse; sanctions denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bitterroot Int’l Sys. v. Western Star Trucks, Inc., 336 Mont. 145 (2001 MT) (judicial admissions and their binding effect; context matters)
- Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Stevens, 2010 MT 282 (Mont. 2010) (statements in pleadings may be legal conclusions, not admissions)
- Papich v. Quality Life Concepts, Inc., 321 Mont. 156 (2004 MT) (judicial admissions require unequivocal statements of fact)
- Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 301 Mont. 55 (2000 MT) (pleadings may be interpreted for purposes of admissions)
- Kohne v. Yost, 250 Mont. 109 (1991 MT) (defense counsel's statements can sustain judicial admissions depending on context)
- Hart v. Hart, 360 Mont. 308 (2011 MT) (review of factual findings for clear error; legal conclusions reviewed for correctness)