Harris v. State, DA 12-0191
| Decision Date | 30 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 12-0191,DA 12-0191 |
| Citation | 2013 MT 16 |
| Parties | DAVID W. HARRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
The Montana Supreme Court held in this case that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy for a prison employee injured during a taser training conducted at the Montana State Prison.
David Harris (Harris), a 13-year employee of the Department of Corrections (DOC), participated in a non-compulsory training program in 2006 to become authorized to use tasers at the Prison. The training included a classroom component and a five-second taser exposure. After being fully informed of the risks of taser exposure, and signing a written consent form, Harris was tased. As a result of the taser exposure, Harris was injured. He received workers' compensation benefits.
In 2009, Harris sued the State of Montana and the DOC, claiming that he suffered an intentional infliction of personal injury by his fellow employee when he was tased at the training. The District Court dismissed Harris's suit on the grounds that workers' compensation was Harris's sole remedy.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Harris's claims. The Court held that the defendants did not intend to injure Harris when tasing him. Although DOC knew that using a taser created a risk of harm, Prison officials did not know with certainty that Harris would be injured as a result of the tasing. The warden himself and other senior officials had gone through the same training without injury. Therefore, the Court determined there was no intentional injury as defined by § 39-71-413, MCA, and Harris's claims did not fall into the narrow exception to workers' compensation exclusivity. Justice Jim Rice concurred, stating that although the Court's decision was correct, the Court should not have relied on cases decided prior to the 2001 amendments of § 39-71-413, MCA.
1. This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the Opinion of the Court and may not be cited as precedent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. BNSF Ry.
...issue of material fact. We review a question of law to determine if the district court's legal conclusions are correct. Harris v. State, 2013 MT 16, ¶ 11, 368 Mont. 276, 294 P.3d 382 (internal citations omitted). ¶ 16 We review a district court's decision to deny a motion for a new trial on......
-
Anderson v. BNSF Ry., Corp., DA 14-0253
...issue of material fact. We review a question of law to determine if the district court's legal conclusions are correct. Harris v. State, 2013 MT 16, ¶ 11, 368 Mont. 276, 294 P.3d 382 (internal citations omitted).¶16 We review a district court's decision to deny a motion for a new trial on t......
-
Phillips v. City of Whitefish
...a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same M.R. Civ. P. 56 criteria applied by the district court. Harris v. State, 2013 MT 16, ¶ 11, 368 Mont. 276, 294 P.3d 382. A moving party is entitled to summary judgment when the party “demonstrates both the absence of any ge......
-
Winter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same M.R. Civ. P. 56 criteria applied by the district court. Harris v. State, 2013 MT 16, ¶ 11, 368 Mont. 276, 294 P.3d 382. A moving party is entitled to summary judgment when the party “demonstrates both the absence of any ge......