Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation v. Clark Fork Logging Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-465,81-465 |
| Citation | 198 Mont. 494,646 P.2d 1207,39 St.Rep. 1146 |
| Parties | MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CLARK FORK LOGGING COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Gary L. Spaeth, Dept. of Natural Resources, Helena, for plaintiff and appellant.
Worden, Thane, Haines, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, for defendants and respondents.
The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) appeals the March 19, 1980, summary judgment order dismissing Count I of its complaint against defendants, Clark Fork Logging Company (Clark Fork) and William Cuddy. We affirm.
Clark Fork entered into a timber sale contract with the United States Forest Service to log an area in Sanders County near Indian Creek. Clark Fork then contracted with Cuddy to log the area. Cuddy subsequently entered into an agreement with Stanton Diehl to provide equipment and operators to perform the logging.
On August 5, 1975, Dale Hotchkiss, an operator provided by Diehl, was starting a chainsaw, also provided by Diehl, when it backfired and ignited a fire. DNRC, performing under a contract with the United States Forest Service, suppressed and extinguished the fire at a cost of $126,721.80.
On July 21, 1977, DNRC filed a complaint against Clark Fork, Cuddy and Diehl, seeking to recover the cost of extinguishing the fire. DNRC subsequently dismissed defendant Diehl. Count I of the complaint sought recovery under absolute liability pursuant to DNRC's interpretation of section 50-63-103, MCA; Count II sought recovery under the common law negligence theory.
Defendant's initial motion for summary judgment on both counts was denied. However, after extensive briefing, the second motion for summary judgment on Count I was granted. Summary judgment on Count II was again denied and a trial ensued. The jury found no negligence on the part of defendants and returned a verdict against DNRC. No appeal is taken of that determination.
The sole issue presented to us for review is whether the District Court Judge properly granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on the absolute liability portion of DNRC's complaint. We find that he did.
Count I is predicated on section 50-63-103, MCA:
(Emphasis added.)
When ascertaining the meaning of a statute, we look to the purpose of the statute, not just to isolated words. In re Senate Bill No. 23 v. Lamoreaux (1975), 168 Mont. 102, 540 P.2d 975. Consideration of the title of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitehawk v. Clark
...(Emphasis added.) This Court has been called upon to interpret the statute on two occasions. Montana Dept. of Natural Res. and Cons. v. Clark Fork Logging (1982), 198 Mont. 494, 646 P.2d 1207; and Belue v. State (1982), 199 Mont. 451, 649 P.2d 752. Defendant contends that our previous decis......
-
Belue v. State, 81-501
...argued that section 50-63-103, MCA, applied to the facts of this case. This Court, in a recent case, DNRC v. Clark Fork Logging Company (1982), Mont., 646 P.2d 1207, 39 St.Rep. 1146, considered the above statute and interpreted the same to apply only to the intentional setting or leaving a ......
-
McCain v. Batson
...if it is correct, regardless of the reasons given below for the result. See, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation v. Clark Fork Logging Co., Inc. (1982), 198 Mont. 494, 646 P.2d 1207. Here the District Court very carefully noted the elements contained in Sec. 27-1-714, M......
-
Hendershott v. Jesse B. Westphal
...is a necessary first step in the search for the purpose and meaning of the statute.” Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conserv. v. Clark Fork Logging Co., 198 Mont. 494, 496, 646 P.2d 1207, 1208 (1982). ¶ 28 By allowing a court discretion to include a mediation provision in a parenting plan......