Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortstatuteappealtrialmotioncorporation
tortdefendantdamagesstatutetrialmotion

Related Cases

Macey v. Rozbicki, nan
View Case »
Jackson v. Holiness, 961 N.E.2d 48
View Case »
Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 604 N.W.2d 91
View Case »
Champagne v. Ward, 893 So.2d 773, 2003-3211 (La. 1/19/05)
View Case »
Spiegel, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 419 U.S. 896, 95 S.Ct. 175 (Mem), 42 L.Ed.2d 140
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rule v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 325 Mont. 329, 106 P.3d 533, 2005 MT 6

Facts

Lloyd E. Rule filed a personal injury action against BNSF in Cascade County District Court, stemming from his railroad employment in Dawson County, where he resides. After being served through BNSF's registered agent in Yellowstone County, BNSF moved to change the venue to either Dawson or Yellowstone County, citing Montana's venue statutes. The District Court granted BNSF's motion, leading Rule to appeal the decision.

Rule filed this action in Cascade County District Court, seeking damages from BNSF for personal injury arising out of his railroad employment in Dawson County, where he resides.

Issue

Did the District Court err in granting BNSF's motion to change venue pursuant to §§ 25–2–122(2) and –201(1), MCA?

Did the District Court err in granting BNSF's motion to change venue pursuant to §§ 25–2–122(2) and –201(1), MCA?

Rule

The proper place of trial for a tort action against a corporation incorporated in a state other than Montana is governed by Montana's venue statutes, specifically § 25–2–122(2), MCA, which applies to FELA actions.

Pursuant to § 25–2–122(1), MCA, the general rule is that the proper place of trial for a tort action is the county in which the defendant resides or the tort was committed.

Analysis

The court analyzed the application of Montana's venue statutes to Rule's FELA claim, concluding that the statutes were applicable and did not violate the liberal forum selection policy under FELA. The court determined that the District Court correctly identified that Cascade County was not a proper venue under the plain meaning of the statutes, which required a change of venue to either Dawson or Yellowstone County.

The court analyzed the application of Montana's venue statutes to Rule's FELA claim, concluding that the statutes were applicable and did not violate the liberal forum selection policy under FELA.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the application of the venue statutes was appropriate and did not infringe upon Rule's rights under FELA.

We hold the District Court properly applied the venue statutes, which Rule has not proven unconstitutional.

Who won?

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) prevailed in the case because the court upheld the District Court's ruling that the venue change was legally correct under Montana's venue statutes.

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) prevailed in the case because the court upheld the District Court's ruling that the venue change was legally correct under Montana's venue statutes.

You must be