GENTRY V. DOUGLAS HEREFORD RANCH, INC.
962 P.2d 1205 (1998)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Gentry (P) appealed from a summary judgment which found in favor of
Hereford (D), a ranch and a cattle company, in the personal representative's action for
damages for the decedent's injuries and alleged wrongful death.
FACTS: Brent Bacon drove to the ranch with the intention of first starting a furnace and
then hunting for deer on the ranch property. He took with him a Marlin lever action 30-30
rifle and headed to the ranch in his personal vehicle. On the way, Brent observed a fox,
loaded six or seven rounds of ammunition into the rifle magazine, 'cocked in a shell,' and
fired one shot at the fox. He apparently missed and 'cocked in a second shell,' but was too
late to fire a second shot. According to his statement to investigators, he then pulled the
trigger and released the hammer so that the hammer was resting on a live round of
ammunition. He then proceeded to the ranch, where he helped dislodge a garage door, and then
visited for a while. Brent was unable to start the furnace. So, after exchanging
pleasantries he started a fire in the fireplace and announced that he was leaving to go
hunting. He walked back to his car, retrieved his rifle, put a box of shells in his pocket
and returned to the 'new house' to get the ranch pickup which he intended to drive to the
point where he would begin his hunt. As Brent approached the deck of the house with his
thumb on the hammer he stumbled and fell. Sometime after he stumbled, but before he landed
on the deck, his rifle discharged; the bullet struck Barbara in the head; and, after
surviving for a period of sixty-nine days, she died from the head injuries she sustained
when she was shot. Her husband (P) brought a wrongful death action against Bacon (D), and
the owners of the property (D1). P alleged that D had been negligent while working for D1,
that D1 was vicariously liable for D's negligence; and that D1 was also negligent for
allowing an unsafe and dangerous condition (the stairs to the deck and the area surrounding
the stairs) to exist on the ranch property and that this combined negligence had caused the
injury. D sought bankruptcy protection and was dismissed from the case. D1 moved for summary
judgment and the District Court granted the motion based on the following conclusions: D1
had no duty to Barbara because the risk of this type of accident was not foreseeable, that
no unsafe condition had been shown to exist on D1's property, that P had offered no proof
that the condition of the steps was either the actual or proximate cause of Barbara's
injuries, that even if D1 was negligent, the manner in which D handled his firearm was so
unforeseeable that it was an intervening, superseding cause of Barbara's injuries and that
the principles of respondeat superior were not applicable because D was not an employee of
the ranch company on the date in question, and even if he had been earlier in the day, his
actions at the time of Barbara's injuries were unrelated to any duties he had performed for
the ranch. The trial court judge entered summary judgment in favor of D1 and P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment