Kolar v. Bergo
280 Mont. 262, 53 State Rptr. 1395, 929 P.2d 867 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where reasonable minds could differ on the foreseeability of an injury resulting from a practical joke, the questions of negligence and causation are issues of fact for a jury to decide, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Facts:
- On April Fool’s Day, David Salvi and his daughter Marie decided to play a practical joke on their family friend, Dennis Bergo.
- The joke involved nine-year-old Marie calling Dennis's home and pretending to be home alone, frightened, and in distress.
- Dennis's wife, Linda Bergo, received the initial call and relayed the message to Dennis, who was at a friend's house and had consumed several beers.
- Marie then called Dennis directly, crying and sounding fearful, which caused Dennis to become worried.
- In a hurry to respond, Dennis rushed from the friend's house, drove his truck through a stop sign, and collided with Wade Rolar's motorcycle, causing Rolar serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Wade Rolar filed a negligence complaint against Dennis Bergo in the Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus County.
- During discovery, Dennis Bergo blamed the accident on the practical joke.
- Rolar amended his complaint to name Linda Bergo and David Salvi as additional defendants.
- Linda Bergo and David Salvi each filed motions for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Linda Bergo and David Salvi, dismissing them from the case.
- Wade Rolar, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Montana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the defendants who orchestrated a practical joke, on the grounds that the resulting traffic accident was unforeseeable as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Erdmann
Yes. Summary judgment was improper because whether the accident was a foreseeable consequence of the practical joke is a question of fact for a jury. Ordinarily, issues of negligence and causation are not susceptible to summary judgment. Here, reasonable minds could differ as to whether the defendants, Linda Bergo and David Salvi, should have foreseen that their joke would cause Dennis Bergo to drive recklessly. Evidence showed Linda knew Dennis sometimes drank at his friend's house, knew he would react urgently, and was aware he would have to pass through a dangerous intersection in the dark. Given these disputed factual issues, the question of foreseeability must be determined by a jury, not decided by a judge as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that questions of negligence, particularly foreseeability and causation, are inherently factual and generally must be decided by a jury rather than through summary judgment. It establishes that individuals who orchestrate practical jokes can be held liable for resulting harm, even if the specific outcome was not intended, so long as the risk of some harm was reasonably foreseeable. The court's application of the 'substantial factor' test for causation clarifies its use in cases with multiple defendants and potential intervening causes, preventing the original tortfeasors from easily escaping liability by blaming the subsequent actions of another party.
