Montana court hears argument over whether lumber buyer can be liable for loader’s injury

The Montana court heard oral argument in DA25-0409 on whether Pacific Western Lumber Inc. can be held liable for injuries sustained by a contract trucker, Steve Blanchard, while log bundles were loaded at Clark Fork Post.

Appellants’ counsel told the justices that the case turns on two negligence theories: direct negligence, which depends on foreseeability of harm, and vicarious liability based on the inherently dangerous nature of the loading activity. The attorney argued Pac West knew or should have known that Clark Fork’s yard lacked industry-standard precautions—cherry-picker cranes and steel dunnage—and that sending Blanchard into that environment made injury reasonably foreseeable. “That loading is part…that is the inherently dangerous activity. That’s what caused the injury here,” counsel told the court, emphasizing evidence that the requisite equipment arrived on-site only after a capital loan tied to Pac West.

Colin Phillips, counsel for Pacific Western Lumber Inc., told the court that the undisputed record shows a purchase-order, commercial-sales relationship rather than a contract for services that would create a nondelegable duty. Phillips said appellants waived discovery arguments and that Montana precedent supports treating loading zones as outside an employer’s place of employment when there is no control over the worksite. “Pac West is a material supplier, not a hiring agent,” Phillips argued, pressing that Restatement and administrative tests for independent-contractor status favor Pac West’s view.

The bench repeatedly probed the line between a customer purchasing goods and an entity that “engages someone to perform an inherently dangerous service.” Several justices asked whether the direct-negligence claim required any contractor status at all; appellants’ counsel relied on Fisher v. Swift and related authorities to say foreseeability governs duty even if the tortfeasor is a third party. Defense counsel countered that the Restatement illustrations and Montana cases (including Piatt v. Moore and Beckman-related precedents cited at argument) require focusing on the relationship among the parties and the contractor whose negligence caused the harm.

Counsel for both sides pointed to factual disputes: whether Pac West had inquiry notice of unsafe conditions at Clark Fork Post, the timing and purpose of a capital loan (testimony in the record placed a loan six days after the incident), and whether industry-standard equipment was present before the injury. Appellants argued the late appearance of a cherry picker and steel dunnage—equipment now on the site—meant summary judgment was premature; Pac West’s counsel responded that the record demonstrates commercial sales and that the district court reached the correct outcome even if its reasoning used different labels.

The justices also discussed the legal mechanics of the Beckman exceptions and whether aspects of inherently dangerous-activity doctrine can be decided as a matter of law or should go to a jury. Counsel reserved rebuttal time; the argument concluded after extensive questioning and testing of both foreseeability and relationship-based theories. The court did not announce a ruling from the bench.

The court’s decision will turn on how the justices apply foreseeability and the Restatement/Beckman framework to the record facts about the purchase order, the parties’ relationships, and the loading practices at Clark Fork Post.