Kunst v. Pass, 1998 MT 71 (1998)

Citation: Kunst v. Pass, 1998 MT 71 (1998)
Parent Document: Kunst v. Pass, 1998 MT 71 (1998)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 1998-03-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/884766/kunst-v-pass/ ↗

Full Text

1,583 chars

¶24 When Judge Moran granted Plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict, he
held that as a matter of law the Defendants failed to keep the heating system
in a good and safe working order. He stated:
     [T]he owners of the premises were well aware that they had a
     duty to inspect the premises on a routine basis, that duty and
     warning or admonition or advice that had been rendered first in
     the inspection report. And I think that that is a matter that
     repeats itself down through every year after the inspection
     report, that they should check out these matters on an annual
     basis.
          The evidence is clear that they never checked out the
     premises. They never looked at the heating system. They never
     did anything to inspect the heating system, either personally or
     through the retaining services of an expert to do that.
          We have then the testimony of Mr. Doug Schnell, who
     testifies that when he got to the premises and looked at the
     thing, that the boiler -- that it was in a state and a condition that
     an inspection of it would have -- he believes would have
     precluded the boiler ever to have gotten into that condition, so
     that there could have been the leaking of gas fumes resulting in
     carbon monoxide poisoning to the Plaintiffs.
          The defendant has essentially come to court with no
     evidence that would counter that, either in weight or quantity.
     I feel that this is a proper case to direct a verdict of liability on
     behalf of the Plaintiffs, and I'll do that.

Other Sections in This Document (71)

Full Text