Legal Opinion
Spath v. Dillon Enterprises, Inc.
District Court, D. Montana
Decided April 8, 1999No. CV 97-91-BU-DWMPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MOLLOY, District Judge.
Before me are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment and the Spaths’ motion to amend the complaint. After consideration of the oral and written arguments, I am convinced that Montana would not adopt the doctrine of “contractual assumption of risk.” Likewise, I am convinced that Dillon Enterprises, Adventures Big-Sky is not a common carrier. The complaint in this case can be amended to add emotional distress claims. My reasoning is set forth below.
I. Background
Robert, Faith and James Spath participated in a white water rafting trip on the Gallatin River…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Dcd Programs, Ltd. v. Michael W. Leighton, Hill, Farrer & BurrillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Madison v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Miller v. Fallon CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1986
- Buchan v. United States Cycling Federation, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Spath v. Federal InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2000
- Petrasek v. TC3 Operations, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Mitchell v. First Call Bail and Surety, Inc.District Court, D. Montana · 2019
- Sewell v. Capital One Financial CorporationDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2019
- Williams v. LimpertDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 2008