Groves
Groves v. Greyhound Lines Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
The district court did not err in applying Montana law rather than North Dakota law. Montana has “the most significant relationship with this case.” Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 298 Mont. 438 , 995 P.2d 1002, 1007 (Mont.2000). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Greyhound’s motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 .
The Montana Code, § 27-1-703, articulates a comparative negligence scheme and precludes the comparison of intentional conduct with negligent conduct. “[A]ll forms of conduct amounting to negligence ... are to be compared with any conduct that falls short of conduct intended to cause injury or damage.” Martel v. Montana Power Co., 231 Mont. 96 , 752 P.2d 140, 143 (Mont.1988). Pula v. State, 308 Mont. 122 , 40 P.3d 364 (Mont.2002), does not support Greyhound’s position because the court in Pula did not address “how to apportion blame among several liable parties.” Id. at 367. It was therefore error for the district court to allow the jury to compare Fagnani’s intentional conduct with Greyhound’s negligence when determining liability for Groves’s injuries. This error contributed to an inconsistent jury verdict, and it is thus…