Material Fact Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment in Premises Liability: Stalowy v. Missoula Manor

Introduction

In Stalowy v. Missoula Manor Home, 2025 MT 108N, decided May 20, 2025, the Montana Supreme Court addressed whether summary judgment was properly granted in a premises‐liability case involving an allegedly icy walkway at a senior living facility. Plaintiff Marlene Stalowy slipped and fell exiting a side entrance of the facility, claimed to be on black ice, and sued for negligence and failure to warn. The Fourth Judicial District granted summary judgment to the defendant, Missoula Manor. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding genuine disputes of material fact as to breach of duty and causation that required resolution by a trier of fact.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo under M. R. Civ. P. 56.
The District Court had concluded Stalowy’s own deposition and other witnesses’ statements were speculative and thus no reasonable jury could find breach or causation.
The Supreme Court held that multiple witnesses described slippery conditions, ice accumulation, and maintenance practices (salt use and signage) in conflicting ways—presenting more than one reasonable inference about whether Missoula Manor used ordinary care.
Because questions of breach and causation turned on competing inferences from the evidence, summary judgment was improper. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Barrett, Inc. v. City of Red Lodge, 2020 MT 26 (standard of review for summary judgment under Rule 56).
Alfson v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 MT 326 (movant must show no genuine issue of material fact).
B.Y.O.B., Inc. v. State, 2021 MT 191 (nonmoving party must produce material & substantial evidence to create genuine dispute).
Abraham v. Nelson, 2002 MT 94 (elements of negligence and summary judgment on breach and causation).
Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Ranch, 1998 MT 182 (speculative testimony cannot defeat summary judgment).
Richardson v. Corvallis Pub. Sch. Dist., 1997 MT (duty of premises possessor; hidden dangers and standard of care).
Bonilla v. Univ. of Mont., 2005 MT 183 (breach usually a fact question).
Norris v. Olsen, 2024 MT 123 (causation questions for jury unless only one inference).
Andrews v. Plum Creek Mfg., 2001 MT 94 (weighing conflicting evidence is a jury function).

Legal Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that summary judgment is appropriate only when the record admits of no evidentiary dispute on elements essential to a claim. In negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—breach and causation often turn on factual inferences and credibility assessments.

Here, multiple witnesses described slippery or icy conditions at two entrances, testified to maintenance crews’ salt use and signage practices, and recounted prior slips. Drawing all reasonable inferences in Stalowy’s favor, the Court found at least two plausible scenarios:

Missoula Manor’s maintenance was adequate—any ice was unforeseeable or obvious to the invitee; or
The facility failed to salt or shovel adequately, placed only a “slippery when wet” sign, and allowed black ice to accumulate, causing the fall.

These competing inferences precluded summary disposition.

Impact

Although this is a memorandum opinion and not citable as binding precedent, it underscores key principles for future premises‐liability and summary‐judgment practice in Montana:

Precise, firsthand observations of unsafe conditions—even when black ice is ephemeral—can suffice to create a factual dispute.
Testimony about maintenance routines, budgets, crew instructions, and prior slips in the same location strengthens or weakens a movant’s breach argument.
Courts must draw all reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party; credibility questions and conflicting facts belong to the jury.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment (Rule 56): A procedure to resolve litigation before trial if no factual disputes exist. The movant must show that, even taking the adversary’s evidence at its highest, no reasonable jury could find for the opponent on an essential element.
Material Fact: A fact that could affect the outcome of the litigation under governing law. If disputed, it must be decided by the jury, not the judge at summary judgment.
Premises Liability Duty: A landowner or occupier must use ordinary care to keep property reasonably safe for invited visitors and to warn of hidden hazards that invitees are unlikely to discover.
Inference vs. Speculation: Inference: A logical deduction from actual evidence (e.g., “I slipped where water dripped off the awning.”)
Speculation: A conjecture without basis in witness knowledge (e.g., “Maybe the ice was there because it’s always slippery.”)

Conclusion

Stalowy v. Missoula Manor emphasizes that when witness testimony, maintenance records, prior incidents, and physical conditions yield more than one reasonable interpretation, the question of breach and causation in premises‐liability cases must go to the jury. This decision cautions lower courts against resolving fact‐intensive negligence disputes on summary judgment when ordinary care and foreseeability are in play.

Key takeaway: In Montana, factual conflicts about hazard conditions and safety processes almost always defy summary resolution and demand a full airing before a factfinder.