Case brief
Hannah David
11 February 2013
Business Law
Rothing v. Kallestad
Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses, thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings’ breach of contract claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses. 4) Whether the District Court erred in imposing discovery sanctions against the Rothings. 5) Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Kallestad and denying the Rothings a hearing in respect to the calculation of attorney’s fees. (₱3-7)
Facts: Kallestad sold the Rothings hay that was normally baled and stacked but may have come in contact with ditch water. Nineteen of the Rothings were dead in which Dr. Robert Whitlock, an Associate Professor of Medicine and the Director of the Botulism laboratory at the University, concluded the hay purchased from Kallestad and fed to the Rothings horses was contaminated with botulism.
Rules: Under Martel Const. Inc v. State and Ehly v. Cady foreseeability is a factor in breach of contract claims in Montana. The horses getting botulism was not foreseeable. The hay The Rothings purchase of hay from Kallestad was a transaction in goods, so it may be governed by Montana’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Another Common law concept implied warranty attaching to the sale of animal feed Seaton Ranch Co. v. Montana Vegetable Oil & Feed Co. Buyer’s incidental and consequential damages under Section 30-2-715, MCA. Richardson v. State, Nielsen v. Pardis were the main MT common laws ruling for whether the district court erred in imposing discovery sanctions against
11 February 2013
Business Law
Rothing v. Kallestad
Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses, thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings’ breach of contract claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses. 4) Whether the District Court erred in imposing discovery sanctions against the Rothings. 5) Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Kallestad and denying the Rothings a hearing in respect to the calculation of attorney’s fees. (₱3-7)
Facts: Kallestad sold the Rothings hay that was normally baled and stacked but may have come in contact with ditch water. Nineteen of the Rothings were dead in which Dr. Robert Whitlock, an Associate Professor of Medicine and the Director of the Botulism laboratory at the University, concluded the hay purchased from Kallestad and fed to the Rothings horses was contaminated with botulism.
Rules: Under Martel Const. Inc v. State and Ehly v. Cady foreseeability is a factor in breach of contract claims in Montana. The horses getting botulism was not foreseeable. The hay The Rothings purchase of hay from Kallestad was a transaction in goods, so it may be governed by Montana’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Another Common law concept implied warranty attaching to the sale of animal feed Seaton Ranch Co. v. Montana Vegetable Oil & Feed Co. Buyer’s incidental and consequential damages under Section 30-2-715, MCA. Richardson v. State, Nielsen v. Pardis were the main MT common laws ruling for whether the district court erred in imposing discovery sanctions against