Shooting-range ruling reversed
The Montana Supreme Court has reversed and remanded back to Flathead District Court an earlier decision to dismiss a lawsuit over a shooting range west of Whitefish.
The high court’s ruling on Monday now allows the neighbors who sued the owners of the shooting range over noise and nuisance complaints to continue to pursue a jury trial in the case.
“I’m very optimistic of our chances in District Court,” said Eric Kaplan, attorney for Tally Bissell Neighbors Inc., a group of about 40 neighbors who oppose the shooting range. “The case is alive and well. The Supreme Court reversed on almost everything.”
Tally Bissell Neighbors sued Texas businessman Robert Hayes in 2008, alleging the loud shotgun blasts emanating from the shooting range are a public nuisance and violate constitutional guarantees.
Hayes initiated construction of the private, noncommercial shooting range, which now is owned by Eyrie Shotgun Ranch, a limited liability corporation. The 60-acre facility is located at the former Sundance Farms site near the intersection of Farm-to-Market and Tally Lake roads.
The lawsuit alleged the noise from the shooting range has prevented the sale of surrounding properties, startled animals and people, interfered with and prevented the carrying on of business in the area and prevented the neighborhood from being enjoyed. The suit also alleged the shooting range poses an “attractive nuisance” because it’s 1,900 feet from Bissell School.
In February 2009, District Judge Ted Lympus dismissed the neighbors’ 2008 lawsuit, siding with the shooting-range owners on all eight counts. At the time, Lympus threw out the nuisance claim on the basis that state law specifically authorizes shooting ranges and thus, shooting ranges may not be considered a nuisance.
The neighborhood group appealed Lympus’ ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled that the District Court improperly dismissed the neighbors’ public, private and attractive nuisance claims and trespass claim at the pleadings stage.
The high court determined that nothing in state law expressly immunizes shooting ranges from civil nuisance liability. It also said the District Court didn’t take into consideration specific private nuisance claims, such as obstruction of Rob Rice’s home recording studio or interference with photography at the nearby Triple D Game Farm.
“These injuries... are unique and specific to particular residents in the Tally/Bissell Zoning District,” the Supreme Court decision noted. “The District Court improperly focused on the condition common to all plaintiffs in the form of increased noise from the shooting range.”
The Supreme Court also ruled that Lympus improperly dismissed Robert Hayes as a defendant. Even though Hayes no longer owns the facility, state law provides that “every successive owner of property who neglects to abate a continuing nuisance... created by a former owner is liable in the same manner as the one who created the nuisance.”
The high court upheld one element of the earlier ruling, that the District Court correctly dismissed the neighbors’ constitutionally based claims and their attempts to assert a private right of action pursuant to state law.
The defendants’ attorney, Sean Frampton, said motions to dismiss lawsuits are rarely upheld on appeal because the court prefers people have the ability to present evidence.
“It doesn’t mean we have a weak case,” Frampton said about the Supreme Court ruling. “We have a very strong case still. It’s just that we won at square one, and now we’re back to square one.”
Frampton said he was surprised the District Court ruling on the public nuisance and trespass claims weren’t affirmed by the Supreme Court because he felt Lympus’ rationale was very thorough. He said he plans to move for summary judgment in the case once the evidence is presented in District Court.
“I think we’ll still prevail,” Frampton added.
Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com