Deaths In Big Sky Country

The Montana Supreme Court decided two rather interesting cases stemming from accidental deaths.

One case involved involved a scuba diving accident that led to a wrongful death claim against the company that had rented the gear

In 2019, Jesse [Hubbell] was hired to film a scuba-diving campaign advertisement for John Mues’s U.S. Senate campaign. On June 14, 2019, Mues and Jesse traveled to Missoula to rent scuba gear for the shoot from Gull. Gull’s scuba instructor, Chris Hanson, asked both men for their diving certification cards in keeping with Professional Association of Diving Instructors (“PADI”) regulations. Mues provided his “Advanced Diver” certification, which qualified him to rent scuba gear. Jesse told Hanson that he did not have his card with him, but that he was PADI certified, and his certification could be verified online.

Hanson could not recall whether he verified Jesse’s certification online, but it is undisputed that the online system would have confirmed that Jesse had a “Junior Open Water Diver” certification. Hanson rented two sets of scuba gear to Mues. While attempting to film the campaign advertisement three days later, Jesse drowned using the rented scuba gear during a dive with Mues at Canyon Ferry Lake.

No causation

it is undisputed that Mues could have rented two sets of equipment based on Jesse’s Junior Open Water Diver certification. It is likewise undisputed that this is exactly what happened—Mues rented both sets of equipment for himself and Jesse.

Irrespective of whether or not Hanson failed to check Jesse’s certification, the undisputed facts could lead reasonable minds to reach only one conclusion regarding causation—Hanson’s purported failure was not the cause-in-fact of Jesse’s death because even if Hanson had checked for Jesse’s certification, he still would have rented Mues the two sets of equipment based on Mues’s and Jesse’s respective diver certifications. The District Court did not err when it determined that Gull’s failure to check Jesse’s certification was not the cause of his death.

The other decision involves a video recorded expressing testimentary intent shortly before a fatal accident

On July 15, 2022, Jesse crashed his motorcycle on Highway 212 in Carbon County, Montana. While Jesse was receiving help on the side of a road from another driver, a Carbon County Sheriff’s Office deputy, who was responding to the report of Jesse’s accident, tragically struck and killed both Jesse and the other driver. Jesse was survived by his only child, Alexia Beck (Alexia).

Four days prior to his death, Jesse had sent Jason a phone video recording of himself, in which Jesse stated:

I, Jesse Beck, give all my possessions, if anything happens to me whatsoever, I give all my possessions, everything, to Jason Beck, my brother. Christina Fontineau does not get one thing, not one thing.

Limited detail about the circumstances surrounding the video, other than its delivery to Jason’s cellphone, is set forth in the record. No witnesses appear or are apparent in the recording, and Jesse’s words were not reduced to written form and signed by Jesse. Christina Fontineau is stated to be a nonrelative who would not be entitled to take from Jesse’s Estate (the Estate) under the laws of intestacy.

Not a will from which the brother can inherit

We acknowledge Jason’s argument that we are required under § 72-1-101(2)(a), MCA, to “liberally construe” the UPC to promote its underlying purposes and policies, but this does not give the Court license to override express statutory language. See Larson v. State, 2019 MT 28, ¶ 29, 394 Mont. 167, 434 P.3d 24 (“Except where contrary to express statutory language, courts must liberally construe statutes enacted for remedial or beneficent purposes . . . .” (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)). The language of § 72-2-523, MCA, a UPC provision, requires a will to be a “document,” and for the reasons outlined above, we find no clear basis that would permit broad extensions of that term to entirely new forms of intended wills, here a video recording lacking any form of statutory authentication, even under a liberal construction of the provision. We thus conclude the District Court correctly denied Jason’s petition.

(Mike Frisch)