Montana's Richardson v. Corvallis Public School District No. 1 (1997 MT 71) went further than any other state: it abolished the invitee/licensee/trespasser trichotomy for ALL entrants — including trespassers — adopting a single reasonable care standard that applies regardless of how or why someone enters the property.
Montana's "not as great as" 50% bar and a three-year statute of limitations frame the landscape, but the absence of a short pre-suit government notice deadline gives Montana premises victims more flexibility than most states. The challenge is that rural Montana crash sites, extreme weather, and dispersed witnesses make evidence preservation especially time-sensitive.
Montana Code Annotated § 27-2-204 provides a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims — longer than most states. But the evidence clock in a slip and fall case runs far faster than the lawsuit deadline. Surveillance footage is overwritten within 24 to 72 hours at most commercial properties. Maintenance logs showing prior complaints about the same hazard are internal records that property owners sometimes destroy or "lose" after an incident. The most powerful evidence in a Montana premises case — a written maintenance request, a prior incident report, or a prior complaint by another customer about the same condition — disappears without a formal litigation hold demand sent immediately after the fall. An attorney's preservation letter, delivered within days, freezes all of this evidence before it is consumed by routine operations or anticipatory destruction.
Montana adopted a unitary reasonable care standard for ALL property entrants in Richardson v. Corvallis Public School District No. 1, 1997 MT 71, 282 Mont. 323. Richardson went further than New Hampshire's Ouellette or Hawaii's Pickard by explicitly extending the single care standard to trespassers — not just invitees and licensees — making Montana's standard the most expansive in the country. Under Richardson, the sole legal question is whether the landowner exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. Montana courts consider foreseeability of harm, the burden of taking precautions, and the social utility of the defendant's conduct. For commercial properties, this typically means regular inspection of high-traffic areas, prompt repair of known hazards, and clear warning of conditions that cannot be immediately corrected.
Montana Code Annotated § 27-1-702 applies the "not as great as" comparative fault standard: your recovery is barred if your negligence is equal to or greater than the defendant's combined fault. At exactly 50% fault, you lose everything. Property owners and their insurers routinely argue in Montana premises cases that the victim was distracted, wearing inappropriate footwear, or failed to watch where they were walking — pushing fault toward the 50% threshold. Surveillance footage showing that the hazard was not visible, that no warning signs were posted, or that the condition had existed for hours without being addressed is the primary counter to these arguments. Obtaining the footage before the recording loop overwrites it is the most urgent first step in any Montana slip and fall case.
When the fall occurs on government property — a state building, county courthouse, municipal sidewalk, or school facility — claims against the governmental entity under Montana Code Annotated § 2-9-301 do not require a separate short-fuse pre-suit notice as in many other states. Montana's Government Claims process allows claims against the state and its subdivisions within the same three-year SOL, with formal presentation to the appropriate entity required before filing suit. This is more plaintiff-friendly than states with 60- or 90-day notice windows. However, an attorney must correctly identify the governmental entity responsible for the property, present the claim in the correct form to the correct office, and then file suit within the three-year window. Presenting to the wrong entity or using the wrong format creates procedural defects that delay the entire case.
Legal Information Notice
The legal information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and every case is different. Always consult with a licensed attorney in your state to verify the current law and how it applies to your specific situation.
Montana abolished the invitee/licensee/trespasser trichotomy in Richardson v. Corvallis Public School District No. 1, 1997 MT 71, extending reasonable care to all entrants including trespassers. This is the most expansive premises liability standard in the United States — a single reasonable care question applies regardless of why or how the person entered the property. For commercial properties, this means inspecting for hazardous conditions, correcting them within a reasonable time, and warning visitors of known dangers. Trespassers retain the full reasonable care protection, though courts consider all circumstances including the foreseeability that trespassers would enter the area.
MCA § 27-2-204 provides a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims — longer than most states' two-year windows. For government property claims under MCA § 2-9-301, Montana does not impose a separate short-fuse pre-suit notice requirement; the three-year window generally applies after formal presentation of the claim to the appropriate governmental entity. However, the evidence preservation window is far shorter: surveillance footage is typically overwritten within 24-72 hours, and maintenance records should be preserved through a formal litigation hold demand within days of the fall. Source: Montana Legislature, https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0040/0270-0020-0020-0040.html
MCA § 27-1-702 applies the "not as great as" modified comparative fault standard. You recover only if your negligence is strictly less than the defendant's combined fault — at exactly 50% fault, you are completely barred from any recovery. This is harsher than Hawaii's 51% bar (where 50% still allows recovery) and the same as Idaho and New Hampshire. Montana property owner defense teams use the 50% threshold as a deliberate strategy, attributing falls to distraction, inappropriate footwear, or failure to observe visible warning signs. Surveillance footage and prior incident records are the most powerful tools for keeping fault attribution below the bar. Source: Montana Legislature, https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0010/part_0070/section_0020/0270-0010-0070-0020.html
Yes, but Montana's process is more plaintiff-friendly than most states. Under MCA § 2-9-301, claims against the State of Montana or its subdivisions must be formally presented to the appropriate government entity before filing suit — but there is no 60- or 90-day short-fuse notice deadline that runs separately from the three-year SOL. The presentation must be made within the three-year window and in the correct form to the correct entity. An attorney familiar with Montana's Government Claims process must handle this step correctly, as presenting to the wrong agency or using the wrong form creates procedural defects. Source: Montana Legislature, https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0020/chapter_0090/part_0030/section_0010/0020-0090-0030-0010.html
Yes. Montana's Richardson standard applies to outdoor commercial areas, parking lots, and sidewalks adjacent to business premises. Property owners who control these areas must inspect them for hazardous conditions including ice, snow accumulation, uneven pavement, and drainage defects. Montana courts have recognized that commercial property owners in cold-weather climates must anticipate ice formation and take reasonable precautions — including salting, sanding, or closing areas that cannot be made safe. For municipal sidewalks, the city or county may be liable under MCA § 2-9-301 if it had notice of the defective condition and failed to repair it. A pre-suit Government Claims presentation is required before suing the municipality.
All legal information on this page is sourced from primary government statutes. Last verified 2026-04-07.
In-depth articles relevant to your slip & fall lawyer case.
Slip and Fall Settlement Amounts: What Is Your Case Worth?
See average slip and fall settlement amounts by injury type. Learn what property owners owe you and how to maximize your premises liability claim.
How Long Does a Personal Injury Case Take? (2026 Timeline)
Understand the typical timeline of a personal injury case from filing to settlement. Learn what factors speed up or delay your claim.
Pain and Suffering Calculator: How Much Is Your Claim Worth?
Learn how pain and suffering is calculated in personal injury cases. Understand the multiplier and per diem methods with real examples.
Different type of accident? We connect victims with attorneys across all six practice areas.
Collected by partner attorneys for injured clients. California and Pennsylvania reviews prioritized.
“After my crash, I did not know whether to talk to the insurance company first or get treatment documented. The attorney explained the timeline and what evidence mattered.”
— California accident review, Los Angeles, CA
“I did not understand Pennsylvania limited tort or why the adjuster kept asking about my policy. Getting matched with someone local helped me know what questions to ask.”
— Pennsylvania accident review, Philadelphia, PA
Informational only. GetAccidentLawyerNow is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Every case is unique.
Don't wait. The 3 years statute of limitations is ticking.
Call (267) 212-1034 Now*Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is unique.