49-1-101. Right of protection from personal injury. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in other statutes and subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, every person has the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, personal insult, defamation, and injury to the person's personal relations.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-1-101 (2026)
Right Of Protection From Personal Injury
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 49. HUMAN RIGHTS
CHAPTER 1. BASIC RIGHTS
Part 1. Basic Personal Rights
Right Of Protection From Personal Injury
History: En. Sec. 30, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 3600, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 5688, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 43; Field Civ. C. Sec. 27; re-en. Sec. 5688, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 64-201; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 177, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1796, Ch. 56, L. 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1981–2018 · leading case: Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000).
Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). “1998); Mont. Code Ann. § 49-1-101 et seq. (1997); Neb.”
Drinkwalter v. Shipton Supply Co., Inc., 732 P.2d 1335 (Mont. 1987). “See §§ 49-1-101 and -102, MCA. Montana law also recognizes a cause of action for breach of an employment contract's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore, 922 P.2d 469 (Mont. 1996). “Following the hearing, the Commission’s final order determined that Hilands had discriminated in its membership and other policies in violation of the Human Rights Act, §§ 49-1-101 through 49-4-511, MCA. The Commission awarded Ashmore damages and ordered broad relief to address…”
Dolan v. Sch. Dist. No. 10, Deer Lodge Cty., 636 P.2d 825 (Mont. 1981). “Whether Title 49, the Human Rights Act, section 49-1-101, et seq., MCA, repealed the Mandatory Retirement Law for teachers, section 20-4-203(2), MCA? 2.”
Fandrich v. Capital Ford Lincoln Mercury, 901 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1995). “On November 22, 1993, the District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to consider the amended complaint, or whether the Montana Human Rights Act found at §§ 49-1-101 through 49-4-511, MCA, was the Fandrichs’ exclusive remedy pursuant to § 49-2-509(7), MCA.”
Reeves v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 1998 MT 13 (Mont. 1998). “In her complaint, Reeves alleged that Dairy Queen had fired her in violation of the Montana Human Rights Act, §§ 49-1-101 through 49-4-511, MCA, (the Act) and the Wrongful *200 Discharge from Employment Act, §§ 39-2-901 through -915, MCA.”
Kenny v. Bd. of Trs. of Valley Cnty. Sch. Dist. Numbers 1 & 1-A, 543 F. Supp. 1194 (D. Mont. 1982). “Kenny also commenced proceedings against the Board under the Montana Human Rights Act (MCA §§ 49-1-101 et seq. (1979)) and the Montana Code of Fair Practices (MCA §§ 49-3-101 et seq.”
Jones v. All Star Painting Inc., 2018 MT 70 (Mont. 2018). “Alternatively, All Star argues that Hodges is not an "employer" under § 49-1-101(11), MCA, because the Court in Fandrich interpreted "employer" in the MHRA in a way that is completely inconsistent with federal employment discrimination law.”
Wagenman v. W. Energy, 1999 MT 266N (Mont. 1999). “The District Court also held that WECO had a "legitimate business purpose" for delaying the hiring of Wagenman.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-1-101(11) — 1 case
Jones v. All Star Painting Inc., 2018 MT 70 (Mont. 2018). “Alternatively, All Star argues that Hodges is not an "employer" under § 49-1-101(11), MCA, because the Court in Fandrich interpreted "employer" in the MHRA in a way that is completely inconsistent with federal employment discrimination law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.