SWEET v EDMONDS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12994 I N THE SUPREME COlJRT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1976 CLINTON SWEET, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - KENNETH EDMONDS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : J o s e p h P. Hennessey a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent: Crowley, K i l b o u r n e , Haughey, Hanson and G a l l a g h e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana Ronald R. Lodders a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted : September 1 0 , 1976 Dec i d e d : fi c i : Filed : j J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f C l i n t o n Sweet from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t Kenneth Edmonds' motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t . Plaintiff w a s injured when h i s a u t o m o b i l e was s t r u c k by a n o t h e r a u t o m o b i l e d r i v e n by defendant. P l a i n t i f f ' s subsequent negligence a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t w a s t r i e d i n J a n u a r y 1975 b e f o r e a j u r y i n Y e l l o w s t o n e County. A t t h e c l o s e of p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e i n c h i e f , defendant moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e grounds p l a i n t i f f was cont r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t and t h e proof w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t any n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t was a p r o x i m a t e cause of t h e c o l l i s i o n . motion. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s A f t e r c a r e f u l examination of t h e r e c o r d , w e hold t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d have a l l o w e d t h e c a s e t o go t o t h e j u r y . The c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d i n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f S i x t h S t r e e t West and Broadwater Avenue i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. A t t h a t p o i n t Broadwater w a s a f o u r l a n e t h r o u g h s t r e e t and t h e r e was a s t o p s i g n on S i x t h . speed l i m i t was t w e n t y - f i v e m i l e s p e r hour. The p o s t e d The s t r e e t w a s d r y , t h e w e a t h e r was c l e a r , and t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n was lit by a s t r e e t l i g h t on t h e c o r n e r . P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l t h a t he approached Broadwater from t h e s o u t h , s t o p p e d a t t h e s t o p s i g n on S i x t h , and looked i n b o t h d i r e c t i o n s f o r t r a f f i c . H e s a i d h e was t u r n i n g r i g h t o n t o Broadwater when h e was h i t from behind by d e f e n d a n t ' s a u t o m o b i l e which was p r o c e e d i n g e a s t on Broadwater i n t h e f a r r i g h t hand l a n e . P l a i n t i f f conceded he had a c l e a r view t o t h e w e s t of a b o u t o n e c i t y b l o c k when s t o p p e d a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , b u t m a i n t a i n e d he n e v e r saw d e f e n d a n t ' s automobile. Defendant t e s t i f i e d h e was d r i v i n g a b o u t t h i r t y m i l e s p e r hour and saw p l a i n t i f f ' s a u t o m o b i l e o n l y a second b e f o r e the collision. Defendant a r g u e s p l a i n t i f f v i o l a t e d t h e right-of-way r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d by s e c t i o n 32-2172, 1947, and was con- R.C.M. t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law by e n t e r i n g Broad- w a t e r when d e f e n d a n t ' s a u t o m o b i l e w a s s o c l o s e a s t o c o n s t i t u t e a n immediate h a z a r d . The d e f e n s e of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e , by d e f i n i t i o n , r e q u i r e s proof of b o t h n e g l i g e n c e and p r o x i m a t e cause. Grabs v. Missoula C a r t a g e Co., 1079, 3 3 St.Rep. 496 P.2d 83. , Mont. 545 P.2d 154; G i l l e a r d v . D r a i n e , 159 Mont. 1 6 7 , 1 7 1 , W s a i d i n Erickson v. P e r r e t t , e 545 P.2d 1074, 1077, 33 St.Rep. Mont . I 109: "We n o t e t h a t t h e m e r e happening of a n a c c i d e n t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f negl i g e n c e . F l a n s b e r g v . Montana Power Co., 154 Mont. 53, 58, 460 P.2d 263; F r i e s v . Shaughnessy, 159 Mont. 307, 310, 496 P.2d 1159. F u r t h e r when t h e b r e a c h of a s t a t u t o r y d u t y i s a l l e g e d , t h a t d u t y r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e must be t h e e f f i c i e n t o r p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e damages f o r n e g l i g e n c e t o be p r e d i c a t e d on t h e v i o l a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e . J o k i v . McBride, 150 Mont. 378, 436 P.2d 78; Rauh v. J e n s e n , 1 6 1 Mont. 443, 445, 507 P.2d 520." Defendant h a s computed from t e s t i m o n y i n t h e r e c o r d c o n c e r n i n g t h e p o i n t of impact and t h e r e s p e c t i v e s p e e d s o f t h e two v e h i - c l e s t h a t he w a s o n l y a b o u t n i n e t y - s i x f e e t away when p l a i n t i f f began t u r n i n g o n t o Broadwater. As plaintiff t e s t i f i e d he had a clear view t o t h e w e s t of a b o u t one c i t y b l o c k , d e f e n d a n t c o n c l u d e s p l a i n t i f f was n e g l i g e n t i n n o t s e e i n g him and i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t i f p l a i n t i f f d i d s e e d e f e n d a n t ' s a u t o m o b i l e he was n e g l i g e n t i n t u r n i n g o n t o Broadwater i n t h e f a c e o f o b v i o u s danger. On t h e o t h e r hand, p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d he s t o p p e d a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , looked t o t h e w e s t , and d i d n o t see d e f e n d a n t ' s automobile. I n J e s s e n v . O ' D a n i e l , 136 Mont. 513, 523, 349 P.2d 1 0 7 , w e s a i d : " * * * A m o t o r i s t i s n o t required t o look f o r m i l e s up a r o a d i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n t h a t t h e r e a r e no v e h i c l e s a p p r o a c h i n g . A l l t h a t i s r e q u i r e d of him i s t h a t he l o o k s u f f i c i e n t l y f a r t o be s u r e t h a t t h e r e a r e no a p p r o a c h i n g v e h i c l e s which, i n t h e mind of a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n , would be l i k e l y t o c a u s e a n a c c i d e n t i f h e proceeded into the intersection." I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was d r i v i n g i n e x c e s s of t h e l e g a l speed l i m i t , a f a c t which p l a i n t i f f w a s n o t bound t o Grabs v . Missoula C a r t a g e Co., anticipate. 545 P.2d 1079, 33 St.Rep. 154. Mont . I Defendant a l s o t e s t i f i e d he d i d n o t s e e p l a i n t i f f ' s a u t o m o b i l e u n t i l immediately b e f o r e the collision. right-of-way; out. A f a v o r e d d r i v e r c a n n o t r e l y a b s o l u t e l y on h i s he must a c t r e a s o n a b l y and m a i n t a i n a p r o p e r look- Flynn v . Helena Cab & Bus Co., 94 Mont. 2 0 4 , 215, 2 1 P.2d I n McGuire v . Nelson, 167 Mont. 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 , 536 P.2d 768, 32 St.Rep. 600, we s a i d : " I t h a s l o n g been h e l d by t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e l a w d o e s n o t f a v o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s and t h e e v i d e n c e t h e r e f o r e w i l l be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o a p p e l l a n t s , a s having proved what it t e n d s t o p r o v e . Johnson v . Chicago, M. & S t . P. R. Co., 7 1 Mont. 390, 394, 230 P. 52. T h i s C o u r t h a s a l s o l o n g h e l d t h a t c a s e s s h o u l d n o t be withdrawn from a j u r y u n l e s s r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r - m i n d e d men c o u l d r e a c h o n l y one c o n c l u s i o n from t h e f a c t s . In r e E s t a t e of H a l l v . Milkovich, 158 Mont. 438, 492 P.2d 1388." The f a c t s h e r e do n o t d i c t a t e t h a t p l a i n t i f f was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y negligent. W e cannot say d e f e n d a n t ' s automobile w a s s o c l o s e t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n when p l a i n t i f f t u r n e d o n t o Broadwater a s t o c r e a t e a n immediate h a z a r d a s a m a t t e r o f law. Whether p l a i n t i f f c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t t o c o m p l e t e t h e t u r n s a f e l y was a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e jury. The j u r y s h o u l d a l s o have been a l l o w e d t o d e t e r - mine whether p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n s were t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e c o l l i s i o n r a t h e r t h a n d e f e n d a n t ' s e x c e s s i v e speed o r h i s f a i l u r e t o keep a p r o p e r l o o k o u t . S i m i l a r l y , t h e d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s h o u l d n o t have been granted on the basis that plaintiff failed to prove a causal relationship between defendant's acts and the collision. evidence was undisputed that: The (1) defendant was driving in excess of the legal speed limit; (2) he had been drinking prior to the collision; and (3) he did not see plaintiff's automobile until immediately before the collision. When viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, this evidence is sufficient to enable a jury to reasonably find defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the collision. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. We concur: f,- Chief Justice Justice I 'U

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.