BARICH v OTTENSTROR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13103 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN ISABELLE BARICH , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , SHIRLEY OTTENSTROR, A d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f t h e E s t a t e o f RICHARD OTTENSTROR a s owner N1 O PN o f t h e C I T Y TRANSFER A 1 STORAGE C M A Y and i n d i v i d u a l l y , AERO-MAYFLOWER TRANSIT AU COMPANY, and DONNER T T M COMPANY, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. Robert J. Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g , Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : McKeon and S k a k l e s , Anaconda, Montana Michael McKeon argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondents : Knight, Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade J. nahood a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana Dolphy 0. Pohlman Jr. a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Submitted: March 2 , 1976 Dee i d e d : fdfi."/ 1 4 Filed : 1976 r . !us t i c e J C I ~ I L~~ O <he Court. L I W ~ Ya 'l rL ~ ~ U I 1 e l ~ v e r e dt n e -~ J p i ~ i i o n ~i T h i s a p p e a l i s from a summary judgment i n a t o r t a c t i o ~ ~ t l l e c l in t h e t h i r d j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Deer Lodge County. A t the time t h e a c t i o n was commenced I s a b e l l e B a r i c h was a r e s i d e n t QJ; Q p p o r t u n i t y , Deer Lodge County, Montana. Shirley Ottenstror was a d m i n i s t r a t r i x f o r t h e e s t a t e o f Richard O t t e n s t r o r , owner ~ d i he t 111 C i t y T r a n s f e r and S t o r a g e Company, a f i r m b a s e d p r i n c i p a l l y t h e c i t y o f Anaconda. The amended c o m p l a i n t j o i n e d t h e Aero- >layflower T r a n s i t Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , o r g a n i z e d under t h e laws Jr t h e s t a t e of I n d i a n a ; and t h e Donner Tatum Company, a c o r p o r a - !:ion, o r g a n i z e d under t h e laws of t h e s t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a . P l a i n t i f f B a r i c h s e e k s b o t h g e n e r a l and s p e c i a l damages froin d e f e n d a n t s a s compensation f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i c h a l a r g e c a r d b o a r d wardrobe box which was a l l e g e d l y c o n s t r u c t e d , ( d i s t r i b u t e d , s o l d and handled i n a n e g l i g e n t manner by d e f e n d a n t s . LIA a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h e o r y o f n e g l i g e n c e , t h e amended c o m p l a i n t > p e c i f i e s t h e c o n c e p t s of w a r r a n t y and s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y a s a l t e r a a c i v e grounds f o r l i a b i l i t y . The r e c o r d c o n s i s t s of t h e p l e a d i n g s , p l a i n t i f f ' s l e p a s i t i o n , and t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and answers of a l l p a r t i e s . On t h i s b a s i s d e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n : ~ ~ o t i o n s r summary judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 6 , M.R.Civ.P. fo The motions were g r a n t e d and p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s . I t a p p e a r s t h a t i n J u n e 1968, a p p e l l a n t B a r i c h purchased for five dollars a new wardrobe c a r t o n from C i t y T r a n s f e r and . > t o r a g e , an a g e n t f o r Aero-Mayflower T r a n s i t Company. The c a r t o n is c o n s t r u c t e d o f c a r d b o a r d s h e e t s h e l d t o g e t h e r w i t h g l u e , and measures 24" x 2 2 : ' x 51". I t i s d i s t r i b u t e d b u t n o t manufactured by t h e Donner Tatum Company i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f i t s b u s i n e s s . The c a r t o n was purchased by a p p e l l a n t f o r u s e i n a proposed move from Anaconda t o Wexford, P e n n s y l v a n i a . A p p e l l a n t f i l l e d t h e c a r t o n w i t h s e v e r a l a r t i c l e s o f c l o t h i n g , and i t was ~ I A U V ~ ~ ~~ip1uyees e .Ji 'y ) .+el - - : ? a y i l o ~ e r !rdr~.sitI J o r i l p d ~ i y , s e v e ~ d l . o weeks a f t e r i t s p u r c h d s e . Upon i t s a r r i v a l i n P e n n s y l v a ~ l i a , t h e : d ~ t o nwas unloaded and p l a c e d on p i e c e s of lumber i n an unh e a t e d g a r a g e w i t h c o n c r e t e w a l l s and f l o o r . The c a r t o n remained i r ~t h a t g a r a g e f o r t h e n e x t two y e a r s s u b j e c t e d t o t h e v i c i s s i t u d e ~i t e m p e r a t u r e and h u m i d i t y t y p i c a l t o P e n n s y l v a n i a . '970, I n June a p p e l l a n t and h e r husband r e t u r n e d t o t h e Anaconda a r e a . They r e n t e d a t r u c k and performed a l l n e c e s s a r y packing and moving themselves. The now two y e a r o l d c a r t o n was p l a c e d i n a r e n t e d t r u c k S y Yr. B a r i c h and i t remained t h e r e u n t i l i t s a r r i v a l i n Anaconda. 11 1 a s s i s t i n g h e r husband w i t h t h e u n l o a d i n g o f t h e t r u c k , a p p e l l a n t was asked t o move t h e c a r t o n away from t h e s i d e w a l l o f t h e v e h i c l e . lo accomplish t h i s Mrs. B a r i c h p l a c e d h e r hand i n a s i d e s p a c e c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e c a r t o n a s a t y p e of h a n d l e , and p u l l e d on i t . The c a r t o n r i p p e d , and a p p e l l a n t f e l l backward i n t o a wheel w e l l , breaking her w r i s t . S e v e r a l p i c t u r e s o f t h e c a r t o n were a t t a c h e d t o a p p e l l a n t ' s d e p o s i t i o n f o r t h e purpose of d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t which apparently caused t h e a c c i d e n t . These p i c t u r e s a l s o s e r v e t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e b a s i c c o n d i t i o n of t h e c a r t o n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e accident. A f t e r o v e r two y e a r s of c o n t i n u e d u s e f o r b o t h s t o r a g e and moving, t h e c a r t o n , a l t h o u g h c l e a r l y s t i l l u s a b l e , showed t h e obvious s i g n s o f normal wear and t e a r . A p u n c t u r e h o l e e x i s t s on t h e same s i d e used by a p p e l l a n t when t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , and a huge t e a r i n t h e c a r d b o a r d a p p e a r s n e a r t h e b a s e of t h e c a r t o n . The box i s n e c e s s a r i l y r e i n f o r c e d by masking t a p e i n s e v e r a l c r i t i c a l a r e a s . A p p e l l a n t was u n a b l e t o r e c o u n t any s p e c i f i c f a c t s which might t e n d t o e x p l a i n t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n of t h e c a r t o n ' s c o n d i t i o n . T h i s C o u r t , on numerous o c c a s i o n s , h a s had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l i c a t e t h e fundamentals o f summary judgment under Rule 5 6 , M.R. i . . The i n i ~ i a burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a b s e n c e o f any g e n u i n e l i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t i s imposed upon t h e moving p a r t y . 14ustang S e v e r a g e Company, I n c . , v. J o s . S c h l i t z Brewing Company, 162 Mont. . 243, 246, 1 1 d , SUE here ;:he recdrd d i s c l o s e s 110 gerluine i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , r h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion i s r e q u i r e d t o produce e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f f a c t before t h e t r i a l court: "Thus t h e d e t e r m i n i t i v e q u e s t i o n h e r e i s w h e t h e r respondent has r a i s e d f a c t u a l i s s u e s t h a t a r e m a t e r i a l and of a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e . " State e x r e l . C i t y Motor Company v. D i s t . C o u r t , 32 -;t.Rep. 3 4 , 3 6 , 166 Mont. 5 2 , 530 P.2d 486. in l i g h t of Rule 5 6 , M.R.Civ.P., t h e p a r t y opposing a motion Eor ;unmary judgment on a r e c o r d which r e v e a l s no i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l < a c t must p r e s e n t f a c t s of a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e . Conclusory o r s p e c u l a t i v e statements a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e a genuine i s s u e of . n d ~ e r i a lf a c t . 3.3 St.Rep. Harland v. Anderson, Mon t . P.2d 3 363. The l e g a l problem p r e s e n t e d h e r e i s e s s e n t i a l l y a m a t t e r ~LUL~UCLli S ability. Because t h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s i n t h e c o n t e x t ai Xule 5 6 , M.R.Civ.P., o u r a n a l y s i s must i n i t i a l l y d e t e r m i n e t h e quantum and n a t u r e of proof r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y l e g a l b a s i s t o r e c o v e r f o r i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by a n u n s a f e p r o d u c t . T h i s Court h a s p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t proof o f t h e d e f e c t nay be made t h r o u g h i n f e r e n c e s drawn from c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , a s w e l l a s by d i r e c t e v i d e n c e . Brandenburger v . Toyota Motor S a l e s , l S 2 Mont. 506, 517, 513 P.2d 268. P r o f e s s o r P r o s s e r i n Law o f T o r t s 4 t h ed. 5103, p . 671, d i s c u s s e s what e l e m e n t s must b e e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e r e c o v e r y can b e had i n a p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n : If The proof r e q u i r e d of a p l a i n t i f f s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r f o r i n j u r i e s from an u n s a f e p r o d u c t i s v e r y l a r g e l y t h e same, whether h i s c a u s e of a c t i o n r e s t s upon n e g l i g e n c e , w a r r a n t , o r s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y in t o r t . 'On any o f t h e t h r e e b a s e s o f l i a b i l i t y , t h e p l a i n t i f f \ a s t h e i n i t i a l burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h r e e t h i n g s . ' i l ~ ef i r s t i s t h a t h e h a s been i n j u r e d by t h e p r o d u c t . J, > The second i s t h a t t h e i n j u r y o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e t h e , product was d e f e c t i v e , u n r e a s o n a b l y u n s a f e . 9~ " , The t h i r d i s t h a t t h e d e f e c t e x i s t e d when t h e p r o d u c t l e f t che hands o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n d a n t . I I -1- #b A 4, -L , i i h b i i i t y J a s e s r e g a r d l e s s of t h e t h e o r y o f l i a b i l i t y advanced, w e a e e d n o t d i s c u s s t h e v a r i o u s t h e o r i e s upon which a p p e l l a n t seeks t o hold respondents l i a b l e . ,$ 63 A v . J u r 2d, P r o d u c t s L i a b i l i t y , 9 , p.1-9; Hursh, American Law of P r o d u c t s L i a b i l i t y 2d, 4 1 : 7 , 9. 19. It i s a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e i n products l i a b i l i t y cases :;hdt sl lianufacturer o r s e l l e r i s n o t l i a b l e f o r product caused i n j u r i e s i n t h e a b s e n c e of proof t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y i n q u e s t i o n was d e f e c t i v e o r dangerous a t t h e t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t was i-11 p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l of i t , o r when such p r o d u c t l e f t d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n and c o n t r o l . Richardson v. Farmers Union O i l Co., 131 Mont. 535, 312 P.2d 134; American R a d i a t o r & S t a n d a r d S a n i t a r y Sorp. v. F i x , 200 F.2d 529; Northern v . G e n e r a l Motors Corp., 2 iltah 2d 9 , 268 P.2d 981. I n Restatement o f T o r t s 2d 5 402A, t h i s z o n c e p t t o s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y s i t u a t i o n s a p p e a r s i n Comment g , p. h he burden o f proof t h a t t h e p r o d u c t was i n a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n a t t h e time t h a t i t l e f t t h e hands of t h e p a r t i c u l a r s e l l e r i s upon t h e i n j u r e d p l a i n t i f f ; and u n l e s s e v i d e n c e can b e produced which g i l l s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n c h a t i t was t h e n d e f e c t i v e , :he burden i s n o t s u s t a i n e d . I I t h e law does nor- presume t h a t a p r o d u c t was d e f e c t i v e s c t:he t i n w i t was u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l of a m a n u f a c t u r e r o r d i s - t r i b u L o r , from a mere showing t h a t a p r o d u c t may have been def e c t i v e a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t . Maryland Cas. Co. v. I n d e - pendent Metal P r o d u c t s Co., 203 F.2d 838. While a s p e c i f i c d e f e c t need n o t be shown where the e v i d e n c e t e n d s t o n e g a t e i n j u r y p r o J u c i n g c a u s e s which do n o t r e l a t e t o a d e f e c t , t h i s r u l e c a n n o t se a p p l i e d u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e a l s o n e g a t e s t h e misuse o r m i s !landling o f t h e p r o d u c t by t h e p l a i n t i f f . : ~ r o d u c t sCorp., 414 F.2d 682. Franks v . N a t i o n a l D a i r y Here, r e s p o n d e n t s met t h e i r i n i t i a l burden o f p r o o f under Xule 5 6 , when t h e y proved t h e p r o d u c t had been used f o r a cons i d e r a b l e l e n g t h o f t i m e f o l l o w i n g i t s manufacture and s a l e . Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s , many c o u r t s have r e c o g n i z e d t h e l o g i c a l a p p e a l o f t h e i n f e r e n c e t h e d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n c o u l d n o t have e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e p r o d u c t was s o l d . Solomon v. White Motor Co., 153 F.Supp. 917; Auld v. S e a r s , Roebuck & Co., 261 App.Div. 918, 25 N.Y.S.2d 491, a f f ' d 4 1 N.E.2d ? f o t o r s Corp., 37 N . J . 927; C o u r t o i s v. G e n e r a l 5 2 5 , 182 A.2d 545; U.S. Rubber Co. v. Bauer, 319 F.2d 463; Kapp v. S u l l i v a n C h e v r o l e t Co., 234 Ark. 395, 353 S.W.2d 5 . A manufacturer o r s e l l e r i s n o t r e q u i r e d , under t h e law, t o produce o r s e l l a p r o d u c t t h a t w i l l n e v e r wear o u t . Jakubowski v , Minnesota Mining & 14anufacturing, 42 N . J . 177, 199 A.2d 826. Under t h e s e f a c t s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n r u l i n g t h a t n o g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d and t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s were e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. I t was incumbent upon a p p e l l a n t t o come forward w i t h proof overcoming t h e i n f e r e n c e s d e r i v e d from t h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i s s u e o f l o n g , c o n t i n u e d u s e t o a g a i n r a i s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y shown i n t h e p l e a d i n g s t h a t a g e n u i n e and m a t e r i a l f a c t i s s u e might have e x i s t e d . F a i l i n g such a showing, t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . - -- ~ o n .B;W. Thomas, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n . - 6 -

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.