NOLL v CITY OF BOZEMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13329 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 VIRGINIA NOLL, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, an incorporated municipality and WALTER L. BATES, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: McKinley Anderson, Bozeman, Montana Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and Phillips, Kalispell, Montana Douglas Dasinger argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondents : Brown, Pepper and Kommers, Bozeman, Montana Anderson, Symrnes, Forbes, Peete and Brown, Billings, Montana Richard Cebull argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: April 20, 1977 Decided : JUN Filed: Jkgm 8 QS?? - 2 19q Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from a j u r y award o f damages r e s u l t - i n g from a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t . P l a i n t i f f s w e r e i n j u r e d on August 1 7 , 1973, when a s t r e e t pavement r o l l e r o p e r a t e d by B a t e s i n t h e scope o f h i s employment by t h e C i t y o f Bozeman s t r u c k t h e back o f a parked c a r i n which p l a i n t i f f s were s i t t i n g . liability. Defendants a d m i t t e d The s o l e i s s u e a t t h e t r i a l w a s t h e amount o f dam- a g e s t o be awarded p l a i n t i f f s . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t o f $800 f o r No11 and $1,100 f o r Keneady. inadequate. Both p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l , c l a i m i n g t h e awards a r e They b o t h c l a i m i n j u r i e s t o t h e i r back and neck. I n a d d i t i o n , No11 c l a i m s a g g r a v a t i o n o f a p r e - e x i s t i n g arthritic c o n d i t i o n and Keneady claims a g g r a v a t i o n o f a n e u r o t i c c o n d i t i o n i n a d d i t i o n t o damage t o t h e car owned by h e r . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w on a p p e a l : (1) Was r e f u s a l of p l a i n t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 5 reversible error? ( 2 ) Was t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t ? P l a i n t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n No 5 r e a d s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e Defendant need n o t b e t h e s o l e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y , it b e i n g s u f f i c i e n t t h a t it was one o f t h e e f f i c i e n t c a u s e s t h e r e o f , w i t h o u t which t h e i n j u r y would n o t have r e s u l t e d ; b u t it must a p p e a r t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e p e r s o n s o u g h t t o be c h a r g e d w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a t l e a s t o n e of t h e causes r e s u l t i n g i n t h e injury." For s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y p l a i n t i f f s c i t e F l e t c h e r v . C i t y of Helena, 163 Mont. 337, 344, 517 P.2d 365. They a r g u e it was c r i t i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t t h e j u r y u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i f t h e a c c i d e n t was - of t h e c a u s e s of p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n d i t i o n , t h e n one d e f e n d a n t s would be l i a b l e ; and t h a t it was n o t n e c e s s a r y def e n d a n t s be t h e s o l e c a u s e . F u r t h e r , they contend t h a t an a p p o r t i o n m e n t of damages between t h e p r i o r c o n d i t i o n and a g g r a v a t i o n c a u s e d by d e f e n d a n t s c a n o n l y be made where t h e r e i s a l o g i c a l b a s i s f o r such a p p o r t i o n m e n t . O t h e r w i s e , where no b a s i s c a n be found, such a d i v i s i o n would be a r b i t r a r y and t h e o n l y p r a c t i c a l c o u r s e would be t o h o l d d e f e n d a n t s l i a b l e f o r t h e e n t i r e l o s s notwithstanding t h e f a c t t h a t o t h e r causes may have c o n t r i b u t e d t o such l o s s . 289 F.Supp. 790 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Kegel v. United S t a t e s , F i n a l l y , t h e y submit t h e j u r y was m i s l e d by t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e c o u r t t o a l l o w t h e i r proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 5, e s p e c i a l l y i n view of d e f e n d a n t s ' c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n t e n d i n g t o p o i n t t o o t h e r p o s s i b l e c a u s e s of p l a i n t i f f s ' condition. W disagree. e The p o i n t was a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r e d by p l a i n - t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 g i v e n by t h e c o u r t . This in- s t r u c t i o n reads: " I n a n a c t i o n f o r damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by t h e wrongful a c t o r o m i s s i o n of a n o t h e r , t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n i s e n t i t l e d t o f u l l compensat i o n f o r a l l i n j u r i e s p r o x i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n g from t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t even though s u c h i n j u r i e s may have been a g g r a v a t e d by r e a s o n o f h e r p r e - e x i s t i n g p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and w e r e r e n d e r e d more d i f f i c u l t t o c u r e by r e a s o n of h e r e x i s t i n g s t a t e o f h e a l t h , o r because o f a l a t e n t d i s e a s e t h e i n j u r i e s were r e n d e r e d more s e r i o u s t o h e r t h a n t h e y would have been had s h e been i n r o b u s t h e a l t h . "The Defendant c a n n o t invoke t h e p r e v i o u s c o n d i t i o n of t h e person i n j u r e d f o r t h e purpose of escaping t h e consequences of h i s own n e g l i g e n c e o r r e d u c i n g t h e damages f o r which he i s l i a b l e , b u t of c o u r s e t h e r e c a n be no r e c o v e r y f o r any e l e m e n t s due t o t h e p r e - e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n and i n no way r e s u l t i n g from t h e i n j u r y . The r e c o v e r y i n s u c h c a s e s h o u l d i n c l u d e no damages f o r i n j u r i e s which r e s u l t p u r e l y from t h e o r i g i n a l c o n d i t i o n . I t must be c o n f i n e d t o t h o s e which a r e due t o i t s enhancement and aggravation. The d e f e n d a n t must respond i n damages f o r such p a r t o f t h e d i s e a s e d c o n d i t i o n a s h i s negl i g e n c e h a s c a u s e d , and i f t h e r e c a n be no a p p o r t i o n ment, o r it c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t t h e d i s e a s e would have e x i s t e d a p a r t from t h e i n j u r y , t h e n he i s responsible f o r t h e diseased condition. But where t h e d i s e a s e i s more t h a n a mere l a t e n t tendency t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n be h e l d l i a b l e o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t her negligence proximately aggravated t h e condition. " T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r s t h e law r e l a t i n g t o p l a i n t i f f s ' t h e o r y of damages. Accordingly, r e f u s a l of p l a i n - t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 5 was n o t e r r o r . D i r e c t i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e damage awards, w e n o t e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h e i r e v i d e n c e i s e s s e n t i a l l y u n c o n t r a d i c t e d b e c a u s e def e n d a n t s p r e s e n t e d no m e d i c a l w i t n e s s e s and t h a t t h e i r e v i d e n c e p r o v e s damages f a r i n e x c e s s o f t h e amounts awarded by t h e j u r y . No11 a r g u e s t h e e v i d e n c e shows s h e had t o r e s i g n h e r t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n on h e r d o c t o r ' s recommendation b e c a u s e of t h e p a i n s h e was s u f f e r i n g i n a r e a s t h a t had n e v e r b o t h e r e d h e r bef o r e t h e a c c i d e n t ; t h a t s h e had been making $12,000 p e r y e a r ; t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l s h e had a c t u a l wage l o s s of $7,200; t h a t b e i n g 55 y e a r s of a g e s h e would have a f u t u r e l o s s o f wages f o r 1 0 more working y e a r s o f a t l e a s t $12,000 p e r y e a r ; and t h a t s h e had m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s of $512.87 b e s i d e s p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , a l l a s a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t . Keneady a r g u e s t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t s h e had m e d i c a l expenses i n e x c e s s o f $100; t h a t s h e l o s t 1 3 weeks work t o t a l i n g $2,067; and t h a t p r o p e r t y damage t o h e r car amounted t o $306.56; b e s i d e s p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , a l l a s a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t . T h i s c a s e i s v e r y s i m i l a r t o H o l e n s t e i n v . Andrews, 166 Mont. 60, 530 P.2d 476, where a v e r d i c t f o r p l a i n t i f f o f z e r o damages w a s a f f i r m e d under s i m i l a r c o n t e n t i o n s . On a p p e a l w e must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e prevailing party i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. s t e i n , supra. Holen- F u r t h e r , t h e j u r y may a c c e p t t e s t i m o n y of a w i t - n e s s i n whole o r i n p a r t o r may r e j e c t it a l t o g e t h e r . Ibid. The j u r y was s o i n s t r u c t e d by t h e u s u a l omnibus i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n by t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n : " I n weighing t h e t e s t i m o n y o f any w i t n e s s you s h o u l d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t h i s i n t e r e s t o r want of interest in the result of the case, his appearance upon the witness stand, his manner of testifying, his apparent candor or want of candor, and whether he is supported or contradicted by the facts and circumstances as shown by the evidence. You have a right to believe all the testimony of a witness or believe it in part and disbelieve it in part, or you may reject it altogether as you may find the evidence to be. You are to believe as jurors under the instructions of this Court and the evidence what you would believe as men and women, and there is no rule of law which requires you to believe as jurors what you would not believe as men or women." Defendants were able on cross-examination to deflate the thrust of plaintiffs' testimony and thus show plaintiffs' injuries attributable to the accident were perhaps minimal. The cross- examination revealed that perhaps Mrs. Noll's resignation from her teaching position was motivated by her marriage and resulting move to Arizona. Her medical testimony under cross-examin- ation was equivocal concerning whether her present difficulties were a result of a progression of her prior condition notwithstanding the accident. As to plaintiff Keneady, her testimony under cross examination was similarly equivocal concerning whether her difficulties and job loss were attributable to the accident or independent emotional problems. At the time of the accident she was suffering from continuing emotional problems brought on by concern with her home, family and advancing age. She had suffered a nervous breakdown years earlier and her testimony would support a jury finding that her difficulties were the result of a continuing emotional condition. Also several years earlier she had suffered a spinal strain similar to that complained of here. The testimony of the driver of the pavement roller and of the investigating police officer was introduced tending to show the car had not been moved by the impact of the collision. Although this is in conflict with the two plaintiffs' testimony that the car had been jolted forward 2 or 3 feet, the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusion that the occupants could not have suffered a very severe whiplash. In summary the jury weighed the positive statements of the witnesses against the adverse circumstantial evidence and equivocating testimony revealed on cross-examination and found the damages attributable to the admitted negligence of the defendants were much less than claimed. determinations made at trial. Mont . We cannot retry factual Dyksterhouse v. Doornbos, P.2d- , 34 St.Rep. 415 , (decided May 25, 1977), - quoting Hellickson v. Barrett Mobile Home Transp., 161 Mont. 455, 462, 507 P.2d 523. We find sufficient evidence in the record to support the amount of damages awarded. Judgment affirmed. Justice We con ur: - F /-
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.
