PENN v BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14718 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 . WILLIAM 0 PENN, Plaintiff and Appellant, BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., a corporation, and The State of Montana, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen Beck argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Kurt W. Kroschel argued, Billings, Montana P. Keith Keller argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: &+$A. December 11, 1979 . ;> Filed: Clerk J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. A p p e l l a n t Penn b r o u g h t a c a u s e i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Rosebud County, t o r e c o v e r damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d i n a n a u t o m o b i l e - t r a i n accident. Penn a p p e a l s from a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f r e s p o n d e n t s , B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , I n c . and t h e S t a t e o f Montana. W e n o t e t h a t t h i s c a u s e a r o s e b e f o r e t h e Montana com- p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 27-1-702, effect. MCA, took C o n s e q u e n t l y , a n y c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e by Penn t h a t p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d h i s i n j u r i e s would b a r h i s r e c o v e r y o f damages from t h e S t a t e and B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n . v . S o u t h s i d e N a t i o n a l Bank ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. Dunham 466, 548 P.2d 1383; DeVerniero v. Eby ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 1 4 6 , 496 P.2d 290. I n J u n e 1975, Penn was working a s a p i p e f i t t e r i n Cols t r i p , Montana. On J u n e 11, 1975, Penn d e c i d e d t o d r i v e t o M i l e s C i t y , Montana a f t e r work t o p u r c h a s e new t i r e s f o r h i s 1 9 7 5 F o r d van. J e r r y Dewey and M a r t i n K u s s l e r , f r i e n d s o f a p p e l l a n t , went a l o n g f o r t h e r i d e . was u n e v e n t f u l . The t r i p t o Miles C i t y A f t e r t h e new t i r e s w e r e p u t o n ~ e n n ' sv a n , t h e t h r e e men p u r c h a s e d a s i x pack o f b e e r f o r t h e r o a d and s e t o u t on t h e r e t u r n t r i p t o C o l s t r i p . 8:30 p.m., A t approximately t h e t h r e e men s t o p p e d f o r d i n n e r a t t h e Gausthauf Bar i n F o r s y t h , Montana. A f t e r d i n n e r o f b e e r and p i z z a , Dewey a n d K u s s l e r began p l a y i n g p o o l and Penn went t o a f r i e n d ' s home t o s l e e p . A p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e h o u r l a t e r , Penn was awakened by f r i e n d s who s u g g e s t e d t h a t he r e t u r n t o t h e G a u s t h a u f t o j o i n Dewey and K u s s l e r . Gausthauf. Penn r e t u r n e d t o t h e A t a n undetermined t i m e , s l e e p i n h i s van. Penn l e f t t h e Gausthauf t o Dewey and K u s s l e r remained i n t h e Gaust- hauf d r i n k i n g b e e r and p l a y i n g p o o l . Penn i n t h e van. t o t h e van. L a t e r , Kussler joined A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 : 3 0 a.m., Dewey r e t u r n e d Dewey began d r i v i n g back t o C o l s t r i p w i t h Penn a n d K u s s l e r a s l e e p i n t h e back o f t h e v a n . Dewey t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s a m a t t e r o f h a b i t he would a s k t h e owner i f h e c o u l d d r i v e t h e o w n e r ' s c a r and t h a t he t h o u g h t t h a t h e had a s k e d Penn on t h e n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n . Penn h a s n o r e c o l l e c t i o n o f a n y e v e n t s from t h e t i m e he a r r i v e d a t t h e Gausthauf u n t i l he awoke i n t h e h o s p i t a l s e v e r a l days a f t e r t h e accident. The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d s o u t h o f F o r s y t h on Highway 315 a t t h e K o s e l k a c r o s s i n g , where t h e r a i l r o a d t r a c k p a r a l l e l s t h e road before crossing it a t a sharp angle. The c r o s s i n g i t s e l f i s l o c a t e d a t a c r e e k bottom and i s v i s i b l e from t h e c r e s t o f a h i l l 879 f e e t n o r t h o f t h e c r o s s i n g . There i s a d r o p o f a b o u t 2 5 f e e t i n a l t i t u d e from t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l t o the crossing. A r e f l e c t o r i z e d warning s i g n i s l o c a t e d 796 f e e t from t h e c r o s s i n g , and t h e r e a r e r e f l e c t o r i z e d c r o s s b u c k s a t t h e crossing i t s e l f . Both w a r n i n g d e v i c e s a r e v i s i b l e from t h e crest of t h e h i l l . A d d i t i o n a l l y , seven r e f l e c t o r i z e d p a n e l s a n d t h e r e f l e c t o r i z e d l o g o o f t h e r a i l r o a d company a r e l o c a t e d on t h e s i d e of each c o a l c a r . A t the t i m e of the accident, the train was traveling a p p r o x i m a t e l y 27 m i l e s p e r h o u r , and t h e van was g o i n g 50 m i l e s p e r hour. A v e h i c l e t r a v e l i n g 50 m i l e s p e r h o u r from t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l would r e a c h t h e c r o s s i n g i n a b o u t 1 2 seconds. F i f t y seconds p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e f r o n t of t h e l o c o m o t i v e was 1 , 8 5 0 f e e t from t h e van. The l o c o m o t i v e was e q u i p p e d w i t h a 200,000 candlepower l i g h t v i s i b l e a t t h a t d i s t a n c e , and t h e r e was n o impediments t o i t s v i s i b i l i t y . The l i g h t was aimed a t t h e van u n t i l 34 s e c o n d s p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , when t h e l o c o m o t i v e and van p a s s e d e a c h o t h e r . The van s t r u c k t h e t h i r t y - f i f t h c a r from t h e B u r l i n g t o n Northern c o a l t r a i n caboose. T h e r e w e r e no s k i d marks o r o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s of evasive a c t i o n . Most o f t h e van was i n t h e l e f t l a n e of t r a f f i c a t t h e t i m e of impact. The i n v e s t i g a t i n g highway p a t r o l m a n found s e v e n t e e n empty b e e r c a n s a n d o n e empty b o t t l e i n and a r o u n d t h e van. Dewey, t h e d r i v e r , c o n s e n t e d t o a b l o o d sample a few h o u r s a f t e r the accident. I t revealed a blood-alcohol l e v e l of . 1 6 % . An e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s t i m a t e d Dewey's b l o o d - a l c o h o l l e v e l a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t t o b e .20 t o .21%. p r e s u m p t i v e l e v e l o f i n t o x i c a t i o n i n Montana i s The .lo%. S e c t i o n 61-8-401 ( 3 ) ( c ), MCA. A s a r e s u l t o f t h e a c c i d e n t , Penn l o s t h i s g a l l b l a d d e r , i s p a r a l i z e d below t h e w a i s t , and s u f f e r s n e u r o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s . Dewey r e c e i v e d a broken h i p , a c o l l a p s e d l u n g and a s e v e r e s c a l p wound. K u s s l e r was k i l l e d . Penn r a i s e s n i n e a s s i g n m e n t s o f e r r o r f o r r e v i e w . We h o l d i n f a v o r o f r e s p o n d e n t s on a l l t h e a s s i g n m e n t s o f error. I n h i s f i r s t a s s i g n m e n t o f e r r o r , Penn c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n permitting t h e respondents t o p r o c e e d on a t h e o r y o f n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t . Penn a s s e r t s t h a t i n Montana n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t may o n l y b e u s e d a s a theory of recovery, n o t a s a defense s i n c e it involves an a p p l i c a t i o n o f imputed c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . contention i s without m e r i t . Such a H e r e , respondents pleaded n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t as a t y p e of c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence, imputed t o Penn a s t h e e n t r u s t o r , n o t t o t h e e n t r u s t e e , Dewey. Respondents w e r e n o t t r y i n g t o impute t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t s o f t h e d r i v e r t o Penn, t h e p a s s e n g e r and owner of t h e van. The R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s s u p p o r t s n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t a s a d e f e n s e when u s e d a s a s p e c i e s of c o n t r i butory negligence. The R e s t a t e m e n t p r o v i d e s t h a t a n a c t o r i s n e g l i g e n t i f he a l l o w s a t h i r d p a r t y t o u s e an o b j e c t u n d e r t h e a c t o r ' s c o n t r o l when t h e a c t o r knows, o r h a s r e a s o n t o know, o f a n u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k of harm t o o t h e r s . R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s SS308, 390 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . The s e c o n d a s s i g n m e n t o f e r r o r Penn a s s e r t s i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t I n s t r u c t i o n No. 25 f a i l e d t o c h a r g e t h e j u r y p r o p e r l y on t h e e l e m e n t s o f n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t . Penn, however, f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a t t r i a l . The contention t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n does n o t s t a t e t h e l a w cannot be considered absent a proper o b j e c t i o n a t t r i a l . Roberts R e a l t y Corp. v . C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 1 4 4 , 500 P.2d 956. The t h i r d a s s i g n m e n t o f e r r o r a s s e r t e d i s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o a d m i t a p e t i t i o n o f t h e Rosebud County Commissioners and o t h e r documents c o n c e r n i n g t h e w a r n i n g d e v i s e s a t t h e Koselka c r o s s i n g . Penn m a i n t a i n s t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e s e e v i d e n t i a r y documents p r e c l u d e d him from e s t a b l i s h i n g n o t i c e a s a n e l e m e n t o f n e g l i g e n c e and t h e n e c e s s a r y s t a t e o f mind f o r a n award o f p u n i t i v e damages. P r i o r t o t r i a l , b o t h p a r t i e s moved - l i m i n e t o e x c l u d e in c e r t a i n documents i n c l u d i n g t h o s e a t i s s u e now. A t the h e a r i n g on t h e s e m o t i o n s , Penn a g r e e d t h e documentary e v i d e n c e was u n n e c e s s a r y i f t h e S t a t e and B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n would admit t o t h e d a t e they received n o t i c e of t h e dangerous n a t u r e of t h e crossing. A l t h o u g h Penn s t a t e d t h a t he wished t o preserve h i s p o s i t i o n regarding t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e documents, a l l p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a s t i p u l a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e d a t e o f n o t i c e . The s t i p u l a t i o n was b e f o r e t h e j u r y , and Penn f a i l e d t o o f f e r t h e p e t i t i o n o r o t h e r r e l e v a n t documents i n t o e v i d e n c e o r make a n y o f f e r o f p r o o f a t t r i a l . The s t i p u l a t i o n e n t e r e d i n t o by Penn f o r e c l o s e s a I t i s improper t o r a i s e a n i s s u e upon review of t h i s i s s u e . a p p e a l a s t o a q u e s t i o n o f law o r f a c t a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s h a v e e n t e r e d i n t o a s t i p u l a t i o n as t o t h a t law o r f a c t . Oregon Automobile I n s u r a n c e Company v . Watkins ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 264 Or. 464, 506 P.2d 1 7 9 . The f o u r t h a s s i g n m e n t o f e r r o r i s t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n p e r m i t t i n g d e f e n s e w i t n e s s Van Schwartz- t o t e s t i f y a t t r i a l c o n c e r n i n g h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s from a n e x p e r iment. Penn c o n t e n d s Van S c h w a r t z l a c k e d t h e n e c e s s a r y q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o t e s t i f y a s a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s and t h e e x p e r i m e n t w a s c o n d u c t e d u n d e r d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s from those e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e accident. Penn c a n n o t a s s e r t Van S c h w a r t z ' s l a c k o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a s a ground f o r r e v e r s a l s i n c e h i s o b j e c t i o n on t h i s ground was n o t t i m e l y . A t t r i a l , Penn o b j e c t e d t o t e s t i m o n y con- c e r n i n g Van S c h w a r t z ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s l o n g b e f o r e any s u c h t e s t i m o n y was g i v e n . H e made no o b j e c t i o n o n c e Van S c h w a r t z began t o t e s t i f y a b o u t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s . (1977) , Mont. , Sikorski v. Olin 568 P.2d 571, 34 St.Rep. 1042. Sim- i l a r l y , Penn c a n n o t c o m p l a i n upon a p p e a l t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t was c o n d u c t e d u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e on t h e n i g h t o f t h e a c c i d e n t s i n c e d i f f e r i n g c o n d i t i o n s was n o t a ground f o r h i s o b j e c t i o n a t t r i a l . (1978) - Mont. , Hayes v . J.M.S. 579 P.2d 1225, 35 St.Rep. Const. 722. I n h i s f i f t h and s i x t h a s s i g n m e n t s o f e r r o r , Penn a s s e r t s i t was e r r o r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o r e f u s e t o g i v e p l a i n t i f f ' s I n s t r u c t i o n Nos. 24 and 31, which would h a v e c h a r g e d t h e j u r y t h a t t h e S t a t e and B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n w e r e n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law. S e c t i o n 61-8-202, MCA r e q u i r e s t h e Department o f High- ways t o a d o p t t h e r e g u l a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Manual on T r a f f i c Control Devices. Penn m a i n t a i n s t h a t i n l i g h t o f t h i s s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e Manual h a s t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t o f law. Thus, h e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e was n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law i n f a i l i n g t o s i g n a l i z e t h e K o s e l k a c r o s s i n g i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Manual. S i m i l a r l y , s e c t i o n 69-14-602, MCA imposes a d u t y on r a i l r o a d companies t o c o n s t r u c t a n d m a i n t a i n "good and s a f e " c r o s s i n g s . Penn a s s e r t s B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n was n e g l i g e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w by v i o l a t i n g s e c t i o n 69-14-602, MCA, i n t h a t it f a i l e d t o i n s t a l l t h e t y p e s o f warning d e v i c e s r e q u i r e d by t h e Manual a t e x t r a - h a z a r d o u s c r o s s i n g s . Penn's c o n t e n t i o n s a r e n o t convincing. Before respon- d e n t s c a n b e c h a r g e d w i t h n e g l i g e n c e i n v i o l a t i n g t h e Manual, i t must f i k s t b e d e t e r m i n e d : was e x t r a - h a z a r d o u s , (1) t h a t t h e Koselka c r o s s i n g and ( 2 ) t h a t f a i l u r e t o i n s t a l l a d d i t i o n a l w a r n i n g s i g n a l s was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f P e n n ' s i n j u r i e s . These w e r e q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t f o r t h e j u r y s i n c e c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e was o f f e r e d a t t r i a l . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n Montana, t h e Manual d o e s n o t have e q u a l d i g n i t y w i t h s t a t u t o r y law. T h e r e must b e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e Highway Commission d i r e c t e d t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l warning s i g n a l s b e f o r e Burlington N o r t h e r n c a n b e c h a r g e d w i t h a d u t y t o make s u c h i n s t a l l a t i o n s . ~ i l l i a m s . Maley ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 5 0 Mont. v 261, 434 P.2d 398. here i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e Highway Commis- s i o n i s s u e d such a d i r e c t i v e . Penn's seventh assignment of e r r o r i s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o charge t h e jury t h a t t h e Public Service Commission was n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law. I n A p r i l 1973, t h e Rosebud County Commissioners p r e s e n t e d a p e t i t i o n t o t h e R a i l r o a d Commission, now t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission, r e q u e s t i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n o f warning d e v i c e s a t t h e Koselka crossing. Penn c o n t e n d s t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission's f a i l u r e t o i s s u e a n y o r d e r w h a t s o e v e r v i o l a t e d s e c t i o n 691 4 - 6 2 2 ( 2 ) , MCA and c o n s t i t u t e d n e g l i g e n c e p e r se on t h e p a r t of the State. W e c o n c l u d e i t was n o t e r r o r t o r e f u s e p l a i n t i f f ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 32, t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission i n s t r u c t i o n . Such a n i n s t r u c t i o n would have i n j e c t e d a n i s s u e upon which n e i t h e r s i d e had o f f e r e d a n y e v i d e n c e . It is not error t o r e f u s e a n i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e admitted a t t r i a l . 1 4 2 Mont. P o r , t e r v . Crum-McKinnon Bldg. Co. 74, 381 P.2d 794. (1963), Furthermore, t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission's f a i l u r e t o i s s u e a n y o r d e r , e v e n o n e r e f u s i n g t o o r d e r i n s t a l l a t i o n o f warning d e v i c e s , h a s no r e l e v a n c e t o causation i n t h i s case. I n h i s e i g h t h a s s i g n m e n t o f e r r o r , Penn a s s e r t s C o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 26 c o n c e r n i n g a s s u m p t i o n o f r i s k was i n c o r r e c t a s a m a t t e r o f law. Penn m a i n t a i n s t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a u s e d o n o t i n v o l v e t h e t y p e o f n e g l i g e n t b e h a v i o r t o which a s sumption o f r i s k a p p l i e s . Penn c o n t e n d s t h a t a s s u m p t i o n o f r i s k a p p l i e s o n l y t o a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a p l a i n t i f f and a d e f e n d a n t , n o t between a p l a i n t i f f and a t h i r d p a r t y . further a s s e r t s t h a t it i s insufficient t o point t o the He n e g l i g e n c e o f Dewey, t h e d r i v e r , and P e n n ' s a s s u m p t i o n o f Dewey's n e g l i g e n t o p e r a t i o n o f h i s van. W e cannot agree with Penn's contentions. Court's I n s t r u c t i o n No. 26 was a d a p t e d from Montana J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n Guide No. 1 3 . 0 0 and i s a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f Montana law a s it e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e t h i s cause arose. Herzog ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 5 8 Mont. S e e Hoffman v . 296, 4 9 1 P.2d 713. Conflicting e v i d e n c e was a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l a s t o w h e t h e r Penn assumed t h e r i s k o f h i s i n j u r i e s by r i d i n g w i t h a n i n c o m p e t e n t d r i v e r . Thus, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was p r o p e r . Penn's n i n t h assignment of e r r o r i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n determining t h a t t h e respondents w e r e n o t l i a b l e f o r p u n i t i v e damages. On O c t o b e r 11, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered an order s t r i k i n g Penn's claim against t h e S t a t e f o r p u n i t i v e damages on t h e ground t h a t s e c t i o n 82-4324, RCM (1947) d i s a l l o w e d p u n i t i v e damages a g a i n s t t h e State. S i m i l a r l y , on t h e l a s t day of t h e t r i a l , respondents o b j e c t e d t o Penn c a l l i n g a w i t n e s s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n o f B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n a s a measure by which p u n i t i v e damages c o u l d b e a s s e s s e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u s t a i n e d t h e o b j e c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u b m i t t h e i s s u e o f p u n i t i v e damages t o t h e j u r y . Penn c o n t e n d s t h e s e r u l i n g s , when combined w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o admit i n t o evidence t h e p e t i t i o n o f t h e Rosebud County Commissioners, p r e c l u d e d Penn from p u r s u i n g t h a t p o r t i o n o f P e n n ' s c a u s e r e g a r d i n g a n award o f p u n i t i v e damages. A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , Penn e n t e r e d i n t o a s t i p u l a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n o f t h e Rosebud County Commissioners, and t h a t s t i p u l a t i o n was b e f o r e t h e j u r y . Having e n t e r e d i n t o t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , Penn c a n n o t now c l a i m prejudice from his failure to have the petition admitted at trial. See Oregon Automobile Insurance Company, supra. The jury returned a verdict of no liability for actual damages on the part of the State and Burlington Northern. Such a verdict precludes an award of pufiitive damages, thus Penn suffered no harm from the District Court's ruling regarding punitive damages. Herde8gen v. Oxarart (1963), 141 Mont. 464, 378 P.2d 655. Having found no substance to Penn's assignments of error, the jury verdict in favor of the State and Burlington Northern is affirmed. We concur: Chief Justice Justices Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy deems himself disqualified in this case. Following oral argument herein, Justice Sheehy learned that one of his former associates may have represented a party having a collateral claim arising out of the incident on which this case is based. Since it appears that such relationship of attorney-client existed before he c a m e o n t h e C o u r t , J u s t i c e Sheehy h a s t a k e n no p a r t i n t h e decision o r opinion herein. Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l and J u s t i c e Daniel J. S h e a c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t .

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.