EVANGELINE v BILLINGS CYCLE CENTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-270 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 PETER EVANGELINE and DIMITRI EVANGELINE Plaintiffs and Appellants, BILLINGS CYCLE CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Nye Law Firm, Billings, Montana Jerrold L. Nye argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: McNamer, Thompson & Cashmore, Billings, Montana Charles R. Cashmore argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: March 25, 1981 Decided: April 15, 1981. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. P l a i n t i f f s , f a t h e r and s o n , b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 , e a c h s e e k i n g damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y . a defendant's verdict. Jury t r i a l resulted i n P l a i n t i f f s appeal. P l a i n t i f f , P e t e r Evangeline, h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s " f a t h e r " , p u r c h a s e d a used 1975 Yamaha d i r t b i k e from d e f e n d a n t on J u n e 1 6 , 1978. The b i k e was p u r c h a s e d f o r t h e u s e of D i m i t r i Evangeline, h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s "son". One day f o l l o w i n g t h e p u r c h a s e t h e s o n , t h e n a g e 1 2 , a t t e m p t e d t o r i d e t h e b i k e around a n o v a l t r a c k l o c a t e d a t p l a i n t i f f s ' home. On two o c c a s i o n s t h e son had t h e b i k e s l i d e o u t from under him due t o h i s i n a b i l i t y t o slow t h e bike. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t know whether t h e b r a k e s worked. The r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r a b o u t what c a u s e d t h e s e spills. The f a t h e r t h e n t r i e d t o r i d e t h e b i k e . f o r some u n e x p l a i n e d r e a s o n . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t know i f h i s f o o t was on t h e b r a k e . t h e b i k e f o r a second t r y . He t o o s p i l l e d The f a t h e r t h e n remounted A s t h e f a t h e r was a p p r o a c h i n g a c u r v e , he looked down t o see i f h i s f o o t was on t h e b r a k e and t h e r e s t i s b e s t d e s c r i b e d i n h i s own words: "By t h e t i m e I looked up I had a l r e a d y g o t t e n t o t h e l a t e r a l d i t c h - t h a t bottom one--and I c o u l d n ' t g e t o u t of i t . " "And by t h e t i m e I looked up, i t was t o o l a t e t o do a n y t h i n g b e c a u s e I h i t t h a t d i t c h , and I was f l y i n g i n t h e a i r . " The f a t h e r went t o t h e h o s p i t a l , and t h e f o l l o w i n g day t h e son a t t e m p t e d t o r i d e a g a i n , t h i s t i m e i n t h e company of a friend. The sequence of e v e n t s p r e c e d i n g t h i s second a c c i d e n t was r e l a t e d by t h e son a t t r i a l : "We s t a r t e d r a c i n g t h e r e when I went down t o t h e Hesper ~ o a d - - t o w a r d them d i t c h e s . I looked down t o s e e i f m f o o t was on t h e y t h i n g , and by t h a t t i m e I was a t t h e d i t c h . I tried to lean t h e b i k e o v e r , and t h e f r o n t wheel c a u g h t i n t h a t f i r s t d i t c h ; and m e o u t o n t o t h e r o a d and m b i k e i n t o t h e second y ditch." The son was i n j u r e d . The f a t h e r and son b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y , and a l t e r n a t e l y , i n n e g l i g e n c e . The t r i a l c o u r t r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y u n t i l h e a r i n g a l l of t h e e v i d e n c e . The c o u r t t h e n d e c i d e d t o submit t h e c a s e on n e g l i g e n c e only. The j u r y was a l s o i n s t r u c t e d on t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e and assumption of r i s k . On s p e c i a l f i n d i n g s , t h e j u r y concluded t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n c e of e a c h p l a i n t i f f was a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of e a c h a c c i d e n t . The j u r y f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t n e g l i g e n t . P l a i n t i f f s claim t h e following e r r o r : I. F a i l u r e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s u b m i t s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y . 2. F a i l u r e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make a p r e t r i a l r u l i n g on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y . 3. The i n s t r u c t i o n s on assumption of r i s k w e r e e r r o n e o u s . 4. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s comments d u r i n g t r i a l were p r e - judicial. The t r i a l c o u r t may r e s e r v e r u l i n g on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y u n t i l h e a r i n g e v i d e n c e , a s t h e e v i d e n c e may w e l l d e t e r m i n e what l i a b i l i t y t h e o r i e s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e . W e do n o t h e r e r u l e on t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y t o a used product. W e r e s o l v e t h i s q u e s t i o n on f a c t u a l i s s u e s a n d , t h e r e f o r e , no a u t h o r i t y i s c i t e d . I f a n i n s t r u c t i o n on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y had been g i v e n under t h e e v i d e n c e adduced a t t r i a l , t h e r e s u l t would n e c e s s a r i l y have been t h e same. P l a i n t i f f s c l a i m t h a t d e f e c t i v e b r a k e s were t h e r e s u l t of improper b r a k e a d j u s t m e n t . i n t h e evidence. N o t h e r d e f e c t can be found o W e a r e asked t o hold t h a t d e f e c t i v e a d j u s t - ment of b r a k e s i s d i f f e r e n t from n e g l i g e n t a d j u s t m e n t of brakes. W f e e l t h a t , g i v e n t h e s e f a c t s , t h e proof would be e t h e same f o r e i t h e r s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y o r n e g l i g e n c e . The j u r y found d e f e n d a n t was n o t n e g l i g e n t i n a d j u s t i n g t h e brakes. The same f i n d i n g would p r e c l u d e d e f e c t a r i s i n g o u t of t h e b r a k e a d j u s t m e n t . The t e s t i m o n y of b o t h t h e f a t h e r and son f a i l s t o e s t a b l i s h a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l a i m e d b r a k e m a l a d j u s t m e n t and a c c i d e n t . I n each c a s e t h e bike h i t a d i t c h w h i l e t h e r i d e r was l o o k i n g down t o s e e i f he was engaging t h e b r a k e . W e h o l d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s could n o t have- been p r e j u d i c e d by t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o i n s t r u c t on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y b e c a u s e : (1) I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e t h e j u r y ' s f i n d i n g of no n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a d j u s t i n g t h e b r a k e s would f o r e c l o s e a f i n d i n g of d e f e c t by r e a s o n of b r a k e m a l a d j u s t m e n t . ( 2 ) P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t c a r r y t h e i r burden t o e s t a b l i s h a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between b r a k e m a l a d j u s t m e n t and t h e a c c i d e n t i n t h a t t h e testimony f a i l s t o prove t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t was caused by d e f e c t i v e b r a k e s r a t h e r t h a n caused by t h e b i k e h i t t i n g t h e d i t c h a t a t i m e t h e d r i v e r was una t t e n t i v e . L i k e w i s e , s i n c e t h e j u r y found t h e d e f e n d a n t t o be n o t n e g l i g e n t , any e r r o r i n i n s t r u c t i o n s on a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s would be h a r m l e s s . T h e r e f o r e , we need n o t r e v i e w t h e i n s t r u c - t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o a s s u m p t i o n of r i s k . P l a i n t i f f claims e r r o r i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s following remark t o t r i a l c o u n s e l : W e l l , you managed t o c o n f u s e m e . Is t h e p u r p o s e - - a r e you t r y i n g t o impeach t h i s man o r what? " "THE COURT: P l a i n t i f f s - d i d n o t ask f o r a m i s t r i a l , nor d i d counsel r e q u e s t t h e c o u r t f o r an admonition. F u r t h e r , t h e remark i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o r e q u i r e a new t r i a l . The judgment i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: L-- Justices
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.
