GUNNELS v HOYT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-106 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 RONALD L. GUNNELS, Plaintiff and Appellant, ROBIN W. HOYT and MICHAEL CHAPPEL BALSAM, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead. Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Terry N. Trieweiler, Whitefish, Montana For Respondents: Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn Montana & Phillips, Kalispell, Submitted on briefs: April 22, 1981 Decided: September 9 , 1981 Filed: "EP @- - $I1981 IB B Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber 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 a p p e a l s from t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d County. The j u r y found t h e d e f e n d a n t s " [ n o t ] g u i l t y o f n e g l i g e n c e which was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of P l a i n t i f f ' s claimed damages," and a l s o r e t u r n e d a s i m i l a r v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f upon d e f e n d a n t H o y t ' s counterclaim. defendants. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h e Hoyt d o e s n o t c r o s s - a p p e a l . P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s f o r review: 1. W s t h e r 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 a v e r d i c t a f o r the defendants? 2. Were d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s comments on e x c l u d e d e v i d e n c e 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 w a r r a n t a r e v e r s a l of the v e r d i c t f o r d e f e n d a n t s and a new t r i a l f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f ? W a f f i r m t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment. e T h i s a c t i o n a r o s e o u t of a motor v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t which o c c u r r e d on September 1 9 , 1977. P l a i n t i f f Ronald Gunnels b r o u g h t s u i t a g a i n s t Robin Hoyt and Michael B a l s a m , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e i r n e g l i g e n c e had been t h e c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t t h a t r e s u l t e d i n i n j u r y t o Gunnels. Hoyt c o u n t e r c l a i m e d a g a i n s t Gunnels, a l l e g i n g t h a t s h e had s u s t a i n e d b o d i l y T r i a l w a s held had been The j u r y found n e i t h e r d e f e n d a n t / g u i l t y i n j u r y a s a r e s u l t of Gunnels' n e g l i g e n c e . i n September 1979. of n e g l i g e n c e which w a s t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m e d damages. ; ments t o t a l i n g Defendants were awarded c o s t s and d i s b u r s e $103.25, P l a i n t i f f Gunnels a p p e a l s from t h e v e r d i c t and judgment a g a i n s t him. P l a i n t i f f Gunnels w a s d r i v i n g a 1972 Dodge h a l f - t o n p i c k u p on September 1 9 , 1977. H e d r o v e i n t o t h e r e a r of a 1965 Volkswagen s e d a n i n t h e c o n t r o l of t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11:30 p.m. The c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d on Montana ~ i g h w a y4 0 between Columbia F a l l s and W h i t e f i s h , a t a s p o t 2.9 m i l e s w e s t of Columbia F a l l s , i n t h e westbound l a n e climbing "Dollar H i l l " . The r o a d was w e t , and t h e r e was a s l i g h t m i s t o r d r i z z l e i n t h e a i r a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . The n i g h t was ex- t r e m e l y d a r k due t o t h e r a i n y c o n d i t i o n s and t h e wet a s p h a l t road. The highway was o v e r 4 7 f e e t wide a t t h e s i t e , b u t had no w h i t e s t r i p e o r " f o g l i n e " t o d e m a r c a t e t h e s h o u l d e r a r e a and t o s e p a r a t e i t from t h e main roadway. Because t h e p l a i n t i f f q u e s t i o n s 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 v e r d i c t , we w i l l r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e . According t o Hoyt and Balsam's t e s t i m o n i e s , Robin Hoyt was d r i v i n g w e s t towards W h i t e f i s h , w i t h Balsam as a p a s s e n g e r , i n a f r i e n d ' s 1965 Volkswagen s e d a n . Approximately t h r e e m i l e s w e s t of Columbia F a l l s , on " D o l l a r H i l l n , two c a t s r a n across t h e road i n f r o n t of t h e c a r . Hoyt swerved t o t h e r i g h t t o avoid h i t t i n g the c a t s ; she applied her brakes t o s t o p t h e c a r b u t f o r g o t t o depress the c l u t c h pedal, thereby causing t h e c a r t o s t a l l . The c a r s t o p p e d o f f and t o t h e r i g h t of t h e m a i n - t r a v e l e d p o r t i o n of t h e westbound l a n e a c c o r d i n g t o b o t h d e f e n d a n t s , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was no s h o u l d e r s t r i p e , o r " f o g l i n e " , t o s e p a r a t e t h e roadway from t h e s h o u l d e r a r e a . The d e f e n d a n t s ' had had t r o u b l e s t a r t i n g t h e c a r e a r l i e r due t o a weak b a t t e r y , and w e r e n o t a b l e t o s t a r t t h e c a r again a f t e r s t a l l i n g . They a t t e m p t e d t o s t a r t i t by "popping t h e c l u t c h " ; Balsam pushed t h e c a r backwards down the h i l l , w h i l e Hoyt remained i n t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t i n o r d e r t o l e t o u t t h e c l u t c h while turning the i g n i t i o n . They e x e c u t e d t h i s maneuver 12-15 t i m e s o v e r a p e r i o d of 15-20 m i n u t e s , w h i l e b a c k i n g down t h e h i l l 100-200 y a r d s . Both t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y a t t e m p t e d t o keep t h e c a r a s c l o s e t o t h e r i g h t "westbound" edge of t h e highway a s p o s s i b l e , b u t t h a t Hoyt had some d i f f i c u l t y i n s t e e r i n g backwards s t r a i g h t down t h e h i l l and would swerve t o e i t h e r s i d e on o c c a s i o n . The c a r ' s h e a d l i g h t s and t a i l l i g h t s were on t h r o u g h o u t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a t t e m p t s t o "pop t h e c l u t c h " . During t h e above-described 15-20 m i n u t e p e r i o d , s e v e n o r e i g h t c a r s approached t h e Volkswagen g o i n g up t h e h i l l i n t h e westbound l a n e toward W h i t e f i s h ( t h e same d i r e c t i o n i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t s had been t r a v e l i n g ) . came toward Whenever a c a r them, Balsam would push t h e Volkswagen t o t h e edge of t h e westbound l a n e , as f a r o u t of t h e roadway as p o s s i b l e , and t h e n move t o t h e r e a r of t h e Volkswagen and a t t e m p t t o warn t h e a p p r o a c h i n g c a r by means of waving and shining a f l a s h l i g h t a t i t s windshield. The d e f e n d a n t s t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l of t h e a p p r o a c h i n g d r i v e r s slowed p e r c e p t i b l y t o pass. One c a r even s t o p p e d . A s p l a i n t i f f ' s t r u c k approached t h e Volkswagen from t h e r e a r , Robin saw t h e l i g h t s of t h e t r u c k , and t o l d Balsam of t h e v e h i c l e coming. She p l a c e d t h e c a r i n g e a r and p u l l e d o u t t h e emergency b r a k e . Balsam walked t o t h e r e a r of t h e Volkswagen and s t a r t e d s h i n i n g t h e f l a s h l i g h t a t t h e w i n d s h i e l d of p l a i n t i f f ' s t r u c k . When p l a i n t i f f ' s t r u c k d i d n o t slow down o r show any e v i d e n c e of p l a i n t i f f ' s having s e e n them, Balsam r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was g o i n g t o h i t them. Balsam y e l l e d a t Hoyt t o s t a y i n t h e c a r , and r a n o f f i n t o t h e barrow p i t . P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d h e never s a w Balsam o r t h e f l a s h l i g h t o r t h e Volkswagen p r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n . is t r u c k , however, l e f t 26 f e e t o f skidmarks i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e down t h e r i g h t , westbound l a n e , t h e l e f t skidmark b e i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e f e e t from t h e c e n t e r l i n e . P l a i n t i f f had been t r a v e l i n g 50-60 m i l e s p e r hour a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g patrolman. The p a t r o l m a n a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t a d r i v e r coming from e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n would have a n u n o b s t r u c t e d l i n e of v i s i o n t o t h e s i t e of t h e a c c i d e n t f o r a d i s t a n c e of 500600 f e e t . P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a complaint a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e defendants' n e g l i g e n c e had c a u s e d t h e c o l l i s i o n and p r o x i m a t e l y r e s u l t e d i n damages t o p l a i n t i f f i n t h e n a t u r e of m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s , p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , l o s s of e a r n i n g a b i l i t y , and i n p r o p e r t y damage t o t h e t r u c k . The answer a d m i t t e d t h e c o l l i s i o n had o c c u r r e d b u t d e n i e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s damages had been c a u s e d by any n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of e i t h e r d e f e n d a n t . The answer a l l e g e d t h a t any i n j u r i e s o r damages s u f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f had been c a u s e d i n whole o r i n p a r t by h i s own negligence. J u r y t r i a l was h e l d i n September 1979. A t t h e c l o s e of t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e , t h e p l a i n t i f f moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t as t o l i a b i l i t y , arguing t h a t t h e defend a n t s ' n e g l i g e n c e had been proved a s a matter of l a w . motion was d e n i e d . The The j u r y r e t u r n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g v e r d i c t : "SPECIAL VERDICT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM "We, t h e j u r y , answer t h e q u e s t i o n s s u b m i t t e d t o u s i n t h i s S p e c i a l V e r d i c t as f o l l o w s : "QUESTION NO. 1: Were t h e f o l l o w i n g named Defendants, o r e i t h e r o f Them, g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n c e which w a s t h e proximate c a u s e of P l a i n t i f f ' s claimed damages? "ANSWER: Robin Hoyt Michael B a l s a m Yes Yes No No X X I' The j u r y was t h e n p o l l e d , and a l l 1 2 a g r e e d w i t h t h e v e r d i c t . Judgment upon t h e c o m p l a i n t was e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e defendants. I. Plaintiff's f i r s t i s s u e d i s p u t e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of I n c o n s i d e r i n g the t h e evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e , w e a p p l y a l i m i t e d s t a n d a r d of Where a f a c t i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e a c o u r t review. s i t t i n g with a jury, and t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o support t h e jury v e r d i c t , t h e v e r d i c t w i l l stand. E s t a t e of Holm ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , Matter of 588 P. 2d 531, 533, 36 S t - R e p . 11, 1 3 (and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n ) . W e r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the prevailing party. W e w i l l r e v e r s e o n l y where t h e r e i s a l a c k of s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment. w a t e r v . Wright ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 36 St.Rep. - Mont. -, 588 Ground- P.2d 1003, 1004, 4 1 , 42; Holm, 588 P.2d 532, 36 St.Rep. 14. Evidence may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and s t i l l be deemed s u b s t a n t i a l , and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e may c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r evidence. Matter of E s t a t e of Holm, s u p r a . I f t h e r e i s c o n f l i c t i n g evidence i n t h e record, t h e c r e d i b i l i t y and w e i g h t g i v e n t o s u c h c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e i s t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y and n o t t h i s C o u r t . Holm; Cameron; I n Re C a r r o l l ' s E s t a t e ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 59 Mont. 403, 41-3, 196 P. 996, 998. I f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e f i n d i n g of t h e j u r y , t h e n w e must s u s t a i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n i n denying t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r dict. B u t l e r Manufacturing Co. v . J & L Implement Co. 167 Mont. (1975), 519, 529, 540 P.2d 962, 968. P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t where a n a u t o m o b i l e c o l l i s i o n i s caused by t h e v i o l a t i o n of a motor v e h i c l e s t a t u t e , a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s h o u l d be e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y who v i o l a t e d t h e l a w upon t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y , and o n l y t h e i s s u e of damages s h o u l d be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e trier of f a c t . Such a n argument i s one of n e g l i g e n c e p e r se. The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d upon t h r e e s t a t u t e s a l l e g e d t o have been v i o l a t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e t i m e of t h e accident. 61-8-353, Former s e c t i o n 32-2199, MCA, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n a s t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d , p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : ... "Upon any highway no p e r s o n s h a l l s t o p , p a r k , o r l e a v e s t a n d i n g any v e h i c l e , whether a t t e n d e d o r u n a t t e n d e d , upon t h e paved o r main t r a v e l e d p a r t of t h e highway when i t i s p r a c t i c a l t o s t o p , p a r k , o r s o l e a v e such v e h i c l e o f f of s u c h p a r t of s a i d highway, b u t i n e v e r y e v e n t , a n u n o b s t r u c t e d w i d t h of t h e highway o p p o s i t e a s t a n d i n g v e h i c l e s h a l l b e l e f t f o r t h e f r e e passage of o t h e r vehicles. No p e r s o n s h a l l s t o p , s t a n d , o r p a r k any v e h i c l e on such highway u n l e s s s u c h v e h i c l e c a n be s e e n by t h e d r i v e r o f any o t h e r v e h i c l e a p p r o a c h i n g from e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n w i t h i n f i v e hundred f e e t and u n l e s s d r i v e r s a p p r o a c h i n g from o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s a r e v i s i b l e t o e a c h o t h e r when b o t h a r e a t l e a s t f i v e hundred f e e t from t h e v e h i c l e t o be s t o p p e d , t u r n e d , o r p a r k e d , e x c e p t i n c a s e s of j u s t i f i a b l e emergency." Former s e c t i o n 32-21-118, 204, MCA, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 61-9- a s t h e jury i n s t r u c t e d , provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : ... "Every motor v e h i c l e , s h a l l be equipped w i t h a t l e a s t o n e t a i l lamp mounted on t h e r e a r which, when l i g h t e d a s r e q u i r e d , s h a l l e m i t a r e d l i g h t p l a i n l y v i s i b l e from a d i s t a n c e of f i v e hundred f e e t t o t h e rear .. Former s e c t i o n 32-21-104, R.C.M., ." 1947, now s e c t i o n 61- 8-358, MCA, a s t h e j u r y w h s i n s t r u c t e d , p r o v i d e s t h a t : "The d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e s h a l l n o t back t h e s a m e u n l e s s such movement c a n be made w i t h r e a s o n a b l e s a f e t y and w i t h o u t i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h o t h e r t r a f f i c . " I n o r d e r t o prove negligence p e r s e , t h e p l a i n t i f f w a s required t o prove t h a t t h e defendants neglected a duty imposed upon them by s t a t u t e . Mont. CO. W i l l i a m s v. Maley ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 150 261, 267, 434 P.2d 398, 4 0 1 ; Conway v. Monidah T r u s t ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 47 Mont. 269, 278, 132 P. p a r t , s e c t i o n 61-8-353, 26, 27. In pertinent MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t no p e r s o n s h a l l s t o p o r l e a v e s t a n d i n g any v e h i c l e upon t h e main t r a v e l e d p a r t o f t h e highway when i t i s p r a c t i c a l t o s t o p o r l e a v e s u c h v e h i c l e o f f of s u c h p a r t of s a i d highway. What i s " p r a c t i c a l " i n any s i t u a t i o n c l e a r l y depends upon a l l o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Mont. - -, See Lyndes v. S c o f i e l d ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 589 P.2d 1000, 1 0 0 2 , 36 St.Rep. 185, 188. Q u e s t i o n s of f a c t a r e f o r t h e j u r y t o r e s o l v e , and s h o u l d n o t be t a k e n from t h e j u r y when r e a s o n a b l e men m i g h t draw d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e e v i d e n c e . ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. Heen v . T i d d y ' 265, 269, 4 4 2 P.2d 434, 436. I n looking a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , we f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s c o u l d have s t o p p e d t h e Volkswagen c l o s e r t o t h e r i g h t edge of t h e pavement and f u r t h e r o f f t h e main t r a v e l e d a r e a ; b u t w e a l s o f i n d t h a t t h e weather c o n d i t i o n s , t h e d a r k n e s s , t h e h i l l , t h e a b s e n c e of w h i t e l i n e s , head l i g h t s and t a i l l i g h t s , and t h e u s e o f t h e f l a s h l i g h t by t h e d e f e n d a n t t o warn a p p r o a c h i n g d r i v e r s , a l l b e a r upon t h e q u e s t i o n of p r a c t i c a l i t y . t h e j u r y ' s determination if This Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e e v i d e n c e f u r n i s h e s rea- s o n a b l e grounds f o r d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s . Payne v . Sorenson (1979) I 1613. Mont. , 599 P.2d 362, 365, 36 S t . Rep. 1610, W do n o t f i n d a v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 61-8-353, e MCA, a s a m a t t e r of law. P l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were n e g l i g e n t p e r se i n v i o l a t i n g s e c t i o n 61-9-204, MCA, t h e t a i l lamp s t a t u t e . The e v i d e n c e showed t h a t t h e Volkswagen's b a t t e r y was i n a p a r t i a l l y d i s c h a r g e d c o n d i t i o n p r i o r t o s t a l l i n g , b u t a l s o showed t h a t t h e t a i l l i g h t s o f t h e c a r w e r e on a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . W e c a n n o t c o n c l u d e a s a matter o f law t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s v i o l a t e d t h i s s e c t i o n . There i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t f o r t h e j u r y t o r e s o l v e which s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n from t h e j u r y where r e a s o n a b l e men m i g h t draw d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s , Heen. S e c t i o n 61-8-358, MCA, i s t h e backing s t a t u t e . While t h e d e f e n d a n t s had been backing t h e Volkswagen a t a n e a r l i e r t i m e , t h e Volkswagen was s t a t i o n a r y a t t h e t i m e of t h e collision. A q u e s t i o n may be r a i s e d a s t o whether t h e backing s t a t u t e should apply. I n a d d i t i o n , under t h e s t a t u t e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n was r e q u i r e d a s t o whether o r n o t t h e movement of backing c o u l d be made w i t h r e a s o n a b l e s a f e t y and without i n t e r f e r i n g with other t r a f f i c . Again w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was n o t a v i o l a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e as a m a t t e r of law, and t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s of f a c t a r e f o r t h e j u r y t o resolve. W f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support a determination e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t b r e a c h any of t h e d u t i e s imposed by t h e above c i t e d s t a t u t e s . 11. P l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s on common l a w n e g l i g e n c e grounds t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t b r e a c h t h e d u t y of c a r e owed t o t h e plaintiff . I t was up t o t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e whether t h e d e f e n d a n t had e x e r c i s e d t h e o r d i n a r y c a r e r e q u i r e d of a r e a s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t p e r s o n under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . instructed. The j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y P l a i n t i f f a s s i g n s no e r r o r t o any i n s t r u c t i o n s . S u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports the v e r d i c t i n t h i s regard when viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s : t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t t e m p t e d t o keep o u t of t h e roadway a s much a s p o s s i b l e , l e f t t h e Volkswagen's l i g h t s b u r n i n g , and a t t e m p t e d t o warn a p p r o a c h i n g cars by waving a f l a s h l i g h t a t them; t h e d r i v e r s of seven o r e i g h t c a r s saw t h e d e f e n d a n t s and slowed down t o p a s s p r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n . sonably conclude The j u r y c o u l d r e a - t h a t such a c t i o n s had f u l f i l l e d t h e d u t y t o e x e r c i s e o r d i n a r y care. The p l a i n t i f f a r g u e d t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e Volkswagen was less v i s i b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t h a n i t had been t o t h e previous approaching c a r s , f o r t h e reasons t h a t , by t h e t i m e t h e p l a i n t i f f approached, t h e Volkswagen was f a r t h e r o u t i n t h e roadway, was c l o s e r t o t h e c u r v e around which i t f i r s t became v i s i b l e , and was less w e l l l i g h t e d due t o f u r t h e r d i s c h a r g e of t h e b a t t e r y . These were a l l f a c t u a l arguments which t h e j u r y c o u l d a c c e p t o r r e j e c t , and where s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e defendants' favor e x i s t s , w e w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e judgment. 111. One of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s and framed i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r was whether t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n s had proximately caused p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r y . W find substantial e evidence t o support a determination t h a t they d i d not. The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d a b o u t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s d u t y t o o p e r a t e h i s v e h i c l e i n a c a r e f u l and p r u d e n t manner and a t a r a t e of speed no g r e a t e r t h a n i s r e a s o n a b l e and p r o p e r under t h e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s ( s e c t i o n 61-8-303, s e c t i o n 32-2144, R.C.M. MCA, f o r m e r l y 1 9 4 7 ) , and h i s d u t y t o s e e t h a t which h e c o u l d have s e e n by k e e p i n g a p r o p e r l o o k o u t . P l a i n t i f f a s s i g n s no e r r o r t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s . There i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support a conclusion t h a t t h e plaint i f f ' s i n j u r y w a s p r o x i m a t e l y caused by h i s own a c t i o n s , and n o t by any 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 s . The i n v e s t i g a t i n g patrolman t e s t i f i e d t h e a c c i d e n t c o u l d have had s e v e r a l c a u s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was t r a v e l i n g t o o f a s t and n o t k e e p i n g a p r o p e r lookout. Testimony by a p l a i n t i f f t h a t he d i d n o t see a n o t h e r v e h i c l e p r i o r t o h i t t i n g i t h a s p r e v i o u s l y been r e c o g n i z e d a s e v i d e n c e of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s own n e g l i g e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t . Bernhard v. L i n c o l n County ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 150 Mont. 557, 561, 437 P.2d 380. 377, Having reviewed t h e e v i d e n c e and concluded i t i s s u b s t a n t i a l and s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t , o u r i n q u i r y on t h i s i s s u e i s ended. P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s of misconduct by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , t h e most s e r i o u s b e i n g t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l made improper comments upon and r e f e r e n c e s t o excluded e v i d e n c e , which i n d i c a t e d t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was concealing evidence. The d e f e n s e a t t e m p t e d t o i n t r o d u c e i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e r e c o r d s of a D r . K i l e y , who had been t h e f i r s t p h y s i c i a n t o examine t h e p l a i n t i f f a f t e r t h e c o l l i s i o n . Dr. Kiley w a s n o t c a l l e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f a l t h o u g h l i s t e d i n t h e p r e t r i a l order a s a witness t o be c a l l e d a t t r i a l . The d e f e n s e c o u l d n o t l o c a t e D r . K i l e y , and a t t e m p t e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e r e c o r d s by c a l l i n g a n employee of t h e d o c t o r . The employee w a s n o t f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e r e c o r d s o r t h e d o c t o r ' s record keeping procedure; t h e r e c o r d s were excluded upon o b j e c t i o n by t h e p l a i n t i f f . During t h e argument r e g a r d i n g a d m i s s i b i l i t y , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l spoke a s f o l l o w s : I don't "THE COURT: I h a v e n ' t s e e n t h e r e c o r d s . know what s h e i s g o i n g t o t e s t i f y t o . A s I i n d i c a t e , I am concerned t h a t t h e d o c t o r i s n ' t h e r e t o e x p l a i n t h i n g s , make s u r e n o t h i n g h a s been l e f t out. " [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : Your Honor, t h a t o f course-- I have m c a s e , t h e c l a i m a n t h a s h i s . y And i f h e wants t o be s u r e t h a t n o t h i n g h a s been l e f t o u t , I would have he c o u l d c a l l t h e t r e a t i n g d o c t o r . c a l l e d him. I c o u l d n ' t g e t him. But a s i t i s , I want t h i s p o r t i o n . P l a i n t i f f had t h e same chance t h a t I did. " [ P l a i n t i f f ' s C o u n s e l ] : Your Honor, I d o n ' t have t o c a l l somebody who h a s no i n f o r m a t i o n t o o f f e r , and I d o n ' t have t o s i t h e r e and l e t h a l f of t h e informa t i o n go i n b e c a u s e he d i d n ' t a s k him ahead of time. "THE COURT: I am concerned a b o u t t h e l a c k of c r o s s examination, s o I w i l l s u s t a i n t h e o b j e c t i o n . " ( T r . p. 408) L a t e r , d u r i n g t h e c l o s i n g argument, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l made r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r e c o r d s : "Now, what a b o u t D r . K i l e y ? There i s a n i n s t r u c t i o n I want t o r e a d i t t h a t i s on a l l f o u r ' s on t h a t . t o you. And i t i s C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n number 23 and 24. 'Evidence c o n s i d e r e d n o t o n l y by i t s o n l y i n t r i n s i c weight, b u t according t o t h e evidence w i t h i n t h e power o f one s i d e t o produce and t h e o t h e r t o c o n t r a d i c t . And t h a t i f weaker and less s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e i s o f f e r e d , when i t a p p e a r s t h a t s t r o n g e r and more s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e c o u l d have been produced, t h e e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be viewed w i t h d i s t r u s t . "24, ' I f a p a r t y h a s f a i l e d t o produce a w i t n e s s w i t h i n h i s power t o produce, you may, i f you see f i t , i n f e r from t h a t , t h a t i f you a r e g i v e n t h e t e s t i m o n y of such w i t n e s s i t would n o t have been favorable t o such p a r t y . ' And t h e n i t g o e s on t o s a y t h a t depends on whether he was a v a i l a b l e t o both sides. "Now, you know t h a t I subpoenaed t h e r e c o r d s of D r . K i l e y . Now, l a i d e s [ s i c ] and gentlemen, I d o n ' t I am t h e d e f e n d a n t t h i n k t h a t t h a t i s my d u t y . i n t h i s case. I am n o t t h e one t h a t s h o u l d b r i n g i n p l a i n t i f f ' s t r e a t i n g d o c t o r s . And I b e l i e v e t h a t was t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s d u t y . And I b e l i e v e t h a t he s h o u l d have b r o u g h t them i n . But I subpoenaed t h e r e c o r d s , and I t r i e d t o g e t t h e r e c o r d s f o r you. And now t h e C o u r t h a s t o l d you t h a t you c a n b e l i e v e a s men and women what you would b e l i e v e a s j u r o r s . Now, as men and women you may b e l i e v e t h a t t h o s e r e c o r d s of D r . K i l e y , and D r . K i l e y ' s testimony-- " [ P l a i n t i f f ' s Counsel] : I am g o i n g t o o b j e c t , Your Honor, T h a t i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n , which i s t h a t he i s n o t t o comment on why t h e C o u r t made a r u l i n g , b e c a u s e t h e y don' t know. And he c a n ' t t e l l them. H e i s only misleading t h e jury r i g h t now. "THE COURT: I d o n ' t t h i n k your c o n c l u s i o n i s c o r r e c t , M r . Heckathorn. Go ahead. ... [Ylou may c o n c l u d e , i f you "[Defense Counsel]: w i s h , under t h e C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n number 25, t h a t t h a t t e s t i m o n y would be u n f a v o r a b l e t o t h e And I t h i n k t h e p l a i n t i f f had t h e plaintiff o b l i g a t i o n of b r i n g i n g t h a t w i t n e s s i n t o you and l e t t i n g D r . K i l e y t e l l you a b o u t h i s c o n d i t i o n . " ( T r . p ~ 519-20) . . P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h e two s t a t e m e n t s by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l i m p l i e d t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was a t t e m p t i n g t o c o n c e a l e v i d e n c e , and i m p r o p e r l y commented upon t h e c o u r t ' s reasons f o r excluding evidence. W e do n o t a g r e e . I n t h e f i r s t c i t e d i n s t a n c e , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was n o t i m p l y i n g a concealment of e v i d e n c e ; he was r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e c o u r t ' s q u e s t i o n of c o n c e r n t h a t t h e r e c o r d s might n o t be complete. Defense c o u n s e l answered t h a t i f t h e p l a i n t i f f b e l i e v e d something was l e f t o u t , he c o u l d c a l l t h e d o c t o r as a w i t n e s s and f i n d o u t . There i s no b a s i s t o compare t h a t s t a t e m e n t w i t h t h e one made i n Ralph v. MacMarr S t o r e s ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 1 0 3 Mont. 4 2 1 , 436, 62 P.2d 1285, 1291, where c o u n s e l s t a t e d , " I f I c a n p r e v e n t i t you a r e n o t g o i n g t o h i d e t h i s l a d y ' s c a s e from t h i s C o u r t and J u r y . " When r e a d i n c o n t e x t , t h e second i n s t a n c e shows t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was commenting upon t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o c a l l D r . Kiley o r t o provide h i s records, within t h e c o n t e x t of t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 24. Counsel was i n t e r r u p t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s o b j e c t i o n i n m i d s e n t e n c e , and a s a r e s u l t , was m i s u n d e r s t o o d . He was n o t s a y i n g t h e j u r y c o u l d b e l i e v e t h e r e c o r d s and D r . K i l e y ' s t e s t i m o n y ; o b v i o u s l y , s u c h would have been i m p o s s i b l e . He was s a y i n g t h e j u r y c o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e , i f produced, would have been f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s b u t was i n t e r r u p t e d b e f o r e he c o u l d f i n i s h . P l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t a s s i g n any e r r o r t o t h e instruction i t s e l f . The o n l y r e f e r e n c e i n t h e second example which m i g h t have been improper i s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he had subpoenaed t h e r e c o r d s , and t r i e d t o g e t them i n . P e r h a p s t h a t d i d comment upon t h e c o u r t ' s e x c l u s i o n a r y ruling. But t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 1 a d e q u a t e l y warned t h e j u r y n o t t o draw any i n f e r e n c e s from r u l i n g s on e v i d e n c e , n o t t o c o n s i d e r r e j e c t e d e v i d e n c e , and n o t t o c o n j e c t u r e o r draw any i n f e r e n c e s a s t o what a n answer m i g h t have been, o r a s t o t h e r e a s o n behind any o b j e c t i o n , Improper argument r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l o n l y when p r e j u d i c e h a s r e s u l t e d which prevents a f a i r t r i a l . Vogel v. F e t t e r L i v e s t o c k Co. 1 4 4 Mont. 127, 1 3 9 , 394 P.2d 766, structed. (1964), The j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y i n - W c a n n o t s a y t h a t any p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t e d t o t h e e plaintiff. W f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e j u r y ' s e v e r d i c t when t h e r e c o r d i s viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the defendants. W e a l s o f i n d no m i s c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h a t amounts t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . We a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . W concur: e % Chief ~ u ~ t ~? c e & _ D C ~ & J s Q Justice J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea d i s s e n t s and w i l l f i l e h i s w r i t t e n dissent a t a later t i m e . Mr.
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.
