KIAMAS v MON-KOTA INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-68 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PETER KIAMAS, JR., and DONNA MAE KIAMAS, husband and wife, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS. MON-KOTA, INC., a Montana corporation, LARRY LEWIS, ERVIN BIEBER, DUANE BIEBER, and JEFF REIDLE, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Richland Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Thomas R. Halvorson, Sidney, Montana Anderson, Edwards and Molloy, Billings, Montana Richard W. Anderson argued, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole and Dietrich, Billings, Montana L. Randall Bishop argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: October 20, 1981 Decided: January 28, 1982 8 Clerk J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber 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 a l l e g e n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of Mon-Kota r e s u l t i n g i n a head i n j u r y t o p l a i n t i f f , Peter Kiamas, w i t h s e v e r e p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l damage. e n t e r e d f o r d e f e n d a n t , Mon-Kota, R i c h l a n d County. Summary judgment was i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The c e n t r a l i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d summary judgment i n f a v o r of MonKota, i m p l i e d l y h o l d i n g t h a t t h e " r e s c u e d o c t r i n e " i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e . P l a i n t i f f s a r e f a r m e r s i n R i c h l a n d County. of 1977, p l a i n t i f f , P e t e r Kiamas, Jr. I n June ( K i a m a s ) , engaged Mon- Kota t o f e r t i l i z e h i s s u g a r b e e t s by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t o p dressing. Kiamas had been l e a s i n g t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n f o r a p e r i o d of f o u r o r f i v e y e a r s . Mon-Kota s e n t two employees t o a p p l y t h e t o p d r e s s i n g by t h e u s e of two Mon-Kota John Deere t r a c t o r s . The two employees d i d n o t i n i t i a l l y r e a l i z e t h a t t h e i r John Deere t r a c t o r wheels were s e t f o r 26 i n c h rows r a t h e r t h a n 2 4 i n c h rows a s t h e b e e t s were p l a n t e d i n t h e Kiamas f i e l d . Kiamas owned John Deere t r a c t o r s of t h e same model a s t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s , and Kiamas had changed t h e w i d t h a d j u s t m e n t on h i s own John Deere t r a c t o r s many times. on. Kiamas d r o v e o u t t o h i s f i e l d s t o s e e what was g o i n g He n o t i c e d t h a t t h e b e e t t o p s i n a number of rows were ragged and t o r n i n a p p e a r a n c e . stopped. One Mon-Kota t r a c t o r was Kiamas t a l k e d t o t h e d r i v e r of t h a t t r a c t o r , and together they h a l t e d t h e o t h e r t r a c t o r . T h e r e w a s no d i f f i c u l t y i n s t o p p i n g b o t h of t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s . Kiamas and t h e Mon-Kota employees t a l k e d o v e r t h e problem which was c a u s i n g damage t o t h e b e e t t o p s , and d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r wheels were s e t f o r 2 6 i n c h rows i n s t e a d of t h e 2 4 i n c h rows o f t h e Kiamas f i e l d . As a result, they observed t h e r e was damage t o t h e b e e t s b e c a u s e t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s were d r i v i n g o v e r t h e t o p s o f some of t h e b e e t s . Kiamas i n s t r u c t e d t h e d r i v e r s of t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s t o " s h u t t h e t r a c t o r s down" and t h a t was done. The Mon-Kota d r i v e r s a g r e e d t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t o change t h e s p a c i n g on t h e t r a c t o r wheels b e f o r e g o i n g f u r t h e r . The Mon-Kota d r i v e r s d i d n o t have t o o l s w i t h which t o change t h e s p a c i n g , and asked Kiamas i f h e had a j a c k and t o o l s which t h e y c o u l d u s e t o change t h e s p a c i n g on t h e t r a c t o r wheels. Kiamas and t h e two d r i v e r s r o d e t o t h e Kiamas farmhouse and p i c k e d up t h e j a c k , t o o l s and equipment n e c e s s a r y t o perform t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t . When t h e y r e t u r n e d t o t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s , Kiamas i n j u r e d h i s head w h i l e a t t e m p t i n g t o h e l p w i t h t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t s . In his d e p o s i t i o n , Kiamas d e s c r i b e d how h i s i n j u r y o c c u r r e d : "A. W e l l , w e g o t back o u t t o t h e f i e l d t h e r e . And -- w e l l , l i k e you s a y , t h e boys were p r e t t y young, and I d i d n ' t know i f t h e y r e a l l y knew what was g o i n g on o r n o t . So I ' v e -- I g u e s s I v o l u n t e e r e d t o go a l o n g w i t h them. And t o make s u r e t h e y were g o i n g -- g o i n g t o do i t And s o we b r o u g h t e v e r y t h i n g up t o -right. t h e b l o c k s , t h e j a c k , t h e t o o l s -- w e a l l c a r r i e d something o v e r t o t h e t r a c t o r . And I j u s t -- I grabbed a h o l d o f a wrench, and I s t a r t e d l o o s e n i n g t h e wheel. And t h a t ' s when i t s l i p p e d o f f -- s l i p p e d o f f t h e n u t , and I That's c r a c k e d m head a g a i n s t t h e a x l e . y b a s i c a l l y what happened t h e n . " The Mon-Kota d r i v e r s d i d n o t a s k Kiamas t o h e l p i n any way. Kiamas d i d n o t a s k t h e Mon-Kota d r i v e r s i f t h e y knew how t o change t h e wheel s p a c i n g . Kiamas e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e wrench s l i p p e d o f f , and when asked what c a u s e d it t o s l i p , h e stated: "A. I wish I knew. But i t -- t h e wrench was I i n good s h a p e . T h a t ' s a l l I g o t t o s a y . mean, t h e wrench f i t on t h e r e r e a l good. So t h e o n l y t h i n g I c o u l d s a y i s t h e i r n u t s must have been rounded o f f o r something. 'Cause I ' v e done t h e same t h i n g f o r 1 5 y e a r s and n e v e r had a n y t h i n g happen t o m e l i k e t h a t before. " I n s u b s t a n c e , Kiamas d i d n o t complain t h a t t h e t o o l s w e r e i n any way d e f e c t i v e o r t h a t t h e t r a c t o r w a s i n any way d e f e c t i v e o r t h a t t h e Mon-Kota d r i v e r s d i d n o t do t h e r i g h t t h i n g , b u t simply t h a t t h e wheels w e r e n o t s e t r i g h t and i f Mon-Kota had t h e wheels s e t r i g h t a l l t h i s would n o t have happened t o him. Mon-Kota h a s conceded t h a t i t was Mon-Kota's fault t h a t t h e t r a c t o r s had t h e i n c o r r e c t wheel s p a c i n g and t h a t Mon-Kota, t h e r e f o r e , i s p r o p e r l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any r e s u l t i n g damage t o t h e b e e t c r o p o r l a n d of t h e p l a i n t i f f s . However, i n t h i s c a s e w e a r e concerned w i t h Kiamas' a l l e g e d i n j u r i e s a s a r e s u l t of t h e blow on t h e head, which h e r e c e i v e d w h i l e t r y i n g t o l o o s e n a w h e e l n u t on t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r . The f a c t s d i s c l o s e , w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , t h a t t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s had i n c o r r e c t wheel s p a c i n g , b u t a l s o d i s c l o s e t h a t upon d i s c o v e r y of t h e i n c o r r e c t s p a c i n g , t h e Mon-Kota d r i v e r s s h u t down t h e t r a c t o r s s o t h e r e was no f u r t h e r r i s k of i n j u r y t o t h e Kiamas l a n d o r c r o p s . The Mon-Kota d r i v e r s a g r e e d w i t h Kiamas t h a t t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t had t o b e changed b e f o r e any f u r t h e r work would be done on t h e Kiamas l a n d by t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s . Our b a s i c q u e s t i o n i s whether o r n o t Kiamas c a n be c l a s s e d a s b e i n g on a " r e s c u e " m i s s i o n a t t h e t i m e of h i s personal injury. A s p o i n t e d o u t by t h e p l a i n t i f f s , the t h e o r y of t h e r e s c u e d o c t r i n e was s t a t e d 6 0 y e a r s ago by J u s t i c e Cardozo a s f o l l o w s : The c r y of d i s t r e s s "Danger i n v i t e s r e s c u e . i s t h e summons t o r e l i e f . The l a w d o e s n o t i g n o r e t h e s e r e a c t i o n s of t h e mind i n t r a c I t recognizes i n g c o n d u c t t o i t s consequences. them a s normal. I t places t h e i r e f f e c t within t h e r a n g e of t h e n a t u r a l and p r o b a b l e . The wrong t h a t i m p e r i l s l i f e i s a wrong t o t h e i m p e r i l e d v i c t i m ; i t i s a wrong a l s o t o h i s The r a i l r o a d company whose t r a i n rescuer. a p p r o a c h e s w i t h o u t s i g n a l i s a wrongdoer toward t h e t r a v e l e r s u r p r i s e d between t h e r a i l s b u t a wrongdoer a l s o t o t h e b y s t a n d e r who d r a g s him The r i s k of r e s c u e , i f o n l y from t h e p a t h . i t be n o t wanton, i s b o r n e of t h e o c c a s i o n . The emergency b e g e t s t h e man. The wrongdoer may n o t have f o r e s e e n t h e coming of a d e l i v e r e r . H e i s a c c o u n t a b l e a s i f h e had." Wagner v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Ry. Co. ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 232 N . Y . 176, 133 N.E. 437. .. .. W i l l i a m L. P r o s s e r i n h i s Handbook of t h e Law of T o r t s , Section 44, describes the rescue doctrine a s follows: "Upon t h e same b a s i s , under t h e ' r e s c u e d o c t r i n e , ' e f f o r t s t o p r o t e c t t h e p e r s o n a l s a f e t y of a n o t h e r have been h e l d n o t t o s u p e r s e d e t h e l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e o r i g i n a l n e g l i g e n c e which h a s endangered i t . Whether o r n o t t h e r e s c u e r i s t o be r e g a r d ed a s ' f o r e s e e a b l e , ' i t h a s been r e c o g n i z e d s i n c e t h e e a r l y c a s e of t h e crowd r u s h i n g t o a s s i s t t h e descending b a l l o o n i s t t h a t he i s nothing abnormal. 'The r i s k of r e s c u e , i f o n l y it b e n o t wanton, i s b o r n e of t h e o c c a s i o n . The emergency b e g e t s t h e man.' ... "Although t h e r e h a s been some d i s a g r e e m e n t , t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y of t h e c o u r t s now a p p l y t h e same r u l e t o one who t r i e s t o r e s c u e t h e p r o p e r t y of a n o t h e r , even when he i s under no d u t y t o do s o , and even though t h e p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d i s t h a t P r o s s e r , Law of T o r t s of t h e defendant. S 4 4 ( 4 t h ed. 1 9 7 1 ) . . ." I t may be n o t e d t h a t b o t h J u s t i c e Cardozo and P r o f e s s o r P r o s s e r emphasize t h a t d a n g e r of i n j u r y o r damage t o p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y i s t h e e l e m e n t which i n v i t e s r e s c u e . "The emergency b e g e t s t h e man." P l a i n t i f f s s u g g e s t t h a t Ekwortzel v . P a r k e r ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 156 Mont. 477, 482 P.2d 559, i s a c a s e i n which t h i s C o u r t applied t h e "rescue doctrine" without a c t u a l l y saying so. That c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . The d e f e n d a n t t h e r e k e p t one q u i t e o b s t r e p e r o u s mule which had e s c a p e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s e n c l o s u r e and e n t e r e d upon t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s l a n d where t h e mule had been f o r a number of d a y s , c a u s i n g s i g n i f i c a n t problems w i t h l i v e s t o c k . While p l a i n t i f f w a s a t t e m p t i n g t o round up t h e mule, h i s h o r s e f e l l , b r e a k i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s leg. The d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two c a s e s i s t h e need f o r a c t i o n , t h e "emergency" mentioned by Cardozo and P r o s s e r previously. Ekwortzel a c t e d t o g e t t h e mule o u t of t h e way Here, s o t h a t h e c o u l d p r o p e r l y move h i s own l i v e s t o c k . Kiamas w a s n o t r e q u i r e d t o a c t e i t h e r t o meet an emergency o r o t h e r w i s e , b e c a u s e t h e t r a c t o r s were s t o p p e d and t h e r e w a s no f u r t h e r r i s k of damage t o h i s growing c r o p s and f i e l d s . P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t swnmary judgment was n o t approp r i a t e b e c a u s e t h e r e was an i s s u e which s h o u l d have been s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y a s t o whether o r n o t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' n e g l i g e n c e and b r e a c h of d u t y was t h e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y t o Kiamas. With r e g a r d t o t h e e n t r y of summary judgment where a p l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o e s t a b l i s h a proximate c a u s a l connection o r o t h e r m a t e r i a l element i n t h e negligence a c t i o n , t h i s C o u r t i n S c o t t v . Robson (19791, 1150, 1154, 36 St.Rep. Mont. , 597 P.2d 1273, 1278, q u o t e d from P i c k e t t v . Kyger ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 87, 1 0 0 , 439 P.2d 5 7 , 63, a s f o l l o w s : " ' I t i s hornbook law r e q u i r i n g no c i t a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l elements t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f must p r o v e i n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l i n a damage a c t i o n of t h i s k i n d a r e : d u t y owing from d e f e n d a n t t o p l a i n t i f f ; "' (2) A b r e a c h of t h a t d u t y by d e f e n d a n t ; "'(3) C o n s t i t u t i n g proximate cause o f ; "'(4) I n j u r i e s and damages t o p l a i n t i f f . " ' P l a i n t i f f must i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e p r o v i n g o r t e n d i n g t o p r o v e each of t h e s e m a t e r i a l e l e m e n t s i n o r d e r t o b e e n t i t l e d t o have h i s In the instant case submitted t o t h e jury. c a s e p l a i n t i f f ' s e v i d e n c e , viewed most f a v o r ably t o p l a i n t i f f , tends t o e s t a b l i s h t h e duty, b r e a c h , i n j u r y , and damages. But t h e r e i s a t o t a l a b s e n c e of any e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a p r o x i m a t e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between t h e b r e a c h [ e d ] d u t y and p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s and damages. ' . . . " I n P i c k e t t t h i s C o u r t d i r e c t e d summary judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a s a r e s u l t of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o e s t a b l i s h a p r o x i mate c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n . " Mon-Kota c o n t e n d s t h a t p l a i n t i f f s have f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between t h e n e g l i g e n c e of Mon-Kota and t h e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y t o Kiamas. Kiamas q u o t e s from R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) of T o r t s , S e c t i o n 290 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , a s a b a s i s f o r 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 i s r e q u i r e d t o know t h a t Kiamas c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o a c t i n t h i s manner. H e quotes from Comment 1, which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s : "1. Knowledge t h a t o t h e r s w i l l a c t t o p r e v e n t harm. The a c t o r a s a r e a s o n a b l e man s h o u l d r e a l i z e t h a t a n o t h e r whose p e r s o n o r goods he intentionally o r negligently puts i n p e r i l , is b o t h l i k e l y and p r i v i l e g e d t o a c t i n i t s d e f e n s e , and i s a l s o r e q u i r e d t o r e a l i z e t h a t i n s o doi n g t h e o t h e r may n o t a c t w i t h p e r f e c t p r o p r i e t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e p e r i l i s sudden and c r e a t e s a n emergency i n which immediate a c t i o n i s required. So t o o , t h e a c t o r must r e c o g n i z e t h e tendency of human b e i n g s t o expose thems e l v e s t o p e r i l t o p r o t e c t not only the l i f e and limb b u t even t h e p r o p e r t y of t h i r d p e r s o n s .. . . . 11 A s s t a t e d i n the f i r s t sentence, t h e key e l e m e n t i s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s c h a r g e d w i t h "knowledge t h a t o t h e r s w i l l a c t t o p r e v e n t harm." I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e was no a c t i o n of any t y p e by Kiamas t o p r e v e n t harm. The p o s s i b i l i t y of harm was e l i m i n a t e d by Mon-Kota s t o p p i n g i t s t r a c t o r s and t h e d r i v e r s ' agreement t o change t h e wheel s p a c i n g s o t h e r e would b e no f u r t h e r damage t o t h e Kiamas c r o p s o r l a n d s . Not o n l y i s t h e r e a t o t a l a b s e n c e of an emergency d e s c r i b e d above, t h e r e i s a t o t a l a b s e n c e of a need f o r a c t i o n t o p r e v e n t harm. Both p a r t i e s r e l y h e a v i l y i n t h e i r arguments on t h e R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s ( 1 9 6 5 ) . With r e g a r d t o t h e b a s i c e l e m e n t of n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t a s c a u s e of harm t o a n o t h e r , S e c t i o n 431 states: "The a c t o r ' s n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t i s a l e g a l c a u s e of harm t o a n o t h e r i f i in " ( a ) H i s c o n d u c t -s-a s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r b r i n g i n g a b o u t -- and t h e harm, " ( b ) T h e r e i s no r u l e of law r e l i e v i n g t h e a c t o r from l i a b i l i t y b e c a u s e of t h e manner i n which h i s n e g l i g e n c e h a s r e s u l t e d i n t h e harm." (Underscoring added.) I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of S e c t i o n 431, t h e Comment emphasizes t h e f o l l o w i n g : " I n o r d e r t o b e a l e g a l c a u s e of a n o t h e r ' s harm, i t i s n o t enough t h a t t h e harm would n o t have o c c u r r e d had t h e a c t o r n o t been negligent. The n e g l i g e n c e must a l s o be a s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r i n bringing about t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s harm. The word ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' i s used t o denote t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d u c t h a s such a n a f f e c t i n p r o d u c i n g t h e harm a s t o l e a d r e a s o n a b l e men t o r e g a r d i t a s a c a u s e , u s i n g t h a t word i n t h e p o p u l a r sense. .I1 . . . The Comment i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . I t i s n o t enough t h a t Kiamas would n o t have s u f f e r e d a head i n j u r y had Mon-Kota n o t been n e g l i g e n t i n h a v i n g t h e wrong s p a c i n g on i t s t r a c t o r s . I n a d d i t i o n , any n e g l i g e n c e of Mon-Kota a l s o must have been " a s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r " i n causing t h e i n j u r y . Mon-Kota had s t o p p e d i t s t r a c t o r s and was i n t h e p r o c e s s of c o r r e c t i n g t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t s o t h e r e would b e no f u r t h e r harm t o p l a i n t i f f s 1 l a n d , and no need f o r any a c t i o n on t h e p a r t of Kiamas. This suggests t h a t p l a i n t i f f s have f a i l e d t o show t h a t t h e c o n d u c t of MonKota was s u c h a s t o l e a d r e a s o n a b l e men t o r e g a r d it a s a c a u s e of t h e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y . R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s , S e c t i o n 445 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , i s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l i e d upon by t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e i r arguments. W e f i n d t h a t a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of t h a t s e c t i o n i s d e c i s i v e . S e c t i o n 445 s t a t e s : " I f t h e a c t o r ' s n e g l i g e n t conduct t h r e a t e n s harm t o a n o t h e r ' s p e r s o n , l a n d , o r c h a t t e l s , t h e normal e f f o r t s of t h e o t h e r o r a t h i r d p e r s o n t o a v e r t t h e t h r e a t e n e d harm a r e n o t a s u p e r s e d i n g c a u s e of harm r e s u l t i n g from such e f f o r t s . " I f we reword t h e s e c t i o n t o a p p l y t o t h e p r e s e n t f a c t s i t u a t i o n , i t would r e a d s u b s t a n t i a l l y a s f o l l o w s : I f Mon-Kota's n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t t h r e a t e n s harm t o Kiamas l a n d , t h e normal e f f o r t s of Kiamas t o a v e r t t h e t h r e a t e n e d harm a r e n o t a s u p e r seding cause. The a c t i o n s o f Kiamas became a s u p e r s e d i n g c a u s e u n l e s s h e proved t h a t h i s a c t i o n s w e r e a normal e f f o r t t o " a v e r t t h e t h r e a t e n e d harm" t o h i s c r o p s and l a n d . When Mon-Kota h a l t e d t h e t r a c t o r s and proceeded t o change t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t , t h e r e was no l o n g e r any a c t i o n r e q u i r e d by Kiamas t o a v e r t a t h r e a t e n e d harm. Our c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t t h e a c t i o n s of Kiamas do n o t f a l l w i t h i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e r e s c u e d o c t r i n e a s described i n Restatement Section 4 4 5 , with t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e Kiamas a c t i o n was a s u p e r s e d i n g c a u s e f o r which Mon-Kota and t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s were n o t r e s p o n s i b l e . W e a f f i r m t h e summary judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e defendants. W e Concur: ~ A & +,PC, Chief ~ u s t i c e ' Justices Mr. J u s t i c e John C . Sheehy c o n c u r r i n g : I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . The " r e s c u e d o c t r i n e , " though r a i s e d by p l a i n t i f f , i s e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t t o h i s c l a i m . H e a p p l i e d a wrench t o l o o s e n a n u t , t h e wrench s l i p p e d and p l a i n t i f f was i n j u r e d . Beyond t h o s e f a c t s , w e have n o t h i n g t o show a d u t y of d e f e n d a n t s toward p l a i n t i f f , n o r a b r e a c h of t h a t d u t y and r e s u l t i n g harm t o p l a i n t i f f . On t h e b a s i s simply t h a t p l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o s t a t e a claim i n t o r t , t h e summary judgment i s p r o p e r . Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea c o n c u r r i n g : I a g r e e t h a t summary judgment w a s p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d . The n e g l i g e n c e of Mon-Kota s t o p p e d when t h e t r a c t o r s w e r e s h u t down and w e r e no l o n g e r d o i n g damage t o t h e c r o p s and land. Had t h e p l a i n t i f f been i n j u r e d w h i l e r u n n i n g i n t h e f i e l d s a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t t h e Mon-Kota employees t o s h u t down t h e t r a c t o r s , I have no d o u b t t h a t t h e r e s c u e d o c t r i n e would a p p l y and a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n would remain f o r t h e j u r y . But here t h e p l a i n t i f f seeks t o recover f o r i n j u r i e s sustained a f t e r t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t s o f t h e Mon-Kota employees had come t o a s t a n d s t i l l , and where t h e r e was a b s o l u t e l y no need f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f t o do a n y t h i n g f u r t h e r . H e acted a s a volunteer i n u n d e r t a k i n g t o change t h e wheel s p a c i n g on t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s , and h e h a s a l l e g e d no n e g l i g e n c e of t h e Mon-Kota employees a f t e r t h e t r a c t o r s were s h u t down. Whatever i n j u r i e s h e r e c e i v e d w e r e n o t p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d by t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f Mon-Kota o r i t s employees. I concur w i t h t h e foregoing.

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.