BARMEYER v MONTANA POWER CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-476 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 DOROTHY BARPqEYEF?, DAVID AND SHARON COOK, KEVIN AND JANICE COUGHLIN, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, THE MONTANA POWER COIQANY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial ~istrict, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable John Henson, Judge presidinq Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Williams Law Firm, Missoula, Montana Shelton C. Williams ar(sued, l\lissoula,Montana Richard Ranney argued, Missoula, Montana Noel K . Larrivee argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Garlinaton, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, Montana Gary L. Graham argued, Missoula, Montana Sherman V. Lohn argued, Missoula, Montana - - Submitted: Decided: Filed: 'JAil i 1983 l a U c t o b e r 2b, 1982 January 17, 1983 J u s t i c e F r a n k B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. Mr. P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from a n a d v e r s e j u r y v e r d i c t and entered thereon by the Fourth J u d i c i a l District judgment Court of the W af f i r m . e S t a t e o f Montana. On J u l y 1 6 , 1 9 7 7 , a g r a s s and f o r e s t f i r e b u r n e d a l a r g e a r e a i n what is known as P a t t e e Canyon a d j a c e n t t o M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a . P r o p e r t y damage resulting from t h e f i r e gave a c t i o n s f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e Montana Power Company. a c t i o n s commenced J u l y 8 , 1 9 8 0 that verdict on the and c o n t i n u e d t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r A v e r d i c t was r e n d e r e d i n f a v o r of on these T r i a l of 1 2 , 1 9 8 0 , d u r i n g w h i c h p e r i o d t h e r e were t h i r t y - t h r e e entered to impetus trial days. t h e d e f e n d a n t and j u d g m e n t was September 17, 1980. Pos t - t r i a l m o t i o n s were h e a r d and d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on November On December 3 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a n o t i c e of 7 , 1980. appeal. Numerous issue issues concerns a r e presented sufficiency of on a p p e a l . the factual and, because were issues Company, the facts in begin first with a Testimony is n e c e s s a r i l y s u f f i c i e n c y of resolved we evidence, d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s case. capsulized Since the evidence favor of the is raised Montana Power i n a posture set f o r t h a r e presented and most favorable t o defendant. h e r e i n q u e s t i o n , was e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h t h r e e The p o w e r l i n e , wires on below. the A t the upper level and a n e u t r a l wire a s h o r t d i s t a n c e t i m e i n q u e s t i o n , a n o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e was b e i n g removed and a new f i g u r e e i g h t c o n t r o l c a b l e had b e e n i n s t a l l e d . The old control cable was The w e s t and c e n t e r - p h a s e phase w a s hot. evidence experienced serviceman prior found to the poles by ropes. wires were n o t e n e r g i z e d ; t h e e a s t - The new c o n t r o l c a b l e had a m i n i m a l c u r r e n t , and t h e o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e and The attached t h e n e u t r a l wire were n o t e n e r g i z e d . disclosed to t h e that the fire. that A t power outages one p o i n t , had been a power company o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e had contacted the east-phase conductor. To eliminate c o n t r o l c a b l e was l o w e r e d . power outages The continued f r o m west t o e a s t . were the T h e r e was a wind b l o w i n g problems, Following lowering of but at temperature future time experienced of the i n t h e a r e a of old the cable the less was fire the frequently. about t h e o r i g i n of 94°F. the f i r e V a r i o u s estimates were g i v e n a b o u t t h e o r i g i n p o i n t o f t h e f i r e , v a r y i n g from f i f t y t o e i g h t y f e e t from a p o i n t on the ground directly beneath closest the phase of the powerline. S h o r t l y before t h e f i r e , witnesses observed c h i l d r e n i n t h e a r e a who were general Post-fire to lighter Plaintiffs contact in sought with to establish the arc-marks center of Both on the the span east-phase s i d e s produced testimony sought the where the that the and match, fire old to the d a y when a control cable west of the fire emitting testimony. origin Plaintif fsl the area. expert by d e f e n d a n t ' s Defendant's expert testimony refuted t h i s c o n t e n t i o n by o f f e r i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a r c - m a r k s prior and originated. conductor , thereby t h a t sparks generated powerline caused the f i r e . firecrackers. conductor a t approximately expert t o prove with P l a i n t i f f s e s t a b l i s h e d burn-marks east-phase to playing a matchbook area the s p a r k s which caused t h e f i r e . or be investigation revealed cigarette made noted the fire started and existed f u r t h e r sought to p r o v e t h a t a n y s p a r k s p r o d u c e d by c o n t a c t b e t w e e n t h e e a s t - p h a s e conductor and the control c a b l e would i n t e n s i t y to i g n i t e a heat not maintain f i r e a t t h e p o i n t of sufficient o r i g i n of the f i r e i n question. The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e : (1) W h e t h e r t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e ver- dict? (2) Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i m a r y e x p e r t w i t n e s s s h o u l d have b e e n p e r m i t t e d to t e s t i f y and w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n r u l i n g s p e r t a i n i n g to h i s t e s t i m o n y ? (3) Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g t o e x c l u d e w i t n e s s e s ? (4) Was p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r c o m m i t t e d by a l l o w i n g o p i n i o n e v i - d e n c e o f two l a y w i t n e s s e s ? (5) tion of Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g to o r d e r t h e p r o d u c statements given error before committed trial in by two instructing witnesses? the jury? (6) Was (7) W h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o g r a n t a new t r i a l o n t h e b a s i s of n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e ? SUFFICIENCY -OF THE -EVIDENCE -- ---------- - -- -- - M o t i o n s t o s e t a s i d e j u r y v e r d i c t s as n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e a r e p r o p e r o n l y when t h e r e is a c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e of a n y c r e d i b l e evidence i n support of A l l e v i d e n c e and the verdict. a l l i n f e r e n c e s drawn t h e r e f r o m m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d i n a l i g h t most favorable to the adverse party. The c o u r t s w i l l e x e r c i s e the greatest self-restraint i n interf e r i n g with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y mandated jury processes of N a t i o n a l Guard ( 1 9 8 2 ) , -- decision. Mont -- . - - Jacques v. Montana , 649 P.2d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 5 - 1 3 2 6 , I f t h i s r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a d m i s s i b l e p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e t o support defendant on either absence n e g l i g e n c e or of f a i l u r e of p r o x i m a t e c a u s e , t h e v e r d i c t c a n n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a s u f f i c i e n c y basis. believed, question defendant Here, would then permit offered the c e n t e r s on expert jury the to testimony find for admissibility of which, defendant. that if The testimony. ADMISSIBILITY -OF -DEFENDANT'S--EXPERT -TESTIMONY - - --- -- -- - -- -- -Defendant produced Harry Czyzewski, witness. Mr. as i t s p r i n c i p a l e x p e r t Czyzewski s t e s t i m o n y r e s u l t e d in several allega- t i o n s of e r r o r p r e s e n t e d on t h i s a p p e a l . Through M r . arc-marks date Czyzewski, f o u n d on t h e e a s t - p h a s e upon w h i c h testimony defendant offered the involved subject c o n d u c t o r e x i s t e d p r i o r to t h e f i r e occurred. application testimony t h a t the of a The b a s i s of "corrosion the analysis. " P l a i n t i f f o b j e c t e d t o t h i s t e s t i m o n y on t h e b a s i s t h a t c o r r o s i o n analysis was not recognized by the scientific community. The p e r s o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of t h e e x p e r t are w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d in the record. Czyzewski Mr. has a master's degree in m e t a l l u r g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g and h a s worked as a n i n d e p e n d e n t conH e is a f e l l o w o f s u l t a n t s i n c e 1946. t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e of C h e m i s t s ; h e h a s won d e s i g n a t i o n as t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r of the year Northwest Regional h e was t h e f i r s t c h a i r m a n of i n Oregon; Industrial and Minerals t h e combined Conference; he has a s e r i e s of t e c h n i c a l p a p e r s on c o r r o s i o n authored o r co-authored t h a t were p u b l i s h e d or were d e l i v e r e d n a t i o n a l l y a t t h e N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Corrosion Engineers. P a r t of t h e a n a l y s i s accomplished t h e w i t n e s s involved c o n s i d e r a t i o n of arc-marks control found cable on the directly east-phase west of under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e c o r r o s i o n f i l m on t h e conductor the and on fire-origin the area. old Mr. C z y z e w s k i t e s t i f i e d t h e r e were numerous s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s cons i d e r i n g c o r r o s i o n r a t e s and t h a t h e , p e r s o n a l l y , had l o n g y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e i n e x a m i n i n g c o r r o s i o n f i l m s and c o r r o s i o n c h a r a c teristics. Based upon t h e f o u n d a t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t p e r m i t t e d t h e w i t n e s s to conclude t h a t t h e arc-marks the Pattee Canyon fire. This on t h e l i n e s p r e d a t e d t e s t i m o n y was not rebutted by t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d by p l a i n t i f f s . P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e a r e a of c o r r o s i o n a n a l y s i s is n o t g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d o r r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e s c i e n t i f i c community and t h a t a n y t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g c o r r o s i o n a n a l y s i s is too s p e c u l a t i v e t o be a d m i s s i b l e . ness ' testimony Rule 702, mony. was P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r argue t h a t t h i s w i t received M.R.Evid., upon insufficient g o v e r n s a d m i s s i b i l i t y of foundation. e x p e r t testi- It provides: " I f s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l or o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e w i l l a s s i s t t h e t r i e r of f a c t t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e e v i d e n c e or t o d e t e r m i n e a f a c t i n i s s u e , a w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d a s a n e x p e r t by k n o w l e d g e , s k i l l , e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g o r educ a t i o n may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e form o f a n o p i n i o n or o t h e r w i s e ." At one time before expert testimony was received, the courts r e q u i r e d t h a t f o u n d a t i o n be l a i d showing t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y to be offered involved a f i e l d of s c i e n c e w h i c h had gained "general acceptance" by the States (D.C.Cir. scientific community. See Frye v. United 1 9 2 3 ) , 293 F . 1 0 1 3 . T h e r e h a s b e e n a t r e n d t o l i b e r a l i z e t h e a d m i s s i o n of e x p e r t testimony and the rule enunciated in - -.r y. F e has been eroded. Weinstein states: "Viewed a g a i n s t t h i s b a c k g r o u n d , R u l e 7 0 2 's f a i l u r e t o incorporate a general s c i e n t i f i c acceptance standard, and the Advisory Committee's N o t e ' s f a i l u r e to even mention t h e F r y e case m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t . The sii<-nce o f t h e r u l e and i t s d r a f t e r s s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d as t a n t a m o u n t t o a n a b a n d o n m e n t o f the general acceptance standard." (footnote Berger, omitted) 3 J . W e i n s t e i n and M . W e -i n s t e i n ' s--E.v i--e-- e ~ 1 7 0 2 [ 0 3 ] , a t 702-16. d nc -- . W e h o l d t h a t t h e g e n e r a l a c c e p t a n c e r u l e is n o t i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e s p i r i t o f t h e new r u l e s of e v i d e n c e . W agree with the e philosophy Baller articulated 1 9 7 5 ) , 519 F.2d L.Ed.2d 391, in United States 4 6 3 , c e r t . d e n . 4 2 3 U.S. wherein the circuit v. (4th 1 0 1 9 , 96 S.Ct. court of Cir . 4 5 6 , 46 appeals said: "Deciding w h e t h e r t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s have been m e t is n o r m a l l y w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge. A b s o l u t e c e r t a i n t y o f r e s u l t or unanimity of scientific opinion is not required for admissibility. ' E v e r y u s e £ u l new development must have its f i r s t day i n c o u r t . And c o u r t r e c o r d s a r e f u l l o f t h e c o n f l i c t i n g o p i n i o n s o f d o c t o r s , e n g i n e e r s , and a c c o u n t a n t s , t o name j u s t a few of t h e l e g i o n s o f expert witnesses. I Unless an exaggerated p o p u l a r o p i n i o n of t h e a c c u r a c y of a part i c u l a r t e c h n i q u e makes i t s u s e p r e j u d i c i a l o r l i k e l y t o m i s l e a d t h e j u r y , it is b e t t e r t o a d m i t r e l e v a n t s c i e n t i f i c e v i d e n c e i n t h e same m a n n e r as o t h e r e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y and allow i t s w e i g h t t o be a t t a c k e d by c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n and refutation." ( C i t a t i o n s omitted .) 519 F.2d a t 466. I n Steward v. Casey ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 2 Mont. 1 8 5 , 5 9 5 P.2d 1176, t h i s Court s a i d : . . . " R u l e 7 0 5 , Mont .R.Evid. , m a n d a t e s t h a t a qualified expert is the opinion of a d m i s s i b l e , and i f o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l b e l i e v e t h e o p i n i o n is n o t f o u n d e d on s u f f i c i e n t d a t a , is t h e s h i e l d to guard cross-examination a g a i n s t unwarranted o p i n i o n s . 1 8 2 Mont. a t 1 9 3 , 5 9 5 P.2d a t 1 1 8 0 . . We find M r . Czyzewski's ." t e s t i m o n y to have been s u f f i c i e n t l y f o u n d a t i o n e d to f o r e c l o s e a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its discretion in overruling plaintif fs' objections. The s e a r c h i n g and a d e p t c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n vided sufficient assurance that by p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l p r o - this jury was not necessarily misled o r confused. Plaintiffs court I s also allege error resulting r e c e p t i o n o f e v i d e n c e from M r . was t e r m e d "vibration tests." from the trial Czyzewski r e g a r d i n g w h a t The b a s i s of p l a i n t i f f s 1 objec- t i o n s i s t h a t t h e t e s t s were p e r f o r m e d u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s s u b s t a n tially dissimilar at the time of test from the conditions e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e f i r e . The o p i n i o n e x p r e s s e d by M r . Czyzewski was t h a t u n d e r wind- i n d u c e d c o n d i t i o n s , c o n t a c t be tween t h e e a s t - p h a s e c o n d u c t o r and t h e c o n t r o l c a b l e would be v e r y d i f f i c u l t to a c h i e v e . The w i t - n e s s c o n c e d e d t h a t h i s t e s t showed it was p o s s i b l e f o r t h e l i n e s t o contact. The c o u r t , l i n e s were r u l i n g on p l a i n t i f f s 1 o b j e c t i o n , t h e same, noted t h a t the t h e p o l e s t r u c t u r e s were t h e same and t h e b a s i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n was t h e same. The c o u r t f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were some d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s b u t t h a t t h e d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s c o u l d be a d e q u a t e l y t r e a t e d on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . The not c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r which be identical accident. seldom, a n e x p e r i m e n t i s cond u c t e d need t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e of an Were s u c h a r e q u i r e m e n t en£ o r c e d a n e x p e r i m e n t would if ever, be admissible. If the conditions of an e x p e r i m e n t a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r t o t h e a c t u a l o c c u r r e n c e and t h e experiment w i l l a s s i s t t h e jury sidering the issue, i n more i n t e l l i g e n t l y con- t h e n i t s h o u l d be p e r m i t t e d . c o n d i t i o n s may s i m p l y go to t h e w e i g h t of properly explored on cross-examination. M o t o r s C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 8 Wash.App. was no a b u s e of when M r . Variations in t h e t e s t i m o n y and a r e Breimon 7 4 7 , 509 P.2d d i s c r e t i o n committed by t h e trial v. 398. General There court here, Czyzewski was p e r m i t t e d t o t e s t i f y r e g a r d i n g h i s v i b r a - t i o n test. P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r a l l e g e e r r o r i n b e i n g u n d u l y r e s t r i c t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e i r v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n t e s t i n g t h e foun- Czyzewski ' s t e s t i m o n y . dation for Mr. However, we h a v e a l r e a d y r u l e d t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y was a d m i s s i b l e w i t h t h e f o u n d a t i o n p r e sent in witness and I this record. Furthermore, the foundation t e s t i m o n y was a d e q u a t e l y e x p l o r e d s adroit cross-examination conducted for this i n the very lengthy by p l a i n t i f f s ' counsel. P l a i n t i f f s argue e r r o r i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l to p e r m i t the use of certain during cross- Czyzewski's Mr. I n r e v i e w i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a d m i s s i o n examination. of exhibits i l l u s t r a t i v e e x h i b i t s , w e m u s t a c c o r d g r e a t d e f e r e n c e to t h e trial court's discretion. Brown v. North American Mfg. Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 9 8 , 5 7 6 P.2d 711. was a c h a r t of E x h i b i t 16A, o f f e r e d b y p l a i n t i f f s , service records. to justify The the T h e r e were s u f f i c i e n t i n a c c u r a c i e s i n t h e c h a r t t r i a l c o u r t r u l i n g denying matter subject weather contained in the u s e of exhibit the exhibit. was adequately covered during the cross-examination. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o a t t a c k t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g which r e f u s e d t o a d m i t p l a i n t i f f ' s e x h i b i t s 27AI 27B, and 27C. These e x h i b i t s were p r e p a r e d by a l a w s t u d e n t employed by p l a i n t i f f s . This stu- d e n t had a b a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e i n b u s i n e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , b u t no D e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n was p r e m i s e d d e g r e e i n a n a r e a of s c i e n c e . upon t h e w i t n e s s ' s l a c k of f o u n d a t i o n t o g i v e s c i e n t i f i c c o n c l u s i o n s contained i n t h e e x h i b i t s and f o r t h e f u r t h e r r e a s o n t h a t t h e e x h i b i t s were n o t s u m m a r i e s w h i c h were a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 1 0 0 6 , M.R.Evid. The t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l from exhibits proof which the were compiled constituted sufficient and t h e e x h i b i t s t h e m s e l v e s were c u m u l a t i v e ; f u r t h e r , t h e e x h i b i t s were p o t e n t i a l l y misleading. court properly exercised We find that the trial i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g a d m i s s i o n to these offered exhibits. Mr. C z y z e w s k i was p a i d connection with $51,600 o f this $189,000 litigation. for services performed Defendant o f f e r e d proof in that t h e c h a r g e was f o r c o s t i n p r e p a r i n g , g i v i n g d e p o s i - t i o n s , and a n s w e r i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . P l a i n t i f f s s o u g h t to prove t h a t t h e s e c o m p u t a t i o n s were i n e r r o r . P l a i n ti f f s again offered a c h a r t , p r e p a r e d b y a law s t u d e n t , which was i d e n t i f i e d a s e x h i b i t 28B. O b j e c t i o n w a s made by d e f e n d a n t on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g d o c u m e n t s had b e e n p l a c e d i n e v i d e n c e and t h e e x h i b i t was c u m u l a t i v e . of The o b j e c t i o n was s u s t a i n e d . d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t o f the trial c o u r t a s d e f e n d a n t had adequate o p p o r t u n i t y t o f u l l y e x p l o r e a l l of Mr. W e f i n d no abuse these f a c t s during Czyzewski's cross-examination. .. EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES P l a i n t i f f s contend exclude witnesses t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to to pursuant s e q u e s t r a t i o n of w i t n e s s e s . plaintiffst motion requesting A f t e r o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s and a f t e r plaintiffs t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of approximately sixteen witnesses, f i l e d t h e i r motion. The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n on t h e b a s i s it was u n t i m e l y . R u l e 6 1 5 , M.R.Evid., p r o v i d e s f o r t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n of n e s s e s upon m o t i o n o f a n y p a r t y . came already too late testified. when W e The r u l e d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e when Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e t h e demand m u s t be made. motion made find following filing after this d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l j u d g e . testified wit- to sixteen be a proper Additionally, of the witnesses motion had exercise of t h e w i t n e s s e s who had been thoroughly d e p o s e d and t h e p l a i n t i f f s h a v e n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d p r e j u d i c e as a r e s u l t of f a i l u r e to s e q u e s t e r the w i t n e s s e s . ADMISSIBILITY OF LAY TESTIMONY Plaintiffs c l a i m error received i n t o e v i d e n c e o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y from two l a y w i t n e s s e s . I n eva- the t e s t i m o n y of R u l e 6 1 , M.R.Civ.P., the trial having luating in court t h e s e w i t n e s s e s w e m u s t be g u i d e d by which p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : ". . . The c o u r t a t e v e r y s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g m u s t d i s r e g a r d a n y e r r o r or d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g which d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s . " D e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d o n e O l a f Krook who t e s t i f i e d t h a t he saw a p e r s o n r u n f r o m t h e d i r e c t i o n of noticed smoke at the point of t h e f i r e a t a time he f i r s t the fire's origin. He also testified that he had heard firecrackers and he " k i d " had s t a r t e d t h e f i r e w i t h a f i r e c r a c k e r . is lacking i n probative value. nous record However, i n t h i s case, w e f i n d thought some This testimony i n view of t h e volumi- t h a t any e r r o r i n admitting such evidence was harmless. Defendant also o f f e r e d the t e s t i m o n y of a Mr. l i v e d o n P a t t e e Canyon D r i v e b e l o w t h e f i r e a r e a . Cameron, who Cameron s t a t e d He stated h e o b s e r v e d a r e d p i c k u p n e a r t h e o r i g i n of t h e f i r e . that male person abruptly at the t h e p i c k u p was s t o p p e d jumped from the back of the Cameron then testified, pickup, that a ducked down P o l i c e were manning t h e b e h i n d some c a r s , and r a n down t h e r o a d . roadblock. roadblock; over objection, that it a p p e a r e d t o him a s t h o u g h t h e p e r s o n was t r y i n g to h i d e from t h e police. A g a i n , t h i s t e s t i m o n y i s c o n c l u s o r y and o f l i t t l e p r o b a - t i v e value. However, as i n t h e case of M r . K r o o k ' s t e s t i m o n y , we f i n d t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h i s e v i d e n c e to h a v e b e e n h a r m l e s s i n v i e w of the extensive record i n t h i s case. FAILURE TO ORDER PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES -STATEMENTS ----. - P l a i n t i f f s u r g e e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to o r d e r p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s of S u s a n S o l i s and C h a r l e s B a s a c h e r . A s t a t e m e n t was g i v e n by S u s a n S o l i s o n S e p t e m b e r 8, 1 9 7 7 , b e h a l f of defendant. A t time o f witness. on Counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f s also i n t e r v i e w e d t h e trial, t h i s w i t n e s s was i n t e r v i e w e d s e p a r a - t e l y by t h e c o u r t who e x p l a i n e d h e r r i g h t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e statement. D e f e n d a n t a g r e e d t h a t i f S u s a n S o l i s wanted a c o p y of h e r s t a t e m e n t , s h e would be e n t i t l e d t o i t and t h a t i f s h e wished t o g i v e a copy t o c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f , so. s h e had a r i g h t to d o A f t e r a f u l l e x p l a n a t i o n t h e w i t n e s s s a i d she d i d n o t want a copy of her statement. During cross-examination t h a t s h e had s e e n a copy o f s h e tes t i £ i e d t h e s t a t e m e n t and r e v i e w e d i t p r i o r to h e r testimony. Rule 612, M . R . ~ v i d . , p r o v i d e s : "If a witness uses a writing t o refresh h i s memory f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t e s t i f y i n g , e i t h e r " ( 1 ) while t e s t i f y i n g , o r " ( 2 ) b e f o r e t e s t i f y i n g , i -- t h e - c-u r t i n i t s f o-d---s c --- i--n ----r m i n e s - i t --s n-e c e s s a r y i n tF6 i ret o dete i i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e , a n a d v e r s e p a r t y is entitled"tbhave'75Z w r i t i n g produced a t t h e h e a r i n g , to i n s p e c t i t , t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e w i t n e s s t h e r e o n , and t o i n t r o d u c e i n t o e v i dence t h o s e p o r t i o n s which r e l a t e t o t h e testimony of the witness. (Emphasis added. ) . . ." In t h i s case, the t r i a l court advised the witness t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o a c o p y of h e r s t a t e m e n t and s h e s t a t e d s h e d i d n o t wish to have t h e s t a t e m e n t . duction of M.R.Civ.P. the statement The p l a i n t i f f s had s o u g h t p r o - before Discovery was denied, trial pursuant to Rule 34, N o e r r o r is c l a i m e d i n d e n y i n g discovery. The c o m m i s s i o n comment t o R u l e 6 1 2 , M.R.Evid. , provides in p a r t as f o l l o w s : ". . . T h e r e are no cases i n Montana w h i c h h a v e s p e c i f i c a l l y d e a l t w i t h t h e r i g h t of t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y t o g a i n a c c e s s or t o u s e t h e w r i t i n g u s e d t o r e f r e s h memory. The r i g h t i s mentioned i n S t a t e v. Watkins, - r a , 156 sup Mont. a t 4 6 2 , and S t a t e v . L a F r e n i e r e , s u p r a , 1 6 3 Mont. a t 2 5 . A l l o w i n g a p a r t y to demand t h e p r o d u c t i o n of a w r i t i n g used to r e f r e s h a witness' memory b e f o r e t e s t i f y i n g i s cons i s t e n t w i t h Montana l a w t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t s u c h a w r i t i n g would be d i s c o v e r a b l e i n c i v i l cases u n d e r R u l e 3 4 ( a ) ( l ) , M.R.Civ.P., and i n c r i m i n a l cases u n d e r R.C.M. 1947, s e c t i o n 95-1803(c). . ." Rule 612, s p e c i f i c a l l y g r a n t s the t r i a l court d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a s t a t e m e n t used t o r e f r e s h r e c o l l e c t i o n m u s t be given to a n a d v e r s e p a r t y . Under the facts t h a t we have h e r e i n o u t l i n e d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n was c o m m i t t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d e n y i n g access to p l a i n t i f f s . A Mr. B a s a c h e r a l s o g a v e a s t a t e m e n t to d e f e n d a n t . This wit- n e s s r e r e a d t h e s t a t e m e n t s e v e r a l weeks b e f o r e t r i a l b u t s t a t e d it did not refresh h i s recollection. The s t a t e m e n t d i d n o t f a l l w i t h i n t h e a m b i t o f R u l e 612 and t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t err i n r e f u s i n g its production. ALLEGED INSTRUCTION ERRORS P l a i n t i f f s claim e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g i v e a res i p s a l o q u i t u r i n s t r u c t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s r e l y upon t h i s C o u r t ' s r e c e n t d e c i s i o n i n Tompkins v. N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i o n T r u s t Company of Helena ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - - . Mont . , -- 6 4 5 P.2d 4 0 2 , 39 S t . R e p . 845. I n t h e Tompkins case w e h e l d t h a t , where t h e e v i d e n c e d i s c l o s e d t h e g i v i n g o f a res i p s a t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e s , instruction was not foreclosed. we However, recited the f o l l o w i n g e l e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e d o c t r i n e : " ( 1 ) I t may be i n f e r r e d t h a t harm s u f f e r e d b y t h e p l a i n t i f f is c a u s e d by n e g l i g e n c e of t h e d e f e n d a n t when: ( a ) t h e e v e n t is o f a k i n d which o r d i n a r i l y does not o c c u r i n t h e absence of negligence; ( b ) o t h e r responsible causes , i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h i r d p e r s o n s , are s u f f i c i e n t l y e l i m i n a t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ; and ( c ) t h e i n d i c a t e d n e g l i g e n c e is w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d u t y to the p l a i n t i f f " 645 P.2d a t 4 0 6 , 39 St.Rep. a t 849. ... I n T o m p k i n- , s t h e p r i n c i p l e d e b a t e concerned t h e a p p l i c a t i o n Here we f i n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) as quoted above. of s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) are not f u l f i l l e d . T h i s is n o t a n e v e n t which o r d i n a r i l y d o e s n o t o c c u r i n t h e a b s e n c e of n e g l i g e n c e . case, a fire started defendant's lines. In t h i s f i f t y to e i g h t y f e e t from t h e c l o s e s t of W e a r e unable to l o o k a t t h e p h y s i c a l f a c t s o f t h i s a c c i d e n t and s a y t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e of a f i r e s p e a k s of n e g l i g e n c e on d e f e n d a n t ' s p a r t . d e f e n d a n t was a t t h e I n Tompkins, c o n t r o l s of W e simply held t h a t which c r a s h e d c a u s i n g t h e d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h . such an event, is t h e c r a s h i n g o f that an a i r p l a n e an a i r p l a n e , s p e a k s of n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e p i l o t . I n t h e case a t b a r , w e a r e n o t a b l e to l o o k a t t h e p h y s i c a l facts and say defendant's that line, a fire, s p e a k s of not physically connected with n e g l i g e n c e o n t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t i n c o n s t r u c t i o n o r m a i n t e n a n c e of i t s l i n e . Therefore, the event i n q u e s t i o n is n o t o f t h e k i n d c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e f i r s t s u b s e c tion of court the did rule not Plaintiffs' to give a err enunciated in in the Tompkins case. to g i v e a res ipsa failing a s s i g n as e r r o r t h e number of proposed N a t i o n a l E l e c t r i c S a f e t y Code. refusal instructions of the The trial instruction. trial dealing court with the The N a t i o n a l E l e c t r i c S a f e t y Code was a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e and t h e j u r y had a l l s e c t i o n s o f the code b e f o r e them. The instructions regarding court did not err s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n s were s u f f i c i e n t i n v i e w of in failing the code. to give General t h e f a c t t h a t t h e code i t s e l f was a d m i t t e d i n e v i d e n c e and was a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e j u r y ' s perusal. Appellants object to court's i n s t r u c t i o n no. 22 c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g s e c t i o n 69-4-201, which adopts the S e c t i o n 69-4-201, National Electrical Safety Code in MCA, Montana. MCA, p r o v i d e s : "The n a t i o n a l e l e c t r i c a l s a f e t y c o d e s t a n d a r d s s h a l l govern a l l f u t u r e c o n s t r u c t i o n involving wires f o r p o w e r , heat, light, telephone, t e l e g r a p h , or s i g n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n o r r e c e p tion. Except as provided i n 69-4-203, electrical construction of overhead and underground electrical supply and comm u n i c a t i o n l i n e s i n t h e s t a t e s h a l l be i n conf o r m i t y with the r u l e s set f o r t h i n t h e n a t i o n a l e l e c t r i c a l s a f e t y code approved by t h e A m e r i c a n n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s i n s t i t u t e as p u b l i s h e d b y t h e i n s t i t u t e o f e l e c t r i c a l and e l e c t r o n i c engineers The n a t i o n a l e l e c t r i c a l s a f e t y code s h a l l f u r n i s h c o n s t r u c t i o n s t a n d a r d s and s h a l l be e n f o r c e d b y t h e p u b l i c s e r v i c e commission." . The court instructed the jury, in instruction no. follows: "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t N a t i o n a l E l e c t r i c a l S a f e t y Code h a s b e e n a d o p t e d b y s e c t i o n 69-4-201, MCA, which p r o v i d e s i n s u b s t a n c e t h a t a l l e l e c t r i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of o v e r h e a d a n d u n d e r g r o u n d e l e c t r i c a l s u p p l y and comm u n i c a t i o n l i n e s i n t h e s t a t e s h a l l be i n conformity with the r u l e s set f o r t h i n the Electric S a f e t y Code. In all National respects other than construction, the National E l e c t r i c S a f e t y Code is e v i d e n c e o f a s t a n d a r d o f care t o be c o n s i d e r e d by you a l o n g w i t h a l l t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d r e l a t i n g to t h e s t a n d a r d of care. " I f you f i n d from t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t a p a r t y to t h i s a c t i o n c o n d u c t e d h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f i n v i o l a t i o n o f a s t a t u t e , you a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t s u c h c o n d u c t was n e g l i g e n c e as a m a t t e r of l a w . "However, i n t h i s a c t i o n , a v i o l a t i o n of l a w i s o f no c o n s e q u e n c e u n l e s s it was a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of a n i n j u r y found by you to h a v e b e e n s u f f e r e d by t h e P l a i n t i f f s . "The d u t y o f care w i t h which a n e l e c t r i c power company is c h a r g e d c o n s i s t s n o t o n l y i n t h e p r o p e r i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y , b u t i n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e t h e r e o f i n a s a f e con- 22, as d i t i o n a t a l l times and p l a c e s and u n d e r t h e c h a n g i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e p a r t i c u l a r case Even i f a t t h e o u t s e t of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e e q u i p m e n t t h e company may h a v e b e e n e n t i r e l y f r e e from f a u l t , yet, if under changing circumstances, a hazardous c o n d i t i o n a r o s e , n o n a c t i o n or t h e f a i l u r e t o a d e q u a t e l y r e m e d y s u c h a c o n d i t i o n would c o n s t i t u t e negligence. " . A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t s e c t i o n 69-4-201, incorporates MCA, t h e e n t i r e N a t i o n a l E l e c t r i c a l S a f e t y Code and t h a t t h e v i o l a t i o n o f any p r o v i s i o n of t h e Code c o n s t i t u t e s n e g l i g e n c e p e r s e . On t h e o t h e r hand, respondent contends t h a t o n l y c o n s t r u c t i o n stand a r d s were s p e c i f i c a l l y a d o p t e d by t h e s t a t u t e and t h e r e f o r e t h e t h e N a t i o n a l E l e c t r i c S a f e t y Code c r e a t e s o n l y e v i - b a l a n c e of dence of a standard of care to be considered in determining negligence. We find the trial court's be a reasonable one. construction MCA, to The s t a t u t e o n l y s p e c i f i c a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e s standards. incorporation, c o n s t r u c t i o n of 69-4-201, In the t h e p r o v i s i o n s of a b s e n c e of specific statutory the National Electrical Safety Code c a n o n l y f u r n i s h e v i d e n c e of a s t a n d a r d o f c a r e . W e af firm t h e g i v i n g of i n s t r u c t i o n no. 22. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o a l l e g e error i n t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to g i v e t h e i r p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 7 , which s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o n t r o l c a b l e s i n q u e s t i o n were w i t h i n t h e "communication l i n e " def i n i t i o n o f t h e N a t i o n a l E l e c t r i c S a f e t y C o d e ' s " l i n e of s i g h t " r u l e . However, f a c t was d i s p u t e d . this Defendant o f f e r e d testimony t h a t t h e c o n t r o l cable was n o t w i t h i n t h e meaning o f t h e " l i n e of s i g h t " r u l e , and i f t h i s t e s t i m o n y were b e l i e v e d b y t h e j u r y , c o d e r e l a t i n g t h e r e t o would h a v e no a p p l i c a t i o n . trial court which mandated properly the r e f used jury find plaintiffs' the Therefore, the instruction control cable the to No. 17 a line be w i t h i n t h e c o d e ' s " l i n e of s i g h t " r u l e . W e f i n d t h a t a l l a s p e c t s of p l a i n t i f f s ' t h e o r y were s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s j u r y u n d e r t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n , and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s s u b m i t t e d by t h e c o u r t were c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t s of t h e l a w . NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE A f t e r t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e t r i a l , on S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e plaintiffs filed M,R.Civ.P. dence a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59, The b a s i s f o r a new t r i a l was newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i - in the form o f Af t e r Montana. t e s t i m o n y of hearing one M. arguments Bowman, C. concerning the of Ronan, propriety g r a n t i n g t h e new t r i a l and a f t e r a l l o w i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y from M r . Bowman, the trial court denied t h e motion of in full for a new trial. The p r e r e q u i s i t e s for granting a new t r i a l on t h e b a s i s of newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e a r e s e t f o r t h i n K e r r i g a n v . ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 1 1 5 Mont. 1 3 6 , 139 P.2d 1 7 5 Mont. 210, 573 P.2d 5 3 3 , and K a r t e s v. 191. They a r e : Kerrigan Kartes (1977) (1) t h a t t h e evidence m u s t h a v e come t o t h e knowledge of t h e a p p l i c a n t s i n c e t h e t r i a l ; (2) that it was n o t want of d i l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of p a r t y which resulted in the evidence failing t h e moving come to l i g h t to e a r l i e r ; ( 3 ) t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e is s o m a t e r i a l t h a t i t would prob- ( 4 ) t h a t the a b l y p r o d u c e a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t upon a n o t h e r t r i a l ; is n o t m e r e l y c u m u l a t i v e ; evidence (5) that the application is s u p p o r t e d by a n a£ f i d a v i t ; ( 6 ) t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e m u s t n o t be s u c h as will The only tend trial to court impeach found the t h a t the credibility of a witness. t e s t i m o n y of Mr. Bowman was n o t s o m a t e r i a l t h a t it would p r o b a b l y p r o d u c e a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t A r e v i e w of M r . a t trial. are serious concerns dational basis for his t h e vantage p o i n t positioned regarding his testimony. testimony r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r e credibility where he could and the s t a t e d he d i d n o t He from which he watched himself Furthermore, Bowman's not the f i r e . have A t seen founrecall t i m e s he the fire. he s t a t e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t s e g r e g a t e what he p e r - s o n a l l y knew from t h a t which he had g a r n e r e d from media r e p o r t s . Although M r . that defendant's presented that Bowman's we t e s t i m o n y is o f f e r e d by p l a i n t i f f powerline started t o t h e t r i a l judge find no a b u s e of the fire, his to show testimony as is s o l a c k i n g i n i t s p e r s u a s i v e n e s s d i s c r e t i o n on the trial court's part when i t found t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y would n o t l i k e l y p r o d u c e a d i f - ferent result. T h i s c a s e was more t h a n a d e q u a t e l y t r i e d b y c o u n s e l f o r a l l parties. T r i a l c o u n s e l a r e t o be commended f o r t h e h i g h d e g r e e of p r o f e s s i o n a l competence d i s p l a y e d i n t h i s c a s e . l o n g and d i f f i c u l t . be perfect. N o t r i a l of However, o n l y a h i g h d e g r e e of here The t r i a l was s u c h c o m p l e x i t y and l e n g t h c a n we have a record c o m p e t e n c e on t h e p a r t o u t s t a n d i n g work by t h e t r i a l j u d g e . t h a t reveals not of counsel, but W e may n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e r e s u l t , b u t t h e p a r t i e s had a f a i r t r i a l w i t h a r e c o r d a s f r e e of error as is possible to deliver in our system of justice. W affirm. e We concur: Honorable John h i . McCarv~l,D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i r g i t ? place of I d r . Justi-ce Johr C. Sheehy. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea a n d Honorable J o h n M. McCarvel, D i s t r i c t Judge, d i s s e n t and w i l l f i l e w r i t t e n d i s s e n t s later. 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.