Case Title: WILHELM v CITY OF GREAT FALLS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1984-08-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 83-477 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984 PAUL AND BERNICE M. WILHEIM, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, CITY OF GREAT FALLS, STATE OF MONTANA, et al. Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable John McCarvel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: James, Gray & McCafferty; Dennis McCafferty argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Cannon and Sheehy; Edmond Sheehy argued, Helena, Montana - - - Submitted: June 8, 1984 Decided: Aagust 6, 1984 Filed: 4ej;e , Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This case arises as an appeal from an order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, granting respondents' motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in a nuisance action. The jury returned a verdict finding respondents ninety percent comparatively negligent for damages and appellants ten percent negligent. The court determined that insufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict and that it was contrary to law. We affirm. The facts giving rise to this case are set forth as follows: the City of Great Falls has operated a city dump continuously in the same location since the 1950's. Before 1969, appellants openly burned garbage at the dump site. In 1973, respondents purchased property located on the Missouri River about one mile east of the dump site. Respondents then spent about $125,000 to build a home on the property. They visited the property a few times prior to the purchase. Respondents acknowledged, at the time of the purchase, that they were aware the City operated the dump about one mile from their property. At the time of the purchase the City operated a garbage shredder that apparently reduced blowing litter problems. Respondents testified prior to 1977 they neither noticed nor suffered any problems caused by the dump. Only once, prior to 1977, did they observe any Litter blown onto their property. In 1977 the City employees operating the dump went on strike. During the strike, someone set fire to the dump. This fire burned a considerable portion of the dump and created great amounts of smoke and stench. The fire t r i g g e r e d many s u b t e r r a n e a n f i r e s t h a t continued t o burn f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g two y e a r s . R e s p o n d e n t s ' home, l o c a t e d downwind from t h e dump, s u f f e r e d damages due t o t h e smoke. Following t h e s t r i k e , t h e C i t y q u i t o p e r a t i n g t h e garbage s h r e d d e r . L i t t e r began t o blow o n t o r e s p o n d e n t s ' p r o p e r t y . For t h e two y e a r s t h e s u b t e r r a n e a n f i r e s burned, t h e C i t y t r i e d many methods t o c o n t r o l t h e f i r e s . The C i t y f i n a l l y e x t i n g u i s h e d t h e f i r e s by d i g g i n g up t h e d e b r i s and hosing it down. T h i s p r o c e s s a l s o caused smoke t o t r a v e l over r e s p o n d e n t s ' p r o p e r t y . Respondents p r e s e n t e d evidence t h a t i n 1981 t h e i r w e l l water became contaminated. They contended i n t h e s p r i n g t h e runoff of water from t h e dump caused contamination t o t h e groundwater on t h e i r p r o p e r t y . They contended t h i s problem never occurred p r i o r t o t h a t t i m e . A p p e l l a n t s submitted evidence t h a t t h e w e l l water contamination could have been caused by r e s p o n d e n t s ' s e p t i c system. Respondents a l s o p r e s e n t e d evidence t h a t t h e C i t y d e p o s i t e d sewage s l u d g e a t t h e dump s i t e . Respondents complained of times when t h e C i t y f a i l e d t o cover t h e s l u d g e , t h e r e b y c r e a t i n g a s t e n c h . I n a p r e t r i a l o r d e r , t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t s ' motion i n l i m i n e t o p r e c l u d e any assumption of t h e r i s k i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y . The c o u r t reasoned t h a t t h e j u r y could o n l y d e c i d e t h e m a t t e r on a comparative n e g l i g e n c e b a s i s . The c o u r t p e r m i t t e d a p p e l l a n t t o argue assumption of t h e r i s k a s a b a s i s f o r r e s p o n d e n t s ' p o r t i o n o f t h e n e g l i g e n c e t h a t caused t h e damages. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t on t h e nuisance a c t i o n t h a t f o u n d r e s p o n d e n t s n i n e t y p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t a n d a p p e l l a n t s t e n p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t and awarded r e s p o n d e n t s $30,000 i n damages. The j u r y a l s o r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t f i n d i n g no i n v e r s e condemnation by t h e a p p e l l a n t . The c o u r t then o r d e r e d a new t r i a l , f o r a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a c t s f a i l e d t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t and t h a t it was c o n t r a r y t o law. A p p e l l a n t s r a i s e two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : (1) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s t motion f o r a new t r i a l ? ( 2 ) Should t h e c a s e be remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e t a x i n g o f c o s t s ? A p p e l l a n t s f i r s t a r g u e t h a t t h e f a c t s c l e a r l y p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r t h e j u r y ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t respondents were n i n e t y p e r c e n t c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . A p p e l l a n t s c l a i m t h e j u r y simply found t h a t a p p e l l a n t s were n e g l i g e n t by b u i l d i n g t h e i r house near t h e c i t y dump and could e x p e c t t h e problems t h a t o c c u r r e d . W e d i s a g r e e . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , we b e l i e v e t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y o r d e r e d a new t r i a l . W e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e t r i a l judge i n o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l . T h i s Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g r e g a r d i n g motions f o r a new t r i a l i n t h e absence of a showing of an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . B r o t h e r s v. Town of V i r g i n i a C i t y ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 171 Mont. 352, 558 P.2d 464. "A D i s t r i c t Court h a s broad a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t o r deny motions f o r a new t r i a l . " Lyndes v. S c o f i e l d ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 177, 589 P.2d 1 0 0 0 ; B r o t h e r s , s u p r a . I f t h e r e e x i s t s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , then i t must be s u s t a i n e d . Lyndes, s u p r a ; B r o t h e r s , s u p r a . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e w e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l . The evidence does n o t s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t which found t h e r e s p o n d e n t s n i n e t y p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t . The j u r y f o u n d a p p e l l a n t s were t h e proximate cause of t h e nuisance which i n c l u d e d s t e n c h from uncovered sewage, smoke from f i r e s a t t h e dump, unconfined l i t t e r and ground water contamination. A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s a c t e d n e g l i g e n t l y i n l o c a t i n g t h e i r house one m i l e from t h e dump. Because t h e p a r t i e s f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e on a p p e a l , w e w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h e t h e o r i e s of assumption of r i s k o r coming t o t h e n u i s a n c e . W e need n o t d e a l w i t h a p p e l l a n t s ' second i s s u e because it was c o n t i n g e n t upon r e v e r s a l of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W e a f f i r m t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W e concur: - Chief J u s t i c e (&c/l/l%~%-- Honorable Robert M. Holter, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy.