Case Title: BARMEYER v MONTANA POWER CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-476

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
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: U c t o b e r 2b, 1982 Decided: January 17, 1983 Filed: 'JAil i l a 1983 M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from an a d v e r s e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment e n t e r e d t h e r e o n by t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S t a t e of Montana. W e af f i r m . On J u l y 1 6 , 1977, a g r a s s and f o r e s t f i r e burned 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 , Montana. P r o p e r t y damage r e s u l t i n g from t h e f i r e gave impetus to t h e s e 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. T r i a l of t h e a c t i o n s commenced J u l y 8 , 1980 and c o n t i n u e d through September 1 2 , 1980, d u r i n g which p e r i o d t h e r e were t h i r t y - t h r e e t r i a l d a y s . A v e r d i c t was rendered i n f a v o r of t h e d e f e n d a n t and judgment was e n t e r e d on t h a t v e r d i c t on September 1 7 , 1980. Pos t - t r i a l motions were heard and denied by t h e District Court on November 7 , 1980. On December 3 , 1980, 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 a p p e a l . Numerous i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l . S i n c e t h e f i r s t i s s u e c o n c e r n s s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e , we b e g i n w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e record i n t h i s case. Testimony is n e c e s s a r i l y c a p s u l i z e d and, because s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e is r a i s e d and f a c t u a l i s s u e s were r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r of t h e Montana Power Company, t h e f a c t s set f o r t h a r e p r e s e n t e d i n a p o s t u r e most f a v o r a b l e t o d e f e n d a n t . The p o w e r l i n e , 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 wires on t h e upper l e v e l and a n e u t r a l wire a s h o r t d i s t a n c e below. A t t h e t i m e i n q u e s t i o n , an o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e was being 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 been i n s t a l l e d . The o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e was a t t a c h e d to t h e p o l e s by r o p e s . The w e s t and center-phase wires were not e n e r g i z e d ; t h e east- phase w a s h o t . The new c o n t r o l c a b l e had a minimal 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 t h e n e u t r a l wire were not e n e r g i z e d . The e v i d e n c e d i s c l o s e d t h a t power o u t a g e s had been e x p e r i e n c e d p r i o r to t h e f i r e . A t one p o i n t , a power company serviceman found t h a t t h e o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e had c o n t a c t e d t h e e a s t - p h a s e c o n d u c t o r . To e l i m i n a t e f u t u r e problems, t h e o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e was lowered. Following lowering of t h e c a b l e t h e power o u t a g e s c o n t i n u e d b u t were experienced l e s s f r e q u e n t l y . The t e m p e r a t u r e a t t h e time of t h e f i r e was a b o u t 94°F. There was a wind blowing i n t h e a r e a of t h e o r i g i n of t h e f i r e from west to e a s t . Various estimates were g i v e n about t h e o r i g i n p o i n t of t h e f i r e , v a r y i n g from f i f t y to e i g h t y f e e t from a p o i n t on t h e ground d i r e c t l y b e n e a t h t h e closest phase of t h e p o w e r l i n e . S h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e f i r e , w i t n e s s e s observed c h i l d r e n i n t h e g e n e r a l area who were noted to be p l a y i n g w i t h f i r e c r a c k e r s . P o s t - f i r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d a matchbook and match, and a c i g a r e t t e l i g h t e r i n t h e area where t h e f i r e o r i g i n a t e d . P l a i n t i f f s s o u g h t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e made c o n t a c t w i t h t h e east-phase c o n d u c t o r , t h e r e b y e m i t t i n g s p a r k s which caused t h e f i r e . P l a i n t i f f s e s t a b l i s h e d burn-marks o r arc-marks on t h e e a s t - p h a s e c o n d u c t o r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e c e n t e r of t h e span t o t h e w e s t of t h e f i r e o r i g i n area. Both s i d e s produced e x p e r t testimony. P l a i n t i f f s l e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y sought t o prove t h a t s p a r k s g e n e r a t e d by d e f e n d a n t ' s p o w e r l i n e caused t h e f i r e . Defendant's e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y r e f u t e d 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 arc-marks e x i s t e d p r i o r to t h e day when t h e f i r e s t a r t e d and f u r t h e r s o u g h t to p r o v e t h a t any s p a r k s produced by c o n t a c t between t h e east-phase 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 n o t m a i n t a i n s u f f i c i e n t h e a t i n t e n s i t y to i g n i t e a f i r e a t t h e p o i n t of o r i g i n of t h e f i r e i n q u e s t i o n . The i s s u e s on a p p e a l are: (1) Whether 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- d i c t ? ( 2 ) Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s primary e x p e r t w i t n e s s should have been p e r m i t t e d to t e s t i f y and whether 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 testimony? ( 3 ) Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g to exclude w i t n e s s e s ? ( 4 ) Was p r e j u d i c i a l error committed by a l l o w i n g o p i n i o n e v i - dence of two l a y w i t n e s s e s ? ( 5 ) Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g to o r d e r t h e produc- t i o n of s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n b e f o r e t r i a l by t w o w i t n e s s e s ? ( 6 ) Was error committed i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y ? ( 7 ) Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g to g r a n t 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 ? SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - Motions t o set a s i d e j u r y v e r d i c t s as not supported by t h e e v i d e n c e are p r o p e r o n l y when t h e r e is a complete absence of any c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of t h e v e r d i c t . A l l e v i d e n c e and a l l i n f e r e n c e s drawn t h e r e f r o m must be c o n s i d e r e d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y . The c o u r t s w i l l e x e r c i s e t h e g r e a t e s t s e l f - r e s t r a i n t i n i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y mandated p r o c e s s e s of j u r y d e c i s i o n . J a c q u e s v. Montana N a t i o n a l Guard ( 1 9 8 2 ) , -- - - Mont . - - , 649 P.2d 1319, 1325-1326, I f t h i s record 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 sup- p o r t d e f e n d a n t on e i t h e r absence of n e g l i g e n c e or f a i l u r e of proximate c a u s e , t h e v e r d i c t cannot be d i s t u r b e d on a s u f f i c i e n c y b a s i s . Here, d e f e n d a n t o f f e r e d e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y which, i f b e l i e v e d , would p e r m i t t h e j u r y t o f i n d f o r d e f e n d a n t . The q u e s t i o n t h e n c e n t e r s on t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h a t testimony. ADMISSIBILITY OF DEFENDANT'S EXPERT TESTIMONY - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- Defendant produced Harry Czyzewski, as its p r i n c i p a l e x p e r t w i t n e s s . M r . Czyzewski s t e s t i m o n y r e s u l t e d i n s e v e r a l a l l e g a - 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 . Czyzewski, d e f e n d a n t o f f e r e d testimony t h a t t h e arc-marks found on t h e east-phase 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 d a t e upon which t h e s u b j e c t f i r e o c c u r r e d . The b a s i s of t h e t e s t i m o n y involved a p p l i c a t i o n of a " c o r r o s i o n a n a l y s i s . " P l a i n t i f f o b j e c t e d to t h i s testimony on t h e b a s i s t h a t c o r r o s i o n a n a l y s i s was n o t recognized by t h e s c i e n t i f i c 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 well-documented i n t h e r e c o r d . M r . Czyzewski h a s a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e i n 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 has worked as an independent con- s u l t a n t s i n c e 1946. H e is a f e l l o w of t h e American I n s t i t u t e of Chemists; he 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 t h e y e a r i n Oregon; he was t h e f i r s t chairman of t h e combined Northwest Regional I n d u s t r i a l and M i n e r a l s Conference; he h a s a u t h o r e d o r co-authored a series of t e c h n i c a l papers on c o r r o s i o n 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 E n g i n e e r s . P a r t of t h e a n a l y s i s accomplished under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of 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 t h e c o r r o s i o n f i l m on t h e arc-marks found on t h e east-phase c o n d u c t o r and on t h e o l d c o n t r o l c a b l e d i r e c t l y west of t h e f i r e - o r i g i n a r e a . M r . Czyzewski 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 articles con- s i d e r i n g c o r r o s i o n rates and t h a t h e , p e r s o n a l l y , had long y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e i n examining c o r r o s i o n f i l m s and c o r r o s i o n charac- 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 on t h e l i n e s p r e d a t e d t h e P a t t e e Canyon f i r e . T h i s t e s t i m o n y was not r e b u t t e d 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 contend 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 not g e n e r a l l y accepted o r recognized by t h e s c i e n t i f i c community and t h a t any t e s t i m o n y concerning 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 . 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 - n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y was r e c e i v e d upon i n s u f f i c i e n t f o u n d a t i o n . Rule 702, M.R.Evid., governs a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e x p e r t testi- mony. It p r o v i d e s : " 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 knowledge w i l l assist t h e trier of f a c t to understand t h e e v i d e n c e or to 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 as an e x p e r t by knowledge, 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 edu- c 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 of an o p i n i o n or o t h e r w i s e ." A t one t i m e b e f o r e e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y was r e c e i v e d , t h e c o u r t s 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 o f f e r e d involved a f i e l d of s c i e n c e which had gained " g e n e r a l a c c e p t a n c e " by t h e s c i e n t i f i c community. See Frye v. United S t a t e s ( D . C . C i r . 1 9 2 3 ) , 293 F. 1013. There h a s been a t r e n d to l i b e r a l i z e t h e admission of e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y and t h e r u l e e n u n c i a t e d i n - Frye -. . h a s been e r o d e d . W e i n s t e i n states: "Viewed a g a i n s t t h i s background, Rule 702 's f a i l u r e t o i n c o r p o r a t e a g e n e r a l s c i e n t i f i c a c c e p t a n c e s t a n d a r d , and t h e Advisory Committee's N o t e ' s f a i l u r e to even mention t h e Frye case must 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 of t h e r u l e and its d r a f t e r s should be r e g a r d e d as tantamount to an abandonment of t h e g e n e r a l a c c e p t a n c e s t a n d a r d . " ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) 3 J. W e i n s t e i n and M. B e r g e r , W e i n s t e i n ' s Evidence ~ 1 7 0 2 [ 0 3 ] , a t 702-16. - - - - - - -. - - . - -- - - W e hold 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 not i n conformity w i t h t h e s p i r i t of t h e new r u l e s of e v i d e n c e . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h y a r t i c u l a t e d i n United S t a t e s v. B a l l e r ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 519 F.2d 463, c e r t . d e n . 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 456, 46 L.Ed.2d 391, wherein t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t of a p p e a l s s a i d : "Deciding whether t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s have been m e t is normally 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 of r e s u l t or unanimity of s c i e n t i f i c o p i n i o n is n o t r e q u i r e d f o r a d m i s s i b i l i t y . 'Every use£ 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 are f u l l of t h e c o n f l i c t i n g o p i n i o n s of d o c t o r s , e n g i n e e r s , and accoun- 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 of e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s . 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 par- t i c u l a r t e c h n i q u e makes its use p r e j u d i c i a l or l i k e l y to mislead t h e j u r y , it is b e t t e r to 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 manner as o t h e r e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y and allow its w e i g h t to be a t t a c k e d by cross-examination and r e f u t a t i o n . " ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d .) 519 F.2d a t 466. I n Steward v. Casey ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 182 Mont. 185, 595 P.2d 1176, t h i s Court s a i d : " . . . Rule 705, Mont .R.Evid. , mandates t h a t t h e o p i n i o n of a q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t is a d m i s s i b l e , and i f opposing 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 founded on s u f f i c i e n t d a t a , c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n is t h e s h i e l d to guard a g a i n s t unwarranted o p i n i o n s . . ." 182 Mont. a t 193, 595 P.2d a t 1180. W e f i n d M r . Czyzewski's testimony 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 d i s c r e t i o n i n o v e r r u l i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' o b j e c t i o n s . The s e a r c h i n g and a d e p t cross-examination by p l a i n t i f f s' c o u n s e l pro- vided s u f f i c i e n t a s s u r a n c e t h a t t h i s j u r y was not n e c e s s a r i l y m i s l e d o r confused. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o a l l e g e e r r o r r e s u l t i n g from t h e t r i a l c o u r t I s r e c e p t i o n of evidence from M r . Czyzewski r e g a r d i n g what was termed " v i b r a t i o n t e s t s . " The b a s i s of p l a i n t i f f s 1 objec- t i o n s is t h a t t h e tests were performed under c o n d i t i o n s substan- t i a l l y d i s s i m i l a r a t t h e t i m e of test from 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 t h e f i r e . The o p i n i o n expressed by M r . Czyzewski was t h a t under wind- induced 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-phase conductor 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 conceded t h a t h i s test showed it was p o s s i b l e f o r t h e l i n e s t o c o n t a c t . The c o u r t , 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 , noted t h a t t h e l i n e s were t h e same, t h e p o l e s t r u c t u r e s were the 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 could be a d e q u a t e l y t r e a t e d on cross-examination. The c o n d i t i o n s under which an experiment is cond ucted need n o t be i d e n t i c a l 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 a c c i d e n t . Were such a requirement en£ orced an experiment would seldom, i f e v e r , be a d m i s s i b l e . I f t h e c o n d i t i o n s of a n experiment a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to 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 j u r y i n more i n t e l l i g e n t l y con- s i d e r i n g t h e i s s u e , then it should be p e r m i t t e d . V a r i a t i o n s i n c o n d i t i o n s may simply go to t h e weight of t h e testimony and a r e p r o p e r l y explored on cross-examination. Breimon v. General Motors Corporation ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 8 Wash.App. 747, 509 P.2d 398. There was no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n committed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e r e , when M r . Czyzewski was p e r m i t t e d to 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 being unduly 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 examination t e s t i n g t h e foun- d a t i o n f o r M r . Czyzewski 's testimony. However, we have 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 pre- s e n t i n t h i s r e c o r d . Furthermore, t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h i s w i t n e s s I s t e s t i m o n y was a d e q u a t e l y explored i n t h e v e r y l e n g t h y and a d r o i t cross-examination conducted by p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l . P l a i n t i f f s argue 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 to p e r m i t t h e use o f c e r t a i n e x h i b i t s d u r i n g M r . Czyzewski's cross- e x a m i n a t i o n . I n reviewing 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 o f i l l u s t r a t i v e e x h i b i t s , we must accord g r e a t d e f e r e n c e to t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n . Brown v. North American Mfg. C o . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 98, 576 P.2d 711. E x h i b i t 16A, o f f e r e d by p l a i n t i f f s , was a c h a r t of w e a t h e r s e r v i c e r e c o r d s . There 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 o j u s t i f y t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l i n g denying use of t h e e x h i b i t . The s u b j e c t matter c o n t a i n e d i n t h e e x h i b i t was a d e q u a t e l y covered d u r i n g t h e 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 admit 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 prepared by a l a w s t u d e n t employed by p l a i n t i f f s . T h i s s t u - 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 g r e e i n an a r e a of s c i e n c e . D e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n was premised 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 to g i v e s c i e n t i f i c conclu- s i o n s c o n t a i n e d 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 summaries which were a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 1006, M.R.Evid. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e s o u r c e material from which t h e e x h i b i t s were compiled c o n s t i t u t e d s u f f i c i e n t proof and t h e e x h i b i t s themselves were cumulative ; 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 m i s l e a d i n g . W e f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d its d i s c r e t i o n i n denying a d m i s s i o n to t h e s e o f f e r e d e x h i b i t s . M r . Czyzewski was p a i d $189,000 f o r s e r v i c e s performed i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . Defendant o f f e r e d proof t h a t $51,600 o f 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 deposi- t i o n s , and answering 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 computations were i n e r r o r . P l a i n t i f f s a g a i n o f f e r e d a c h a r t , prepared by a law s t u d e n t , which was i d e n t i f i e d a s exhi- 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 documents had been placed 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 . The o b j e c t i o n was s u s t a i n e d . 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 c o u r t a s d e f e n d a n t had a d e q u a t e 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 t h e s e f a c t s d u r i n g M r . Czyzewski's cross-examination. EXCLUSION . . OF WITNESSES P l a i n t i f f s contend 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 e x c l u d e w i t n e s s e s p u r s u a n t to p l a i n t i f f s t motion r e q u e s t i n g s e q u e s t r a t i o n of w i t n e s s e s . A f t e r opening s t a t e m e n t s and a f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x t e e n w i t n e s s e s , p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r motion. The c o u r t denied t h e motion on t h e b a s i s it was untimely. Rule 615, 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 w i t - n e s s e s upon motion of any p a r t y . The r u l e does not i n d i c a t e when t h e demand must be made. Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e motion came t o o l a t e when made a f t e r s i x t e e n w i t n e s s e s had a l r e a d y t e s t i f i e d . W e f i n d t h i s to be a p r o p e r e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l judge. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d f o l l o w i n g f i l i n g of t h e motion had been t h o r o u g h l y deposed and t h e p l a i n t i f f s have n o t demonstrated 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 t h e w i t n e s s e s . ADMISSIBILITY OF L A Y TESTIMONY - - P l a i n t i f f s c l a i m error i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t having r e c e i v e d 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- l u a t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s we must be guided by Rule 61, M.R.Civ.P., 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 of t h e pro- c e e d i n g must d i s r e g a r d any error or d e f e c t i n t h e proceeding which does 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 the p a r t i e s . " Defendant p r e s e n t e d one Olaf 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 from t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e f i r e a t a time he f i r s t n o t i c e d smoke a t t h e p o i n t of t h e f i r e ' s o r i g i n . H e also t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had heard f i r e c r a c k e r s and he t h o u g h t some " 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 . T h i s t e s t i m o n y is l a c k i n g i n p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . However, i n view of t h e volumi- nous record i n t h i s case, we f i n d t h a t any e r r o r i n a d m i t t i n g s u c h e v i d e n c e w a s h a r m l e s s . Defendant also o f f e r e d t h e t e s t i m o n y of a M r . Cameron, who l i v e d on P a t t e e Canyon Drive below t h e f i r e area. Cameron s t a t e d h e observed a red pickup n e a r t h e o r i g i n of t h e f i r e . H e s t a t e d t h a t t h e p i c k u p was stopped a b r u p t l y a t t h e roadblock; t h a t a male p e r s o n jumped from t h e back of t h e pickup, ducked down behind some cars, and r a n down t h e road. P o l i c e were manning t h e r o a d b l o c k . Cameron t h e n t e s t i f i e d , o v e r o b j e c t i o n , t h a t it appeared t o him a s though t h e person was t r y i n g to h i d e from t h e p o l i c e . Again, t h i s t e s t i m o n y is c o n c l u s o r y and of l i t t l e proba- t i v e v a l u e . However, as i n t h e case of M r . Krook's testimony, we f i n d t h e admission of t h i s evidence to have been h a r m l e s s i n view o f t h e e x t e n s i v e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e . FAILURE TO ORDER PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES STATEMENTS - - - - . - - - - - - - P l a i n t i f f s urge error 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 of t h e s t a t e m e n t s of Susan S o l i s and C h a r l e s Basacher. A s t a t e m e n t was g i v e n by Susan S o l i s on September 8, 1977, on b e h a l f of d e f e n d a n t . 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 w i t n e s s . A t time of t r i a l , t h i s w i t n e s s was interviewed 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 s t a t e m e n t . Defendant agreed t h a t i f Susan S o l i s wanted a copy 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 it and t h a t i f she 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 , s h e had a r i g h t to do so. 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 h e r s t a t e m e n t . During cross-examination s h e tes t i £ ied t h a t s h e had s e e n a copy of t h e s t a t e m e n t and reviewed it p r i o r t o h e r testimony. Rule 612, M . R . ~ v i d . , p r o v i d e s : " I f a w i t n e s s u s e s a w r i t i n g t o r e f r e s h h i s memory f o r t h e purpose of t e s t i f y i n g , e i t h e r " ( 1 ) w h i l e 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 f t h e c o u r t i n its - - -- - - - - d i s c r e t i o n d e t e r m i n e s it is n e c e s s a r y i n tF6 -- - . - -- - - - - -- - - - - 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 e n t i t l e d " t b h a v e ' 7 5 Z 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 it, to cross-examine 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 relate t o t h e - t e s t i m o n y of t h e w i t n e s s . . ." (Emphasis added. ) I n t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t advised t h e w i t n e s s t h a t she was e n t i t l e d to a copy 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 . The p l a i n t i f f s had s o u g h t pro- d u c t i o n of t h e s t a t e m e n t b e f o r e t r i a l p u r s u a n t to Rule 34, M.R.Civ.P. Discovery w a s d e n i e d , N o error is claimed i n denying d i s c o v e r y . The commission comment t o Rule 612, M.R.Evid. , p r o v i d e s i n p a r t as f o l l o w s : ". . . There are no cases i n Montana which have 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 to g a i n a c c e s s or to use t h e w r i t i n g used to r e f r e s h memory. The r i g h t is mentioned i n S t a t e v. Watkins, -- s u p r a , 156 Mont. a t 462, 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 25. Allowing 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 w i t n e s s ' memory b e f o r e t e s t i f y i n g is con- s 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 under Rule 3 4 ( a ) ( l ) , M.R.Civ.P., and i n c r i m i n a l cases under 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 c o u r t d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a s t a t e m e n t used t o r e f r e s h recollect i o n must be g i v e n to a n a d v e r s e p a r t y . Under t h e f a c t s t h a t we have h e r e i n o u t l i n e d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n was committed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n denying access to p l a i n t i f f s . A M r . Basacher a l s o gave a s t a t e m e n t to d e f e n d a n t . T h i s w i t - 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 trial b u t s t a t e d it d i d n o t r e f r e s h h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n . 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 ambit of Rule 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 p r o d u c t i o n . ALLEGED INSTRUCTION ERRORS P l a i n t i f f s claim error i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l to 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. Northwestern Union T r u s t Company of Helena ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - - . Mont . -- , 6 4 5 P.2d 402, 39 St.Rep. 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 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 , t h e g i v i n g of a res i p s a i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t f o r e c l o s e d . However, we r e c i t e d t h e 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 by t h e p l a i n t i f f is caused 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 of a kind which o r d i n a r i l y does not o c c u r i n t h e absence o f n e g l i g e n c e ; ( b ) o t h e r r e s p o n s i b l e c a u s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e conduct of 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 scope of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d u t y t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . . . " 645 P.2d a t 406, 39 St.Rep. a t 849. I n Tompkins, - 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 o f s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) as quoted above. 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 ( a ) are n o t f u l f i l l e d . T h i s is n o t an e v e n t which o r d i n a r i l y does n o t o c c u r i n t h e absence of n e g l i g e n c e . I n t h i s c a s e , a f i r e s t a r t e d f i f t y to e i g h t y f e e t from t h e closest of d e f e n d a n t ' s l i n e s . W e a r e unable to look 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 the e x i s t e n c e of a f i r e speaks of n e g l i g e n c e on d e f e n d a n t ' s part. I n Tompkins, d e f e n d a n t was a t t h e c o n t r o l s of an a i r p l a n e 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 . W e simply h e l d t h a t s u c h an e v e n t , t h a t is t h e c r a s h i n g of 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 of t h e p i l o t . I n t h e case a t b a r , we are not a b l e to look a t t h e p h y s i c a l f a c t s and s a y t h a t a f i r e , n o t p h y s i c a l l y connected w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s l i n e , speaks of n e g l i g e n c e on 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 maintenance of its l i n e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e e v e n t i n q u e s t i o n is not of t h e kind contemplated by t h e f i r s t subsec- t i o n of t h e r u l e e n u n c i a t e d i n t h e - Tompkins c a s e . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n f a i l i n g to g i v e a res i p s a i n s t r u c t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s ' a s s i g n as e r r o r t h e r e f u s a l of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o g i v e a number of proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e N a t i o n a l Electric S a f e t y Code. 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 of t h e code b e f o r e them. The c o u r t d i d n o t err i n f a i l i n g to g i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s of t h e code. General 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 view of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e code i t s e l f was admitted 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 p e r u s a l . A p p e l l a n t s o b j e c t t o c o u r t ' 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, MCA, which a d o p t s t h e N a t i o n a l Electrical S a f e t y Code i n Montana. S e c t i o n 69-4-201, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "The n a t i o n a l electrical s a f e t y code 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 i n v o l v i n g wires f o r power, h e a t , l i g h t , t e l e p h o n e , 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 or recep- t i o n . Except as provided i n 69-4-203, electrical c o n s t r u c t i o n of overhead and underground electrical s u p p l y and com- m 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 con- f o r m i t y w i t h t h e r u l e s set f o r t h i n t h e n a t i o n a l electrical s a f e t y code approved by t h e American 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 by t h e i n s t i t u t e of e l e c t r i c a l and e l e c t r o n i c e n g i n e e r s . The n a t i o n a l electrical 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 by t h e p u b l i c s e r v i c e commission." The c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y , i n i n s t r u c t i o n no. 22, as f o l l o w s : "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 been adopted by 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 electrical c o n s t r u c t i o n of overhead and underground e l e c t r i c a l s u p p l y and com- m 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 con- f o r m i t y w i t h t h e r u l e s set f o r t h i n t h e N a t i o n a l Electric S a f e t y Code. I n a l l r e s p e c t s o t h e r t h a n c o n s t r u c t i o n , 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 is evidence of a s t a n d a r d o f care to be c o n s i d e r e d by you along 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 evidence t h a t a p a r t y to t h i s a c t i o n conducted 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 of a s t a t u t e , you are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t such conduct 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 is of no consequence u n l e s s it was a proximate c a u s e of an i n j u r y found by you to have been 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 of care w i t h which an electric power company is charged 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 maintenance t h e r e o f i n a s a f e con- d i t i o n a t a l l times and p l a c e s and under t h e changing 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 equipment t h e company may have been e n t i r e l y f r e e from f a u l t , y e t , i f under changing c i r c u m s t a n c e s , 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 remedy such a c o n d i t i o n would c o n s t i t u t e n e g l i g e n c e . " 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, MCA, i n c o r p o r a t e s 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 se. On t h e o t h e r hand, r e s p o n d e n t contends t h a t o n l y c o n s t r u c t i o n s t a n - d a r d s were s p e c i f i c a l l y adopted by t h e s t a t u t e and t h e r e f o r e t h e b a l a n c e of 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 creates o n l y e v i - dence of a s t a n d a r d of care t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g n e g l i g e n c e . W e f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n of 69-4-201, MCA, to be a r e a s o n a b l e one. 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n s t a n d a r d s . I n t h e absence of s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y i n c o r p o r a t i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e N a t i o n a l Electrical S a f e t y Code can o n l y f u r n i s h evidence of a s t a n d a r d of c a r e . W e af f i r m 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 proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 17 , 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 of t h e N a t i o n a l Electric S a f e t y Code's " l i n e of s i g h t " r u l e . However, t h i s f a c t was d i s p u t e d . Defendant o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y 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 of t h e " l i n e of s i g h t " r u l e , and i f t h i s testimony were b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y , t h e code r e l a t i n g t h e r e t o would have no a p p l i c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y r e f used p l a i n t i f f s ' i n s t r u c t i o n N o . 17 which mandated t h e j u r y f i n d t h e c o n t r o l c a b l e to be a l i n e 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 submitted t o t h i s j u r y under 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 . N E W L Y DISCOVERED EVIDENCE A f t e r t h e conclusion of t h e t r i a l , on September 26, 1980, the p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a motion f o r new t r i a l p u r s u a n t t o Rule 59, M,R.Civ.P. The b a s i s f o r a new t r i a l was newly discovered e v i - dence i n t h e form of testimony of one M. C. Bowman, of Ronan, Montana. Af ter h e a r i n g arguments concerning t h e p r o p r i e t y of g r a n t i n g t h e new t r i a l and a f t e r allowing t h e testimony i n f u l l from M r . Bowman, t h e t r i a l c o u r t denied t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l . The p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l on t h e b a s i s of newly discovered evidence a r e s e t f o r t h i n Kerrigan v. Kerrigan ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 115 Mont. 136, 139 P.2d 533, and Kartes v. Kartes ( 1 9 7 7 ) 175 Mont. 210, 573 P.2d 191. They a r e : (1) t h a t t h e evidence must have come t o t h e knowledge of the a p p l i c a n t s i n c e t h e t r i a l ; ( 2 ) t h a t 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 t h e moving p a r t y which r e s u l t e d i n t h e evidence f a i l i n g t o come to l i g h t e a r l i e r ; ( 3 ) t h a t t h e evidence is so m a t e r i a l t h a t it would prob- a b l y produce 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 ; ( 4 ) t h a t t h e evidence is n o t merely cumulative; ( 5 ) t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n is supported by an a£ f i d a v i t ; ( 6 ) t h a t t h e evidence must not be such a s w i l l o n l y tend t o impeach t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of a w i t n e s s . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e testimony of M r . Bowman was n o t s o m a t e r i a l t h a t it would probably produce a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t a t t r i a l . A review of M r . Bowman's testimony r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r e a r e s e r i o u s concerns r e g a r d i n g h i s c r e d i b i l i t y and t h e foun- d a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r h i s testimony. H e s t a t e d he d i d n o t r e c a l l t h e vantage p o i n t from which he watched t h e f i r e . A t t i m e s he p o s i t i o n e d himself where he could n o t have s e e n t h e f i r e . Furthermore, he s t a t e d t h a t he could not s e g r e g a t e what he per- s o n a l l y knew from t h a t which he had garnered from media r e p o r t s . Although M r . Bowman's testimony is o f f e r e d by p l a i n t i f f to show t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s powerline s t a r t e d t h e f i r e , h i s testimony a s p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l judge is s o l a c k i n g i n its p e r s u a s i v e n e s s t h a t we f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p a r t when it found t h a t t h e testimony would not l i k e l y produce a d i f - f e r e n t r e s u l t . T h i s case was more t h a n a d e q u a t e l y t r i e d by counsel f o r a l l p a r t i e s . T r i a l counsel a r e t o be commended f o r t h e high 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 . The t r i a l was long and d i f f i c u l t . N o t r i a l of such complexity and l e n g t h can be p e r f e c t . However, h e r e we have a record t h a t r e v e a l s n o t o n l y a h i g h degree of competence on t h e p a r t of c o u n s e l , b u t o u t s t a n d i n g work by t h e t r i a l judge. W e may not 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 record a s f r e e of e r r o r a s is p o s s i b l e to d e l i v e r i n o u r system of j u s t i c e . W e a f f i r m . We concur: Honorable John hi. 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. M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea and Honorable John 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.