Case Title: GRIFFEL v FAUST

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 82-145 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 WILLIAM C. GRIFFEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, CHESTER FAUST, BAXT EISELE, et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Nilliam J. Speare, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Agpellant: John J. Cavan; Sandal1 & Cavan, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Laurence R . Martin, Billings, Montana William S. Mather; Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather, Billings, Montana -- Submitted on Briefs: May 19, 1983 Decided: August 24, 1983 Filed : UirG 2 4 1983 Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, seeking damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y and p r o p e r t y damage. Defendants counter- claimed f o r p r o p e r t y damage. A f t e r a j u r y t r i a l , t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s and awarded them $9,055.97 f o r p r o p e r t y damages. P l a i n t i f f appeals. On December 1 8 , 1979, d e f e n d a n t R i c k E i s e l e , an employee of d e f e n d a n t C & B Haygrinders, was g r i n d i n g hay a t t h e P a t t e n Davidson F e e d l o t , west of Park C i t y , Montana. A t approximately 6:00 p.m., R i c k hooked h i s pickup t o t h e haygrinder and proceeded t o p u l l t h e haygrinder onto t h e f r o n t a g e road f o r t r a n s p o r t t o 0 Bar Feeders, e a s t of L a u r e l , Montana. A f t e r d r i v i n g a s h o r t d i s t a n c e , R i c k n o t i c e d t h e pickup l i g h t s began t o dim. R i c k con- t i n u e d on t h e f r o n t a g e road f o r approximately 200 y a r d s when t h e pickup l i g h t s went o u t completely, and t h e pickup engine d i e d . R i c k p u l l e d t h e pickup and haygrinder t o t h e s i d e of t h e road. R i c k e s t i m a t e d t h e l e f t s i d e of h i s v e h i c l e s came t o a rest approximately f i v e f e e t from t h e c e n t e r l i n e of t h e highway. R i c k had no f l a r e s or warning d e v i c e s so he turned on four w h i t e f l o o d l i g h t s which a r e a t t a c h e d t o t h e r e a r of t h e h a y g r i n d e r . The f l o o d l i g h t s s h i n e backwards from t h e r e a r of t h e haygrinder f o r n i g h t o p e r a t i o n . R i c k then l e f t t h e v e h i c l e s and c r o s s e d t h e f r o n t a g e road and I n t e r s t a t e 90 t o find a farmhouse from where he could c a l l f o r help. A s R i c k returned he noticed t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s t r u c k and t r a i l e r proceeding on the f r o n t a g e road toward t h e d i s a b l e d pickup and haygr i n d e r . G r i f f e l observed t h e f l o o d l i g h t s approximately one-half m i l e from where t h e pickup and haygrinder were parked. G r i f f e l t h o u g h t t h e l i g h t s were on some kind of farm implement and because t h e l i g h t s were white he assumed t h e v e h i c l e was coming toward him. G r i f f e l p u t on h i s jake brake t o slow h i s t r u c k u n t i l t h e l i g h t s became so b r i g h t he was blinded. A t t h a t p o i n t , G r i f f e l s e t h i s brakes and turned s h a r p l y t o t h e l e f t . The r i g h t s i d e of h i s t r u c k and t r a i l e r s t r u c k t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e haygr i n d e r . Both v e h i c l e s were damaged. G r i f f e l ' s v e h i c l e came t o r e s t i n t h e d i t c h d i r e c t l y a c r o s s from t h e haygrinder. G r i f f e l s u s t a i n e d i n j u r i e s t o h i s r i b s and h i s r i g h t arm. Robert K e t t e n r i n g , t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g highway patrolman, found no evidence t h a t G r i f f e l had been speeding p r i o r t o impact. On September 1 6 , 1980, G r i f f e l f i l e d a complaint i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District , Yellowstone County, s e e k i n g damages f o r p r o p e r t y damage t o h i s t r u c k and t r a i l e r and p e r s o n a l i n j u r y . Defendants counterclaimed seeking damages f o r p r o p e r t y damage t o t h e pickup and h a y g r i n d e r . A f t e r a j u r y t r i a l t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t f i n d i n g d e f e n d a n t s were 0 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t and p l a i n t i f f was 100 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t . The j u r y awarded d e f e n d a n t s $9,055.95 f o r p r o p e r t y damage t o t h e pickup and haygrinder. G r i f f e l a p p e a l s . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal a r e : 1. Whether t h e j u r y v e r d i c t is supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence; and 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e p l a i n t i f f ' s o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n no. 38. P l a i n t i f f f i r s t contends t h e r e is not s u b s t a n t i a l evidence n e c e s s a r y t o support t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . The jury found f i r s t , d e f e n d a n t s were 0 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t , second, p l a i n t i f f was 100 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t , and t h i r d , p l a i n t i f f ' s negligence was t h e proximate cause of p r o p e r t y damage t o d e f e n d a n t s ' v e h i c l e s . W e must determine whether t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t r i a l is s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e s e f i n d i n g s . I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e suf- f i c i e n c y of evidence, we apply a l i m i t e d s t a n d a r d of review. Where a f a c t i s s u e is presented b e f o r e a c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h a j u r y , and t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e j u r y ver- d i c t , t h e v e r d i c t w i l l s t a n d . Solberg v. County of Yellowstone (1983) I Mont . , 659 P.2d 290, 40 St.Rep. 308. Only when t h e r e is a complete absence of p r o b a t i v e f a c t s t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t does e r r o r o c c u r . S t r o n g v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , ---- Mont. P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h e r e is not 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 f i n d i n g of no 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 . P l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s he proved d e f e n d a n t s were n e g l i g e n t per s e f o r t h e i r v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n s 61-8-353, 61-9-201 and 61-9-217, MCA. T h i s Court addressed t h i s same i s s u e i n Gunnels v. Hoyt ( 1 9 8 1 ) , ---- Mont . ---- , 633 P.2d 1187, 1192, 38 St.Rep. 1492, 1496, a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a s t r i k i n g l y similar f a c t s i t u a t i o n . W e s t a t e d : " I n o r d e r t o prove n e g l i g e n c e per s e , t h e p l a i n t i f f was r e q u i r e d t o prove t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s n e g l e c t e d a duty imposed upon them by s t a t u t e . W i l l i a m s v. Maley ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 150 Mont. 261, 267, 434 P.2d 398, 401; Conway v. Monidah T r u s t Co. ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 47 Mont. 269, 278, 1 3 2 P. 26, 27. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , s e c t i o n 61-8-353, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t no p e r s o n s h a l l s t o p or l e a v e s t a n d i n g any v e h i c l e upon t h e main t r a v e l e d p a r t of t h e highway when it is p r a c t i c a l t o s t o p or l e a v e such v e h i c l e o f f of such p a r t of s a i d highway. What is " p r a c t i c a l " i n any s i t u a t i o n c l e a r l y depends upon a l l of t h e s u r r o u n d i n g f a c t s and cir- cumstances. S e e Lyndes v. Scof i e l d ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. ---- , 589 P.2d 1000, 1002, 36 St.Rep. 185, 188. Q u e s t i o n s of f a c t a r e f o r t h e j u r y t o r e s o l v e , and should n o t be t a k e n from t h e j u r y when r e a s o n a b l e men might draw d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e e v i d e n c e . Heen v . Tiddy ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 265, 269, 442 P.2d 434, 436. I n looking a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , we f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s could have stopped t h e Volkswagen c l o s e r t o t h e r i g h t edge of t h e pavement and f u r t h e r o f f t h e main t r a v e l e d a r e a ; b u t we a l s o f i n d t h a t t h e weather con- d i t i o n s , t h e d a r k n e s s , t h e h i l l , t h e absence of w h i t e l i n e s , head l i g h t s and t a i l l i g h t s , and t h e use of t h e f l a s h l i g h t by t h e d e f e n d a n t t o warn approaching d r i v e r s , a l l bear upon t h e q u e s t i o n of p r a c t i c a l i t y . T h i s Court w i l l not d i s t u r b t h e j u r y ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i f t h e evi- dence f u r n i s h e s r e a s o n a b l e grounds f o r d i f - f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s . Payne v. Sorenson (1979), Mont . , 599 P.2d 362, 365, 36 St.Rep. 1610, 1%r3:- W e do not f i n d a v i o l a - t i o n of s e c t i o n 61-8-353, MCA, as a m a t t e r of law. " T h i s r a t i o n a l e a p p l i e s t o a l l t h r e e of t h e a l l e g e d s t a t u t o r y v i o l a t i o n s . I t is not t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s Court t o a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . W e s e a r c h o n l y f o r s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e and where we have such evidence i n t h e r e c o r d , our job is complete. T h i s C o u r t , i n a r e c e n t o p i n i o n , Solberg v. County of Yellowstone ( 1 9 8 3 ) , Monte ---- , 659 P.2d 290, 40 St.Rep. 305, noted t h a t i n t e s t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e s above s e t f o r t h on t h e weight of t h e evidence i n c l u d i n g " h i n d s i g h t " it may be tempting t o conclude i n t h e manner c o n t r a r y t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e jury. B u t , " o n l y when t h e r e is a complete absence of p r o b a t i v e f a c t s t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t does t h i s occur ." Here, n o t o n l y d i d t h e j u r y speak i n t h e form of its v e r d i c t i n favor of t h e d e f e n d a n t s , b u t p l a i n t i f f , i n moving f o r a new t r i a l , a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y a s it r e l a t e s t o q u e s t i o n 1 o f t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c t , f i n d i n g no 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 , was c o n t r a r y t o t h e g r e a t weight of t h e evi- dence and t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e c o u r t . T h i s motion was b r i e f e d and heard by Judge S p e a r e who r u l e d a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n - t i f f s . T h i s Court, i n S t r o n g v. Williams ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 65, 460 P.2d 90, held t h a t t h e e f f e c t of t h e d e n i a l of a new t r i a l motion is p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p o s i t e t o t h i s appeal. I n a d d i t i o n , w e noted i n a n o t h e r c a s e , Fordyce v. Hansen ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont. , "Once a District Court has considered and d e n i e d a motion f o r new t r i a l , t h i s Court w i l l n o t l i g h t l y d i s t u r b t h a t r u l i n g a b s e n t evi- dence t h a t it is c l e a r , convincing and par- t i c u l a r l y f r e e from doubt of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e r r o r . Schomyer v. Bourdeau ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 148 Mont. 340, a t 343, 420 P.2d 316, 317-18. No such showing was made h e r e ." P l a i n t i f f ' s argument is d i r e c t e d a t t h e d e c i s i o n s made by d e f e n d a n t E i s e l e a f t e r t h e v e h i c l e he was d r i v i n g l e f t t h e feed l o t . The evidence on t h e d r i v i n g and t h e argument a s t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e s e d e c i s i o n s was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e jury by both par- ties. The v e r d i c t s i g n i f i e s t h a t t h e j u r y concluded t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t made r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n s under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and i n l i g h t of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d what a r e a s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t person would have done under t h e cir- cumstances. Concerning t h e f l o o d l i g h t s , p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e defen- - 5 - d a n t was n e g l i g e n t because t h e f l o o d l i g h t s deceived t h e p l a i n t i f f i n t o t h i n k i n g t h e r e was an oncoming v e h i c l e i n t h e westbound l a n e of t r a f f i c i n s t e a d of t h e v e h i c l e parked i n h i s own l a n e of t r a f - f i c . Such testimony was c o n t r a d i c t e d by t h a t of t h e deputy s h e r i f f and highway p a t r o l o f f i c e r , both of whom r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had admitted s e e i n g t h e l i g h t s ahead of him a p p r o x i m a t e l y one-half mile away from t h e impact and i n h i s own l a n e . The evidence a l l o w s a r e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f , i n s p i t e of s e e i n g t h e l i g h t s , f a i l e d t o slow down and keep h i s v e h i c l e under c o n t r o l so a s t o keep from s t r i k i n g t h e parked u n i t . P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t was n e g l i g e n t p e r se, a s a m a t t e r of law under j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n 15. T h a t i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t e d t h a t a v i o l a t i o n of t h e law is of no consequence u n l e s s it is t h e proximate cause of t h e a c c i d e n t . Under t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c t , t h e j u r y concluded t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were not n e g l i g e n t and t h a t t h e r e was no n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t s which was a p r o x i m a t e cause of t h e a c c i d e n t . T h i s d i s p o s e s of p l a i n t i f f ' s argument. P l a i n t i f f f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 61-9-217, MCA, was v i o l a t e d and t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s i n s t r u c t i o n 38 which was r e f used, s h o u l d have been given by t h e c o u r t . W e f i n d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i n a p p l i c a b l e . On its f a c e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n r e f e r s t o t h e duty of a d r i v e r of a motor v e h i c l e w i t h r e s p e c t t o " s p o t lamps" and n o t t h e t y p e of l i g h t s which were on t h e v e h i c l e h e r e i n q u e s t i o n . The s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s such " s p o t lamps" t o be turned o f f upon approaching a n o t h e r v e h i c l e from e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n . T h a t is not t h e f a c t u a l c a s e h e r e involved where t h e haygrinder was s t a - t i o n e r y . Here, t h e j u r y c l e a r l y found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s conduct was n o t t h e proximate cause of t h e a c c i d e n t . Q u e s t i o n 2 of t h e spe- c i a l v e r d i c t asked, "Was t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n c e , i f any, a p r o x i m a t e cause of t h e a c c i d e n t ? " The j u r y answered "No." Q u e s t i o n 5 a s k e d , "Was t h e p l a i n t i f f William C. G r i f f e l ' s n e g l i - gence, if any, a proximate cause of t h e a l l e g e d damages?" The j u r y answered "Yes." W e f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence upon which t h e j u r y could have based its c o n c l u s i o n . The judgment is a f f i r m e d . We concur: