Case Title: MALLORY v CLOUD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A CLAYTON M M A L L O R Y and JEANNE M MALLORY, husband and w i f e , P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, 'VS' JAMES LLOYD CLOUD, Defendant and Respondent, and CHARLES L HASH, Administrator of t h e E s t a t e of Thomas A Mallory, deceased, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs- JAMES LLOYD CLOUD, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court o f t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Hash, J e l l i s o n and O'Brien, K a l i s p e l l , Montana Kenneth E O'Brien argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondent: Warden, Walterskirchen and C h r i s t i a n s e n , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Merritt N Warden argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana F i l e d : Submitted: January 21, 1975 Decided: 2 7 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Flathead County, on a jury v e r d i c t and an order denying a motion f o r a new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s Clayton M. Mallory and Jeanne M. Mallory, i n s t i t u t e d a c t i o n t o recover damages f o r t h e i n j u r i e s and death of t h e i r son,Thomas A. Mallory, r e s u l t i n g from a c o l l i s i o n t h a t occurred between a motorcycle operated by Thomas Mallory and an automobile driven by defendant, James Lloyd Cloud. The jury returned a v e r d i c t i n favor of defendant. P l a i n t i f f s moved f o r a new t r i a l but t h e c o u r t denied t h e motion on t h e ground t h a t t h e hearing on t h e motion was not timely, pur- suant t o Rule 59 (b) , M.R.Civ .P. However, i n its order denying t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l because of lapse of time, t h e t r i a l c o u r t acknowledged t h a t sub- s t a n t i a l e r r o r may have been committed by t h e c o u r t by not in- s t r u c t i n g t h e jury on gross negligence and t h e defenses a v a i l a b l e under t h e f a c t s . The t r i a l judge was c o r r e c t . The f a c t s a r e not i n dispute. O n August 2 1 , 1972, a t approximately 11:30 p.m., a c o l l i s i o n occurred on t h e Big Mountain Road i n Flathead County, between a motorcycle driven upgrade by Thomas A. Mallory and a v e h i c l e driven downgrade by James Lloyd Cloud. A s a r e s u l t of t h a t c o l l i s i o n , Thomas Mallory died. P r i o r t o t h e accident, approximately one-quarter mile from t h e scene of t h e accident, defendant pulled i n t o a turnoff t o admire t h e view of t h e v a l l e y . He turned off h i s v e h i c l e l i g h t s and d i d not again t u r n them on when he began h i s descent down t h e mountain. The road was winding and contained blind curves, but defendant t e s t i f i e d he could see ahead a considerable d i s t a n c e be- cause of t h e bright moonlight. Defendant turned on h i s v e h i c l e l i g h t s j u s t before impact with t h e motorcycle and s t a t e s he saw an image, but w a s unable t o avoid c o l l i d i n g with it. Only a f t e r the collisioa 3rd he discover the image was a motorcycle driven by Thomas Mallory. The highway patrolman t e s t i f i e d t h e headlight of t h e niotorcycle was not on a t t h e time of impact, and t h e r e was no inarked center line on t h e road. A t t h e t i m e of impact defend- a n t ' s c a r was i n t h e lefthand d r i v i n g l a n e of t h e road. There were two passengers with Cloud on t h e night i n querkion, both substantiated Cloud's account of t h e happenings tiza t night. The t r i a l court refused t o give p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed iristruction 110. 2 on r e c k l e s s and wanton misconduct and t h e de- fense of contributory negligence, which reads: "Contributory negligence of t h e decedent i s not a bar t o p l a i n t i f f 's recovery f o r i n j u r i e s and death caused by t h e r e c k l e s s o r wanton misconduct of t h e defendant. "Reckless o r wanton misconduct is i n t e n t i o n a l , wrongful conduct, done e i t h e r with knowledge t h a t serious i n j u r y t o another w i l l probably r e - s u l t , o r with a wanton and r e c k l e s s disregard of t h e possible r e s u l t s . A n i n t e n t t o i n j u r e i s not a necessary element of reckless and wanton m i s - conduct. "To prove such misconduct, it i s not necessary t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e defendant himself recognized h i s conduct a s dangerous. It i s s u f f i c i e n t i f it he established t h a t a reasonable man under t h e same o r similar circumstances would be awzre of t h e dangerous character of such conduct." After t h e jury r e t i r e d , and during i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , inquiry was made of the court a s t o whether t h e r e could be more than one proximate cause of an accident. The court then submitted a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e jury with respect t o proximate cause and refused p l a i n t i f f s t h e r i g h t t o present f u r t h e r o r a l argument a f t e r t h e giving of t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s . The jury returned a v e r d i c t i n favor of defendant and a g a i n s t plain- t i f f s . P l a i n t i f f s on appeal bring t h r e e assignments of e r r o r , ( ~ o w ~ v ~ L , 1 1 1 V L ~ W 3.t 3 u . ~ i ~ l d i r i j , we wi1.l Slscuss only t h e in- scruction on negligence. P l a i n t i f f s c o r r e c t l y argue t h a t t h e u n i v e r s a l l y accepted r u l e and t h e r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence of t h e p l a i n t i f f is no bar t o p l a i n t i f f ' s recovery f o r i n j u r i e s caused by t h e r e c k l e s s and wanton misconduct of a defendant. Mihelich v. Butte E l e c t r i c Ry. Co., 85 Mont. 6 0 4 , 281 P. 540. P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r argue, and we agree, t h a t t h i s Court has repeatedly held negligence o r any breach of duty i s f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o decide only i f the evidence is undisputed and only s u s c e p t i b l e t o but one conclusion by a reasonable man, and t h a t t h e evidence i s such t h a t it w i l l support no o t h e r l e g i t i - mate inference. I f reasonable minds might draw a d i f f e r e n t con- c l u s i o n from t h e evidence, it is a question f o r t h e jury. Suhr v. Sears Roebuck and Company, 152 Mont. 344, 450 P.2d 87; Dahlin v. Rice Truck Lines, 137 Mont. 430, 352 P.2d 801. A number of o u t of j u r i s d i c t i o n c a s e s have been c i t e d t o t h i s Court which do hold, i n c e r t a i n circumstances, t h a t d r i v i n g on t h e wrong s i d e of t h e s t r e e t with l i g h t s o f f amounts t o wanton and w i l l f u l misconduct a s a matter of l a w ; but each c a s e must be decided on its own f a c t s . W e have reviewed t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n khe i n s t a n t case and t h e evidence presented. his Court f i n d s chat t h e question of w i l l f u l and wanton negligence w a s a question of f a c t and not a question of law. The arguments presented by both p a r t i e s demonstrate how t h e f a c t s can be construed by reasonable men t o reach d i r e c t l y opposing conclusions a s t o whether defendant's conduct amounted t o w i l l f u l and wanton misconduct. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n r e f u s i n g t o give p l a i n t i f f s ' pro- posed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 , i n e f f e c t , i n c o r r e c t l y ruled t h a t a s a lnatter of law t h e r e was no f a c t u a l question whether o r not defendant V I ~ ; willfully and wantoi~ly n e g l i g e n t . 'The Jistrict z o u r t 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 ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 . The m a t t e r of a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s a f t e r t h e j u r y has r e t i r e d f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n should n o t a r i s e i n a new t r i a l . The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e cadse is remanded f o r a new t r i a l . J u s t i c e W e concur. . I a . - # ---- ---L--%-r-*--A--L-d,--'%&d-b- Chief J u s t i c e M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles dissenting: I dissent. Here two vehicles one a motorcycle the other a Volkswagen, driving a narrow mountain road without l i g h t s i n the moonlight,collide. Such conduct on the part of both drivers was ill advised; but, hardly, with respect t o each other was it reckless o r wanton conduct. It may well have been gross negligence with respect t o another driver with h i s headlights on, but here both drivers were equally a t f a u l t . In other words, i f the defendant Cloud i s t o be charged with gross negligence o r reckless and wanton conduct f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o have headlights i n operation, then the p l a i n t i f f s ' decedent Mallory is equally g u i l t y of t h e same kind of conduct. Thus, I believe t h e d i s t r i c t court was correct i n refusing t o i n s t r u c t on w i l l f u l and wanton conduct. I would affirm the judgment f o r defendant. Justice. A