Case Title: LINDQUIST v MORAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 82-179 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TIE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 WALLACE J. LINDQUIST and DAWN LIMDQUIST, individually, and WALLACE J. LINDQUIST, as Personal Representative of the Estate of DANIEL R. LINDQUIST Plaintiffs and Respondents, KEITH MORAN, JOHN McFADDEN and COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Jud.icia1 P)istrict, In and for the County of Jefferson, The Honorable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Worden, Thane & Haines; Robert J. Phillips, Missoula, Montana James E. Purcell, Butte, Montana For Respondents: John F. Iwen, Great Falls, Montana Filed: - Submitted : January 12, 198 3 Decided: March 31, 1983 MAR 3 1 4983 Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. A J e f f e r s o n County 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 McFadden and J e f f e r s o n County i n a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y c a s e a r i s i n g o u t of a t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t . The D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f I s motion f o r a new t r i a l . McFadden and J e f f e r s o n County now a p p e a l . I n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of J u n e 25, 1976, J e f f e r s o n County deputy s h e r i f f McFadden stopped a v e h i c l e b e i n g d r i v e n toward W h i t e h a l l from t h e Boulder a r e a by a Wendell G a r y S c h l o s s a f t e r o b s e r v i n g e r r a t i c d r i v i n g p a t t e r n s . McFadden a d m i n i s t e r e d a c o o r d i n a t i o n t e s t which S c h l o s s f a i l e d . S c h l o s s was t h e n a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of an i n t o x i c a t i n g beverage. S c h l o s s ' s p a s s e n g e r s were p l a i n t i f f s 1 decedent ( D a n i e l L i n d q u i s t ) , Keith Moran, and Mark Yochim. McFadden had a l e g a l i n t e r n , Mark Murphy, r i d i n g w i t h him. S i n c e McFadden d i d n o t have a b r e a t h a l y z e r test a v a i l - a b l e , he c a l l e d W h i t e h a l l Chief of P o l i c e McGuire and asked McGuire t o d e l i v e r one t o t h e s c e n e of a r r e s t . Af t e r a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e b r e a t h a l y z e r , McFadden asked S c h l o s s how he wanted t h e v e h i c l e t r a n s p o r t e d , s i n c e it could n o t be l e f t on t h e s l ~ o u l d e r l e s s f r o n t a g e road. H e o f f e r e d t o have Murphy d r i v e it t o Boulder o r t o have it towed t o e i t h e r W h i t e h a l l o r Boulder. S c h l o s s r e q u e s t e d t h a t h i s f r i e n d , Moran, be allowed t o d r i v e t h e c a r t o Boulder. McFadden asked McGuire t o check Moran o u t t o s e e i f he was a l l r i g h t t o d r i v e . McGuire and Murphy each t a l k e d t o Moran f o r t h r e e t o f i v e minutes, determined t h a t he was "okay t o d r i v e , " and McGuire r e p o r t e d t h a t f a c t t o McFadden. The S c h l o s s v e h i c l e preceded t h e county u n i t toward Boulder w i t h Moran d r i v i n g and Yochim and L i n d q u i s t a s p a s s e n g e r s . About twenty t o t h i r t y minutes a f t e r l e a v i n g t h e s c e n e of S c h l o s s ' s a r r e s t , a p p r o x i m a t e l y twenty miles from W h i t e h a l l , t h e county u n i t stopped t o l e t S c h l o s s r e l i e v e h i m s e l f . Upon proceeding, it came upon S c h l o s s ' s v e h i c l e , which had been d r i v e n o f f t h e road. L i n d q u i s t r e c e i v e d s e v e r e head i n j u r i e s i n t h e a c c i d e n t and d i e d n i n e days l a t e r . P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d s u i t a g a i n s t IYloran and t h e n e n t e r e d i n t o s e t t l e m e n t agreements w i t h h i s i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r and S c h l o s s ' s c a r r i e r . The agreements provided t h a t t h e s e t t l e - ments were l o a n s and t h a t t h e c a r r i e r s would r e c o v e r up t o 25 p e r c e n t of any n e t award recovered by p l a i n t i f f s from J e f f e r s o n County and/or McFadden. McFadden and J e f f e r s o n County were t h e n added t o t h e a c t i o n . The agreements were s e c r e t and were d i s c o v e r e d o n l y a f t e r McFadden and J e f f e r s o n County s e r v e d i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s upon p l a i n t i f f s a s k i n g about any r e l e a s e s or payments. The i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were o b j e c t e d t o by p l a i n t i f f s and Moran, and a p p e l l a n t s were r e q u i r e d t o f i l e motions t o compel answers t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t o compel p r o d u c t i o n of documents. A motion i n l i m i n e was made by p l a i n t i f f s t o keep any mention of t h e s e t t l e m e n t agree- ments from t h e jury. The D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d t h a t motion. The m a t t e r was t r i e d b e f o r e a J e f f e r s o n County j u r y . A v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d on December 1 4 , 1981, i n f a v o r of McPadden and J e f f e r s o n County. I t a s s e s s e d 75 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n c e t o Moran and 25 p e r c e n t t o p l a i n t i f f s t d e c e d e n t and a w a r d e d t o t a l damages o f $ 2 5 , 6 9 2 . 6 0 f o r m e d i c a l expenses, f u n e r a l expenses, and l o s s of comfort, p r o t e c t i o n , a f f e c t i o n , and s o c i e t y . No damages were awarded f o r p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , f o r l o s s of e s t a b l i s h e d c o u r s e of l i f e , o r f o r l o s s of f u t u r e e a r n i n g s . P l a i n t i f f s moved f o r a new t r i a l , which was g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A p p e l l a n t s and respondents p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e motion f o r new t r i a l ; 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g i v i n g I n s t r u c t i o n No. 32, which i n c l u d e d d i s c o u n t t a b l e s , b u t no d i r e c t i o n s on t h e i r use; 3 . Whether t h e j u r y v e r d i c t was i n c o n s i s t e n t ; and, 4. Whether t h e s e c r e t i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n agreements between p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r s ("Mary C a r t e r " agreements) a r e p r o p e r s u b j e c t s f o r i n q u i r y upon any r e t r i a l i n v o l v i n g McFadden and J e f f e r s o n County. W e w i l l a d d r e s s o n l y t h e f i r s t i s s u e , which is d i s - p o s i t i v e of t h i s c a s e . P l a i n t i f f s , on J a n u a r y 28, 1982, moved f o r a new t r i a l f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s , which t h e y a l l e g e d m a t e r i a l l y a£ f e c t e d t h e i r s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s : 1. I r r e g u l a r i t y i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s of t h e c o u r t , j u r y , o r a d v e r s e p a r t i e s o r any o r d e r of t h e c o u r t o r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by which t h e p l a i n t i f f s were prevented from having a f a i r t r i a l . 2. I n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e ver- d i c t o r o t h e r d e c i s i o n and t h a t it is a g a i n s t law. 3 . E r r o r i n law o c c u r r i n g a t t h e t r i a l and excepted t o by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . P u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 25-11-104, MCA, p l a i n t i f f s ' coun- sel f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e motion. It a l l e g e d : McFadden's n e g l i g e n c e as a m a t t e r of l a w f o r a l l o w i n g Moran t o d r i v e and f o r n o t checking t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n of t h e S c h l o s s v e h i c l e t o e s t a b l i s h its ownership; an i n c o n s i s t e n t v e r d i c t t h a t i m p r o p e r l y f o u n d p l a i n t i f f s ' d e c e d e n t 2 5 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t when he had no c o n t r o l over t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e ; t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t improperly allowed t h e j u r y t o use d i s c o u n t t a b l e s p r o v i d e d by d e f e n d a n t s which had no i n s t r u c t i o n s a t t a c h e d ; and t h a t t h e low damages award r e f l e c t e d b i a s and p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t of t h e j u r y and its r e f u s a l t o " f o l l o w t h e evidence'' p r e s e n t e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a new t r i a l "upon good c a u s e shown." I n its o p i n i o n i n s u p p o r t of t h e o r d e r , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t McFadden, an a g e n t of J e f f e r s o n County, was n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law f o r a l l o w i n g Moran t o d r i v e S c h l o s s l s a u t o m o b i l e i n t o Boulder w h i l e drunk, and t h a t t h e c o u r t s h o u l d have d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f s and a g a i n s t McFadden and J e f f e r s o n County. I t a l s o r u l e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s 1 d e c e d e n t had no c o n t r o l over t h e c a r i n which he was r i d i n g and c o u l d n o t , t h e r e f o r e , be c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . It f i n a l l y h e l d t h a t t h e amount of t h e v e r d i c t was " i n a d e q u a t e , shocking and could o n l y have been a r r i v e d a t through b i a s , p r e j u d i c e and p a s s i o n a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f s . " W e d i s a g r e e and v a c a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a new t r i a l was based on t h e above t h r e e grounds a s provided i n s e c t i o n 25-11-102(1), ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) , MCA. I n g r a n t i n g a motion f o r new t r i a l , t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t must set f o r t h t h e grounds w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y . Halsey v. Uithof ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 319, 326, 532 P.2d 686, 689-690. The f i r s t ground was i r r e g u l a r i t y i n t h e proceed- i n g s of t h e c o u r t , j u r y o r a d v e r s e p a r t y , o r any o r d e r of t h e c o u r t o r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by which t h e p l a i n t i f f s were p r e v e n t e d from having a f a i r t r i a l . No f a c t s were set f o r t h s u p p o r t i n g t h i s a l l e g a t i o n i n p l a i n t i f f s ' a f f i d a v i t . T h i s ground was n o t mentioned i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r and o p i n i o n . P l a i n t i f f s ' motion w i t h r e g a r d t o t h i s ground was i n a d e q u a t e . Montana Williams Double Diamond Corp. v. H i l l ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. 248, 256, 573 P.2d 649, 654. Nor was r e f e r e n c e made i n t h e o r d e r and o p i n i o n t o p l a i n t i f f s ' t h i r d ground: e r r o r i n law o c c u r r i n g a t t h e t r i a l and excepted t o by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . I t a p p e a r s from p l a i n t i f f s ' a f f i d a v i t t h a t t h i s b a s i s was founded upon p l a i n t i f f s ' o b j e c t i o n t o t h e d i s c o u n t t a b l e s . Again, no mention of t h i s a p p e a r s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r and o p i n i o n . The o r d e r f o r new t r i a l t h u s a p p e a r s t o be based s o l e l y upon an " i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e v e r d i c t o r o t h e r d e c i s i o n , and t h a t is a g a i n s t law." McFadden and J e f f e r s o n County c a n be h e l d n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law o n l y i f t h e f a c t s u n e q u i v o c a l l y d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t McFadden breached a d u t y of c a r e t o p l a i n t i f f s ' dece- d e n t by a l l o w i n g an a p p a r e n t l y i n t o x i c a t e d person t o p i l o t t h e v e h i c l e i n t o Boulder. The f a c t s do n o t s o d e m o n s t r a t e such a breach. I n c o n s i d e r i n g a motion f o r new t r i a l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t is n o t t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e where c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e is p r e s e n t e d . Yerkich v. Opsta ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 272, 274, 577 P.2d 857, 859. R a t h e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n t a new t r i a l f o r i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e is exhausted when it f i n d s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . S t e n b e r g v. Nee1 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 613 P.2d 1007, 1011, 37 St.Rep. 1170, 1175; Kincheloe v. Rygg ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 187, 191, 448 P.2d 140, 142. Where c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e is p r e s e n t , it is an abuse of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n t a new t r i a l . Ferguson v. Town Pump, I n c . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 1 2 2 , 1 2 8 , 580 P.2d 9 1 5 , 9 1 9 , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r grounds, 180 Mont. 233, 590 P.2d 117. W e w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e our view of t h e e v i d e n c e f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y where t h a t e v i d e n c e 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 . Rock S p r i n g s Corp. v. P i e r r e ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 615 P.2d 206, 211, 37 St.Rep. 1378, 1384. F i n a l l y , t h i s C o u r t must view 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 p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y below. Anaconda Co. v. W h i t t a k e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 610 P.2d 1177, 1179, 37 St.Rep. 902, 905. Here, s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of McFadden and J e f f e r s o n County. McFadden asked o f f i c e r McGuire t o "check t h e k i d o u t . " H e saw McGuire go up t o t h e S c h l o s s v e h i c l e and presumed McGuire was d o i n g s o . McGuire r e p o r t e d t h a t Moran was a l l r i g h t and t h a t he d i d n o t smell a l c o h o l on Moran's b r e a t h . n o t e t h a t t h e b r e a t h a l y z e r test g i v e n t o S c h l o s s c o u l d n o t be r e a d a t t h e s c e n e . McGuire, W h i t e h a l l c h i e f of p o l i c e f o r s i x y e a r s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t a l k e d t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e v e h i c l e . H e looked i n s i d e t h e c a r and saw no open c o n t a i n e r s o f a l c o h o l o r any o t h e r a c t i v i t y t h a t i n d i c a t e d a l a w w a s b e i n g v i o l a t e d . Murphy s t o o d b e s i d e McGuire as he t a l k e d t o Moran n e x t t o t h e c a r . PlcGuire asked t o see Moran's d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e , checked t o see i f he c o u l d smell h i s b r e a t h , had him walk around, and had him g e t h i s d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e o u t of h i s w a l l e t . McGuire concluded he was n o t i n t o x i c a t e d . Murphy s t o o d w i t h i n twelve t o e i g h t e e n i n c h e s of Moran and d i d n o t s m e l l a l c o h o l . Nor d i d he s e e any beer c a n s o r o t h e r a l c o h o l c o n t a i n e r s i n t h e c a r . H e watched Ploran a s Moran walked around, spoke, and took h i s d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e o u t of h i s w a l l e t . Moran's speech was n o t s l u r r e d , he had no d i f f i c u l t y removing t h e d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e , h i s e y e s were n o t bloodshot, and he d i d n o t stumble a s he walked. Murphy heard McGuire inform McFadden t h a t Moran was "okay t o d r i v e . " H e a l s o heard S c h l o s s s a y t h a t he d i d n o t want Murphy t o d r i v e h i s c a r b u t wanted Moran t o d r i v e it. N e i t h e r McFadden nor Murphy n o t i c e d any e r r a t i c d r iv- ing a s they followed behind Moran f o r some twenty t o t h i r t y minutes a s he drove toward Boulder. The highway p a t r o l o f f i c e r t h a t i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e s c e n e of t h e a c c i d e n t was t h e o n l y w i t n e s s t h a t n o t i c e d a " s l i g h t s m e l l " of a l c o h o l on Moran's b r e a t h . H e s t a t e d , however, t h a t he d i d n o t have r e a s o n a b l e grounds a t t h a t p o i n t t o b e l i e v e t h a t Moran was d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l . Moran was n o t s o c i t e d . I n t h e highway patrolman' s o p i n i o n , t h e a c c i d e n t occurred when Moran looked i n t h e r e a r view m i r r o r a s t h e c a r rounded a curve. The c e r t i f i e d emergency medical t e c h n i c i a n (EMT) who responded t o t h e s c e n e of t h e a c c i d e n t performed an i n i t i a l p a t i e n t assessment of Moran t h a t involved l i s t e n i n g v e r y c a r e f u l l y about Moran's mouth f o r any b r e a t h i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s o r o t h e r evidence of r e s p i r a t o r y problems. H e smelled no a l c o h o l and determined t h a t Moran was a l e r t and o r i e n t e d . Based upon t r a i n i n g t o determine i f s i g n s of i n t o x i c a t i o n a r e p r e s e n t f o r t h e purpose of p r o v i d i n g medical t r e a t m e n t and upon h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s of Moran, t h e EMT s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d n o t b e l i e v e Moran was i n t o x i c a t e d . F i n a l l y , d e f e n d a n t s McFadden and McGuire i n t r o d u c e d u n r e b u t t e d e x p e r t testimony from a highway patrolman which s u p p o r t s t h e i r p o s i t i o n t h a t McFadden's a c t i o n s i n t u r n i n g t h e v e h i c l e over t o one of S c h l o s s l s p a s s e n g e r s were rea- s o n a b l e . S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . The D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . I n l i g h t of t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreements t h a t f i x l i a - b i l i t y among Moran, t h e i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r s , and p l a i n t i f f s , t h e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d on damages a r e moot. The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l is vacated and t h e judgment on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t r e i n s t a t e d . 3 4 $$$$+* Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: i / / J u s t i c e s Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting: I dissent. The majority has searched the record to find "conflicting evidence," but all of it is irrelevant. The plain truth is that the deputy sheriff of Jefferson County turned a vehicle over to a drunk to drive, and as a result Daniel Lindquist was needlessly killed. The duty of the deputy sheriff when he arrested Schloss for drunk driving, was to search his automobile for evidence of alcoholic containers. Section 16-6-105, MCA. The deputy did not search the vehicle. The duty of the deputy sheriff was to impound the vehicle in which the al-coholic beverage is found. Section 16-6-105, MCA. He did not impound the vehicle. Instead he I.et the drunk driver dictate who should drive the automobile to Boulder. Self-servingly now, all the officers testify that they saw no reason for Moran not to d.rive. But this testimony flies in the face of what the accident revealed 40 minutes later. Moran smelled of alcohol; there was spilled beer all over the back seat; there was a quantity of beer cans strewn around. How can the majority call the evidence conflicting, in the face of the physical evidence that the authorities did not perform their duty, the performance of which might have saved a life? Undoubtedly, between the time the vehicles left the arrest scene until the Vega ran off the road, some occupants of the car were not only then intoxicated, but were continuing to consume beer under the very nose of the deputy sheriff in the following vehicle. The highway patrol officer actually testified that the fact that Moran had been drinking was "not really" a contributing factor to the accident in the face cf the physical evidence here. Small wonder that the District Court ordered a new trial, and indicated he should have directed a verd-ict against the deputy and the county. The record is bare of any evidence that the decedent was negligent before or at the accident. Yet the jury found him 25 percent negligent. This was a factor on which the District Court relied to grant a new trial. The jury granted the decedent nothing for his pain, suffering, or loss of earnings. This was another factor relied on by the District Court. The District Court was correct in granting a new trial. The result is that the parents of the decedent get nothing for this misjudgment of public duty. I cannot agree. f --.\ !\ . . - , $ * o1 Justice 0 We join in the foregoing dissent.