Case Title: ALLEN v MOORE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 12865

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12865 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1975 JACQUELINE ALLEN e t a 1. , P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -vs - WALTER S . YOORE, J R . , et al., Defendants and Respondents, dppeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Zounsel of Record : For Appellants : Hibbs, Sweeney and Colberg, B i l l i n g s , Montana Maurice Colberg argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents : Moulton, Bellingham, Longo and Mather, B i l l i n g s , Montana William S. Mather argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Small, Cummins and Hatch, Helena, Montana Robert GLzmmins argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: March 6, 1975 Decided : - 8 1975 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. I n t h i s cause p l a i n t i f f s a r e t h e widow, personal rep- r e s e n t a t i v e , and c h i l d r e n of Eugene Tyler Allen, deceased, who brought t h i s wrongful death and survival a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Sweet Grass County. Originally t h e defendants were Walter S . Moore, Jr., and one Barney L. H i t t , 111. A motion f o r summary judgment f o r H i t t was granted p r i o r t o t r i a l . The jury returned a v e r d i c t f o r defendant Moore and judgment was entered. From t h i s judgment 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 appeal. A n automobile accident occurred November 27, 1971, a t approximately 9:40 a . m . , on I n t e r s t a t e 90 highway about 13 m i l e s west of Big Timber, Montana. The weather conditions e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e were: t h e sky was overcast, it had been snowing, and t h e r e was s l u s h on t h e highway. The vehicles involved i n t h e c o l l i s i o n were: (1) an I n t e r n a t i o n a l Scout vehicle driven by Moore and i n which decedent was i n t h e r i g h t f r o n t s e a t and one Ed S i l l s was i n t h e r e a r s e a t area on a platform. S i l l s was asleep a t t h e t i m e of t h e c o l l i - sion. The Scout was proceeding e a s t . ( 2 ) A Chevrolet s t a t i o n wagon, driven by Gerald Cosgriff, h i s wife Donna i n t h e r i g h t f r o n t s e a t , daughter Sarah on her mother's l a p , and t h e i r sons Edward and David i n t h e r e a r s e a t s . The Chevrolet w a s proceeding west. The roadway where t h e c o l l i s i o n occurred was s t r a i g h t and l e v e l , with a broken center l i n e permitting passing; t h e r e was w e r e two lanes f o r t r a f f i c and t h e roadway/approximately 22 f e e t wide. Cosgriff estimated t h e speed of t h e Scout a t t h e t i m e he f i r s t saw it, a s being i n excess of 50 mph. Moore estimated h i s speed p r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n a t 30 t o 35 mph, but i n a statement given on December 2 0 , 1971, he estimated h i s speed a t 40 t o 4 5 mph. The highway p a t r o l o f f i c e r estimated t h e speed of t h e Scout a t approximately 35 t o 4 0 mph, based on t h e e x t e n t of t h e damage t o t h e vehicles. P r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n Moore passed a vehicle driven by Clarence Russell, a l s o t r a v e l i n g east, approximately one- half t o one m i l e before t h e c o l l i s i o n occurred. Russell saw t h e c o l l i s i o n 150 t o 200 yards t o h i s f r o n t . Russell t e s t i f i e d he was t r a v e l i n g 25 t o 30 mph and he thought t h e Scout could have been going 40 t o 4 5 mph a t t h e time it passed him. C o s g r i f f ' s vehicle was i n its lane of t r a f f i c and he t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he f i r s t observed t h e Scout it seemed t o be under control. Then it turned toward t h e c e n t e r of t h e road; t h e r e a r slipped t o t h e r i g h t a l i t t l e b i t ; then t h e Scout turned again, t h i s time t o t h e r i g h t and t h e r e a r s l i p p i n g t o t h e l e f t ; then it slipped around again and came back s o t h a t t h e r i g h t s i d e f r o n t of t h e was coming towards him, s l i d i n g sideways. The/Cosgriff vehicle h i t t h e Scout on i t s r i g h t s i d e . This impact occurred near t h e edge of t h e o i l i n C o s g r i f f ' s lane. Russell t e s t i f i e d he saw t h e accident happen, and it looked l i k e the Scout kind of turned sideways and went across t h e road and they h i t . When they h i t t h e snow flew up, giving t h e appearance of smoke, and t h e Scout went on i n t o t h e borrow p i t . Defendant Moore t e s t i f i e d : "Q. M r . Moore, i s n ' t it t r u e t h a t you had noted on your t r i p t o Montana t h a t when t h e r e was snow on t h e highway d r i v e r s would d r i v e t h e i r vehicles i n such a manner t h a t t h e i r l e f t wheels would be on t h e center l i n e of t h e highway and t h e i r r i g h t wheel i n t o t h e i r lane of t r a f f i c on two lane high- ways, so t h a t t h e r e were only t h r e e beaten t r a f f i c zones down t h e highway. Is t h a t a custom t h a t you noted when you were o u t here? A. Yes, sir. "Q. Immediately p r i o r t o t h i s accident and when you f i r s t saw t h e o t h e r vehicle, i s n ' t it t r u e t h a t you w e r e d r i v i n g i n accordance with t h a t custom with your l e f t wheel on t h e center l i n e of t h e highway? A. Yes, sir, I w a s , o r approximately where I considered t h e center l i n e of t h e highway. "Q. And was t h e Cosgriff vehicle, o r the o t h e r vehicle, a l s o being driven i n t h a t same manner? A. I a m not a t a l l p o s i t i v e how he was driving h i s vehicle. "Q. You d i d n ' t see whether h i s l e f t wheel w a s on t h e center l i n e ? A. I saw h i s vehicle. I a m not a t a l l p o s i t i v e t h a t he had h i s l e f t wheel on t h e center l i n e o r not. "Q. NOW, i s n ' t it t r u e t h a t you f e l t since your l e f t wheel was on t h e center l i n e t h a t you had t o t u r n i n t o t h e right-hand lane of t r a f f i c t o some degree t o be o u t of a c o l l i s i o n course with t h e Cosgriff vehicle? A. Not necessarily a c o l l i s i o n course, but it would come extremely c l o s e t o an oncoming c a r , yes, sir, and I d i d f e e l t h a t I would have t o move over, t h a t i s c o r r e c t . "Q. So then i n f a c t did you move over? A. Yes, sir, I did. "Q. And d i d you then move i n t o t h e slush? A. I believe w e were i n t h e slush t h e e n t i r e time. I d i d have t o move over, yes, sir. "Q. NOW, when you moved over i s n ' t it t r u e t h a t your vehicle veered sharply t o t h e r i g h t , t h e r e a r portion of your vehicle. A. Yes, sir, it d i d , it d i d s l i p t o t h e r i g h t . "Q. Would you designate then t h a t it veered sharply t o t h e r i g h t , i s t h a t the way you would describe i t ? A. Well, I would assume so, yes, sir. I d o n ' t know what you c a l l sharply. The back of t h e vehicle q u i t e quickly s h i f t e d t o t h e r i g h t . "Q. And d i d t h e f r o n t of t h e v e h i c l e then point toward t h e center of t h e highway? A. To t h e c e n t e r , yes, sir, it would have had t o . "Q. And t h e r e a r of t h e vehicle moved toward t h e southerly borrow p i t I take it of t h e highway? A. Y e s , sir. "Q. Did t h e vehicle move i n an oblique manner down t h e highway toward t h e Cosgriff vehicle? A. A t t h e moment d i r e c t l y a f t e r the time t h a t it slipped? "Q. Yes. Is t h a t what next happened? A. I would say t h a t it slipped going s t r a i g h t f o r j u s t an undetermined amount of f e e t . "Q. Okay. And then a f t e r it slipped going s t r a i g h t d i d it then s l i p obliquely toward t h e Cosgriff vehicle? I guess I mean across t h e highway toward t h e Cosgriff vehicle? A. Yes, sir, it did. "Q. Did you h i t t h e brakes? A. Yes, s i r , I did. " Q . And d i d you keep t h e brakes locked u n t i l t h e time of impact? A. Y e s , sir, I did. "Q. So t h e sequence of events then, i f I understand you c c r r e c t l y , i s t h i s t r u e , you were driving with your l e f t wheel on t h e center l i n e , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes, sir. "Q. You then moved t o the r i g h t i n t o the right-hand lane of t r a f f i c , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes, sir. " Q . And when you d i d t h a t t h e r i g h t r e a r portion of your vehicle slipped t o t h e r i g h t p u t t i n g t h e f r o n t portion toward t h e center of t h e highway, is t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And then you h i t the brakes, is t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Y e s , sir. " Q . And you moved obliquely down t h e highway and struck t h e Cosgriff vehicle? A. Yes, sir. "Q. Did anything e l s e happen between t h e time you slipped and t h e t i m e you h i t t h e Cosgriff vehicle? A. Yes, it did. "Q. What happened? A. A t t h e t i m e t h a t I saw t h e Cosgriff c a r I determined t h a t I would have t o move t o m y r i g h t . I s t a r t e d t o move t o m y r i g h t , a t which t i m e t h e back of t h e v e h i c l e slipped sharply t o t h e r i g h t . A t t h e time t h a t t h e vehicle slipped M r . Allen a s I s a i d was asleep over on t h e r i g h t - hand s i d e , o r semi-asleep. It s t a r t l e d M r . Allen and he simultaneously with t h e s l i p p i n g he grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel. A t t h e point t h a t he grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel I completely panicked and slammed on t h e brakes. A t t h e time t h a t I slammed on t h e brakes t h e vehicle s l i d from t h a t point on completely o u t of c o n t r o l u n t i l it h i t t h e Cosgriff automobile. "Q. And you claim t h a t Allen grabbed the s t e e r i n g wheel? A. Yes, sir, I do. " Q . D o you claim he s a i d anything a t t h a t time? A. Yes, sir, I do. IQ. What do you claim he s a i d a t t h a t time? A. He s a i d you are going t o l o s e i t . " Moore i n h i s answer r a i s e d t h e defense of contributory negligence on the p a r t of t h e decedent. The quoted testimony i s t h e only evidence of t h a t contributory negligence. Since it was inconsistent with prior statements, it was used for the purpose of impeachment. One statement was given by Moore on December 20, 1971, and after the statement was read to Moore he acknowledged there was nothing in the statement about decedent's grabbing or touch- ing the steering wheel. Moore explained he did not read the statement before signing and that he was pressed for time. While the investigating officer talked to Moore at the accident scene and also at the hospital and heard nothing about decedent grabbing or touching the steering wheel, it is rather clear his questioning of Moore was at a time when he was dis- traught and disturbed and, as the officer stated: "As near as I recall he said I lost it in the slush. And it was just a general type conversation with no real hard interrogation or pushing of facts at this time." Moore talked to decedent's widow eight days after the accident, and testified: "Q. Now isn't it true, Mr. Moore, that at that time Mrs. Allen asked you concerning how this accident occurred. A. Yes, sir, she did. "Q. And isn't it true that you told her that you lost control of the vehicle in the slush and ran into the Cosgriff vehicle? A. Yes, sir, I did." Moore explained that it was out of feelings for the family that he made no mention of the fact that decedent had grabbed the steering wheel. Moore's deposition was taken by one of plaintiffs' counsel on January 22, 1974, and therein Moore claimed that the decedent had grabbed or touched the steering wheel prior to the impact. On the same day a deposition was taken of Barney L. Hitt, 111, the owner of the Scout, and who at that time was still a defendant in the case. Hitt stated he had a conversation with Moore about two weeks after the accident and in relating what Moore told him, he stated: "He said that -- he said that just before they got to Big Timber, that he lost control of the car for one reason or another and it went into the -- into the left lane and struck the Cos- griff vehicle head-on. He said at that time it swerved and went into the left lane, that he was trying to regain control of the vehicle when Gene Allen grabbed the wheel, and that at the time of the collision, he and Gene were struggling at the wheel. " Hitt could not recall whether the conversation was at his home or by phone. Moore claimed the conversation occurred over the telephone. Plaintiffs raise these issued on this appeal. Was the district court in error in: (1) Permitting the reading of the deposition of Hitt as a prior consistent statement after impeachment? (2) Allowing instructions on contributory negligence on the part of plaintiffs' decedent? ( 3 ) Failing to direct a verdict on the liability issue at the end of plaintiffs1 case? (4) Refusing a portion of plaintiffs1 offered instruc- tion concerning section 32-2152, R.C.M. 1947? Issue 1, was it error to admit into evidence the Hitt deposition? As we have heretofore related defendant Moore, at the trial, testified that after the Scout had slipped to the right, decedent grabbed the steering wheel. Thereafter he was impeached by the use of his statement of December 20, 1971, which omitted any reference to decedent grabbing the steering wheel. Other instances have been referred to previously. Plaintiffs contend that Kipp v. Silverman, 25 Mont. 296, 302, 64 P. 884, (1901) is decisive in that, in their view, this Court held that prior consistent statements are not admissible to rehabilitate an impeached witness where the motive to falsify was t h e same a t t h e time of the c o n s i s t e n t statement a s a t t h e time of t r i a l . Defendant c a l l s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e statement made by Moore contained i n t h e H i t t deposition was on o r about December 12, 1971, two weeks a f t e r t h e accident and e i g h t days before t h e December 20 statement. Also, before any s u i t w a s i n s t i t u t e d and before any motive f o r f a b r i c a t i o n e x i s t e d and corroborates Moore's testimony and t h e r e f o r e would be admissible. Defendant a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t Kipp followed a previous s u i t over t h e property involved. Before t h e second s u i t was commenced Kipp entered i n t o a c o n t r a c t and wrote t h e l e t t e r s complained o f , and t h e r e f o r e t h e c o u r t thought they were sham and a f a b r i c a t i o n . Kipp did not s t a t e t h a t t h e r e w a s i n Montana no exception t o t h e hearsay r u l e but s t a t e d : "To t h i s r u l e one exception i s recognized by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d . Where it is charged t h a t t h e s t o r y of t h e witness i s a f a b r i c a t i o n , owing t o an i n t e r e s t acquired i n t h e r e s u l t of t h e case subsequent t o t h e time a t which t h e statement i n question was made, then t h e s t a t e - ment may be admitted on t h e theory t h a t it was d i s i n t e r e s t e d , and therefore probably t r u e . " Both p a r t i e s have c i t e d excerpts from annotations appear- ing i n 1 4 0 A.L.R. 2 1 , and 75 ALR2d 909. These quotations cover a multitude of s i t u a t i o n s appearing i n t h e cases used a s author- i t y . W e f e e l t h a t one statement appearing i n 75 ALR2d 918, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y f i t t i n g here: "While, a s t h e cases throughout t h e annotation i n d i c a t e , it i s well recognized t h a t a s a general r u l e t h e testimony of a witness cannot be bolstered up o r supported by showing t h a t he has made statements o u t of c o u r t s i m i l a r t o and i n harmony with h i s testimony on t h e witness stand, t h e r u l e i s relaxed o r not applied where t h e witness has been impeached o r h i s c r e d i b i l i t y a s s a i l e d . "The purpose of admitting p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e - ments is not t o prove t h e p r i n c i p a l f a c t s t o be established, and indeed, they a r e not admissible t o do so, but only t o show t h a t t h e witness has been c o n s i s t e n t i n giving t h e same n a r r a t i v e of f a c t , and t h a t h i s former statements a r e c o n s i s t e n t with h i s sworn testimony a s given a t t h e t r i a l , and thus t o some e x t e n t remove suspicion t h a t h i s testimony has been f a b r i - cated o r colored t o meet t h e emergencies of t h e case o r t h a t h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n has varied and i s therefore not t o be r e l i e d upon. "Regardless of t h e form of impeachment, t h e t r i a l judge should be and i s allowed a reason- a b l e d i s c r e t i o n i n receiving o r r e j e c t i n g evi- dence of p r i o r d e c l a r a t i o n s of a witness consis- t e n t with h i s testimony, and t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s l o a t h t o disregard an e x e r c i s e of such d i s - c r e t i o n except i n a c l e a r case of abuse." From t h e t o t a l review of t h e law and t h e evidence, we do not believe t h e t r i a l judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n permitting t h e admission of t h e H i t t deposition i n evidence. Issue 2 , concerns t h e giving of t h e contributory negligence i n s t r u c t i o n by t h e court. While p l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t even i f defendant Moore's version of t n e accident a s t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l i s believed, t h e decedent would have been, a s a matter of law, i n a sudden posi- t i o n of p e r i l not brought about by h i s own negligence which r e - quired i n s t a n t a c t i o n t o avoid a threatened danger. H i s a c t i v i - t i e s i n attempting t o s t r a i g h t e n t h e wheel, although on hindsight not t h e b e s t o r s a f e s t way t o save h i s l i f e , w e r e still t h e a c t s of an ordinary prudent person under s i m i l a r circumstances. Moore t e s t i f i e d : " A t t h e time t h a t I saw t h e Cosgriff c a r I determined t h a t I would have t o move t o m y r i g h t . I s t a r t e d t o move t o m y r i g h t , a t which time t h e back of t h e vehicle slipped sharply t o t h e r i g h t . A t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e vehicle slipped M r . Allen a s I s a i d was * * * asleep. It s t a r t l e d M r . Allen, and he simul- taneously with t h e s l i p p i n g grabbed t h e s t e e r - i n g wheel. A t t h e point t h a t he grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel, I completely panicked and slammed on t h e brakes. A t t h e time t h a t I slammed on t h e brakes, t h e vehicle s l i d from t h a t point on completely o u t of c o n t r o l u n t i l it h i t t h e Cosgriff automobile." A reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s testimony would be t h a t Moore d i d not f e e l t h e Scout was o u t of c o n t r o l and t h a t but f o r t h e f a c t decedent grabbed t h e wheel he would not have had t h e accident. The testimony of Moore i s s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e giving of t h e standard contributory negligence in- s t r u c t i o n . This Court has s a i d innumerable t i m e s t h a t one witness may be s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h preponderance of a case, and even i f t h a t evidence i s inherently weak, it can still be deemed s u b s t a n t i a l . Campeau v. Lewis, 1 4 4 Mont. 543, 398 P.2d 960, (1965). Issue 3 questions t h e d e n i a l of p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on l i a b i l i t y . This motion was grounded on t h e theory t h a t Moore had been shown t o be negligent a s a matter of law a t t h e time he claimed decedent grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel, and decedent could not have been c o n t r i b u t o r i l y negligent based upon t h e theory of sudden emergency. W e cannot accept t h i s premise i n view of our holding a s t o t h e giving of t h e contributory negligence i n s t r u c t i o n . W e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e d e n i a l of t h e motion. Issue 4 concerns t h e refusing of a portion of p l a i n t i f f s ' offered i n s t r u c t i o n concerning s e c t i o n 32-2152, R.C.M. 1947. Section 32-2152, R.C.M. 1947, reads: "Drivers of vehicles proceeding i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s s h a l l pass each o t h e r t o t h e r i g h t , and upon roadways having width f o t not more than one (1) l i n e of t r a f f i c i n each d i r e c t i o n each d r i v e r shall. give t o t h e other a t l e a s t one-half ( 1 / 2 ) of t h e main-traveled portion of t h e roadway as nearly a s possible." While p l a i n t i f f s contend t h e r e was ample testimony t o j u s t i f y t h e inclusion of t h i s s t a t u t e i n t h e offered i n s t r u c - t i o n , defendant a s s e r t s it would not have any a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s accident. It appears t o us t h a t t h e r e was no evidence t h e accident occurred while t h e vehicles were pass- ing and t h e t r i a l c o u r t committed no e r r o r i n refusing t h i s portion of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n which was not warranted by t h e f a c t s . The judgment is affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: of M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell.