Case Title: Tribe v. Peterson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1998-09-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Tribe v. Peterson1998 WY 112964 P.2d 1238Case Number: 97-151Decided: 09/03/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
Steve 
TRIBE, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

Ross PETERSON and Chrissy 
Peterson, Appellees (Defendants).

 

Appeal from the District 
Court, Crook County, Dan R. Price, J.

 

Michael P. 
Reynolds and Bradley A. Schreiber of Quinn, Eiesland, Day & Barker, Belle 
Fourche, South Dakota, for Appellant(Plaintiff).

Mark L. Hughes 
of Hughes Law Office, Sundance, and Daniel F. Duffy of Bangs, McCullen, Butler, 
Foye & Simmons, Rapid City, South Dakota, for 
Appellees(Defendants).

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and TAYLOR,* 
JJ.

* Chief Justice at time of 
expedited conference.

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant, Steve 
Tribe, purchased his first horse, Moccasin Badger, from appellees, Mr. and Mrs. 
Peterson. Asserting that the sellers had expressly guaranteed that the horse 
would never buck, Mr. Tribe brought suit against the Petersons for breach of 
warranty when Moccasin Badger unceremoniously ejected Mr. Tribe from the saddle, 
shattering his left wrist. After the district court denied Mr. Tribe's motion 
for summary judgment on the issue of express warranty, the subsequent trial 
resulted in the jury's rejection of Mr. Tribe's claims and a "no buck" verdict. 
Mr. Tribe then moved for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, a 
new trial. Both motions were denied. Finding that the jury acted reasonably, we 
affirm.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶2]      The parties 
identify two issues for review:

 

1. Whether the 
district court erred as a matter of law by denying appellant's motion for 
summary judgment against appellees on the issue of express 
warranty.

2. Whether the 
district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion for judgment 
as a matter of law, or in the alternative, a new trial on the issues of express 
warranty and negligent misrepresentation.

II. 
FACTS

[¶3]      The known history 
of Moccasin Badger (Badger) begins with his purchase in August 1994 by Larry 
Painter, a rancher who had bought and sold horses "[a]ll [his] life." When Mr. 
Painter bought and owned Badger, the horse was "plumb gentle * * *." Mr. Painter 
brought Badger to his Uncle Oliver's in Rapid City, South Dakota in January 
1995, describing him at that time: "Well, he was real gentle. And as far as we 
was concerned, anybody could ride him that had any experience at all riding." 
Oliver Painter was not called as a witness at trial, but the parties read into 
the record the following stipulation:

Rather than 
calling Oliver Painter to testify, the parties have stipulated that if he did 
testify, he would testify that this horse, Moccasin Badger, was calm and gentle 
while he was around him. He did not have any experiences where he 
bucked.

[¶4]      In February 1995, 
Oliver Painter advertised the sale of Badger, and the Petersons responded. After 
Mrs. Peterson rode Badger and found him to be very calm and gentle, and a second 
visit revealed the same disposition, they purchased him for $2,200.00. During 
the first month the Petersons owned Badger, they rode him "two to three times a 
week." "[N]eeding a little money," the Petersons decided to sell Badger at the 
"Leo Perino sale," which attracts buyers from all over the 
world.

[¶5]      To ensure that 
Badger was sound and ready for sale, the Petersons twice brought Badger to Dr. 
Margie Jones, a board certified horse veterinarian from Sturgis, South Dakota, 
and Mr. Peterson trained Badger every day for a month prior to the sale. Dr. 
Jones testified that she found Badger to be "sound," and after performing an 
extensive physical examination and riding Badger, she concluded that Badger "was 
gentle and kind and he did what I asked him to."

[¶6]      The Leo Perino 
sale was held in Newcastle, Wyoming on June 3, 1995. Mr. Tribe and his wife 
attended the sale, accompanied by Steve Stoddard. The Tribes had moved to 
Wyoming in 1993 after selling Mr. Tribe's car dealership in northern California 
and purchasing a 12,000 acre ranch near Colony, Wyoming. The Tribes leased all 
but 400 acres to Mr. Stoddard, who they asked to assist them in recommending a 
place to purchase a horse which would be gentle enough for very inexperienced 
riders. Mr. Stoddard recommended the Leo Perino sale because it had an excellent 
reputation.

[¶7]      Badger's 
description in the sale brochure represented him as a "quiet * * * and extra 
gentle gelding * * * easy to catch, haul and shoe," and "overly kind which makes 
him a definite kids prospect * * *." Mr. Stoddard initially noticed Badger while 
Mr. Peterson was roping with Badger in the arena. Mr. Stoddard spoke with Mr. 
Peterson, and Mr. Peterson told him that Badger "was five years old and that he 
was really gentle." Later, Mr. Stoddard approached the Petersons to get a better 
look at Badger, at which time Mr. Stoddard and Mrs. Tribe rode Badger. Mr. 
Stoddard found the horse to be "very gentle and very well-broke to ride." 
According to Mr. Stoddard, he asked Mr. Peterson if the horse "had any buck in 
him" to which Mr. Peterson responded, "No." Mr. Peterson told Mr. Stoddard that 
the horse had never bucked with him or any of its previous owners. The testimony 
conflicts, however, as to whether Mr. Peterson "guaranteed" the horse would 
never buck in the future. Mr. Stoddard stated he got a "guarantee" from both 
Petersons, while the Petersons denied they made such a guarantee, insisting it 
would be impossible to guarantee that any horse would not buck in the 
future.

[¶8]      Nonetheless, Mr. 
Tribe purchased Badger on his belief that he had been guaranteed that this horse 
would never buck. Upon returning to the ranch, Mrs. Tribe rode Badger without 
incident. The third time Mrs. Tribe rode Badger, however, she was thrown. Ten 
days later, after riding Badger, Mrs. Tribe asked Mr. Tribe if he wanted to 
ride. When he said he did, she resaddled the horse. Mr. Tribe got on the horse, 
and almost immediately was thrown to the ground, shattering his left wrist. Some 
time later, Mr. Tribe contacted the Petersons to inform them of the injury, tape 
recording one conversation with Mr. Peterson.

[¶9]      Mr. Tribe brought 
this lawsuit, alleging that the Petersons breached an express warranty that 
Badger would never buck, and that they negligently and fraudulently 
misrepresented Badger's nature. Mr. Tribe filed a motion for summary judgment 
asserting an express guarantee as a matter of law, which motion was denied by 
the district court. After a three-day trial to the jury, the jury rejected Mr. 
Tribe's allegations and found for the Petersons on all claims. Mr. Tribe then 
moved for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. 
The district court denied these motions, and this timely appeal 
followed.

III. STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶10]   Mr. Tribe requests that we review 
the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment. The denial of 
summary judgment may not be reviewed on appeal following trial on the merits. 
Cargill, Inc. v. Mountain Cement Co., 891 P.2d 57, 61 (Wyo. 1995). The proper 
procedural mechanism for challenging an adverse judgment, following a trial on 
the merits, is a motion for judgment as a matter of law. 
Id.

[¶11]   A decision to grant or deny a 
motion for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed de novo. Id. at 62. We review 
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, affording 
every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, to determine whether the 
jury's verdict is contrary to the only conclusion which may reasonably be 
reached from the facts presented. Judgment as a matter of law should be granted 
cautiously and sparingly. Id.

IV. 
DISCUSSION

[¶12]   Mr. Tribe contends that, as a 
matter of law, the written description in the sale brochure and verbal 
representations of the Petersons created an express warranty that Badger was a 
calm and gentle horse which would never buck. "An express warranty is created by 
any affirmation of fact made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the 
goods and becomes a part of the basis of the bargain." Garriffa v. Taylor, 675 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Wyo. 1984), see also Wyo. Stat. § 34.1-2-313(a)(ii) (1997) 
("Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain 
creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the 
description[.]"). "In order for an express warranty to exist, there must be some 
positive and unequivocal statement concerning the thing sold which is relied on 
by the buyer and which is understood to be an assertion concerning the items 
sold and not an opinion." Garriffa, 675 P.2d  at 1286. A representation which 
expresses the seller's opinion, belief, judgment or estimate does not constitute 
an express warranty. Id. The primary question is whether there was an 
affirmation of fact which amounted to an express warranty or whether the 
representations were merely opinions. The answer to this question results from 
the consideration of all the circumstances surrounding a sale and should be made 
by the trier of fact. Id.

[¶13]   The verdict form at trial asked 
only: "Are defendants liable to the plaintiff for damages for breach of an 
express warranty?" We therefore do not know if the jury determined there was no 
express warranty or whether a warranty was given but not breached. Either way, 
the jury's conclusion could reasonably be reached on the evidence presented at 
trial.

[¶14]   We begin by examining the 
description of Badger in the sales brochure. Mr. Tribe insists that this 
description guaranteed a gentle horse, and that the fact that he and his wife 
were thrown establishes that Badger was not gentle or calm. The testimony of all 
the witnesses, however, reveals that Badger was calm and gentle with everyone 
but the Tribes. The Painters and the Petersons testified that Badger was "kind" 
and "real gentle" throughout the time he was in their care. When asked to read 
the description of Badger in the sale brochure, both Larry Painter and Leo 
Perino testified that it was an accurate description. Dr. Jones testified her 
examination of Badger included the use of a scope "about 36 inches long" which 
requires sedation of "close to 50 percent" of horses which undergo the 
procedure. However, she never considered giving Badger a sedative before using 
the scope on him.

[¶15]   Moreover, Mrs. Tribe telephoned 
Mrs. Peterson within four or five days after the sale to say: "I want you to 
know I'm really getting along well with Badger. I just love him. Do you have 
anymore like him that we could buy?" Finally, evidence was presented which 
established that the disposition of a horse may be affected by the rider, the 
equipment, the type of feed, or a new environment. Mr. Perino affirmed that 
"even gentle horses" may buck. Clearly, there was evidence to support a finding 
that the description of Badger in the brochure was the Petersons' well-founded 
opinion regarding Badger's disposition. Further, even if the brochure 
constituted an express warranty that Badger was calm and gentle, the evidence 
supports the conclusion that the warranty was not 
breached.

[¶16]   We next examine Mr. Tribe's 
contention that he was given a guarantee that Badger would never buck. While Mr. 
Stoddard and Mr. Tribe testified that the Petersons expressly made this 
guarantee, both Mr. and Mrs. Peterson adamantly denied that they guaranteed 
Badger would never buck in the future. "As the sole judge of the credibility of 
witnesses, the jury was not required to accept appellant's version of the 
facts." Archuleta v. Valencia, 871 P.2d 198, 201 (Wyo. 1994). It appears a "no 
buck" warranty is a hard sell to a Wyoming jury. Obviously, the record supports 
the jury's conclusion that representations regarding Badger's past behavior were 
true, and no express warranty was given as to Badger's future 
behavior.

[¶17]   Mr. Tribe's claim to judgment as a 
matter of law on the theory of negligent misrepresentation is equally without 
merit. There is overwhelming evidence that the information provided by the 
Petersons did not misrepresent Badger's disposition. Mr. Tribe's assertion that 
the Petersons "had a duty to inform Mr. Tribe that all horses, including Badger, 
have a propensity to buck," is unsupported by cogent argument or case law.1 We also note that Mr. Tribe's 
reliance on his alleged naivete is contradicted by the fact that Mr. Stoddard, 
who accompanied Mr. Tribe and advised him in the purchase of the horse, was 
"knowledgeable about horses." It is undisputed that all discussions allegedly 
relating to a "guarantee" were with Mr. Stoddard, not Mr. 
Tribe.

V. 
CONCLUSION

[¶18]   At trial, the jury was presented 
with evidence supporting the conclusion that no express warranty was made that 
Badger would not buck, under any circumstances, in the future. Evidence was also 
presented which supports the jury's determination that the Petersons did not 
misrepresent the disposition of the animal at the time it was sold. The jury 
reached a patently reasonable verdict, and therefore we affirm the district 
court's denial of Mr. Tribe's motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the 
alternative, his motion for a new trial.

Footnotes

1 The only 
case cited in support of this declaration, Evans v. Upmier, 235 Iowa 35, 16 N.W.2d 6 (1944), deals with the duty of the operator of a riding academy to 
provide reasonably safe animals - it bears no relationship to the 
facts