Case Title: BALLANTYNE v THE ANACONDA CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13768 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 GEORGE GRANT BALLANTVNE, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, -vs- THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Williams and Holland, Butte, Montana D. L. Holland argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana James H. Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: January 20, 1978 ~ecided : FEB 3 - 1 9 7 8 Filed: i E B 3 - M r . Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court: Defendant The Anaconda Company appeals from an order of the District Court, Jefferson County, granting a new t r i a l to p l a i n t i f f s George Grant Ballantyne, George W. Ballantyne, and Evelyn Christensen Peterson, d/b/a Cloverdale Apiaries. For reasons hereinafter s e t forth w e remand t h i s cause t o the District Court for further consideration. P l a i n t i f f s brought t h i s action seeking compensatory and exemplary damages from The Anaconda Company for losses suffered a t p l a i n t i f f s ' commercial honeybee operation located near Whitehall, Montana. Plaintiffs alleged t h e i r bees were poisoned as a result of gas and particulate emissions from the company's Anaconda, Montana copper smelting operation. The s u i t was based on private nuisance, s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y and negligence theories. The cause was tried before a jury on September 21, 1976. The jury returned a verdict i n favor of the company on September 30, 1976. Judgment was entered on October 5 and on October 15 p l a i n t i f f s moved for a new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s urged three grounds i n support of their motion: 1) Insufficient evidence t o support the verdict, 2) legal errors including the admission into evidence of a l e t t e r alleged t o be a settlement offer and the striking of p l a i n t i f f s ' claim as t o one of their bee yards, and 3) prejudicial suprise a t the t r i a l . By order dated December 16, 1976, the District Court granted p l a i n t i f f s ' motion for a new t r i a l . The order comprises a single sentence. There is no indication of the grounds upon which the new t r i a l was granted and no explanation of the District Court's decision. A s presented, the issue for review is whether the D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s discretion i n granting a new t r i a l . Due t o the District Court's failure to specify any grounds for its ruling, however, that court's exercise of its discretion w i l l not be reviewed a t t h i s time. Rule 59(f), M.R.Civ,P., provides: "Any order of the court granting a new t r i a l , s h a l l specify the grounds therefor with sufficient particularity a s t o apprise the parties and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling, and t h i s may be done i n the body of the order, o r i n an attached opinion. 1 1 This rule was adopted pursuant t o Supreme Court prder and has been i n effect since March 1, 1976. In its note t o the amendment which added t h i s requirement t o ~ o n t a n a ' s procedural rules, the Advisory Committee stated: "[This] amendment * * * is for the express purpose of narrowing the issues on appeal and obviating the need t o read the e n t i r e record on appeal t o find the rationale underlying the t r i a l court' s ruling. * * *" B y not complying with t h i s requirement the District Court has placed t h i s Court i n the precise position Rule 59(f) seeks t o avoid. Not only t h i s Court, but the l i t i g a n t s a s well are compelled t o consider the record with respect t o every ground i n i t i a l l y urged by p l a i n t i f f s i n support of their motion, as though the District Court had found equal merit in each. Where, as here, the t r i a l involved complex matters and included exten- sive testimony and several independent grounds have been asserted for a new t r i a l , elaboration by the court granting a new t r i a l is especially important. I n t h i s context requirements of specificity are imposed a t each stage of the judicial process. Under Rule 59(a), M.R.Civ,P., a party moving for a new t r i a l must "state with particularity" the grounds for that motion. The motion properly may be denied when the movant f a i l s t o comply with that requirement. Halsey v. Uithof, (1975), 166 Mont. 319, 326, 532 P.2d 686. Rule 59(f), M. R.Civ.P., mandates specificity on the part of a District Court granting such a motion. W e note t h i s Court i s similarly constrained. Section 93-212, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "In the determination of causes, a l l decisions of the supreme court must be given i n writing, and the grounds of the decision must be stated, and each justice agreeing o r concurring with the decision must so indicate by signing the decision. Any justice disagreeing with a decision must so indicate by a written dissent . I 1 It i s manifestly f a i r for a l l concerned t o require a t r i a l level court t o s e t out i t s reasons for granting a new t r i a l . The purpose and function of such a written "opinion" may vary from case t o case, but generally the following considerations, a s expressed i n The State T r i a l Judge's Book, published under the sponsorship of the National Conference of State T r i a l Judges and the Joint Committee for the Effective Administration of Justice, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1965, pp. 166-167, I 1 When the time comes t o prepare a written exposi- tion of the basis for a decision, the judge has a heavy task on h i s hands. H e feels the need t o do h i s part well, i n justice t o the parties, t o himself and t o the position he occupies. The judge w i l l write b e t t e r opinions i f he considers some of the important purposes they are intended t o serve. A well-considered opinion can be of value t o the judge himself, t o counsel and the parties. It is invaluable t o the appellate court, i f the case goes up on appeal. "The function of an opinion is t o s t a t e the reason which led the court t o decide the case the way it did. Moreover, since i n the process of preparing an opinion the judge must discipline h i s thinking, he i s more apt t o reach a just decision i n a complex case i f he reduces h i s reasoning t o writing. Referring t o the f r u i t f u l effect of the process, Chief Justice Hughes once commented, 'The importance of written opinions as a protection against judicial carelessness is very I great. "Opinions may be of service t o the l i t i g a n t s and counsel i n determining what their future caurse should be. The opinion may point the way t o an appeal, o r it may eliminate one. In either event the practical value t o those most concerned i s great. "A well-stated opinion is of great assistance to the appellate court as a chart of the reasoning followed by the t r i a l judge i n reaching a decision. Not everyone would agree with the cynical old judge who i s credited 1 with saying, A s f a r as the appellate court is concerned, maybe they can think up a good reason t o support m y judgment. I don't want t o give them a bad one.'" Rule 59(f), M.R.Civ.P., makes it clear the t i m e is past when a D i s t r i c t Court can summarily grant a new t r i a l and rely on t h i s Court t o provide a legally adequate reason for i t s order. The cause i s remanded and the District Court is directed t o enter reasons for its order granting p l a i n t i f f s a new t r i a l , i n accord with Rule 59(f), M.R.Civ.P. W e Concur: /