Case Title: PENN v BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 14718

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14718 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 WILLIAM 0 . PENN, Plaintiff and Appellant, BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., a corporation, and The State of Montana, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen Beck argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Kurt W. Kroschel argued, Billings, Montana P. Keith Keller argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: December 11, 1979 &+$A. . ;> Filed: Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Appellant Penn brought a cause i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Rosebud County, t o recover damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d i n an automobile-train a c c i d e n t . Penn a p p e a l s from a j u r y v e r d i c t i n favor of respondents, Burlington Northern, Inc. and t h e S t a t e of Montana. W e n o t e t h a t t h i s cause a r o s e before t h e Montana com- p a r a t i v e negligence s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 27-1-702, MCA, took e f f e c t . Consequently, any c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence by Penn t h a t proximately caused h i s i n j u r i e s would b a r h i s recovery o f damages from t h e S t a t e and Burlington Northern. Dunham v . Southside National Bank (1976), 169 Mont. 466, 548 P.2d 1383; DeVerniero v. Eby (1972), 159 Mont. 146, 496 P.2d 290. I n June 1975, Penn was working a s a p i p e f i t t e r i n Col- s t r i p , Montana. O n June 11, 1975, Penn decided t o d r i v e t o M i l e s C i t y , Montana a f t e r work t o purchase new tires f o r h i s 1975 Ford van. J e r r y Dewey and Martin Kussler, f r i e n d s of a p p e l l a n t , went along f o r t h e r i d e . The t r i p t o Miles C i t y was uneventful. A f t e r t h e new tires w e r e p u t on ~ e n n ' s van, t h e t h r e e men purchased a s i x pack of beer f o r t h e road and set o u t on t h e r e t u r n t r i p t o C o l s t r i p . A t approximately 8:30 p.m., t h e t h r e e men stopped f o r d i n n e r a t t h e Gausthauf Bar i n Forsyth, Montana. A f t e r d i n n e r of beer and p i z z a , Dewey and Kussler began playing pool and Penn went t o a f r i e n d ' s home t o s l e e p . Approximately one hour l a t e r , Penn was awakened by f r i e n d s who suggested t h a t he r e t u r n t o t h e Gausthauf t o j o i n Dewey and Kussler. Penn r e t u r n e d t o t h e Gausthauf. A t an undetermined t i m e , Penn l e f t t h e Gausthauf t o s l e e p i n h i s van. Dewey and Kussler remained i n t h e Gaust- hauf d r i n k i n g beer and playing pool. L a t e r , Kussler joined Penn i n t h e van. A t approximately 1:30 a.m., Dewey r e t u r n e d t o t h e van. Dewey began d r i v i n g back t o C o l s t r i p w i t h Penn and Kussler a s l e e p i n t h e back of t h e van. Dewey t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s a matter of h a b i t he would ask t h e owner i f he could d r i v e t h e owner's c a r and t h a t he thought t h a t he had asked Penn on t h e n i g h t i n question. Penn h a s no r e c o l l e c t i o n of any e v e n t s from t h e t i m e he a r r i v e d a t t h e Gausthauf u n t i l he awoke i n t h e h o s p i t a l s e v e r a l days a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . The a c c i d e n t occurred s o u t h of Forsyth on Highway 315 a t t h e Koselka c r o s s i n g , where t h e r a i l r o a d t r a c k p a r a l l e l s t h e road b e f o r e c r o s s i n g it a t a sharp angle. The c r o s s i n g i t s e l f i s l o c a t e d a t a creek bottom and i s v i s i b l e from t h e crest o f a h i l l 879 f e e t n o r t h of t h e c r o s s i n g . There i s a drop of a b o u t 25 f e e t i n a l t i t u d e from t h e crest of t h e h i l l t o t h e c r o s s i n g . A r e f l e c t o r i z e d warning s i g n i s l o c a t e d 796 f e e t from t h e c r o s s i n g , and t h e r e are r e f l e c t o r i z e d crossbucks a t t h e c r o s s i n g i t s e l f . Both warning devices a r e v i s i b l e from t h e crest of t h e h i l l . A d d i t i o n a l l y , seven r e f l e c t o r i z e d p a n e l s and t h e r e f l e c t o r i z e d logo of t h e r a i l r o a d company a r e l o c a t e d on t h e s i d e of each c o a l c a r . A t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e t r a i n w a s t r a v e l i n g approximately 27 m i l e s p e r hour, and t h e van was going 50 m i l e s p e r hour. A v e h i c l e t r a v e l i n g 50 m i l e s p e r hour from t h e crest of t h e h i l l would reach t h e c r o s s i n g i n about 12 seconds. F i f t y seconds p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e f r o n t of t h e locomotive was 1,850 f e e t from t h e van. The locomotive was equipped with a 200,000 candlepower l i g h t v i s i b l e a t t h a t d i s t a n c e , and t h e r e was no impediments t o its v i s i b i l i t y . The l i g h t was aimed a t t h e van u n t i l 34 seconds p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , when t h e locomotive and van passed each o t h e r . The van s t r u c k t h e t h i r t y - f i f t h c a r from t h e Burlington Northern c o a l t r a i n caboose. There w e r e no s k i d marks o r o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s of e v a s i v e a c t i o n . Most of t h e van was i n t h e l e f t l a n e of t r a f f i c a t t h e t i m e of impact. The i n v e s t i g a t i n g highway patrolman found seventeen empty beer cans and one empty b o t t l e i n and around t h e van. Dewey, t h e d r i v e r , consented t o a blood sample a few hours a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . I t revealed a blood-alcohol l e v e l of .16%. An e x p e r t w i t n e s s estimated Dewey's blood-alcohol l e v e l a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t t o be .20 t o .21%. The presumptive l e v e l of i n t o x i c a t i o n i n Montana i s . l o % . S e c t i o n 61-8-401 ( 3 ) (c) , MCA. A s a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t , Penn l o s t h i s g a l l bladder, i s p a r a l i z e d below t h e w a i s t , and s u f f e r s n e u r o l o g i c a l problems. Dewey received a broken h i p , a c o l l a p s e d lung and a s e v e r e s c a l p wound. Kussler was k i l l e d . Penn r a i s e s n i n e assignments of e r r o r f o r review. W e hold i n f a v o r of respondents on a l l t h e assignments of e r r o r . I n h i s f i r s t assignment of e r r o r , Penn contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e respondents t o proceed on a theory of n e g l i g e n t entrustment. Penn a s s e r t s t h a t i n Montana n e g l i g e n t entrustment may only be used a s a t h e o r y of recovery, n o t a s a defense s i n c e it involves an a p p l i c a t i o n of imputed c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence. Such a c o n t e n t i o n i s without m e r i t . H e r e , respondents pleaded n e g l i g e n t entrustment as a type of c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence, imputed t o Penn a s t h e e n t r u s t o r , n o t t o t h e e n t r u s t e e , Dewey. Respondents w e r e n o t t r y i n g t o impute t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t s of t h e d r i v e r t o Penn, t h e passenger and owner of t h e van. The Restatement (Second) of T o r t s supports n e g l i g e n t entrustment a s a defense when used a s a s p e c i e s of c o n t r i - butory negligence. The Restatement provides t h a t an a c t o r i s n e g l i g e n t i f he allows a t h i r d p a r t y t o use an o b j e c t under t h e a c t o r ' s c o n t r o l when t h e a c t o r knows, o r has reason t o know, of an unreasonable r i s k of harm t o o t h e r s . Restatement (Second) of T o r t s SS308, 390 (1965). The second assignment of e r r o r Penn a s s e r t s i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court I n s t r u c t i o n No. 25 f a i l e d t o charge t h e jury p r o p e r l y on t h e elements of n e g l i g e n t entrustment. Penn, however, f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a t t r i a l . The c o n t e n t i o n t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n does n o t s t a t e t h e l a w cannot be considered a b s e n t a proper o b j e c t i o n a t t r i a l . Roberts Realty Corp. v . C i t y of Great F a l l s (1972), 160 Mont. 144, 500 P.2d 956. The t h i r d assignment of e r r o r a s s e r t e d i s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o admit a p e t i t i o n of t h e Rosebud County Commissioners and o t h e r documents concerning t h e warning d e v i s e s a t t h e Koselka c r o s s i n g . Penn maintains t h e absence of t h e s e e v i d e n t i a r y documents precluded him from e s t a b l i s h - i n g n o t i c e a s an element of negligence and t h e necessary state of mind f o r an award of p u n i t i v e damages. P r i o r t o t r i a l , both p a r t i e s moved - i n limine t o exclude c e r t a i n documents i n c l u d i n g those a t i s s u e now. A t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e s e motions, Penn agreed t h e documentary evidence was unnecessary i f t h e S t a t e and Burlington Northern would admit t o t h e d a t e they received n o t i c e of t h e dangerous n a t u r e of t h e c r o s s i n g . Although Penn s t a t e d t h a t he wished t o p r e s e r v e h i s p o s i t i o n regarding t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e documents, a l l p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a s t i p u l a t i o n regarding t h e d a t e of n o t i c e . The s t i p u l a t i o n was b e f o r e t h e jury, and Penn f a i l e d t o o f f e r t h e p e t i t i o n o r o t h e r r e l e v a n t documents i n t o evidence o r make any o f f e r of proof a t t r i a l . The s t i p u l a t i o n e n t e r e d i n t o by Penn f o r e c l o s e s a review of t h i s i s s u e . I t i s improper t o raise an i s s u e upon appeal as t o a q u e s t i o n of law o r f a c t a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s have e n t e r e d i n t o a s t i p u l a t i o n as t o t h a t law o r f a c t . Oregon Automobile Insurance Company v. Watkins (1973), 264 O r . 464, 506 P.2d 179. The f o u r t h assignment o f e r r o r i s t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n p e r m i t t i n g defense w i t n e s s Van Schwartz- t o t e s t i f y a t t r i a l concerning h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s from an exper- iment. Penn contends Van Schwartz lacked t h e necessary q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o t e s t i f y a s an e x p e r t witness and t h e experiment w a s conducted under d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s from t h o s e e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . Penn cannot a s s e r t Van Schwartz's l a c k of q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a s a ground f o r r e v e r s a l s i n c e h i s o b j e c t i o n on t h i s ground was n o t timely. A t t r i a l , Penn o b j e c t e d t o testimony con- cerning Van Schwartz's observations long b e f o r e any such testimony was given. H e made no o b j e c t i o n once Van Schwartz began t o t e s t i f y about h i s observations. S i k o r s k i v . Olin (1977) , Mont. , 568 P.2d 571, 34 St.Rep. 1042. Sim- i l a r l y , Penn cannot complain upon appeal t h a t t h e experiment was conducted under c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r e n t from those on t h e n i g h t of t h e a c c i d e n t s i n c e d i f f e r i n g c o n d i t i o n s was n o t a ground f o r h i s o b j e c t i o n a t t r i a l . Hayes v. J.M.S. Const. (1978) - Mont. , 579 P.2d 1225, 35 St.Rep. 722. I n h i s f i f t h and s i x t h assignments of e r r o r , Penn a s s e r t s it was e r r o r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o r e f u s e t o g i v e p l a i n t i f f ' s I n s t r u c t i o n Nos. 24 and 31, which would have charged t h e j u r y t h a t t h e S t a t e and Burlington Northern w e r e n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law. S e c t i o n 61-8-202, MCA r e q u i r e s t h e Department of High- ways t o adopt t h e r e g u l a t i o n s contained i n t h e Manual on T r a f f i c Control Devices. Penn maintains t h a t i n l i g h t of t h i s s t a t u t o r y requirement, it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e Manual has t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t of law. Thus, he contends t h a t t h e S t a t e was n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law i n f a i l i n g t o s i g n a l - i z e t h e Koselka c r o s s i n g i n accordance w i t h t h e Manual. S i m i l a r l y , s e c t i o n 69-14-602, MCA imposes a duty on r a i l r o a d companies t o c o n s t r u c t and maintain "good and s a f e " c r o s s i n g s . Penn a s s e r t s Burlington Northern was n e g l i g e n t as a m a t t e r o f law by v i o l a t i n g s e c t i o n 69-14-602, MCA, i n t h a t it f a i l e d t o i n s t a l l t h e t y p e s of warning d e v i c e s r e q u i r e d by t h e Manual a t extra-hazardous c r o s s i n g s . Penn's c o n t e n t i o n s a r e n o t convincing. Before respon- d e n t s can be charged w i t h negligence i n v i o l a t i n g t h e Manual, it must f i k s t be determined: (1) t h a t t h e Koselka c r o s s i n g was extra-hazardous, and ( 2 ) t h a t f a i l u r e t o i n s t a l l a d d i t i o n a l warning s i g n a l s was t h e proximate cause of Penn's i n j u r i e s . These w e r e q u e s t i o n s of f a c t f o r t h e jury s i n c e c o n f l i c t i n g evidence was o f f e r e d a t t r i a l . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n Montana, t h e Manual does n o t have equal d i g n i t y w i t h s t a t u t o r y law. There must be evidence t h a t t h e Highway Commission d i r e c t e d t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l warning s i g n a l s before Burlington Northern can be charged w i t h a duty t o make such i n s t a l l a t i o n s . ~ i l l i a m s v. Maley (1967), 150 Mont. 261, 434 P.2d 398. here i s no evidence i n t h e record t h a t t h e Highway Commis- s i o n i s s u e d such a d i r e c t i v e . Penn's seventh assignment of e r r o r i s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o charge t h e jury t h a t t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission was n e g l i g e n t a s a matter of law. I n A p r i l 1973, t h e Rosebud County Commissioners presented a p e t i t i o n t o t h e Railroad Commission, now t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission, r e q u e s t i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n of warning d e v i c e s a t t h e Koselka c r o s s i n g . Penn contends t h e Public Service Commission's f a i l u r e t o i s s u e any o r d e r whatsoever v i o l a t e d s e c t i o n 69- 14-622(2), MCA and c o n s t i t u t e d negligence p e r se on t h e p a r t of t h e S t a t e . W e conclude it was n o t e r r o r t o r e f u s e p l a i n t i f f ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 32, t h e P u b l i c Service Commission i n s t r u c t i o n . Such an i n s t r u c t i o n would have i n j e c t e d an i s s u e upon which n e i t h e r s i d e had o f f e r e d any evidence. I t i s n o t e r r o r t o r e f u s e an i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t i s n o t supported by t h e evidence admitted a t t r i a l . Por,ter v . Crum-McKinnon Bldg. Co. (1963), 142 Mont. 74, 381 P.2d 794. Furthermore, t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission's f a i l u r e t o i s s u e any o r d e r , even one r e f u s i n g t o o r d e r i n s t a l l a t i o n of warning d e v i c e s , has no relevance t o c a u s a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e . I n h i s e i g h t h assignment of e r r o r , Penn asserts C o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 26 concerning assumption of r i s k was i n c o r r e c t a s a m a t t e r of law. Penn maintains t h e f a c t s of t h i s cause do n o t involve t h e type of n e g l i g e n t behavior t o which as- sumption of r i s k a p p l i e s . Penn contends t h a t assumption of r i s k a p p l i e s only t o a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a p l a i n t i f f and a defendant, n o t between a p l a i n t i f f and a t h i r d p a r t y . H e f u r t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t it i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p o i n t t o t h e negligence of Dewey, t h e d r i v e r , and Penn's assumption of Dewey's n e g l i g e n t o p e r a t i o n of h i s van. W e cannot agree w i t h Penn's contentions. C o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 26 was adapted from Montana J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n Guide No. 13.00 and i s a c o r r e c t statement of Montana law a s it e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e t h i s cause a r o s e . See Hoffman v. Herzog (1971), 158 Mont. 296, 4 9 1 P.2d 713. C o n f l i c t i n g evidence was admitted a t t r i a l a s t o whether Penn assumed t h e r i s k of h i s i n j u r i e s by r i d i n g w i t h an incompetent d r i v e r . Thus, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was proper. Penn's n i n t h assignment of e r r o r i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n determining t h a t t h e respondents w e r e n o t l i a b l e f o r p u n i t i v e damages. O n October 11, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r s t r i k i n g Penn's claim a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e f o r p u n i t i v e damages on t h e ground t h a t s e c t i o n 82-4324, RCM (1947) disallowed p u n i t i v e damages a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . S i m i l a r l y , on t h e l a s t day of t h e t r i a l , respondents o b j e c t e d t o Penn c a l l i n g a witness t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n of Burlington Northern a s a measure by which puni- t i v e damages could be assessed. The District Court s u s t a i n e d t h e o b j e c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i - dence t o submit t h e i s s u e of p u n i t i v e damages t o t h e jury. Penn contends t h e s e r u l i n g s , when combined w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o admit i n t o evidence t h e p e t i t i o n of t h e Rosebud County Commissioners, precluded Penn from pursuing t h a t p o r t i o n of Penn's cause regarding an award of p u n i t i v e damages. A s p r e v i o u s l y noted, Penn e n t e r e d i n t o a s t i p u l a t i o n regarding t h e p e t i t i o n of t h e Rosebud County Commissioners, and t h a t s t i p u l a t i o n was before t h e jury. Having e n t e r e d i n t o t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , Penn cannot now claim prejudice from his failure to have the petition admitted at trial. See Oregon Automobile Insurance Company, supra. The jury returned a verdict of no liability for actual damages on the part of the State and Burlington Northern. Such a verdict precludes an award of pufiitive damages, thus Penn suffered no harm from the District Court's ruling regarding punitive damages. Herde8gen v. Oxarart (1963), 141 Mont. 464, 378 P.2d 655. Having found no substance to Penn's assignments of error, the jury verdict in favor of the State and Burlington Northern is affirmed. We concur: Chief Justice Justices Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy deems himself disqualified in this case. Following oral argument herein, Justice Sheehy learned that one of his former associates may have represented a party having a collateral claim arising out of the incident on which this case is based. Since it appears that such relationship of attorney-client existed before he c a m e on t h e Court, J u s t i c e Sheehy h a s taken no p a r t i n t h e d e c i s i o n o r opinion h e r e i n . M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l and J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea concur i n t h e r e s u l t .