Case Title: SLAGSVOLD v JOHNSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13023 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 7 5 MARY SLAGSVOLD, Executrix of the Estate of Esther Christina Johnston, Deceased, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - C. A L L A N JOHNSON, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Mcnonough, Cox and Simonton, Glendive, Montana Dale Cox argued and Richard A. Simonton argued, Glendive, Montana For Respondent : Anderson, Symmes , Forbes, Peete and Brown, Billings, Montana Richard F. Cebull argued, Billings, Montana Submitted : September 25, 1975 - - Decided : 9 0 1975 YK. Jus c i c e !desley 3as iles dellvereil t h e pinion of t h e Court. O n November 21, 1974, the Hon. Robert H. Wilson, presiding over a jury t r i a l i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, granted a J i r e c t e d verdict t o defendant C. Allan Johnson i n t h e wrongful death and survival a c t i o n brought by Mary Slagsvold, executrix of the e s t a t e of Esther Christina Johnston. p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent Esther Christina Johnston was a vassenger i n an automobile driven by Carl Dohlman, whose vehicle was involved i n a c o l l i s i o n with one driven by C. Allan Johnson a i the i n t e r s e c t i o n of U. S. Highway 87 and t h e north frontage road near B i l l i n g s on October 22, 1971. The c o l l i s i o n took place a f t e r Dohlman stopped a t t h e stop jign where the frontage road crosses Highway 87. Dohlman then proceeded t o c r o s s the highway, headed i n a southerly d i r e c t i o n . Defendant meanwhile was t r a v e l i n g i n t h e southernmost eastbound Lane of Highway 87 a t a speed of 35-40 miles per hour, which was within t h e 45 miles per hour speed l i m i t . Dohlman successfully navigated across t h e westbound lanes of t h e highway t o a t r a f f i c island i n t h e middle of t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , where he again stopped. But Dohlman then attempted t o t r a v e r s e t h e eastbound lanes i n a Less than d i r e c t fashion. The f a c t s a r e i n dispute concerning t h e exact manner of t h i s crossing, but t h e testimony a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e s ;hat t h e Dohlman vehicle was a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y turned i n t o t h e northern eastbound lane, then turned sharply t o the r i g h t (south) and f i n a l l y proceeded across t h e southern eastbound lane toward a gas s t a t i o n located d i r e c t l y south of Highway 87. Defendant's vehicle remained i n t h e southern eastbound lane and c o l l i d e d with t h e Dohlman vehicle a s it crossed t h a t southernmost lane i n f r o n t of t h e gas 3cation. P l a i n t i f f ' s decedent was injured i n the accident and died t h e next day. I.'his a c t i o r ~ was Sroilgni a g a i n ~ t 3ohLrnan and defendant bur settlement was reached with Dohlman prior t o t r i a l . A t t r i a l a f t e r p l a i n t i f f had put on her case, defendant moved f o r a directed verdict. That motion was granted and i s the subject of t h i s appeal. P l a i n t i f f presents two issues f o r review, which can be corrlbined i n t o a single issue by determining whether there was evidence of defendant's negligence, requiring submission of the case ro the jury. The p a r t i e s agree the law of Montana on directed verdicts i s stated i n Autio v. Miller, 92 Mont. 150, 167, 1 1 P.2d 1039: "* * * a s a general r u l e the issues of negligence and contributory negligence must be decided by the jury under appropriate instructions * * * and the settled r u l e i s t h a t a case should not be taken from the jury unless it follows a s a matter of law t h a t p l a i n t i f f cannot recover upon any view of the evidence including the legitimate inferences t o be drawn from it; every f a c t w i l l be deemed proved which the evidence cends t o prove. I I L t i s a l s o s t a t e d i n Lamb v. Page, 153 Mont. 171, 178, L79, A55 V. 2d 337, which c i t e d t h i s passage from " 2 ~ Barron and Yoltzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, $1075, p. 387 * +< ; k 11 1 Thus a verdict may be directed i f there i s no evidence o r a t most a mere s c i n t i l l a on which t o base a verdict f o r the party having the burden of proof. The question f o r the court i s not whether chere i s l i t e r a l l y no evidence, but whether there i s any upon which the jury could properly proceed t o find a verdict. A directed verdict i s proper only where there i s no controverted material issue of f a c t f o r the jury. I f viewing the evidence i n l i g h t most favor- able t o p l a i n t i f f , there should be no substantial evidence t o support a verdict f o r him, the defendant's niotion should be granted. $ 1 I In viewing the evidence, the party against whom the motion i s made must be given the benefit of every Legitimate inference which can be drawn from the evi- dence; even i f the f a c t s a r e undisputed, the case must 30 t o the jury i f conflicting inferences may be drawn from the facts. I 11 While p l a i n t i f f urges t h a t there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence for a j u r y t o find defendant negligent, we hold a s a matter of law on the basis of the evidence presented t h a t defendant acted within the standard of conduct required of automobile drivers i n such .5ituatioris. L n ~ n i s instance, leiendai?~ was che iavul ed d r i v e r under section 32-2172, K.C.M. 1947, which modifies the general r i g h t of way r u l e s of section 32-2170, R.C.M. 1947. The d r i v e r of the automobile i n which p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent was a passenger was under t h e duty of section 32-2172, which provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "(a) The d r i v e r of a vehicle s h a l l stop a s required by section 32-2195 a t t h e entrance t o a through highway and s h a l l y i e l d t h e r i g h t of way - - t o other vehicles which have entered t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n from s a i d through highway o r which a r e approaching so c l o s e l y on s a i d through highway a s t o c o n s t i t u t e an immediate hazard * * f:." (Em~hasis supplied). Kacher than y i e l d t h e r i g h t of way t o defendant a s r e - quired by s t a t u t e , Dohlman, according t o h i s own testimony, attempted t o s i g n a l t o defendant a s a f e way around h i s c a r a s he proceeded t o c r o s s Highway 87 i n f r o n t of defendant. This maneuver by the Dohlman vehicle a s it attempted t o c r o s s t h e eastbound lanes of Highway 87 i s not a recognized o r accepted s i g n a l between d r i v e r s . Hence defendant was under no l e g a l duty 11 t~ look out f o r o r r e a c t t o such a "jog" o r squirm." of a vehicle e r ~ tering t h e highway i n f r o n t of him. Defendant could reasonably have believed t h a t t h e i~ohlrnan vehicle was making a l e f t t u r n i n t o the northern e a s t - Sound lane r a t h e r than proceeding across t h e southern eastbound Lane i n f r o n t of him. N o b a s i s e x i s t s f o r finding defendant negligent i n such a case. Faced with such evidence and t h e s t a t u t o r y duty of s e c t i o n 32-2172, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t properly granted defendant's motion f o r a directed verdict and properly denied p l a i n t i f f ' s motion t o s e t d s i d e t k d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and grant a new t r i a l . Judgment i s affirmed. We Concur: /,-J f Justices.