Case Title: HOLENSTEIN v ANDREWS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 12711

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12711 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 L A V E R N E HOLENSTEIN, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - T E R R Y A N D R E W S , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Henningsen, Purcell and Genzberger, Butte, Montana Rex F. Henningsen argued, Butte, Montana Robert McCarthy appeared, Butte, Montana For Respondent : Berg, Angel, Andriolo & Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Charles F. Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted : November 20, 1974 Decided: JAN10 7 ' - J - Filed: J&fl: : M r . Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. I n an automobile accident case i n which defendant admitted l i a b i l i t y , t h e jury awarded p l a i n t i f f no damages. P l a i n t i f f appeals from the judgment and denial of her motion f o r a new t r i a l . The accident occurred on the afternoon of June 9, 1968, on North Eleventh S t r e e t i n Bozeman following graduation ceremonies a t Montana S t a t e University. P l a i n t i f f Laverne Holenstein was a f r o n t s e a t passenger i n her husband's 1967 Cadillac which was being driven by her daughter. While the Cadillac was stopped i n a l i n e of t r a f f i c waiting f o r the preceding c a r s t o move forward, it was struck from behind by a following c a r driven by defendant Terry Andrews . P l a i n t i f f sued defendant i n the d i s t r i c t court, Gallatin County, f o r $41,500 damages consisting of medical expenses, l o s s of income, and general damages. She contended the accident aggravated a pre- e x i s t i n g a r t h r i t i c and degenerative d i s c problem i n her neck. I n the p r e t r i a l order, defendant admitted l i a b i l i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the accident. The case went t o t r i a l on the issues of p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s and damages. A t t r i a l , four witnesses t e s t i f i e d f o r p l a i n t i f f : p l a i n t i f f , her husband, her daughter and one of her physicians, D r . John Davidson. Defendant was the sole witness i n her behalf. P l a i n t i f f and her daughter t e s t i f i e d the impact from the col- l i s i o n was severe. P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d t h e impact threw her forward, she h i t e i t h e r t h e padded dash or the window, and snapped her back; t h a t t h i s l e f t her stunned, s o r t of dizzy and half sick. Her daughter generally corroborated her account of the accident. Following the accident p l a i n t i f f went t o her daughter's home i n Bozeman f o r t h i r t y t o forty-five minutes, and then drove home t o Butte. P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t p r i o r t o the accident she was a normal, healthy woman who worked i n the family business, t h e Red Rooster Supper Club; t h a t since the accident she i s unable t o perform many of the duties of the business and her household duties be- cause of the neck pain. Her husband corroborated her testimony concerning her inability to perform many of these tasks. Plaintiff first consulted a doctor on July 29, 1968, fifty days after the automobile accident. At this time she consulted Dr. D.E. Staples, her family physician. X-rays of her neck and spine were taken. He ordered ultrasonic treatments, massage, and traction. During August plaintiff took ten of these treatments. In January 1969 plaintiff consulted Dr. Plett, an ear specialist. The record is barren concerning the nature and purpose of this consultation. On May 26, 1970, a further X-ray was taken of plaintiff's cervical spine. The radiologist's interpretation indicated the presence of arthritic spurs and that "these have changed very little since the last previous examination" [the X-rays taken on July 29, 1968 1. In September 1970 plaintiff fell down the basement stairs at the Red Rooster Supper Club injuring her hand and thumb. On January 19, 1971, plaintiff consulted Dr. Davidson. He took her history; had X-rays taken and compared them with previous X-rays; and arrived at a diagnosis of "degenerated intervertebral discs and arthritis of the fifth, sixth, seventh neck bones". Plaintiff again consulted Dr. Davidson in February. Another X-ray was taken the day before trial. The X-rays taken on July 29, 1968; May 26, 1970; January 19, 1971: and the day before trial, were examined and compared by Dr. Davidson prior to trial. Dr. Davidson testified that in his opinion the automobile accident aggravated the condition in plaintiff ' s neck. He indicated that "the arthritis is progressing and the degeneration of the disc space is also progressing." He admitted that the arthritic and degerative conditions could progress without trauma; and that he could not predict the degree of progression in such case. Plaintiff also consulted two orthopedic specialists i n 1971, D r . R. J. Johnston of Missoula and D r . Sherman Coleman of Salt Lake City. She had three acupuncture treatments in Los Angeles. She consulted other doctors thereafter. Evidence was introduced a t t r i a l establishing substantial medical expense incurred by plaintiff. Defendant was the sole witness in her behalf. Her testimony was confined t o the circumstances of the accident. The jury returned this verdict, dated and signed by the foreman: "We, the jury in the above entitled cause, find in favor of the plaintiff, and assess her damages a t the sum of $-0-.I1 Judgment was entered on the verdict. Plaintiff's motion for a new t r i a l was denied. Plaintiff appeals from both. Plaintiff contends the jury disregarded uncontroverted medical and lay testimony that she suffered an injury to her neck in the accident which aggravated a preexisting arthritic and disc condi- tion. She argues that this renders the verdict one resulting from passion and prejudice entitling her to a new t r i a l . Defendant contends the jury verdict was equivalent to a determination that plaintiff was not injured in the accident. She argues that such determination was supported by substantial credible evidence and the judgment should be aff inned. The issue on appeal i s the sufficiency of the evidence to support an award of no damages. The crux of this issue i s whether the evidence i s sufficient to support a finding that plaintiff was not injured in the accident. In the district court the burden i s on the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was injured in the accident and that the damages she claims were proximately caused by such injuries. Knowlton v. Sandaker, 150 Mont. 438, 436 P.2d 98. On appeal it i s the function of the Supreme Court to determine whether there i s substantial credible evidence to support the verdict and judgment. Kirby v. Kelly, 161 Mont. 66, 504 P.2d 683 and cases cited therein. In so doing, w e review the evidence i n the light most favor able to the prevailing party i n the d i s t r i c t court, here the defendant. Rogers v. Hilger Chevrolet Co., 155 Mont. 1, 465 P.2d 834. What evidence supports a finding that plaintiff was not injured i n the accident? There i s no direct evidence that she was un- injured. There i s evidence of circumstances inconsistent with injury i n the accident. There was no complaint of injury a t the accident scene. The accident was not reported to an officer directing t r a f f i c nearby. The damage to the two vehicles was minimal. Plaintiff did not consult a doctor u n t i l f i f t y days a£ t e r the accident. plaintiff's problems with her neck could be entirely the result of preexisting degenerative a r t h r i t i c and disc condi- tions. Her neck problems could progressively deteriorate without trauma. Arrayed against t h i s evidence i s the positive testimony of plaintiff and her daughter that plaintiff was i n fact injured in the accident. Plaintiff testified she had no pain i n her neck prior to the accident and constant pain thereafter. The a r t h r i t i c and disc condition i n her neck was apparently undiscovered and unknown u n t i l her consultation with her family physician f i f t y days after the accident. D r . Davidson testified that i n h i s opinion the automobile accident aggravated the condition i n p l a i n t i f f ' s neck. None of this testimony was directly contradicted. The jury was entitled to disregard the expert medical opinion evidence that the accident aggravated the preexisting condition of p l a i n t i f f ' s neck. The jury was so instructed by the d i s t r i c t court without objection: "The r u l e s of evidence ordinarily do not permit the opinion of a witness t o be received a s evidence. A n exception t o t h i s r u l e e x i s t s i n the case of expert witnesses. A person who by education, study, and experience has become an expert i n any a r t , science, o r profession, and who i s called a s a witness, may give h i s opinion a s t o any such matter i n which he i s versed and which i s material t o the case. 11 You should consider such expert opinion and you should weigh t h e reasons, i f any, given f o r it. You a r e not bound, however, by such an opinion. Give it t h e weight t o which you deem i t e n t i t l e d , whether t h a t be great o r s l i g h t , and you may r e j e c t i t i f i n your judgment t h e reasons f o r giving it a r e unsound. 1 I A d i f f e r e n t r u l e applies t o the non-opinion evidence of p l a i n t i f f and her daughter t o the e f f e c t t h a t p l a i n t i f f was in- jured i n the accident. The general r u l e i n such cases i s t h a t un- contradicted credible evidence cannot be disregarded by t h e court o r jury. Faith Lutheran Retirement Home v. V e i s , 156 Mont. 38, 473 P.2d 503; Smith v. Polish, 150 Mont. 340, 435 P.2d 776; Burns v. Fisher, 132 Mont. 26, 313 P.2d 1044. But t h i s does not mean t h a t where t h e r e i s d i r e c t testimony i n t h e record, uncon- tradicted by other d i r e c t testimony, t h a t the court or jury i s bound thereby o r cannot render a decision contrary t o such d i r e c t testimony. 0 ' ~ u l l i v a n v. Simpson, 123 Mont. 314, 212 P.2d 435. A statement of t h i s principle by the United States Supreme Court i s expressed i n t h i s language: I I Undoubtedly, a s a general r u l e , positive testimony a s t o a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t , uncontradicted by anyone, should control the decision of t h e court; but t h a t r u l e admits of many exceptions. There may be such an inherent improbability i n the statements of a witness a s t o induce t h e court o r jury t o disregard h i s evidence, even i n t h e absence of d i r e c t c o n f l i c t i n g testimony. He may be contradicted by the f a c t s he s t a t e s a s com- p l e t e l y a s by d i r e c t adverse testimony; and there may be so many omissions i n h i s account of particular trans- actions, o r of h i s own conduct, a s t o discredit h i s whole story. H i s manner, too, of t e s t i f y i n g may give rise t o doubts of h i s s i n c e r i t y , and c r e a t e the impression t h a t he i s giving a wrong coloring t o material facts. A l l these things may properly be considered i n determining t h e weight which should be given t o h i s statements, although there be no adverse verbal testimony adduced." Quock Ting v. United S t a t e s , 140 U.S. 417, 420, 1 1 S.Ct. 733, 35 L ed 501, quoted with approval i n O'Sullivan, supra. The jury i s not bound t o believe a l l t h a t it hears. Walker v. Mink, 117 Mont. 351, 158 P.2d 630. Credibility i s not commensurate with t h e vehemence with which a witness swears, but it i s t e s t i f y i n g credibly t h a t controls. McLaughlin v. Corcoran, 104 Mont. 590, 69 P.2d 597. Here, the jury was instructed without objection t h a t : I t In weighing t h e testimony of a witness, you should take i n t o account h i s i n t e r e s t o r want of i n t e r e s t i n t h e re- s u l t of the case, h i s appearance on the witness stand, h i s manner of t e s t i f y i n g , h i s apparent candor o r want of candor, and whether he i s supported o r contradicted b y - t h e f a c t s and circumstances a s shown by the evidence. I I The jury simply weighed the positive statements of p l a i n t i f f and her daughter against t h e adverse circumstantial evidence and found t h a t p l a i n t i f f had not proved she was injured i n the accident by a preponderance of the evidence. It rendered a verdict of no damages accordingly. W e hold the adverse circumstantial evidence previously s e t f o r t h s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e verdict and judgment when considered i n the l i g h t most favor able t o defendant who pre- vailed i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. J u s t i c e Ue. Concur : ,lZ. ' Chief J u s t i c e I N TKE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA No. 12711 L A V E R N E HOLENSTEIN, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, VS. TERRY A N D R E W S , Defendant and Respondent O R D E R - - CLERK OF SUPREME COURT STATE OF YONTAU PER CURIAM: I T I S O R D E R E D t h a t t h e following a d d i t i o n s be made i n t h e above named cause: O n page 5, t h e l a s t l i n e on t h e page, j u s t i n f r o n t of t h e colon a t t h e end of t h e sentence add: (and i n f a c t unobjectionable) : O n page 7 , l i n e 5 from t h e t o p of t h e page, please remove t h e word " t h a t " a t t h e end of t h e l i n e and i n s e r t : (and i n fact unobjectionable) : DATED t h i s 14th day of January, 1975.