Title: GEHNERT v CULLINAN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

NO. 83-32 IN THE SUPRl3ME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984 HAROLD GEHNERT , Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- JOHN CULLINAN, WILLIAM CULLINAN, PAT CULLINAN and ROBERT CULLINAN, Defendants and Respondents. ........................................ LINA BRENNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- ELOISE CULLINAN and JOHN CULLINAN, Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Dawson, The Honorable Leonard Langen, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana For Respondents : Lucas & Monaghan; Thomas M. Monaghan argued, Miles City, Montana Submitted: June 7, 1984 Decided: ~ugust 9, 1984 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Dawson, involving Harold Gehnert and Lina Brenner. Each of the plaintiffs/appellants sued the defendants, and their lawsuits were combined for trial. Nearly eight years after the incidents which gave rise to the lawsuits, a jury rendered its verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, nine in favor and three against, awarding the plaintiffs their medical expenses in the amount of $614.32 and each was awarded an additional $18,000 in punitive damages. An appeal was taken by the plaintiffs, briefs were filed and this Court ordered a rebriefing by both parties. An opinion in this case was issued on March 2, 1984. A petition for rehearing was filed by appellant Gehnert and this Court granted a rehearing. The opinion was withdrawn and the case was argued before the Court en banc on June 7, 1984. Having heard the arguments of counsel, we reissue our opinion of March 2, 1984. Three issues are presented for this Court's consideration: (1) whether the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering and award only special damages, constitutes an inadequate recovery for compensatory damages; (2) whether an award for punitive damages can properly be considered in determining the adequacy of the compensatory damages award; and (3) whether the trial court's failure to properly i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y is a f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e damages a r e inadequate. The p l a i n t i f f s were neighbors of t h e d e f e n d a n t s and became involved i n a land d i s p u t e over l e a s e d p r o p e r t y t h a t had been l e a s e d by B . J . Brenner i n 1969. Harold Gehnert is t h e b r o t h e r of Lina Brenner, B . J . B r e n n e r ' s wife. The l e a s e was f o r f i v e y e a r s , t e r m i n a t i n g on June 2 3 , 1974. A t t h e t i m e t h e land was l e a s e d , according t o Brenner, it was unimproved and about t e n o r twelve a c r e s of t h e p r o p e r t y was s u s c e p t i b l e t o improvement, s o he c l e a r e d it, fenced it, l e v e l e d it, diked it, d i t c h e d it, p l a n t e d it and i r r i g a t e d it. I n 1974, t h e l a s t year of h i s l e a s e , he p l a n t e d a l f a l f a and corn on t h i s acreage. According t o B . J . Brenner, h i s l e a s e provided t h a t i f he gave t h e l e s s o r t h i r t y days n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g he would have t h e r i g h t t o renew t h e l e a s e f o r an a d d i t i o n a l f i v e y e a r s . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n A p r i l 1974, he gave n o t i c e by l e t t e r and followed t h a t n o t i c e up w i t h a new l e a s e and a check f o r another year I s r e n t . I n J u l y of 1974, a f t e r t h e f i r s t f i v e year p e r i o d had t e r m i n a t e d , t h e d e f e n d a n t , J o h n C u l l i n a n , came t o Mr. B r e n n e r ' s home and advised him t h a t he and h i s b r o t h e r , William, had l e a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y . P l a i n t i f f Brenner a d v i s e d C u l l i n a n t h a t h i s own l e a s e was s u p e r i o r t o t h a t of t h e C u l l i n a n s because he had an o p t i o n t o renew t h e o r i g i n a l l e a s e which o p t i o n had been e x e r c i s e d . T h e r e a f t e r Brenner continued t o farm and manage t h e premises. H e h a r v e s t e d one c r o p of hay and swathed t h e second c u t t i n g . The second c r o p of hay was baled and removed by t h e C u l l i n a n s . A t t r i a l t h e y admitted e n t e r i n g t h e premises, b a l i n g t h e hay and t a k i n g it f o r t h e i r own use without n o t i c e , e x p l a n a t i o n o r payment t o Brenner. I n a d d i t i o n t h e y took t h e t h i r d c u t t i n g t h a t y e a r . Corn on t h e l e a s e d p r o p e r t y was h a r v e s t e d and i n September, c a t t l e belonging t o t h e Brenners and Gehnert were t u r n e d o n t o t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n t o " c l e a n up" f o l l o w i n g t h e h a r v e s t . It was a t t h i s t i m e , e a r l y i n September, t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t John C u l l i n a n , c a l l e d Gehnert, and t o l d him t o move t h e cows o f f t h e l e a s e d p r o p e r t y o r he, C u l l i n a n , would move them. Gehnert t o l d C u l l i n a n t h a t h i s brother-in-law Brenner had the l e a s e and t h a t he and Brenner were c l e a n i n g up some corn on t h e p r o p e r t y . T h e r e a f t e r he c a l l e d t h e s h e r i f f f o r a s s i s t a n c e , and t h e s h e r i f f came o u t t o monitor t h i s d i s p u t e . On September 1 2 t h , Gehnert and John and William C u l l i n a n a r r i v e d a t t h e p r o p e r t y . D i s r e g a r d i n g G e h n e r t l s demands t h a t t h e c a t t l e b e l e f t a l o n e , t h e C u l l i n a n s broke down t h e f e n c e s and w i t h t h e a i d of o t h e r members of t h e i r f a m i l y drove t h e c a t t l e through f e n c e s o n t o t h e highway, s c a t t e r i n g them f o r a h a l f - m i l e from t h e p a s t u r e where t h e y had been g r a z i n g . Needless t o s a y t h i s caused a c e r t a i n amount of u n f r i e n d l i n e s s with t h e neighbors. A f t e r t h e c a t t l e had been g a t h e r e d , t h e y were t r a i l e d from t h e Brenner l a n d a c r o s s t h e l e a s e d land and p u t i n c o r r a l s a d j a c e n t t o t h e l e a s e d land f o r s o r t i n g - o u t purposes. The f o l l o w i n g day Gehnert and Midge B r i l z , Lina B r e n n e r l s pregnant d a u g h t e r , went t o t h e c o r r a l s , mounted two h o r s e s and s o r t e d t h e c a t t l e . G e h n e r t l s and S r e n n e r l s c a t t l e were s e p a r a t e d , w h i l e Lina Brenner watched from her c a r . They then began t o move t h e c a t t l e but while t h e y were being moved, s i x of t h e C u l l i n a n s a r r i v e d on t h e l e a s e d land. According t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s , t h e C u l l i n a n s spread o u t through t h e c a t t l e t r y i n g t o s c a t t e r and d i s o r g a n i z e them and then t r i e d t o d r i v e t h e c a t t l e o u t on t o t h e road a g a i n . The p l a i n t i f f s t r i e d t o keep t h e c a t t l e from being d r i v e n from t h e p a s t u r e by t h e C u l l i n a n s . Lina Brenner became f r i g h t e n e d a t t h i s t i m e and drove o u t s i d e t h e perimeter of t h e p a s t u r e t o t h e same g a t e where t h e C u l l i n a n s had parked t h e i r c a r . She was concerned t h a t t h e C u l l i n a n s might harm her pregnant daughter who was working t h e c a t t l e . According t o h e r s t o r y , when she g o t t o where t h e a c t i v i t y was going on s h e stopped t h e c a r . E l o i s e C u l l i n a n t h e n e n t e r e d her c a r from t h e passenger s i d e , grabbed her by t h e h a i r , p u l l e d her from t h e c a r and pinned h e r on t h e ground. When E l o i s e g o t o f f of h e r and Lina t r i e d t o s t a n d , John C u l l i n a n shoved her back t o t h e ground. About t h a t t i m e Harold Gehnert s t a r t e d toward E l o i s e t o come t o L i n a ' s a i d . H e was mounted on a h o r s e , and f o u r of t h e C u l l i n a n men surrounded h i s h o r s e , s l a p p e d and punched him and e i t h e r knocked him o r p u l l e d him from h i s h o r s e t o t h e ground. According t o t h e testimony, a l l of t h i s abuse of t h e p l a i n t i f f s took p l a c e on t h a t p a r t of t h e l e a s e d l a n d t h a t was fenced, improved and p l a n t e d by B. J. Brenner. The p l a i n t i f f s argue on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t improperly d e c l i n e d t o g r a n t them judgment on t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y when t h e evidence was c l o s e d , and a l s o f a i l e d t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y s o t h a t it c o u l d , under t h e law, d e t e r m i n e t h e m a t t e r . They a l l e g e t h a t t h e y o f f e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s , a l l of which were r e f u s e d . A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , t h r e e i s s u e s were p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s Court f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . However, i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f i r s t i s s u e is d i s p o s i t i v e , w e w i l l n o t d i s c u s s t h e o t h e r i s s u e s . The e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s s u f f e r e d s e r i o u s and p a i n f u l i n j u r y . The i n j u r y t o Harold G e h n e r t ' s back is such t h a t it may have been rebroken and t h e r e w a s e v i d e n c e t h a t he was permanently i n j u r e d and d i s a b l e d . Lina Brenner s u f f e r e d a r e l a p s e i n t o a s e v e r e d e p r e s s i o n and w h i l e h e r p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s may have been modest, t h e y were accompanied by p a i n . Her t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d h a i r had been p u l l e d from h e r head. The j u r y found i n t h i s c a s e t h a t t h e C u l l i n a n s committed wrongful a c t s t o w a r d t h e p l a i n t i f f s , a n d t h e i r a t t a c k on t h e p l a i n t i f f s was t h e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d . L i a b i l i t y having been e s t a b l i s h e d , it w a s t h e j u r y ' s d u t y t o award damages f o r p a i n and s u f f e r i n g f o r t h e s e r i o u s i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d . See, A l l e r s v. W i l l i s (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 643 P.2d 592, 39 St.Rep. 745; Ankeny v. Grunstead ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 128, 551 P.2d 1027; H o l e n s t e i n v. Andrews ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 60, 530 P.2d 476; and Walker v. Alaska Road Commission (Alaska 1 9 6 4 ) , 388 P.2d 406. The judgment is v a c a t e d and t h e c a s e is remanded t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r new t r i a l on t h e i s s u e of damages o n l y . W e concur: 8. $i+L&,rwe-ep Chief J u s t i c e ~ d f i o r a b l e ~ o h n M. McCarvel, ~ i ~ s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of Mr. J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson.