Title: BERDINE v SANDERS COUNTY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12487 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1974 LESLIE BERDINE and KENNETH H. HAGEN, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -vs - SANDERS C O U N T Y et a 1. , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honor3ble E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Tipp and Hoven, Missoula, Montana Raymond Tipp argued, Missoula , Montana For Respondents : Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula , Montana William Evan Jones appeared and Gary Graham argued, Missoula , Montana Submitted : February 27, 1974 Decided :APR - 4 1974 F i l e d : APR - 4 I T 4 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal by t h e p l a i n t i f f s from a v e r d i c t and judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court of Sanders County, s i t t i n g with a jury, i n favor of defendants and from t h e d e n i a l by t h e d i s t r i c t court of p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r new t r i a l . This cause was commenced by p l a i n t i f f s , Kenneth N. Hagen and L e s l i e Berdine, t o recover damages f o r personal i n j u r i e s from Sanders County, t h e Sanders County Board of Commissioners, t h e Commissioners and Paul Douglas Albano, an employee of Sanders County. E s s e n t i a l l y t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i s a s follows: O n November 28, 1970, defendant Paul Douglas Albano was plowing snow on t h e Lower Heron Road, a graveled road, i n Sanders County. There were four t o s i x inches of snow covering t h e road. Albano was driving a 1969 Ford truck on which was mounted a snow- plow with an angle blade 12 f e e t i n width which because of its angle plowed an 8 f o o t width. The portion of the blade on d r i v e r Albano's l e f t was f l u s h with t h e edge of t h e truck and t h e portion on h i s r i g h t extended 2 f e e t and 9 inches beyond t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e truck. Albano s t a r t e d plowing the road going w e s t with t h e l e f t portion of t h e blade i n t h e center of t h e road throwing t h e snow toward t h e outside o r north s i d e of t h e road. He then proceeded e a s t along t h e road again with t h e l e f t portion of t h e plow a t t h e center of road t o make s u r e t h a t he cleaned t h e center. Albano next proceeded west along t h e road and a t t h e extreme r i g h t shoulder of t h e road i n order t o completely clean t h e r i g h t hand portion of t h e road. The snowplow, which was owned by Sanders County, had a yellow caution l i g h t on top which was operating. P l a i n t i f f s were returning from a deer hunting t r i p i n an automobile operated by p l a i n t i f f Kenneth Hagen. P l a i n t i f f L e s l i e Berdine w a s a passenger i n t h e f r o n t s e a t of t h e automobile. Michael Berdine was a passenger i n t h e back seat. P l a i n t i f f s were t r a v e l i n g e a s t . I t was on h i s t h i r d pass t h a t defendant Albano met plain- t i f f s ' automobile. Snow of t h e depth of about 8 inches s t i l l covered a portion of p l a i n t i f f s ' half of t h e roadway on t h e r i g h t shoulder. A s Albano was meeting p l a i n t i f f s ' automobile, he h i t a s o f t spot on the roadway, t r i e d t o p u l l t h e plow up, but found t h a t it would not r a i s e . H e put on h i s brakes and s t a r t e d t o s h i f t . The blade on t h e snowplow dug i n causing t h e snowplow t o come t o a h a l t . The snowplow stopped about 2 f e e t from where it had dug i n t o t h e roadway. Albano c o l l i d e d with t h e s i d e of p l a i n t i f f s ' c a r which went i n t o t h e borrow p i t on p l a i n t i f f s ' s i d e of t h e road. A t t h e time t h e two vehicles met and t h e snowplow caught i n t h e shoulder of t h e road, t h e back wheels of t h e snowplow s l i d towards t h e borrow p i t causing t h e blade of t h e snowplow t o s l i d e towards t h e center of t h e road. The r e a r wheels of t h e snowplow truck w e r e barely off t h e r i g h t shoulder of t h e road, and t h e f r o n t wheels were on t h e roadway. A s a r e s u l t of t h e accident p l a i n t i f f s incurred h o s p i t a l b i l l s , doctor b i l l s and other medical expenses and damages. Plain- t i f f s i n s t i t u t e d t h i s cause e s s e n t i a l l y a l l e g i n g t h a t defendant Albano was negligent i n f a i l i n g t o keep t h e snowplow i n i t s own t r a f f i c lane and i n f a i l i n g t o operate t h e snowplow i n such a manner a s t o avoid endangering t h e p l a i n t i f f s and t h e c o l l i s i o n . T r i a l was held. Judgment on t h e v e r d i c t was entered f o r t h e de- fendants and p l a i n t i f f s moved f o r a new t r i a l , which was denied. P l a i n t i f f s present four i s s u e s f o r review which can be summarized and s t a t e d a s follows: (1) Whether t h e r e i s substan- t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t of t h e jury; ( 2 ) whether testimony of Undersheriff Williams, Sanders County, was improper, and (3) whether t h e d i s t r i c t court erred i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t p l a i n t i f f s 1 motion f o r a new t r i a l . With respect t o p l a i n t i f f s 1 f i r s t i s s u e , t h i s Court has repeatedly held t h a t t h e f i n d e r of f a c t , t h e jury i n t h e i n s t a n t case, w i l l not be reversed on appeal unless t h e evidence c l e a r l y preponderates a g a i n s t t h e findings. Quitmeyer v. Theroux, 1 4 4 Mont. 302, 307, 395 P.2d 965; Close v. E s t a t e of Ruegsegger, 143 Mont. 32, 4 1 , 386 P.2d 739; Marker v. Z e i l e r , 1 4 0 Mont. 4 4 , 55, 367 P.2d 311. A s we s t a t e d i n Bernhard v. Lincoln County, 150 Mont. 557, "When such a question i s before t h i s court w e w i l l only review t h e evidence t o decide i f t h e v e r d i c t i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. Breen v. I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board (Mont. 1968), 436 P.2d 701. The f a c t t h a t t h e r e were c o n f l i c t s i n t h e testimony does not mean t h e r e i s not s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . W e must accept t h e evidence believed by t h e jury 'unless t h a t evidence i s so inherently impossible o r improbable a s not t o be e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e f * * *.I Wallace v. Wallace, 85 Mont. 492, 279 P. 374, 377, 66 A.L.R. 587 (1929)." After reviewing and considering t h e evidence i n t h e i n s t a n t case, w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t f o r t h e defendants. P l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t reasonable men must conclude t h a t t h e evidence i n t h i s c a s e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e snowplow crossed t h e road i n t o p l a i n t i f f s 1 lane of t r a f f i c , which argument is p l a i n t i f f s 1 basic theory f o r a l l e g i n g t h a t defendant Albano was negligent. A t t h e t r i a l p l a i n t i f f Hagen t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was i n h i s proper lane of t r a f f i c a s he was approaching t h e snowplow and t h a t t h e snowplow came across t h e road and struck h i s vehicle. He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t h i s s i d e of t h e road had been completely plowed but nothing had been plowed on t h e s i d e t h a t t h e snowplow w a s working on. Defendant Albano, who was c a l l e d a s an adverse witness by p l a i n t i f f s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was plowing on t h e extreme o u t e r portion of h i s r i g h t l a n e a f t e r plowing t h e center of both s i d e s . P l a i n t i f f Berdine s t a t e d t h a t a s they were d r i v i n g down t h e road t h a t he looked up and saw t h e snowplow coming across t h e road towards t h e i r vehicle. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r t h e accident t h e snow plow blade extended halfway across t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 lane of t r a f f i c but d i d not know how f a r t h e snowplow blade went t o t h e l e f t of where it was o r i g i n a l l y t r a v e l i n g when it h i t t h e s o f t spot. P l a i n t i f f s 1 expert witness, Jacob Hoover, t e s t i f i e d t h a t when a snowplow d i g s i n t h a t it would tend t o go across t h e road, and he a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e snowplow would not go across towards t h e c e n t e r l i n e i f i t s r e a r wheels were down i n t h e borrow p i t s on t h e r i g h t hand s i d e of t h e road. The following witnesses t e s t i f i e d on behalf of defendants: Undersheriff Williams who investigated t h e accident took measurements a t t h e t i m e . He found t h a t t h e road a t t h e p o i n t of c o l l i s i o n w a s 23 f e e t from shoulder t o shoulder. There was no c e n t e r l i n e . The snowplow blade was 12 f e e t long. Two f e e t and 9 inches of t h e blade extended beyond t h e r i g h t hand shoulder of t h e road. From t h e extreme l e f t portion of t h e blade t o t h e r i g h t shoulder was 9 f e e t . Douglas Smith, a snowplow operator and supervisor of defendant Albano, t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he a r r i v e d a t t h e scene of t h e accident t h a t he was a b l e t o d r i v e h i s f u l l snowplow by t h e accident snowplow on t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 s i d e of t h e road without any problem insofar as space was concerned. Smith a l s o indicated t h a t a f t e r t h e snowplow stopped from i t s impact with t h e s o f t ground, it could not have moved unless someone had pulled it. M r . Lee, a Sanders County Commissioner, went t o t h e acci- d e n t scene and observed t h a t the snowplow blade was on i t s s i d e of the centerline. He also stated that he had plenty of room to drive by the snowplow on plaintiffs' side of the road. As the testimony reveals, there was substantial evidence that the snowplow did not cross the road into plaintiffs' lane of traffic, and the jury obviously believed that it did not. The only physical evidence introduced at the trial was the measure- ments made by Undersheriff Williams. Williams' testimony together with that of Douglas Smith and Lee supports the jury's verdict that defendant Albano was not negligent. Plaintiffs next contend that certain testimony of Under- sheriff Williams was improper. Plaintiffs argue that testimony as to conclusions and opinions of Williams was improperly received by the court and, in addition, that such testimony also constituted evidence of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff Hagen. It is plaintiffs' position that since contributory negligence was not an issue in the case that the verdict is contrary to the law of the case. At the scene of the accident Williams prepared an inves- tigator's accident report, and at the trial he testified as to his findings. Plaintiffs attack the testimony of Williams with respect to his opinions concerning the accident arguing that his opinions were without foundation and invaded the province of the jury. Plaintiffs objected at trial as fcllows: "Q. And did you prepare this in the ordinary course of your investigating business based upon the conversations at the acene with the people who were there? A. Yes sir. "MR. BRAULT: W e o b j e c t t o any question c a l l i n g for a conclusion of this witness, no foundation having been laid, and it invades the province of the jury. "THE COURT: Overruled." The portion of Williams' testimony complained of by plain- tiffs deals with the conclusions and opinions testimony. This testimony was offered a f t e r a d d i t i o n a l foundation had been presented a s t o Williams' q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and i s a s follows: "Q. Based upon those years of experience and t h e many accidents t h a t you investigated, M r . Williams, d i d you then come t o a section of your r e p o r t where- i n you were asked t o s t a t e your opinion a s t o what happened? A. Yes sir. "Q. And i n t h a t paragraph on your r e p o r t , what d i d you set f o r t h i n t h e o f f i c i a l r e p o r t , M r . Williams? A. I have under 'Opinions and Conclusions' t h a t ve- h i c l e number one should have slowed down. "Q. Which i s vehicle number one now? A. The Hagen vehicle. "Q. A l l r i g h t , go ahead. A. The vehicle number one should have slowed down and waited f o r t h e plow t o pass. The yellow l i g h t on t h e snowplow is f o r caution. I f vehicle number one would have been over on t h e s i d e of t h e road t h e plow would have missed him completely." After t h e a d d i t i o n a l foundation had been presented and when Williams was eventually asked a s t o h i s opinions and con- clusions recorded i n h i s findings, no objection was made by p l a i n t i f f s . I t i s a well accepted r u l e of law t h a t an objection r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time on appeal i s not timely. Close, a t p. 38, Boehler v. Sanders, 146 Mont. 158, 163, 4 0 4 P.2d 885. P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r contend t h a t t h e above-quoted t e s t i - mony of Williams c o n s t i t u t e d evidence of contributory negligence. P l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o make any objection t o t h i s testimony on t h a t ground during t h e t r i a l , and f o r t h i s reason alone p l a i n t i f f s ' i s s u e i s without merit. I n any event t h e evidence is evidence of proximate cause which was t h e issue. For t h e foregoing reasons p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r new t r i a l was properly denied and t h e v e r d i c t and judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court a r e hereby affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e We concur: < . ' - **