Title: WADDELL v AMERICAN BREEDERS SERVI

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12237 IN THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1972 GEORGE WADDELL, Plai-ntiff and Respondent, -iMERICAN BREEDERS SERVICE INC., a corporation, Defendant and Appellant, Appeal. from: District Court of t h e Sixteenth Judicial. District, Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel. of Record : For Appellant : Lucas, J a r d i n e & Monaghan, Miles City, Montana. Thomas M. Monaghan argued, Miles C i t y , Montana. For Respondent : Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana. Submitted: October 20, 1972 Decided : JAE117 1973 M r . Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a jury verdict i n favor of p l a i n t i f f i n an action to recover damages brought i n the d i s t r i c t court of the sixteenth judicial d i s t r i c t , county of Custer. Defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new t r i a l . Both motions were denied. Hereinafter, p l a i n t i f f George Waddell w i l l be referred t o as Waddell, and defendant American Breeders Service, Inc. w i l l be referred t o as ABS. Waddell i s a c a t t l e rancher operating i n the Pine H i l l s , east of Miles City. In 1966, he had b u i l t up a herd of some 200 t o 250 head of cows and some 100 t o 150 yearlings i n a calf-cow operation. H e became interested i n the ABS a r t i f i c i a l insemina- tion program through discussions with B i l l Stewart, the A B S representative i n that area. H e was told by M r . Stewart that i f he used the ABS service he would have available b e t t e r bulls, that he would get bigger and more uniform calves; that such ser- vice would be as successful as natural service; that such service would be just as cheap; and that he could get 70% service during the f i r s t heat period and should get 70% calves. During the 1966-67 winter, Waddell enrolled i n a school held by A B S a t Miles City, where he learned how t o successfully a r t i f i c i a l l y inseminate h i s herd. The cost of the course was $100. A t the school he was given a manual entitled "American Breeders Service A 1 Manual--Management Manual". This book was introduced as an exhibit and considerable testimony was introduced by reading from the manual headings such statements as: "The maximum use of outstanding bulls"; " ~ r e a t l y increased uniformity"; I I Improved cow herd"; "Carcass quality improvement1'; and "Under good management most operators report 80 t o 90 percent". From the manual the following was read into the record: "The range i n heat detection levels reported around the country shows a relatively wide variation. Under good management most opera- tors report 80 t o 90 percent detection rates for f i r s t service. Assuming a 70 percent conception t h i s percentage of cows settled a f t e r one cycle compares very favorably with natural service averages under similar conditions. "* * * it would be just a s cheap or cheaper than using natural service. I t As part of the schooling Waddell was urged t o purchase frozen semen from A B S for these reasons: 1. Maximum use of outstanding bulls. 2. Increase the uniformity i n h i s c a l f crop. 3. A n improved cow herd. 4. Carcass quality improvement. 5. Improved herd records. 6. Better health protection for h i s livestock. 7. Better protection against inherent defects with respect t o h i s livestock. 8. Facilitation of crossbreeding. 9. A cheaper method of breeding than natural service. As a result of the school and waddell's interest in the program, i n the spring of 1967 he purchased 40 ampules of Black Angus semen from A B S b u l l Skylandmere, t o use for the 1967 breeding season. Waddell's c a t t l e were Hereford and the reason he gave for purchasing Black Angus semen was to crossbreed and thereby get a black calf with either a white o r brockel face, H e maintained that by using t h i s system he could t e l l those calves that came from the a r t i f i c i a l insemination from those sired by h i s own Hereford bulls, For the 1967 breeding season Waddell picked a t random from h i s herd about 50 cows t o be insem- inated. Waddell performed the insemination work, put the cows into a separate pasture and put a clean-up b u l l i n with them. A s a r e s u l t of t h i s f i r s t year program, h i s 1968 calf crop was a l i t t l e above 70% and he was well s a t i s f i e d with the program. For the 1968 breeding season,Waddell placed another order for forty ampules of frozen semen from the same bull, Skylandmere. That year instead of a random selection, Waddell picked his best cows and the earliest calfing cows. 55 of these cows were picked and inseminated. All were Herefords. In 1968, the insemination work was done by Kelly Waddell, plaintiff's son, hereinafter called Kelly. Kelly also had some cattle and during the year 1967-68 he had become interested in the artificial insemination program. He attended the same school his father had attended during the 1967-68 session. When Waddell ordered his 4 0 ampules from Skylandmere, Kelly put in an order for 16 ampules of semen from the bull Leader, a Shorthorn bull. Kelly and his father conducted their artificial insemination program together with Kelly doing the work and Waddell riding herd and observing. The semen they purchased from ABS came in a jug or refrigerator, where it was kept frozen by nitrogen. Kelly testified, as did Waddell from his observation, that the caws were uniformly inseminated; that no special problems arose in the process; and that the weather factor was good, Bill Stewart, the ABS representative, was present during part of the work to see if Kelly was doing it correctly and Stewart helped with 6 to 8 cows. Upon completion of the insemination, the cows were turned into a separate pasture where Waddell had a clean-up bull to cover those cows where artificial insemination did not take. Several weeks later Waddell noted that the clean-up bull was over used, so he put in another bull. When the spring of 1969 came, Waddell was faced with a crop failure. Of the 4 0 ampules of semen used, he got only 3 black calves; as against the 1968 crop of 7 0 % he had but 7 % in 1969. Yet, Kelly's cows, impregnated at the same time as Waddells, resulted in: 12 heifers were impregnated; 1 died, 3 were sold as bred heifers, and of the remaining 8 heifers 6 were crossbred. A 75% result. So, the two herds handled under exactly the same conditions by the same inseminator resulted in Waddell getting a 7 % calf crop, and Kelly a 7 5 % . The one difference being that Kelly had semen from a different bull. Waddell notified B i l l Stewart i n the spring of 1969 of h i s calf crop failure and Stewart immediately contacted A B S offices to check what might have happened. A t the request of A B S stewart had Waddell collect a l l the used ampules. Each ampule had a code mark that identified it a s belonging t o a certain bull, which aided A B S t o trace the semen t o the exact date of collection, processing and shipping. Shipments of semen from the same b u l l , with the same code, were traced t o other cattlemen and some of it was recovered for testing. Tests were made by the ABS laboratory and by D r . Peter Burfening, an assistant professor of physiology i n the animal science department of Montana State University. H i s t e s t figures corresponded favorably with the t e s t s conducted by the A B S laboratory i n that they found the frozen semen from 35% t o 40% motile. The A B S t e s t s showed a 29% motility factor. Both D r . Burfening and D r . Bartless, vice-president of ABS, t e s t i f i e d that these percentages were within acceptable standards. Defendant s e t s forth four issues for consideration: 1. Whether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n refusing t o d i r e c t a verdict i n favor of defendant and against plaintiff a t the close of p l a i n t i f f ' s testimony? 2. Whether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n refusing t o allow defendant t o present the testimony of Jack M. Brooks and Louie Petrie? 3. Whether there were errors i n law occurring a t the t r i a l and excepted t o by defendant, which prevented defendant from having a f a i r and impartial t r i a l ? 4. Whether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n giving and refusing certain instructions t o the jury? The f i r s t issue alleges error i n the t r i a l court's refusal t o direct a verdict i n defendant's favor a t the close of p l a i n t i f f ' s case on either of p l a i n t i f f ' s theories of express or implied warranty. , This Court i n Mueller v. Svejkovsky, 153 Mont. 416, 420, 455 P.2d 265, held: I t O n an appeal from a motion denying a directed verdict there are three rules which apply. (1) The evidence introduced by the p l a i n t i f f w i l l be considered i n the light most favorable t o him. (2) The conclusion sought t o be drawn from the facts must follow a s a matter of law. (3) Only the evidence of the plaintiff w i l l be considered." Where there i s substantial evidence to support the t r i a l court's findings a t the conclusion of p l a i n t i f f ' s case, and there i s no clear preponderance against it, the court's ruling w i l l not be disturbed on appeal. Spencer v. Robertson, 151 Mont. 507, Defendant argues that even i f we find the trial court was not i n error, that the issue must be resolved i n its favor due t o the fact there was a failure t o timely notify the defendant. As we view defendant's argument, p l a i n t i f f should have notified defendant when he found he had an overworked bull, not some ten months l a t e r when he found he had a 7% calf crop and not the 70% of the year before. W e find no merit t o t h i s argument. Nor can w e accept defendant's argument that a s a matter of law p l a i n t i f f did not give notice of a breach of warranty u n t i l a f t e r he should have discovered it, Defendant submitted an instruction that allowed the jury t o consider whether the notice was adequate. Court's instruction No. 12 reads: " A seller is not l i a b l e for a breach of warranty unless the buyer gave him notice of such breach within a reasonable time a f t e r the buyer knew, or a s a reasonable person ought t o have known of the alleged breach of warranty. What amounts t o a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances and the kind of product involved. I t Notice may be o r a l or i n writing; no particular form of notice is required. It merely must inform the Seller of the alleged breach of warranty and the buyer's intention t o look t o him for damages. Whether the buyer gave t h i s information t o the Seller and i f so whether he acted within a reasonable t i m e i n t h i s case, i s for you t o determine, 11 In effect, defendant wants it two ways. A t t r i a l A B S asked for and'got an instruction asking the jury t o r u l e on the notice i n its favor, and when the jury did not, it asks t h i s Court t o rule that the instruction should never have been given. This we cannot do, for t o do so would allow defendant t o put the trial court in error on its own instruction. We have held that where a party fails to make an objection to an instruction, it is bound by it. Seder v . Peter Kiewit sons' Co., 156 Mont. 322, 479 P . 2 d 448; Nelson v . C & C Plywood Corp., 154 Mont, 414, 465 P . 2d 314, 39 ALR3rd 893; 5 C . J . S . Appeal & Error $ 1514; 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal & Error $ 618. Having been so instructed, it became a jury question as to whether or not the notice was adequate timewise. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Gober v . Revlon Inc., 317 F . 2 d 47, construing a California statute similar to our statute on notice, ruled that a six months delay in giving notice was not unreasonable as a matter of law. See also: Maecherlein v. Sealy Mattress Co., 145 C . A . 2 d 275, 302 P.2d 331. ~ontana's statute, section 87A-2-607, R . C . M . 1947, provides in pertinent part: "Where a tender [of goods] has been accepted " ( a ) the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy". This being a jury question and the jury having found proper notice was given when Waddell found he had only a 7 % calf crop in the spring of 1969, we find no error. Defendant relies on Whittington v . Eli Lilly and Company, ( D . C . W.Va. 1971) 333 F.Supp. 98, to support its position that there is no express or implied warranty in this case. Whittington is not comparable on the facts. There, a woman purchased birth be control pills which were claimed to / "virtually 100% protection". They were not 100% effective, and she brought the action on a breach of warranty theory against the drug manufacturer. The uncontradicted proof showed a pregnancy rate of women taking the pill never exceeded 1.9 pregnancies per 100 women on the pill. The court held this percentage provided "virtually 100% protection". Too, in Whittington, the action was brought by a remote purchaser apparently on a common law basis. Here, the action is brought under the Uniform Commercial Code, sections 87A-2-313, 314,315, R.C.M. 1947, by a purchaser directly from the seller, In the instant case, warranties made to Waddell were not met, nor were those implied warranties of merchantability and fitness met. Prior to using artificial insemination Waddell got a 95% calf crop via natural service, In 1967, he got a 70% calf crop with artificial insemination; in 1968 he got a 7 % calf crop using semen from the same bull, under almost identical conditions. The only logical inference is that something was wrong with the semen purchased in 1968 from ABS by Waddell. ~efendant's second issue concerns the trial court's refusal to allow the testimony of Louie Petrie and J.M. Brooks. We find no error in the court's ruling. The testimony did not bear directly on the specific issues presented, Mr. Brooks, a rancher living at Cohagen, Montana runs a cow-calf operation of between 300 and 4 0 0 head. He had used the artificial insemination program for some five years, and kept rather complete records of his breeding program. Defendant sought to introduce his testimony to show the management techniques used in his artificial insemination program, the importance of the inseminator, and the importance of keeping records. Defendant argues that such testimony goes directly to the issue because of the fact that Waddell kept no records, contrary to instructions given at the school; and that this was a primary cause or factor in Waddell's calf crop failure. Too, Waddell had testified that he knew at least 75% of his cattle by sight and defendant desired to get from ~rooks' testimony whether that 75% identification was common. Also, Brooks had used semen from Skylandmere in 1968 with successful results. The court ruled that Brooks could testify if defendant could establish that Brooks used Skylandmere's semen labeled 804K, could identify it, and got calves. Apparently this could not be established; defendant withdrew Brooks as a witness, The testimony of Petrie, a rancher who also used ~lcylandmere's semen in 1968, was offered for the same reasons that ~rooks' testimony was offered and was not allowed, in that such testi- mony did not relate to the facts of this case. We find no error. ~efendant's third issue conerns whether or not defendant received a fair trial, This issue reargues issue No. 2 and further argues that the court erred in allowing Kelly Waddell to testify as to why he got over a 7 0 % calf crop, while his father got only 7 % . Kelly was asked: "Mr. Waddell, do you know of anything that could account for the difference between the percentage of calf crop you received from cattle, and the percentage of calf crop your father received, other than faulty semen? " Objection was made that the question called for a conclusion of the witness and invaded the province of the jury, The objection was overruled, the court stating: "~ou'll have an opportunity in cross-examination to explore his reasons, 11 Kelly then testified: " I don't see no reason to. The semen was just bad." Defendant argues that this dealt with one of the main issues and was prejudicial. We find this not so. Defendant fully cross-examined Kelly, noted for the jury's consideration that he was not a licensed inseminator; that even though he had attended the school he did not have a manual ( h e used his father's) and that he had only read part of the manual. All of this was before the jury, plus the fact that Kelly was supervised, at least for several head, during the insemination process by ABS representative Bill Stewart, We find no error. The final issue concerns the trial court's giving certain instructions and its failure to give several of defendant's offered instructions, Defendant argues the court's failure to give several of defendant's instructions prevented the jury from being fully and properly instructed on the law applicable to the case, We have carefully studied the instructions given and those refused and find no error. Several of defendant ' s instructions were refused as being repetitious and properly so. The court properly instructed the jury on implied warranty and express warranty. Reading all of the court's instructions together we find the jury was properly instructed on the law applicable to the case. Defendant takes exception to the court's instruction on damages. Court's Instruction No. 20 reads: "Every person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another person may recover from him a compensation therefor in money which is called damages. In this case detriment is the loss or harm suffered. The measure of damages is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby hereinbefore defined, whether it could have been anticipated or not. I I This is an approved WIG instruction on damages and we find no error. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. L ' /z!h4W+$-&4 Assoc ate Justices