Title: CUSTER BROADCASTING CORP v BREWER

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12440 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1973 CUSTER BROADCASTING CORPORATION, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - KEVIN BREWER, Defendant and Respondent. ................................................. DAVID RIVENES, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - KEVIN BREWER, Defendant and Respondent. ................................................. ELLA RIVENES, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - KEVIN BREdER , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge Presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Kenneth R. Wilson argued, Miles C i t y , Montana Roland V. Colgrove, Miles City, Montana For Respondents: William R. McNamer argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Charles cashmo more argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: November 26, 1973 F i l e d : JAN 3 , 6 1974 d & d $ . w c irk I4r. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. P l a i n t i f f s Custer Broadcasting Corporation, David R.ivenes and Ella Rivenes appeal from a judgment f o r defendant Kevin Brewer, entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t court, Treasure County. The action was f o r damages a r i s i n g out of a r e a r end automobile c o l l i - sion. Judgment was based on a jury verdict. Motion f o r new t r i a l was denied and p l a i n t i f f s appeal. Each p l a i n t i f f s e t f o r t h a separate action f o r damages against defendant. O n motion under Rule 42(a), M.R. Civ.P., a l l three cases were joined f o r t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s David and Ella Rivenes a r e husband and wife who r e s i d e i n Miles City, Montana. A t the time of t h e accident both were i n t h e i r l a t e f i f t i e s and f o r a number of years had worked together i n various business enterprises. David was president and manager of Custer Broadcasting Corporation and owner of 35% of i t s stock, Ella was secretary of t h e corporation, but not a stockholder. They j o i n t l y owned the Eastern Montana Abstract Co, The automobile driven by David a t the time of the accident was o-med by Eastern Montana Abstract Co. I n January 1971, David and Ella were traveling from Miles City t o Billings, Montana. The purpose of t h e i r t r i p was twofold (1) t o send a video tape recorder by a i r t o the factory t o be repaired, (2) David was t o take a plane e a s t . Ella was t o return the c a r t o Miles City. The v i s i b i l i t y was good, except f o r a s k i f f of snow on the highway which caused some problems when cars passed. Prior t o the accident, p l a i n t i f f s had been following a semi-trailer and both vehicles were traveling between 50 and 55 miles per hour. The semi-trailer kicked up a s w i r l of snow be- hind it which obscured t h e view of t h e e n t i r e truck body. David t e s t i f i e d he was driving with h i s l i g h t s on during t h e e n t i r e j ourney . Defendant Brewer came onto the highway west of Forsyth, Montana, and was traveling t o Hysham, Montana. Upon coming onto the highway, he noted the Rivenes c a r ahead of him and followed it f o r several miles a t a distance of about a block. H e a l s o noted t h e semi-trailer ahead of the Rivenes c a r and t h a t it was kicking up a s w i r l of snow. Brewer t e s t i f i e d a vehicle coming from the w e s t passed the Rivenes vehicle and h i s vehicle, causing the snow t o s w i r l so t h a t v i s i b i l i t y was zero; t h a t t h i s occurred i n a cut area; t h a t he slowed down from 50 t o 40 m i l e s per hour; and, t h a t he never saw t h e Rivenes c a r again u n t i l he h i t it from t h e r e a r . The c o l l i s i o n threw the Rivenes c a r through the opposite lane of t r a f f i c and i n t o the barrow p i t where i t came t o r e s t pointed i n t h e opposite direction than it had been traveling. Both Rivenes t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r the accident defendant came t o I I t h e i r c a r and said: I am sorry. It was a l l m y f a u l t . I didn't see you." Defendant denied making t h a t statement. The investigation of t h e highway patrolman a f t e r t h e accident indicated there were no skid marks made by defendant's c a r p r i o r t o the r e a r end c o l l i s i o n . The patrolman's report of the accident showed t h a t defendant i n answer t o a question of how f a s t he was traveling a t t h e time of the c o l l i s i o n , stated: "Fly accident report shows 55. I I A t the close of evidence a t t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f s moved (1) f o r a directed verdict f o r a l l p l a i n t i f f s , (2) t o s t r i k e t h e defense of contributory negligence, and (3) t o s t r i k e a s t o Ella Rivenes the defense of j o i n t enterprise o r j o i n t venture. De- fendant moved t o dismiss a l l actions. A l l motions were denied by the court and the case was submitted t o the jury. Considering the propriety of granting a directed v e r d i c t , t h i s Court i n Holland v. Konda, 142 Mont. 536, 541, 385 P.2d 272, stated: '""NO case should ever be withdrawn from the jury when reasonable men might draw d i f f e r e n t conclusions from the evidence. " [Citing case] his r u l e i s firmly established by other decisions of t h i s court, and we f e e l t h a t further c i t a t i o n on the point i s unnecessary. I 'I However, i n cases where a driver of a vehicle i s following an- other vehicle too closely, we follow the doctrine t h a t t h e primary duty of avoiding a c o l l i s i o n r e s t s upon the following driver. I n F a r r i s and Seneca1 v. Clark, 158 Mont, 33, 37, 487 P.2d 1307, a recent r e a r end c o l l i s i o n case, t h i s Court sustained the t r i a l c o u r t ' s decision t o grant summary judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s . There we reviewed the f a c t s i t u a t i o n not unlike the i n s t a n t case, except t h a t here it was a daytime accident and i n F a r r i s it was nighttime. W e noted t h a t sections 32-2153 and 32-2160, R.C.M. 1947, were applicable. This Court has long held t h a t violation of a s t a t u t e con- cerned with highway t r a f f i c i s negligence a s a matter of law. F a r r i s should have controlled the c o u r t ' s decision i n considering p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a directed verdict. I n view of the f a c t t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a directed verdict should have been granted, we w i l l not l i s t o r discuss the issues raised on appeal. The cause i s remanded t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r t r i a l on damages alone. i I J u s t i c e . / @ief Justice - Justices. /'