Title: OLTZ v TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U S A

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12667 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1974 TAFFORD E. O L T Z , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, T O Y O T A M O T O R SALES, U.S.A., Inc., and T O Y O T A M O T O R C O M P A N Y , LTD. , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana Lyman H. Bennett, Jr., argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Berg, Angel, Andriolo and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Charles F. Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: November 20, 1974 Decided : %B 1 8 1975 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a summary judgment and order of the d i s t r i c t court, Gallatin County. This action i s a sequel t o Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., decided by t h i s Court on August 7 , 1973, and reported i n - M o n t . - 9 513 P.2d 268, 30 St.Rep. 808. In h i s complaint p l a i n t i f f Tafford Oltz sought damages f o r personal i n j u r i e s and property damage suffered i n the same accident involved i n Brandenburger. Recovery was predicated on an alleged breach of implied warranties of merchantability and f i t n e s s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r purpose, negligence, and s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t . The action was submitted t o the court on the pleadings, the t r a n s c r i p t of the Brandenburger case and t h i s Court's decision i n t h a t case. Both p a r t i e s requested summary judgment, and t h e court granted de- fendants' motion. Defendants Toyota argue t h a t the jury verdict i n Brandenburger finding Oltz g u i l t y of gross negligence which contributed t o rand en burger's death i s r e s judicata on t h e question of whether Oltz was g u i l t y of any negligent a c t which contributed t o t h e accident. It is p l a i n t i f f ' s position t h a t a judgment i n favor of a p l a i n t i f f i n an action against two o r more defendants i s not r e s judicata or conclusive a s t o the r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of the defendants among themselves i n a subsequent action between them, unless those r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s were expressly put i n issue i n the f i r s t action by a cross claim o r other adversary pleading o r such issues were t r i e d by consent and determined by judgment i n the f i r s t action. The d i f f i c u l t y i n p l a i n t i f f ' s position on appeal i s t h a t he chose t o put h i s case t o decision by a request f o r a summary judgment i n h i s favor based on Brandenburger. The verdict of the jury and the decision of t h i s Court i n Brandenburger a r e r e s judicata on c e r t a i n controlling f a c t s . The f a c t s established i n t h a t case a r e : That Oltz was found grossly negligent i n the operation of h i s vehicle and t h a t such negligence contributed t o rande en burger's death. The e f f e c t of t h i s decision i s t h a t it is r e s judicata t o a l l p a r t i e s i n the i n s t a n t case i n t h a t Oltz was grossly negligent and contributed of t o t h e deathl~randenburger and Toyota was e i t h e r g u i l t y of negligence i n t h e manufacture and design or t h a t the vehicle was i n a defective and unreasonably unsafe condition, e i t h e r of which contributed t o the death of Brandenburger. W e have no way of knowing upon which theory the jury found against Toyota i n Brandenburger. A s between the p a r t i e s here, t h i s Court's decision i n Branden- burger made no determination t h a t defendants were s t r i c t l y l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f f o r any i n j u r i e s suffered by him. That issue was not before the Court. The decision of t h i s Court found t h a t the doctrine of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t was applicable i n Montana; t h a t the instructions given on t h e i s s u e were c o r r e c t ; that there was s u f f i - c i e n t evidence t o show t h a t the vehicle was i n a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition; and, t h a t such condition contri- buted a s a proximate cause of b rand en burger's death. Having found t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s gross negligence was a proximate cause of rande en burger's death, there i s no way we can logically find t h a t such gross negligence was not a proximate and contributing cause of h i s own personal i n j u r i e s . The t e s t f o r proximate cause i n Montana i s the "but for" t e s t . Ford v. Rupple, 161 Mont. 56, 504 P.2d 686. It i s obvious the jury i n Brandenburger determined t h a t 11 but for" p l a i n t i f f 0 l t z ' s gross negligence i n operating the Toyota, i t would not have l e f t the highway. Therefore, such gross negligence i s not only a proximate contributing cause of Brandenburger's death, but a l s o a proximate contributing cause of h i s own i n j u r i e s . W e have carefully examined the a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d by both p a r t i e s and hold t h a t where, a s here, i n a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y case involving an alleged manufacturing defect t h a t was unknown t o the operator and which apparently had nothing t o do with causing the accident i n question but merely contributed t o the operator's i n j u r i e s , h i s own contributory negligence i n the operation of the vehicle so a s t o cause i t t o leave t h e highway is a proper defense. Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 103 111.App.2d 356, 243 N.E.2d 843; General Motors Corporation v. Walden,(CCA 10th C i r . 1969), 406 F.2d 606. The summary judgment granted by the t r i a l court i s affirmed. W e Concur: / -'+--------------.!------------------- Chief J u s t i c e .................................... Justices. M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, specially concurring: I concur i n the r e s u l t . However, i n m y view, the r u l e of c o l l a t e r a l estoppel r a t h e r than r e s judicata is involved here. See: Gessell v. Jones, 149 Mont. 418, 427 P.2d 295, f o r the distinction. J u s t i c e