Title: DAVIS v BAINTER

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12834 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1975 JAMES DAVIS and L U C Y DAVIS, p l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -vs - CHARLES R. BAINThX, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana Dolphy 0. Pohlman argued, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Berg, Angel, Andriolo and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Charles F. Ange 1 argued, Bozeman, Montana Anderson, Syrnmes, Forbes, Peete and Brown, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: March 4 , 1975 Decided : MAY 2 8 191q 2 I .. :flfi.-{ > :- " F i l e d : M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t court, Sweet Grass County, on a jury verdict, against p l a i n t i f f s James and Lucy Davis and i n favor of defendant Charles R. Bainter. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o appeal from an order of the d i s t r i c t court denying t h e i r motion f o r a new t r i a l . The action arose out of an automobile accident involving ~ a i n t e r ' s c a t t l e truck, and an automobile owned by M r . and Mrs. Vernie Hathaway, i n which Lucy Davis was a passenger. A s a r e s u l t of the accident, Hathaways were k i l l e d i n s t a n t l y and Lucy Davis received severe i n j u r i e s . The automobile i t s e l f was totaled. The Bainter truck incurred l i t t l e damage. Bainter received no i n j u r i e s , but was hospitalized a f t e r the accident f o r shock. P l a i n t i f f s Davis bring t h i s appeal on the i s s u e of whether a the jury renderedlverdict which was contrary t o the great weight of the evidence. The accident occurred June 29, 1973, a t the Springdale turn o f f , located between Big Timber and Livingston on U. S. Highway 10. The following diagram indicates the r e l a t i v e positions of the p a r t i e s and witnesses shortly before the accident: W Livingston N O R T H ( Big T i m b e r , - + Lucy Davis was a passenger i n a s t a t i o n wagon driven by M r . Hathaway (H) proceeding west toward Livingston. Bainter (B) was driving a stock truck e a s t toward Big Timber when he noticed t h e c a r i n front of him, driven by Ronning (R) was signaling f o r a l e f t turn onto the Springdale road. P l a i n t i f f s o r i g i n a l l y named Ronning a s a codefendant, but upon h i s motion the d i s t r i c t court dis- missed Ronning a s a party defendant. The events which ten occurred a r e i n dispute, but the c o l l i s i o n did occur between ~ a i n t e r ' s truck and the Hathaway car. The l e f t f r o n t of the Hathaway c a r collided with t h e l e f t r e a r of the Bainter truck and the top of the c a r was completely sheared o f f . Highway Patrolman Clarence Owen investigated the accident and took statements from the witnesses including Bainter; Ronning; John Esp, a passenger i n ~ o n n i n g ' s vehicle; and Lyle Ehlke (E), who was following t h e Bainter truck a t the time of the accident, p l a i n t i f f s ' theory evolves from the testimony of Lloyd Ronning and John Esp. The day the accident took place it had been raining. A t the time of t h e accident it was only misting, but there was standing water on t h e road. Ronning t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s he was slowing t o make the l e f t turn i n t o Springdale, he saw the Bainter truck closing i n on him; t h a t the truck was zigzagging; and, t h a t he was a f r a i d t h a t an accident might occur because the Bainter truck seemed t o be out of control. To prevent an accident, Ronning turned r i g h t onto a turnoff. He did not see the accident occur between the Hathaway car and ~ a i n t e r ' s truck. John Esp, the passenger i n ~ o n n i n g ' s c a r , said he turned around t o look out the back window when Ronning t o l d him there might be an accident. Esp t e s t i f i e d t h a t he too saw ~ a i n t e r ' s truck zigzagging down the road, a s it was approaching them. However, he a l s o f a i l e d t o see the actual accident take place between Bainter and H a thaway . From the above testimony, p l a i n t i f f s maintain t h e accident occurred when the Bainter truck, because it was out of control, crossed i n t o the west lane, causing the Hathaway c a r t o s t r i k e it. There was no testimony e l i c i t e d from any witness which conclusively put the Bainter truck i n the westbound lane of t r a f f i c . The c l o s e s t testimony was a leading question asked by p l a i n t i f f s ' attorney t o John Esp: 11 Q. H e [Bainter] turned t o t h e r i g h t , but the back end went t o the l e f t a s he e i t h e r turned o r skidded, i s n ' t t h a t correct? A . Yes. I I The investigating highway patrolman t e s t i f i e d t h a t because of the location of the debris a f t e r t h e accident, he had no doubt t h a t the accident occurred i n the westbound lane. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s theory, obviously the theory believed by t h e jury, comes primarily from the testimony of Lyle Ehlke who was following t h e Bainter truck a t t h e time of the accident. Ehlke and h i s wife a t the time of t h e accident were enroute t o Minnesota from Washington. They knew no one involved i n the accident. Ehlke t o l d t h e highway patrolman t h a t a white s t a t i o n wagon had passed him j u s t prior t o the accident, proceeded down t h e road and struck the s i d e of the Hathaway vehicle, causing it t o veer and s t r i k e ~ a i n t e r ' s truck. Ehlke and t h e highway patrolman investigated the l e f t side of the Hathaway c a r a f t e r t h e accident and found only a small scratch on the l e f t s i d e , which was not a new mark. A t t r i a l , Ehlke t e s t i f i e d t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t the white s t a t i o n wagon passed on t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e Hathaway c a r and struck the l e f t s i d e of the Hathaway vehicle, causing i t t o veer and c o l l i d e with the r e a r end of the Bainter c a t t l e truck. There i s some c o n f l i c t a s t o which s i d e of the Hathaway vehicle Ehlke t o l d the investigating highway patrolman t h a t the white s t a t i o n wagon struck. The highway patrolman claims i t was the r i g h t side. Ehlke maintains it was the l e f t side, even though they investigated both sides of the Hathaway vehicle. P l a i n t i f f s contend Ehlke 's testimony i s highly improbable, incredible, and inherently impossible and claim t h a t t h i s Court ought t o disregard it i n i t s consideration, c i t i n g a s authority Casey v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 60 Mont. 56, 68, 198 P. 141, and ,quote: I I The r u l e has been s t a t e d repeatedly i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t a court may r e j e c t the most positive testimony, though the witness be not discredited by d i r e c t evidence impeaching him o r contradicting h i s statements. The inherent improbability of h i s story may deny it a l l claims t o respect. " (Emphasis added. ) P l a i n t i f f s point out t h a t the two s t o r i e s r e l a t e d by Ehlke a r e contradictory and not worthy of b e l i e f f o r it i s so obviously contrary t o the testimony of t h e other witnesses. This Court cannot agree. W e find there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e verdict. P l a i n t i f f s point out t h a t Mrs. Ehlke, a s a passenger i n the Ehlke vehicle, saw the accident between the Hathaway c a r and the Bainter truck. They claim t h a t she did not see a second white s t a t i o n wagon. With good v i s i b i l i t y t o the l e f t and f r o n t , Ronning did not see a second white s t a t i o n wagon. Esp, who was looking north t o the front and r e a r of the Ronning c a r , did not see a second white s t a t i o n wagon. Bainter t e s t i f i e d t h a t he did not see a white s t a t i o n wagon come from the r e a r , pass ~ h l k e ' s pickup, t r a v e l down the center l i n e of the highway and pass between the Kathaway c a r and h i s c a t t l e truck. P l a i n t i f f s maintain t h a t had the white s t a t i o n wagon done what Ehlke claimed i t did,surely these people would have seen it also. However, there i s testimony which tends t o explain why no one e l s e saw the accident, and which corroborates ~ h l k e ' s story. ~ o n n i n g ' s testimony under cross-examination concerning t h e accident and the white s t a t i o n wagon was: "Q. But you don't know on which s i d e of the road it [ ~ a i n t e r ' s truck] was on? A . That i s the question t h a t is hard f o r m e t o answer. "Q. You saw the Bainter truck turning toward the r i g h t toward the d i t c h ? A.. H e was zigzagging, and then he come around l i k e t h a t . "Q. And headed toward t h e d i t c h then? A . When he come around l i k e t h a t I heard the crash. That i s when the accident happened. "Q. Again, you don't know where the impact was i n r e l a t i o n t o the westbound lane? A . I wish I could say where i t was, but I mean, it was behind me. And I was busy trying t o get m y car---to keep from tipping t h i s car over I was driving. I don't want t o be wrong w i t h anybody. "Q. Regarding t h e white s t a t i o n wagon t h a t M r . Pohlman was questioning you about, you c a n ' t say t h a t the white s t a t i o n wagon d i d n ' t pass t h a t area? A. No, I c a n ' t . It could have. I have thought of it f o r s i x months." M r . ~ o n n i n g ' s concern over being involved i n an accident, and being i n the process of turning, explains why he might have f a i l e d t o see any white s t a t i o n wagon. John Esp, the passenger i n t h e Ronning c a r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he too f a i l e d t o see a white s t a t i o n wagon leaving t h e scene of the accident, but a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s a t t e n t i o n was directed t o the r e a r when the accident occurred, and he did not see the accident a c t u a l l y occur. Bainter t e s t i f i e d he did not see t h e white s t a t i o n wagon u n t i l he got out of h i s truck a f t e r t h e accident, and saw a white s t a t i o n wagon proceeding down the road. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t because he was turning h i s truck toward the d i t c h when t h e acci- dent happened t h a t he would have been unable t o see the white s t a t i o n wagon. Mrs. Ehlke, who was riding i n t h e pickup with her husband, said she did not see the white s t a t i o n wagon, but did t e s t i f y t h a t j u s t p r i o r t o the accident she did hear something. O n d i r e c t examination by defendant's attorney Mrs. Ehlke t e s t i f i e d : "Q. J u s t p r i o r t o the impact did you see o r hear anything e l s e other than -- A,. Yes. Something went r i g h t by t h e truck. And I said t o m y husband, I said, what was t h a t . "Q. When you say went by the truck, you mean your truck? A . Yes. Went r i g h t by. ' Q Was t h i s a sound t h a t you heard? A . Yes. "Q. Was the sound going from back t o front o r front t o back? A . It was coming from the back t o the front. "Q. H o w long a f t e r you heard t h a t sound did you see t h i s impact? A . Right a f t e r . "Q. Did you ever a c t u a l l y see anything pass you, your- s e l f ? A. No. ' 1 Again no d i r e c t testimony concerning t h e white s t a t i o n wagon, but testimony which lends c r e d i b i l i t y t o M r . ~ h l k e ' s story. More supporting testimony comes from Doug Solberg, a student from Montana S t a t e University, who was driving well behind the people involved i n the accident, a t the time it occurred. H i s testimony establishes there was another white s t a t i o n wagon. Solberg t e s t i f i e d the white s t a t i o n wagon followed him f o r a length of time and then passed him. There i s conflicting t e s t i - mony between Ehlke and Solberg a s t o the number of passengers i n the white s t a t i o n wagon. The investigating highway patrolman, Clarence Owen, t e s t i f i e d he had no doubt t h a t the accident occurred i n the west- bound lane of t r a f f i c , and t h a t the Bainter truck swerved i n t o t h a t lane causing the accident. This he ascertained from location of the debris of the wreck scattered on t h e highway. However, there was testimony e l i c i t e d from Officer Owen showing t h a t he f a i l e d t o question anyone a s t o the removal of debris from the eastbound lane of t r a f f i c before h i s a r r i v a l a t the scene of the accident around 7:30 p.m., approximately 20-25 minutes a f t e r the accident occurred. Officer Owen a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he radioed t o Big Timber f o r law enforcement o f f i c i a l s t o be on the lookout f o r the described white s t a t i o n wagon, with negative r e s u l t s . But, the radio c a l l was not transmitted u n t i l some 40 minutes a f t e r the accident occurred. Officer Owen t e s t i f i e d he doubted t h a t three c a r s could pass simultaneously on the highway, although he admitted he had f a i l e d t o measure the width of the highway and record it. Another witness, D r . Drumheller, a physics professor from Montana S t a t e University, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had measured the width of t h e road and found it t o be 32 f e e t , theoretically wide enough f o r t h e three c a r s i n question t o have passed simultaneously. D r . Drum- h e l l e r further t e s t i f i e d t h a t it was conceivable t h e accident could have occurred between the Hathaway c a r and t h e Bainter truck a t a minimum angle of 22 degrees, but the doctor could not say f o r sure on which s i d e of the highway the accident occurred. D r . Drumheller a l s o t e s t i f i e d the Hathaway c a r , a f t e r t h e impact, could have been thrown sideways, which would explain why it was located i n the westbound lane heading s t r a i g h t down the road. A thorough review of the record reveals there was credible evidence supporting both theories of how t h e accident occurred. Therefore, t h e jury did not render a verdict which was contrary t o the great weight of t h e evidence. But, t o t h e con- t r a r y , the verdict i s supported by substantial credible evidence. A s t o whether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n denying plain- t i f f s ' motion f o r a new t r i a l , t h i s Court has held t h a t t h e t r i a l court has broad discretion t o grant o r refuse t o grant a new t r i a l and w i l l not be reversed on appeal except f o r a manifest abuse of t h a t discretion. Johnson v. Whitcomb, 149 Mont. 23, 422 P.2d 642; Tigh v. College Park Realty Co., 149 Mont. 358, 427 P. 2d 57. Where there i s substantial credible evidence t o support the verdict i t is not e r r o r f o r the d i s t r i c t court t o deny a motion f o r a new t r i a l . Davis v. Smith, 152 Mont, 170, 448 P.2d 133; Kincheloe v. Rygg, 152 Mont. 187, 448 P.2d 140; Heen v. Tiddy, 151 Mont. 265, 442 P.2d 434. This Court having found substantial credible evidence t o support the jury verdict finds no abuse of discretion o r e r r o r on the p a r t of t h e d i s t r i c t court i n denying the motion f o r a new t r i a l . The judgment of the d i s t r i c t cou affirmed. 4 --------- W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison dissenting: I dissent.