Title: SOLBERG v COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 3 DOUGLAS D . SOLBERG, a s P e r s o n a l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e E s t a t e o f D a r r e l B . S o l b e r g , D e c e a s e d , P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l a n t , V S . COUNTY O F YELLOWSTONE, MONTANA, a n d SIDNEY J . HAYES, J R . , M . D . , D e f e n d a n t s a n d R e s p o n d e n t s . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f 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 , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t H . W i l s o n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f R e c o r d : F o r A p p e l l a n t : S a n d a l 1 & C a v a n , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r R e s p o n d e n t s : A n d e r s o n , Brown, G e r b a s e , C e b u l l & J o n e s , B i l l i n g s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : S e p t e m b e r 9 , 1982 D e c i d e d : March 1, 1 9 8 3 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is a wrongful d e a t h a c t i o n on appeal from t h e District 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 i n and f o r t h e County of Yellowstone. The j u r y found f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t , Yellowstone County. From t h a t a d v e r s e v e r d i c t and judgment, t h e p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s . S o l b e r g had been i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e Yellowstone County j a i l s i n c e mid-day on November 1 9 . On t h a t day he was involved i n a s i n g l e - c a r a c c i d e n t . H i s car l e f t t h e r o a d , went through a f e n c e , and came t o rest i n a f i e l d . S o l b e r g was i n t h e c a r when t h e deputy s h e r i f f a r r i v e d . According to t h e d e p u t y , Solberg was " q u i t e i n t o x i c a t e d " and "he could b a r e l y walk." H e was t h e n t a k e n t o j a i l and charged w i t h d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d and d r i v i n g w i t h o u t a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e . On t h e f o l l o w i n g day, November 2 0 , 1974, he pled g u i l t y to t h e two o f f e n s e s i n j u s t i c e c o u r t . H e was unable t o pay t h e f i n e imposed and a s a r e s u l t he was o r d e r e d to s e r v e t i m e i n j a i l . On November 22, 1974, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7:30 a.m., D a r r e l S o l b e r g was found l y i n g f a c e down on t h e f l o o r of a padded c e l l i n t h e Yellowstone County j a i l . H e was immediately rushed t o t h e h o s p i t a l and was pronounced dead on a r r i v a l . A t t h e emergency room h i s t e m p e r a t u r e was recorded a t 107.8 d e g r e e s . L a t e r t h a t morning an a u t o p s y was performed. The cause of d e a t h w a s d e t e r - mined t o be h y p e r p y r e x i a ; t h e g r e a t l y e l e v a t e d t e m p e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to d e l i r i u m tremens and a l c o h o l withdrawal. The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , Yellowstone County, " n e g l i g e n t l y and c a r e l e s s l y f a i l e d t o promptly s e c u r e , or demand, a d e q u a t e and p r o p e r medical a t t e n t i o n . . ." The j u r y h e l d f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t . The p l a i n t i f f then brought t h i s a p p e a l . S e v e r a l i s s u e s were r a i s e d on a p p e a l : 1. whether t h e j u r y was s e l e c t e d i n accordance with t h e l a w ; 2 . whether o r n o t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to g i v e an o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n on n e g l i g e n c e as a matter of law; and 3. whether or n o t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t ? The f i r s t i s s u e r e l a t i n g to t h e s e l e c t i o n of t h e j u r y n e c e s s i t a t e s a r e v e r s a l and remand f o r new t r i a l ; however, we w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e o t h e r i s s u e s i n view of t h e f a c t t h e case must be r e t r i e d . The t r i a l i n t h i s cause took p l a c e d u r i n g O c t o b e r 1980. During t h a t same t i m e p e r i o d , w i t h i n weeks of the S o l b e r g t r i a l , a n o t h e r t r i a l was h e l d i n t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District. The o t h e r case was e n t i t l e d Dvorak v. Huntley P r o j e c t I r r i g a t i o n District. I n t h a t case a j u r y rendered a v e r d i c t which was a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t . W e r e v e r s e d , because t h e j u r y had n o t been s e l e c t e d i n accordance w i t h l a w . Dvorak v. Huntley P r o j e c t I r r i g a t i o n District (1981) -- - - - . - Mont . r 639 P.2d 62, 38 St.Rep. 2176. S p e c i f i c a l l y , w e found v i o l a t i o n s of s e c t i o n s 25-7-202 and 25-7-204, MCA. Upon r e v i e w of t h e supplemental t r a n s c r i p t of p r o c e e d i n g s i n Dvorak, which have become p a r t of t h e record i n t h i s case, we f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y of Charmaine F i s h e r , a Deputy C l e r k o f Court f o r t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District: "Q. Have you s a t on o t h e r cases where j u r i e s were s e l e c t e d i n t h e same p r o c e d u r e ? A. Y e s . "Q. W a s t h e r e a case c a l l e d S o l b e r g ? A. Y e s . "Q. And was t h e j u r y s e l e c t e d i n t h a t case i n t h e same manner? A. Yes ." A l s o t h e t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e procedure had been used i n t h e d i s t r i c t f o r many y e a r s . "Q. And is t h a t [ t h e j u r y s e l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e 1 commonly used i n Y e l l o w s t o n e County? A. Y e s , has been f o r , w e l l I c a n ' t imagine how many y e a r s I know a t l e a s t twenty. . ." Here, a p p e l l a n t ' s argument is simply: - - Dvorak and t h i s case were t r i e d i n t h e same j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , both having j u r i e s s e l e c t e d w i t h t h e same p r o c e d u r e s and s i n c e Dvorak was r e v e r s e d --- because of such p r o c e d u r e s , t h i s case should also be r e v e r s e d . W e a g r e e . Respondent s t r e n u o u s l y a r g u e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n is n o t t i m e l y . I n - Dvorak - - t h e a p p e l l a n t made h i s o b j e c t i o n known a week a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t had been e n t e r e d b u t b e f o r e h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l . I n t h i s case, a p p e l l a n t f i r s t o b j e c t e d to t h e j u r y s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s i n h i s i n i t i a l b r i e f ; more t h a n one y e a r s i n c e t h e t r i a l . The r e s p o n d e n t i n Dvorak - argued t h a t o b j e c t i o n s to t h e j u r y s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s had come t o o l a t e . W e h e l d o t h e r w i s e , s t a t i n g : " [ t j h e b a s i c f l a w i n t h i s c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t c o u n s e l f o r t h e [ a p p e l l a n t ] d i d n o t d i s c o v e r t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n t h e j u r y s e l e c t i o n pro- c e s s u n t i l a week a f t e r t h e t r i a l . F u r t h e r , c o u n s e l had no r e a s o n , p r i o r to h i s i n q u i r i e s , t o s u s p e c t t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s were n o t being f o l l o w e d . I n o t h e r words, t h e 'means of knowledge1 were not a v a i l a b l e f o r c o u n s e l to o b j e c t b e f o r e or d u r i n g t h e t r i a l . " I n Ledger v. McKenzie ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 107 Mont. 335, 85 P.2d 352, t h i s Court d i s c u s s e d t h e n e c e s s i t y of o b j e c t i n g to t h e impaneling of a j u r y i n a t i m e l y manner. T h i s Court held: I' I . . . t h a t i f c o u n s e l does n o t have t h e knowledge, or means of knowledge, of t h e ir- r e g u l a r i t y i n t h e drawing of t h e j u r y o r t h e p a n e l from which it is s e l e c t e d u n t i l a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t , t h e q u e s t i o n may be r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on motion f o r new t r i a l . I 85 P.2d 353." Dvorak, Mont. a t - -- - 639 P.2d a t 64, 3 m T ~ e p - r at 2179. Respondent a s s e r t s t h a t s i n c e t h e i s s u e was not r a i s e d on motion f o r a new t r i a l , any o b j e c t i o n was lost. The r u l e cannot be s o c o n s t r u e d . The r u l e s i m p l y states t h a t i f c o u n s e l was w i t h o u t knowledge o r means of knowledge d u r i n g t r i a l he may, upon g a i n i n g knowledge of s e l e c t i o n i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , make h i s o b j e c t i o n known i n a motion f o r new t r i a l . The r u l e does not l i m i t t h e t i m e p e r i o d f o r making t h e o b j e c t i o n , r a t h e r it d e f i n e s a par- t i c u l a r p o i n t a s being t i m e l y . I n t h i s case we m e r e l y d e f i n e a n o t h e r p o i n t a s being t i m e l y . Respondent a l s o a r g u e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s counsel is a v e t e r a n t r i a l a t t o r n e y and must have been aware of t h e p r e s e l e c t i o n pro- c e s s , t h u s counsel must have had knowledge o r means of knowledge of s e l e c t i o n i r r e g u l a r i t i e s . Although a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l knew t h a t t h e j u r y was p r e s e l e c t e d , it does not f o l l o w t h a t he knew or s h o u l d have known t h a t t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e s were not f o l l o w e d . A s w e s a i d i n Dvorak, Mont. a t - -. 639 P.2d a t 65, 38 St.Rep. a t 2179, " c o u n s e l had a r i g h t to r e l y on t h e judge and c l e r k to f o l l o w t h e i r s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s ." Next, a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s error f o r f a i l u r e of t h e District C o u r t to g i v e h i s o f f e r e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n number 28, which r e a d s : "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h i s Court h a s found as a matter of l a w t h a t Yellowstone County w a s n e g l i g e n t i n its care and t r e a t m e n t of Darrel S o l b e r g and t h e r e f o r e no f i n d i n g on t h i s q u e s t i o n is r e q u i r e d of you. The o n l y remaining i s s u e w i t h r e s p e c t t o Yellowstone County is f o r you to f i n d what damages, i f any were p r o x i m a t e l y caused by Yellows t o n e County s n e g l i g e n c e . " I n s u p p o r t of t h e above i n s t r u c t i o n we are c i t e d to Azure v. C i t y of B i l l i n g s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 182 Mont. 234, 596 P.2d 460. I n t h a t c a s e w e upheld t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g t h a t t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s w a s n e g l i g e n t as a m a t t e r of l a w i n view of s e c t i o n 53-24-303(2), MCA. A p p e l l a n t would have t h i s Court d e c l a r e t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s c a s e , however, we cannot do so. The s t a t u t e r e a d s : "A person who a p p e a r s to be i n c a p a c i t a t e d by a l c o h o l s h a l l be t a k e n i n t o p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y by t h e p o l i c e and f o r t h w i t h b r o u g h t to a n approved p u b l i c t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y f o r emergency t r e a t m e n t . I f no approved p u b l i c t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y is r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , he s h a l l be t a k e n t o an emergency medical s e r v i c e c u s t o m a r i l y used f o r i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s . The p o l i c e , i n d e t a i n i n g t h e p e r s o n and i n t a k i n g him to a n approved p u b l i c t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y , are t a k i n g him i n t o p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y and s h a l l make e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t t o p r o t e c t h i s h e a l t h and s a f e t y . I n t a k i n g t h e p e r s o n i n t o p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y , t h e d e t a i n i n g o f f i c e r may t a k e r e a s o n a b l e s t e p s to p r o t e c t h i m s e l f . N o e n t r y o r o t h e r record may b e made to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p e r s o n taken i n t o c u s t o d y under t h i s s e c t i o n h a s been a r r e s t e d or charged w i t h a crime." A p p e l l a n t ' s argument is simply t h i s , t h e s t a t u t e e s t a b l i s h e d a d u t y on Yellowstone County t o t a k e S o l b e r g t o a t r e a t m e n t f a c i - l i t y or emergency m e d i c a l s e r v i c e , and s i n c e t h i s was n o t done t h e d e f e n d a n t was n e g l i g e n t as a matter of l a w . A s w e s a i d i n Azure, to uphold n e g l i g e n c e p e r se through sta- t u t e , " t h e p l a i n t i f f must be a member of t h e class i n whose f a v o r a d u t y was imposed by t h e s t a t u t e . . . and t h e d e f e n d a n t must be a member of t h e class a g a i n s t whom a d u t y is imposed ." Azure, 182 Mont. a t 240-241, 596 P.2d a t 464. W e hold t h a t t h e p l a i n - t i f f was n o t a member of t h e p r o t e c t e d class. W e do n o t reach t h e q u e s t i o n of whether Yellowstone County was a member of t h e class on whom t h e d u t y was imposed. The u n d e r l y i n g f o c u s of s e c t i o n 53-24-303 ( 2 ) , MCA, is set f o r t h i n a l e g i s l a t i v e s t a t e m e n t of p o l i c y : " I t is t h e p o l i c y of t h e s t a t e of Montana t o r e c o g n i z e a l c o h o l i s m as a n i l l n e s s and t h a t a l c o h o l i c s and i n t o x i c a t e d p e r s o n s may not be s u b j e c t e d to c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n because of t h e i r consumption of a l c o h o l i c beverages b u t r a t h e r s h o u l d be a f f o r d e d a continuum of t r e a t m e n t i n o r d e r t h a t t h e y may lead normal l i v e s as p r o d u c t i v e members of s o c i e t y . " S e c t i o n 53-24-102, MCA. I n o t h e r words, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had i n mind t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s whose o n l y f a u l t is an a f f i n i t y f o r a l c o h o l . Consequently, t h e p o l i c e are o b l i g a t e d to f u r t h e r t h a t purpose by p l a c i n g i n p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y t h o s e who a p p e a r to be i n c a p a c i - t a t e d by a l c o h o l , and " [ n ] o e n t r y or o t h e r record may be made to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p e r s o n t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y . . . h a s been a r r e s t e d or charged w i t h a crime ." Too of t e n i n t h e p a s t , i n t o x i c a t e d or i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s were thrown i n j a i l to s l e e p it o f f and i n v a r i a b l y were charged w i t h some c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e i n d i c a t i n g t h e community's d i s p l e a s u r e . T h i s is what happened i n Azure. S o l b e r g w a s n o t i n t h e p r o t e c t e d class. H e w a s a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l and f o r d r i v i n g w i t h o u t a v a l i d l i c e n s e . H e p l e d g u i l t y to both of t h e s e o f f e n s e s . The s t a t u t e is n o t intended to p r o t e c t i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s who have committed or are s u s p e c t e d of c r i m i n a l acts; o n l y t h o s e who by r e a s o n of t h e i r i n c a p a c i t a t i o n , are i n need of p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y . Azure was i n t h e p r o t e c t e d class. A f t e r being a s s a u l t e d , p o l i c e found him i n a seemingly i n t o x i c a t e d c o n d i t i o n . He showed obvious s i g n s of i n j u r y ; two b l a c k e y e s , a l a r g e b r u i s e on h i s f o r e h e a d , and d r i e d blood on h i s l i p s and t e e t h . H e was i n j a i l f o r s i x t e e n hours b e f o r e being t a k e n to t h e h o s p i t a l . H e had committed no crime. P o l i c e had responded t o what seemed to be an a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y . H e was charged w i t h p u b l i c i n t o x i c a - t i o n and t r e s p a s s . C l e a r l y , --- Azure was among t h e p r o t e c t e d class. The f o r e g o i n g does not p r e c l u d e a common law d u t y . I n P r e t t y on Top v. C i t y of Hardin ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 182 Mont. 311, 315, 597 P.2d 58, 60-61, we s t a t e d : "A j a i l e r owes a d u t y t o t h e p r i s o n e r t o keep him s a f e and t o p r o t e c t him from unnecessary harm. Reasonable and o r d i n a r y care must be e x e r c i s e ~ f o r t h e l l ~ a n d - h x t h of the p r i - s o n e r . ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) 'A s h e r i f f owes a p r i s o n e r placed i n h i s c u s t o d y a d u t y to keep t h e p r i s o n e r s a f e l y and f r e e from harm, t o r e n d e r him medical a i d when n e c e s s a r y , and t o t r e a t him humanely and r e f r a i n from o p p r e s s i n g him.'" W e a g a i n c i t e d t h e r u l e i n Azure, t h a t "law enforcement o f f i- c i a l s have a d u t y t o o b t a i n medical c a r e when n e c e s s a r y f o r per- s o n s i n t h e i r c a r e o r i n t h e i r custody." Azure, 182 Mont. a t 243, 596 P.2d a t 465. A p p e l l a n t claims t h a t even under common l a w p r i n c i p l e s t h e d e f e n d a n t was n e g l i g e n t as a matter of l a w , t h u s , a p a r t from t h e s t a t u t e d i s c u s s e d above, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have g i v e n h i s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n . However, we h o l d t h a t w h i l e t h e r e was a d u t y owed, it became a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y whether or n o t t h a t d u t y was breached: " O r d i n a r i l y it is f o r t h e j u r y to d e c i d e , under a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e i s s u e of whether t h e r e h a s been a n e g l i g e n t breach of a l e g a l d u t y . ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) Negligence and breach of d u t y a r e f o r t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r - mine o n l y i f t h e e v i d e n c e is undisputed o r s u s c e p t i b l e of b u t one c o n c l u s i o n by reaso- n a b l e men." Suhr v. S e a r s Roebuck Co. ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 152 Mont. 344, 348, 450 P.2d 8 7 , 89. See also Lawlor v. County of Flathead ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 508, 582 P.2d W. 75\ W e f i n d t h a t t h e i s s u e of breach of d u t y was p r o p e r l y a j u r y i s s u e . Reasonable men could reach d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s , t h u s n e g l i g e n c e as a matter of l a w d i d n o t e x i s t . W e now reach t h e t h i r d i s s u e , whether o r n o t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . " I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of evidence we a p p l y a l i m i t e d s t a n d a r d of review. Where a f a c t i s s u e is p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e a c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h a j u r y , and t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t , t h e v e r d i c t w i l l s t a n d . "Evidence may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and still be deemed s u b s t a n t i a l , and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e may c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r evidence." Gunnels v. Hoyt (19811, Mont . I , 6 3 3 P.2d 1187, 1191, 3 8 ~ x . ~ e p . 1492-,- 1493.---- Voluminous evidence was p r e s e n t e d by both p a r t i e s concerning S o l b e r g ' s c o n d i t i o n p r i o r to h i s d e a t h . Medical e x p e r t s d i f f e r e d on t h e p r e c i s e n a t u r e of d e l i r i u m tremens and whether o r not S o l b e r g may have c r o s s e d t h e f i n e l i n e between a l c o h o l i c w i t h d r a w a l , which is n o t l i f e - t h r e a t e n i n g , and t r u e d e l i r i u m tre- mens, which is. There is no doubt t h a t Solberg was c o m p l e t e l y d i s o r i e n t e d a t times, however, it was v i g o r o u s l y d i s p u t e d as to what t h i s symptom meant i n terms of how a r e a s o n a b l e j a i l e r would a c t . A p p e l l a n t contended t h a t S o l b e r g ' s b e h a v i o r was c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i v e of D T 1 s . However, respondent p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y i d i - c a t i n g t h a t t h e kind of symptoms t h a t Solberg e x h i b i t e d c o u l d o c c u r w h i l e a person was going through a l c o h o l withdrawal. I n o t h e r words, t h e s e symptoms do not n e c e s s a r i l y mean a p e r s o n is i n the l i f e t h r e a t e n i n g c o n d i t i o n of DT's. A p p e l l a n t relies h e a v i l y on h i s e x h i b i t number two which is a t r a i n i n g manual used i n Yellowstone County to e d u c a t e j a i l e r s c o n c e r n i n g t h e problems of s p e c i a l p r i s o n e r s . A p e r t i n e n t p a r t o f t h a t manual r e a d s : "Probably t h e s p e c i a l p r i s o n e r s e e n most o f t e n by t h e jailer is t h e ' d r u n k . ' And s i n c e t h e s e p e o p l e are f r e q u e n t l y p u t i n j a i l , o f f i c e r s o f t e n tend t o become c a s u a l i n t h e i r t r e a t m e n t of them, assuming t h a t t h e y o n l y need to ' s l e e p it o f f . ' T h i s may be t r u e of some a l c o h o l i c s , b u t t h e r e are many o t h e r s who might become s e r i o u s l y ill or even d i e i f m e r e l y l e f t a l o n e to ' s l e e p it o f f . "While checking t h e i n t o x i c a t e d p r i s o n e r s , you s h o u l d a s k y o u r s e l f : ARE ANY O F THE PRISONERS TREMBLING AND SHOWING SIGNS OF EXPERIENCING STRANGE HALLUCINATIONS? " I f a p r i s o n e r t r e m b l e s i n f e a r t h i n k i n g he is b e i n g a t t a c k e d by such t h i n g s as s p i d e r s , s n a k e s , i n s e c t s , etc. , h i s c o n d i t i o n - - f a r from being s i l l y or amusing--is e x t r e m e l y s e r i o u s . H e may be s l i p p i n g i n t o a c o n d i t i o n commonly known a s D T ' s ( d e l i r i u m tremens ) . " I f you r e c o g n i z e t h e above symptoms: CALL A PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY AND DESCRIBE THE PRISONER'S CONDITION T O H I M . THEN: FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY. " A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e jailers, a l l of whom were r e q u i r e d t o p a s s a c o u r s e which used t h e manual, should have recognized t h e danger t o S o l b e r g , and s i n c e t h e y d i d n o t , they d i d n o t act r e a s o n a b l y . However, t h e r e was e v i d e n c e to e s t a b l i s h t h a t S o l b e r g d i d n o t e x h i b i t any symptoms of being f e a r f u l . A m e d i c a l e x p e r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e element of u n c o n t r o l l a b l e f e a r is a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o being i n l i f e - t h r e a t e n i n g DT's . T h i s c a s e is f a c t u a l l y d i f f i c u l t . With h i n d s i g h t it is tempting to s a y t h a t t h e j a i l e r s s h o u l d have recognized t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of S o l b e r g ' s c o n d i t i o n . However, i n view of t h e e v i - dence a j u r y could have l o g i c a l l y concluded t h a t t h e jailers a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y and w i t h o u t n e g l i g e n c e . " [ O l n l y when t h e r e is a complete absence of p r o b a t i v e f a c t s to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t does e r r o r o c c u r . " S t r o n g v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . ----I I 600 P.2d 191, 194, 36 St.Rep. 1665, 1669. For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we r e v e r s e and d i r e c t t h e c o u r t to Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, concurring: I join in the opinion and simply point out that in holding that a party can challenge the selection of a iury panel by raising the issue for the first time on appeal, we have impliedly overruled our holding in State v. Fitzpatrick (1977), 178 Mont. 530, 536, 569 P.2d 383, 387-388. Although we reversed defendant's conviction and the conviction of a co-defendant on other grounds and sent the case back for retrial, we held in Fitzpatrick that "defendants cannot challenge the jury for the first time on appeal on the ground that the District Court failed to select and draw panels in accordance with applicable Montana law." In reaching our decision here this Court should have addressed Fitzpatrick and the two other cases relied on in Fitzpatrick for the proposition which we are impliedly overruling today.