Title: HOLBROOK v FORSMAN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12728 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 RANDY H O L B R O O K , Plaintiff and Cross-Def endant and Respondent, -VS - CLAIRE F O R S M A N , Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff and Appellant. CLAIRE F O R S M A N , Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs - RANDY HOLBROOK , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Knight, Dahood, MacKay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade J. Dahood argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Burgess, Joyce, Prothero, Whelan and ~ ' ~ e a r y , Butte, Montana John Whelan argued, Butte, Montana Allen McKenzie appeared, Butte, Montana Submitted: April 11, 1975 Decided : JUN 6 - 1975 Hon. W. W. Lessley, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison, delivered the opinion of t h e Court. This appeal a r i s e s from the d e n i a l of la in tiff's motion f o r a judgment notwithstanding t h e v e r d i c t by the d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Deer Lodge County. The jury found both p a r t i e s negligent and denied r e l i e f . P l a i n t i f f appeals from the judgment. The f a c t s a r e not complex. I n Anaconda, Montana, on October 3, 1968, a t about 9:10 a.m., p l a i n t i f f C l a i r e Forsman was t r a v e l i n g on Third S t r e e t from west t o e a s t ; defendant Randy Holbrook was t r a v e l i n g on Hickory S t r e e t from south t o north; a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n of Hickory S t r e e t with Third S t r e e t the ve- h i c l e s collided. Both s t r e e t s were dry and the weather c l e a r . The f r o n t of la in tiff's c a r struck t h e l e f t s i d e of defendant's vehicle. After impact defendant's c a r continued on through t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , over t h e s t r e e t curb and sidewalk, through a fence, and s t r u c k a house. p l a i n t i f f ' s c a r spun counterclockwise and ended facing west i n t h e westbound lane. A relevant f a c t of t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n c o l l i s i o n was t h e missing s t o p sign f o r t r a f f i c approaching from t h e south; t h e sign was normally there. Further, it was admitted t h a t Anaconda has a speed l i m i t ordinance of 15 m.p.h. a t i n t e r s e c t i o n s and 25 m.p.h. on a l l c i t y s t r e e t s . P l a i n t i f f Forsman contends defendant's testimony i s t o t a l l y absurd; t h i s i s so, she says, because h i s testimony i n d i - c a t e s he would have traveled only 10 f e e t , while she w a s t r a v e l i n g 80 t o 90 f e e t a t t h e same time. Forsman f u r t h e r contends t h a t t h r e e eyewitnesses t e s t i f i e d defendant was going between 35 and 50 m.p.h.; one eyewitness t e s t i f i e d p l a i n t i f f was doing "about 15 m.p.h."; t h a t she entered t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n a t 15 m.p.h., looked t o t h e r i g h t and did not see any vehicle approaching within a distance t h a t would be traversed by a vehicle driven a t a speed permitted by law. She a l s o contends defendant cannot r e l y on section 32-2170, R.C.M. 1947, granting a preference t o the driver on the r i g h t , since both vehicles did not approach the intersec- tion a t approximately the same time. not Forsman further argues the jury could/disregard her uncontradicted testimony when there i s nothing i n the record t o r e f l e c t unfavorably on her c r e d i b i l i t y ; and t h a t the evidence establishes a wanton and reckless entry i n t o the intersection by defendant. Finally Forsman argues t h a t even i f she was exceeding the speed l i m i t the excess speed of the defendant was the sole proximate cause of the accident; t h a t she was on a through s t r e e t and t h a t where a stop sign has been removed o r obscured, the motorist on the through s t r e e t i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on a favored s t a t u s . Defendant Holbrook contends t h a t p l a i n t i f f was i n c l e a r violation of section 32-2170, R.C.M. 1947, since defendant, being the operator of the vehicle on the right,had the r i g h t of way and i t was p l a i n t i f f ' s obligation t o yield. H e i n s i s t s , under the f a c t s , t h a t p l a i n t i f f is g u i l t y of contributory negligence a s a matter of law. He further argues t h a t the jury had s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o find p l a i n t i f f g u i l t y of contributory negligence i n f a i l i n g t o keep a proper lookout f o r t r a f f i c approaching the intersection. Defendant maintains p l a i n t i f f ' s theory t h a t she was on a through s t r e e t and therefore enjoyed a favored s t a t u s i s a new theory never advanced i n the d i s t r i c t court and cannot be argued on appeal. Defendant's concluding argument was t h a t where the evidence i s conflicting t h i s Court must accept the evidence i n the record t o support t h e verdict of the jury; and, further, t h a t h i s testimony was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h p l a i n t i f f ' s contributory negligence. The jury's verdict was t h a t both p a r t i e s of t h i s i n t e r - section c o l l i s i o n were negligent. The jury's verdict l e f t them where they were a t the s t a r t of t h i s double law s u i t . W e find c o n f l i c t i n the evidence. In such cases t h i s Court may only review the evidence f o r the purpose of determining i f there is substantial evidence t o support the verdict. Strong v. Williams, 154 Mont. 65, 460 P.2d 90. The record shows s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o find Forsman contributorily negligent f o r her f a i l u r e t o keep a proper lookout f o r t r a f f i c approaching the intersection. The t r i a l court in- structed the jury on t h i s matter i n c o u r t ' s instruction No. 24, offered by p l a i n t i f f a s her proposed instruction No. 16. Our position i s even stronger, where, as here, the d i s t r i c t court, i n i t s order denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict or i n the a l t e r n a t i v e the motion for new t r i a l , found s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e jury verdict. W e do not consider E'orsman's favored s t a t u s theory, i n t h a t it i s presented here on appeal f o r the f i r s t t i m e . The jury's verdict l e f t both p a r t i e s i n the intersection. W e agree and leave them where the jury did---in the intersection. W e affirm. ;7 . i - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - Hon. W.W.Lessley, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. W e Concur: I I Justices.