No. 90-530 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

THOMAS OWENS, 

plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vsGENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a corporation, 

.-ION 2 5 1991 

Defendant and Respondent. 

Cl-ERK OF SU~W~~~ - 

u~i- IY~BN~~

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Fallon, 

The Honorable Joe L. Hegel, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Gene Huntley, Baker, Montana. 

For Respondent: 

Lorraine A. Schneider; Simonton, Howe & Schneider, 

Glendive, Montana. 

Filed: 

Submitted on briefs : May 10, 1991 

Decided: June 25, 1991 

Clerk 
Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Plaintiff, the purchaser of a new pickup truck, brought suit 

against General Motors Corporation alleging breach of express 

warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. 

A trial was held in the District Court for the Sixteenth Judicial 

District Court, Fallon County. The jury returned a verdict in 

favor of General Motors Corporation. The District Court denied 

plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. 

The sole issue is whether substantial evidence exists to 

support the jury's verdict that General Motors corporation did not 

breach the warranty on the plaintiff's truck. 

In October, 1981, plaintiff, Thomas Owens (Mr. Owens), a 

resident rancher of Baker, Montana, purchased a new 1982 pickup 

manufactured by General Motors Corporation (GMC), from an out-ofstate dealer, Joe Panion Chevrolet (Panion). Mr. Owens made 

arrangements to purchase the truck from Panion through another 

Baker, Montana resident, Leroy Singer (Mr. Singer). The truck was 

warranted and all warranty information was provided to Mr. Owens 

upon delivery of the truck. 

Mr. Owens' ranch is located about 30 miles south of Baker. 

He lives in town and testified that he drove back and forth 

regularly. He testified that he would put about seventy miles a 

day on his truck without any use at the ranch. He also used the 

truck on the ranch to haul feed and feed cattle. 

For a short time, the truck ran and drove well and without 

complaint. Mr. Owens began having problems with the truck after 
about six months and with about 14,645 miles on the odometer. He 

testified that it "had a lack of power. It smoked and drank a lot 

of gas, it was hard startingw. He testified that "whatever they 

did, it just didn't seem like it would fix itw. He testified that 

he kept taking it in to be worked on and Itwhile they kept trying 

different things to make it get better mileage, all the other 

little things kept going wrong with itM. He further testified that 

the truck was in the shop about once a week and that there were 

problems with the seals, wiring, transmission and wheels. 

In December, 1983, the engine quit running entirely and the 

truck had about 42,000 miles on it. When GMC refused to repair the 

truck under warranty, Mr. Owens filed suit against GMC on theories 

of breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty 

of merchantability. A jury trial was held and the jury concluded 

that no breach occurred. Mr. Owens1 appeals. 

On appeal, Mr. Owens maintains that GMC breached both the 

express and implied warranties by failing to repair the truck. GMC 

maintains that Mr. Owens abused and neglected the truck and such 

abuse and neglect was the proximate cause of its poor condition. 

GMC maintains that while such warranties are applicable to the 

truck in question, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the 

defect existed when the product left the manufacturer, GMC1s, 

hands. 

The standard of review for this Court on substantial evidence 

questions was clearly set forth in Kitchen Krafters Inc. v. 

Eastside Bank of Montana (1990), 242 Mont. 155 at 164, 789 P.2d 567 
We will not reverse the findings of a jury unless they 

are not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial 

evidence is defined as that evidence that a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 

Although it may be based upon weak and conflicting 

evidence, in order to rise to the level of substantial 

evidence it must be greater than trifling or frivolous. 

In short, where a verdict is based upon substantial 

evidence which from any point of view could have been 

accepted by the jury as credible, it is binding upon this 

Court although it may appear inherently weak. (Citations 

omitted). 

Mr. Singer testified that he picked up Mr. Owens1 truck for 

him from Panion Chevrolet in Southfield, Michigan and drove it from 

Southfield to Baker where he delivered it to Mr. Owens. He 

testified that never had a problem with the truck and that Itit 

performed beautifullyN on the 1,480 mile trip to Baker. 

Within about one week after the truck was delivered Mr. Owens 

and several friends went hunting in the Ennis area. The group took 

Mr. Owens1 truck through an open gate and "up a mountain trail" to 

go elk hunting. Upon their return to the main road, they found the 

gate they came through locked. The decision was to drive around 

the locked gate to get out. Mr. Singer testified that in so doing, 

Mr. Owens drove his truck through a road ditch. Mr. Singer 

testified that the truck was driven over rocks and small trees. 

Mr. Owens testified that he used the truck for feeding cattle 

and hunting. He testified that one day while he was driving the 

truck loaded with bales of hay through a draw, the back end of the 

truck bogged down and became stuck. He testified that by the time 

he got back to pull the truck out, "the cows had ate the bales off 

the pickup. So they, you know, put a lot of dents in the side of 
it. It 

There was other significant damage to the truck: a hole in the 

floorboard of the cab where a gun fired; a spotlight hole burned 

into the seat; broken seat springs; a broken hood latch; and a 

broken grill. Mr. Owens offered explanations for all the lvnonenginevv damage to the truck. 

GMC maintains that such evidence of the condition of the truck 

is evidence that the truck was abused and that such abuse directly 

affected the engine's performance. Over Mr. Owens' objection, GMC 

was allowed to call as a witness Steve Baldwin, a mechanic who 

worked on Mr. Owenst truck. The District Court concluded that 

Steve Baldwin did not offer any opinions or conclusions and that 

therefore his testimony was entirely proper as a non-expert 

witness. 

Steve Baldwin testified that when the top part of the engine 

was removed to gain access to the camshaft he saw "engine 

contaminationvv he described as ttsludgett inside the engine. He 

further testified that Mr. Owens never complained about the work 

done on his truck. 

After reviewing the record we hold that substantial evidence 

exists to support the jury verdict. 

Affirmed. 
Justices /