No. 13768 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978

GEORGE GRANT BALLANTVNE, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
-vsTHE ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Williams and Holland, Butte, Montana D. L. Holland argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana James H. Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: January 20, 1978 ~ecided : 

### FEB

## 3-1978 Filed: 

### iEB

### 3-Mr. JusticeDaniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court:
Defendant The Anaconda Company appeals from an order of the District Court, Jefferson County, granting a new trial to plaintiffs George Grant Ballantyne, George W. Ballantyne, and Evelyn Christensen Peterson, d/b/a Cloverdale Apiaries. For
reasons hereinafter set forthwe remand this cause to the District Court for further consideration. Plaintiffsbrought this action seeking compensatory and exemplary damages fromThe Anaconda Company for losses suffered atplaintiffs' commercial honeybee operation located near Whitehall, Montana. Plaintiffs alleged theirbees were poisoned
as a result of gas and particulate emissions from the company's Anaconda, Montana copper smelting operation. The suitwas based
on private nuisance, strict liabilityand negligence theories. The cause was triedbefore ajury on September 21, 1976. The jury returned a verdict infavor of the company on September 

### 30, 1976. Judgment was entered on October 5 and on October 15 plaintiffs moved for a new trial. Plaintiffsurged three grounds in support of their motion: 1) Insufficient evidence to support the verdict, 

### 2) legal errors including the admission into evidence of a letter alleged tobe a settlement offer and the strikingof plaintiffs' claim as to one of theirbee yards, and 

### 3) prejudicial suprise atthe trial. By order dated December 16, 1976, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. The order comprises a single sentence. There isno indication of the grounds upon which the
new trialwas granted and no explanation of the District Court's decision.Aspresented, the issue for review 

### iswhether theDistrict Court abused 

### its discretion ingranting a new trial. Due tothe District Court's failure to specify any grounds for 

### its ruling, however, that court's exercise of 

### its discretionwillnot be reviewed atthis time. Rule 59(f), M.R.Civ,P., provides: "Any order of the court granting a new trial, shall specify the grounds therefor with sufficient particularity as toapprise the parties and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling, and this may be done inthe body of the order, or inan attached opinion.11 This rule was adopted pursuant to Supreme Court prder and has been in effect sinceMarch 1, 1976. In itsnote to the amendment which added this requirement to~ontana's procedural rules, theAdvisory Committee stated: "[This] amendment

# *

# ** is for the express purpose of narrowing the issues on appeal and obviating the need toread the entirerecord on appeal tofind the rationale underlying the trial court'

### s ruling. 

# * **" By not complying with this requirement the District Court has placed this Court in the precise position Rule 59(f) seeks to avoid. Not only this Court, but the litigants aswell are compelled to consider the record with respect toevery ground initially urged by plaintiffs in support of their motion, as though the District Court had found equal merit in each. Where,
ashere, the trialinvolved complex matters and included extensive testimony and several independent grounds have been asserted fora new trial, elaboration by the court granting a new trial 

### is especially important. In this context requirements of specificity are imposed at each stage of thejudicial process. Under Rule 59(a), M.R.Civ,P.,a party moving for a new trialmust "state with particularity" the grounds for that motion. The motion properly may be denied when the movant failstocomply with that requirement. Halsey 

### v. Uithof, (1975), 166 Mont. 319, 326, 532 P.2d 686. Rule 59(f), M. R.Civ.P., mandates specificity on the part of a District Court granting such a motion. We note this Court 

### is similarly constrained. Section 93-212, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "In the determination of causes, alldecisions of the supreme court must be given inwriting, and the grounds of the decisionmust be stated, and eachjustice agreeing or concurring with the decision must so indicate by signing the decision. Any justice disagreeing with a decision must so indicateby a written dissent.I1 It ismanifestly fair for allconcerned to require a trial level court to set out itsreasons for granting a new trial. The purpose and function of such a written "opinion" may vary from
case to case, but generally the following considerations, as expressed inThe StateTrialJudge's Book, published under the sponsorship of the National Conference of StateTrialJudges and the Joint Committee for the EffectiveAdministration of Justice, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1965, pp. 166-167,

I1

When the time comes to prepare a written exposition of the basis for a decision, thejudge has a heavy task on hishands. He feels the need to do his part well, injustice to the parties, tohimself and to the position he occupies. The judge willwrite better opinions ifhe considers some of the important purposes they are intended to serve. A well-considered opinion can be of value to thejudge himself, to counsel and the parties. It is invaluable tothe appellate court, if the case goes up on appeal. "The function of an opinion is to statethe reason which led the court todecide the case the way it did. Moreover, since inthe process of preparing an opinion thejudge must disciplinehis thinking, he ismore apt to reach ajust decision ina complex case if he reduceshis reasoning towriting. Referring tothe fruitful effect of the process, Chief JusticeHughes once commented, 'The importance of written opinions as a protection againstjudicial carelessness isvery I great. "Opinions may be of service to the litigants and counsel indetermining what their future caurse should be. The opinion may point the way to an appeal, or it may eliminate one. In either event the practical value to those most concerned 

### isgreat. "A well-stated opinion 

### is of great assistance to the appellate court as a chart of the reasoning followed by the trialjudge inreaching a decision. Not everyone would agree with the cynical oldjudge who iscredited 1 with saying, As faras the appellate court 

### is concerned, maybe they can think up a good reason to support my judgment. I don't want to give them a bad one.'" Rule 59(f), M.R.Civ.P., makes it clear the time

### ispast when
a District Court can summarily grant a new trialand rely on this Court to provide a legally adequate reason for 

### its order. The cause is remanded and the District Court 

### is directed to enter reasons for 

### its order granting plaintiffs a new trial, inaccord with Rule 59(f), M.R.Civ.P.

We Concur: /