No. 87-127 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1987 

VIRGIL and BARBARA BURNS, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

-vsJIM HINMAN, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lake, 

The Honorable C. B. McNeil, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Manley, Smith & Dupuis; James A. Manley, Polson, 

Montana 

For Respondent : 

M. Richard Gebhardt, Ronan, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: Aug. 20, 1987 

Decided: October 29, 1987 

- *#& 

il 

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

Plaintiffs Burns sued Mr. Hinman for breach of a haying 

contract. The District Court for the Twentieth Judicial 

District, Lake County, concluded that plaintiffs had proven 

breach, but had failed to prove that Mr. Hinman caused their 

damages. It ordered that plaintiffs take nothing by their 

complaint and awarded Mr. Hinman his costs of suit. We 

affirm. 

The issues are: 

1. Did the District Court err in denying plaintiffs 

consequential damages for their lost second hay crop? 

2. Did the District Court err in denying plaintiffs 

recovery for damages to their tractor? 

In the spring of 1985, the parties entered an oral 

agreement that Mr. Hinman would cut and bale the Burns' first 

hay cutting of the year. Mr. Hinman is in the business of 

custom farming other people's land. Mr. Hinman had cut the 

Burns' hay in the previous year, and was familiar with the 

Burns' hay operation. He was also familiar with the Burns' 

summer schedule of conducting ten-day pack trips into the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness. 

The parties agreed that the cutting and baling would be 

done by July 10. However, because he got a late start and 

because of equipment problems, Mr. Hinman did not actually 

complete the cutting and baling until July 20. By that time, 

the crew which the Burns had hired to stack the bales had 

returned to the Bob Marshall. The Burns asked Mr. Hinman to 

get someone to put the hay up, and Mr. Hinman agreed that he 

would try. Mr. Hinman hired three high school age boys who 

stacked approximately 40 acres of the 100 acres to be 
stacked. The Burns returned from the Bob Marshall August 3 

and completed the hay stacking with their own crew. 

Mr. Hinman presented the Burns with a $1,507 statement 

for the swathing, baling, and stacking he had done. Mrs. 

Burns gave Mr. Hinman a check for $750 on August 3, but later 

stopped payment on the check. Mr. Hinman obtained a justice 

court default judgment for his work. The Burns have paid 

that judgment. The Burns filed their own suit in justice 

court, alleging that the late harvest of their first hay crop 

prevented them from harvesting a second hay crop that year. 

They also alleged damages to their tractor while it was under 

Mr. Hinman's control. The Burns obtained judgment of $3,500 

in justice court. Mr. Hinman appealed to district court. 

The District Court ruled that the Burns had "failed to 

prove that the ten-day delay in the comp1.etion of the 

swathing and baling by [Mr. Hinman] was the cause of [the 

Burns] not getting a second cutting of hay in 1985." It also 

ruled that the record failed to establish that Mr. Hinman 

bore any fault for the damages to the Burns' tractor. The 

court therefore ordered that the Burns take nothing by their 

complaint. 

I 

Did the District Court err in denying plaintiffs consequential damages for their lost second hay crop? 

The District Court found 

[tlhat the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the 

failure to get a second cutting of hay in 1985 was 

caused by Defendant not completing the swathing and 

baling until July 20, 1985 rather than July 10, 

1985 according to the terms of their oral 

agreement. 

The District Court's findings will be affirmed if they are 

supported by substantial credible evidence. Cameron v. 

Cameron (1978), 179 Mont. 219, 227, 587 P.2d 939, 944. Where 
the evidence conflicts, the trial judge's resolution of those 

conflicts will not be disturbed unless there is a clear 

preponderance of evidence against the court's findings. 

Cameron, 587 P.2d at 944. 

The record contains conflicting evidence on this issue. 

Mr. Burns testified at trial that the delay in harvesting and 

stacking his first hay crop caused his second crop to dry up 

from not being irrigated during the delay. However, Mr. 

Hinman was not obligated under the parties' oral contract to 

stack the hay. Therefore, only ten days of delay is attributable to Mr. Hinman's late performance under the contract. 

Mr. Burns admitted that no second cutting was made off the 

fields in 1984, either. Mr. Hinman offered his opinion that 

the Burns should have started watering on each field as soon 

as the hay bales were picked up, instead of waiting until the 

bales were picked up from all the fields before beginning any 

watering. Further, Mr. Hinman testified that he had finished 

harvesting and stacking the Burns' hay in 1984 on approximately the same date as he finished in 1985. 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

District Court's finding that there was a failure to prove 

that the absence of a second crop in 1985 was a result of 

delay caused by Mr. Hinman. 

Did the District Court err in denying plaintiffs recovery for damages to their tractor? 

The District Court found that 

Plaintiffs' evidence established that approximately 

$981.00 in damages were done to their tractor, but 

the record does not establish by any preponderance 

of the evidence as to who caused the damages or 

that there was any fault on the part of the 

Defendant. 
Again, the issue is whether substantial evidence supports 

this finding, on which there was conflicting testimony. 

The damages to the tractor included a dent in one side 

which prevented a door from operating properly, broken windows, and a broken steering wheel. Although Mr. Burns testified that it appeared the tractor had been dented in a 

collision with his haying wagon, Mr. Hinman testified that 

the position of the dent on the tractor was not consistent 

with such an explanation. Mr. Burns admitted that persons 

other than Mr. Hinman could have had access to the tractor 

during the relevant time. One of the high school boys hired 

by Mr. Hinman testified the door wouldn't close on the tractor when they first used it. The boys denied breaking windows in the tractor, although they did admit that one window 

accidentally broke while they were haying on rough ground. 

The Burns' mechanic admitted that he could not determine by 

inspection exactly when the damage to the tractor occurred. 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the lower 

court's finding that damages to the tractor were not proven 

to be Mr. Hinman's fault. The District Court did not err. 

A£ firmed.