| "{\"id\": \"4356443\", \"name\": \"SCOTT ALLAN REIS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AUSTIN MICHAEL LUCKETT, Defendant and Appellant\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Reis v. Luckett\", \"decision_date\": \"2015-12-02\", \"docket_number\": \"No. DA 15-0194\", \"first_page\": \"490\", \"last_page\": \"495\", \"citations\": \"381 Mont. 490\", \"volume\": \"381\", \"reporter\": \"Montana Reports\", \"court\": \"Montana Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Montana\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T22:48:13.930900+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"JUSTICE McKINNON dissented.\", \"parties\": \"SCOTT ALLAN REIS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AUSTIN MICHAEL LUCKETT, Defendant and Appellant.\", \"head_matter\": \"SCOTT ALLAN REIS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AUSTIN MICHAEL LUCKETT, Defendant and Appellant.\\nNo. DA 15-0194.\\nSubmitted on Briefs October 7, 2015.\\nDecided December 2, 2015.\\n2015 MT 337.\\n381 Mont. 490.\\n362 P.3d 632.\\nJUSTICE McKINNON dissented.\\nFor Appellant: Paul R. Haffeman, Brooke W. Perkins, Davis, Hatley, Haffeman & Tighe, P.C., Great Falls.\\nFor Appellee: Roland B. Durocher, Hartelius, Durocher & Winter, P.C., Great Falls.\", \"word_count\": \"2132\", \"char_count\": \"12980\", \"text\": \"JUSTICE COTTER\\ndelivered the Opinion of the Court.\\n\\u00b61 Scott Reis and Austin Luckett were involved in a serious three-car motor vehicle accident in Cascade County on February 16, 2010. Luckett admitted liability for the accident. Reis later claimed neck, back, and hand injuries. The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, conducted a jury trial in December 2014 and the jury held that Luckett's negligence in causing the accident was not the cause of Reis's claimed injuries. On January 9, 2015, Reis filed a Motion to Vacate Jury Verdict and Grant New Trial. Luckett opposed the motion. On March 3, 2015, the court granted Reis's motion. Luckett appeals. We affirm.\\nISSUE\\n\\u00b62 A restatement of the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in granting Reis's motion for a new trial.\\nFACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\\n\\u00b63 On February 16, 2010, Reis was traveling eastbound on U.S. highway 87/89 between Belt and Great Falls, Montana. Luckett was driving south on State Road 228 approaching the controlled intersection with Highway 87/89. The roads were \\\"extremely icy\\\" and the weather conditions were poor with dense fog. Despite his attempts to slow or stop his car, Luckett entered the intersection striking at least two vehicles, one of which was driven by Reis. While Reis did not report injuries to the responding police or Luckett immediately after the accident, he claimed that later the same day he began to experience neck and back pain as well as pain in his left hand, specifically his fifth metacarpal, i.e., his little finger.\\n\\u00b64 Over the next several months, Reis sought treatment from LaDonna Maxwell, a family nurse practitioner who owns and operates her own medical practice in Great Falls, Montana. During this time, Maxwell also referred Ries to a chiropractor, a pain specialist, and an orthopedist, all of whom Reis saw on multiple occasions.\\n\\u00b65 In January 2013, Reis filed a complaint alleging that Luckett's negligence caused the injuries for which he was seeking compensatory damages. Luckett acknowledged liability but disputed the extent to which the accident was the cause of Reis's injuries. The District Court held a jury trial in December 2014 and the parties stipulated to a special verdict form that contained two questions, the first of which was: (1) Was Austin Luckett's negligence a cause of injury to Scott Reis? The jury answered this question \\\"No\\\" and consequently did not respond to the second question pertaining to the appropriate amount of compensatory damages.\\n\\u00b66 In January 2015, Reis filed a Motion to Vacate Jury Verdict and Grant New Trial. He claimed the verdict was not supported by the evidence and that it was based on irregularities and misconduct of the jury because the jury discussed the issue of automobile insurance in the course of its deliberations. Luckett opposed the motion arguing that the jury reached a correct verdict based upon its determination that Reis was not a credible witness.\\n\\u00b67 On March 3,2015, the District Court granted Reis's motion for a new trial. The court held that while conflicting evidence was presented to the jury as to causation of Reis's claimed back and neck injuries, \\\"the uncontroverted evidence proves Luckett's negligence caused injury to Reis's hand.\\\" The court continued that \\\"[bjecause the verdict form did not differentiate causation of the two distinct injuries, the [cjourt concludes the jury verdict must be vacated and a new trial ordered because the verdict contravenes the evidence on the hand injury and has materially affected Reis's substantial rights.\\\" The District Court rejected the argument that an irregularity or misconduct by the jury warranted a new trial.\\n\\u00b68 Luckett appeals.\\nSTANDARD OF REVIEW\\n\\u00b69 Where a motion for a new trial under \\u00a7 46-16-702, MCA, is based on sufficiency of the evidence, we review the grant or denial of the motion de novo. State v. Mackrill, 2008 MT 297, \\u00b6 19, 345 Mont. 469, 191 P.3d 451.\\n\\u00b610 Where a jury fails to award any damages when the only evidence of record supports an award, that verdict is not supported by substantial evidence and may be set aside. Thompson v. City of Bozeman, 284 Mont. 440, 446, 945 P.2d 48, 52 (1997).\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\u00b611 Did the District Court err in granting Reis's motion for anew trial?\\n\\u00b612 In granting Reis's motion for a new trial, the District Court concluded that the jury's finding that Luckett's negligence was not a cause of injury to Reis could not be reconciled with the evidence concerning Reis's hand injury. The court noted that only two witnesses provided evidence regarding the hand injury. Maxwell diagnosed a \\\"boxer's fracture\\\" after reviewing x-rays of his hand. While she conceded on cross-examination that the x-ray report described the hand fracture as \\\"possibly remote,\\\" she as Reis's primary care provider unequivocally attributed the fracture to the car accident. Reis himself testified that his hand was broken when the airbag went off as a result of the accident, after which he had trouble opening and closing his hand and picking up objects. While it acknowledged there was conflicting evidence on causation with respect to the back and neck injuries claimed by Reis, the court concluded there was no conflicting evidence presented to the jury with respect to Reis's fractured hand. The court therefore ordered a new trial.\\n\\u00b613 Luckett argues on appeal that Reis gave inconsistent testimony that undermined his credibility, and thus it was within the province of the jury to conclude that he failed to prove that any of his claimed injuries were related to the accident. Luckett relies on Ele v. Ehnes, 2003 MT 131, 316 Mont. 69, 68 P.3d 835, in which defendant Ehnes admitted to rear-ending the car in which plaintiff Ele was a passenger. Ele, \\u00b6 5. The collision was at low speed with no visible damage to Ehnes' vehicle and no structural damage to the car in which Ele was riding. Ele, \\u00b6 5. Ele sought damages for multiple injuries he claimed he sustained in the low-speed collision. Ele, \\u00b6 7-8. Ele testified that his injuries prevented him from \\\"rough housing\\\" with his children, bowling, jet skiing, dancing, roller skating, camping, and taking out the garbage. Ele, \\u00b6 9. His treating physician stated that the accident \\\"had the potential\\\" of making Ele's preexisting conditions symptomatic, but also stated that when Ele is distracted, he has greater movement abilities than he claims. Ele, \\u00b6 12-13. Moreover, Ele's co-workers testified that since the accident they had seen Ele jet skiing, bowling, bending and twisting whilst setting up a tent, carrying a heavy cooler, and placing heavy garbage into the large alley garbage can \\u2014 all without apparent difficulty. Ele, \\u00b6 14.\\n\\u00b614 The jury in Ele returned a defense verdict. Ele, \\u00b6 16. We affirmed on appeal, observing that the jury almost certainly deemed Ele's evidence that the minor accident caused his purported injuries not credible. Ele, \\u00b6 32. We found that the jury could have been swayed by the testimony of his co-workers, and by the fact that after Ele's physician testified that he had no reason to question the cause of Ele's claimed injuries, he admitted to being unaware that his patient had a pre-accident history of chronic back pain. Ele, \\u00b6 30 and 33.\\n\\u00b615 In the case before us, by contrast, the undisputed testimony was that this was a serious three-car accident with substantial damage to all vehicles. Notably, there was no evidence offered to counter Reis's testimony that his hand was broken when his airbag inflated, nor was any evidence offered to counter the testimony of his care provider that the accident directly caused Reis's hand fracture. Ele is therefore readily distinguishable. For the same reason, we reject Luckett's reliance on Moore v. Beye, 2005 MT 266, 329 Mont. 109, 122 P.3d 1212, overruled on other grounds by Giambra v. Kelsey, 2007 MT 158, 338 Mont. 19, 162 P.3d 134, in which we affirmed a defense verdict because the jury had been presented with considerable conflicting evidence pertaining to Moore's claim of a back injury. There was no conflicting evidence presented to the jury concerning Reis's hand injury.\\n\\u00b616 Luckett argues that Reis gave conflicting statements about why he dropped out of high school and why he was fired from employment among other things, and that the jury was thus free to find on the basis of this testimony that Reis was not credible. He maintains that we should not consider the evidence regarding Reis's broken hand in isolation from the other evidence presented in the case. While we agree that it is within the jury's province to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses, \\\"a jury is not free to disregard uncontradicted, credible, nonopinion evidence.\\\" Renville v. Taylor, 2000 MT 217, \\u00b6 26, 301 Mont. 99, 7 P.3d 400. We therefore conclude that the District Court did not err in granting Reis's motion for new trial.\\nCONCLUSION\\n\\u00b617 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court's order granting Reis a new trial.\\nJUSTICES SHEA, BAKER and RICE concur.\"}" |