Title: BURNS v U R EXPRESS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-115
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: March 4, 1981

N o . 80-115 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1980 E A R L R. BURNS, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs- U & R EXPRESS, a Mont. Corp., Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court o f t h e Nineteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Lincoln, The Honorable Robert H o l t e r , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn & P h i l l i p s , K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondent : Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, Montana F i l e d : Submitted on B r i e f s : November 2 6 , 1980 Decided : 4 " 1981 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . E a r l Burns brought t h i s a c t i o n f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y and p r o p e r t y damages a r i s i n g o u t of a c o l l i s i o n between Burns' f u e l d e l i v e r y t r u c k and a U . & R Express c h i p t r u c k d r i v e n by L a r r y W o l l . U & R Express counterclaimed f o r damages t o its t r u c k . Burns a p p e a l s from t h e judgment e n t e r e d on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of t h e d e f e n d a n t on its c o u n t e r c l a i m . The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d on t h e a f t e r n o o n of November 8, 1977, on Highway N o . 202 n e a r Troy, Montana, i n L i n c o l n County. Burns w a s making f u e l d e l i v e r i e s , proceeding a t a speed of about 20 miles p e r hour and i n t e n d i n g t o make a left-hand t u r n from t h e highway i n t o a p r i v a t e driveway. While Burns was i n t h e p r o c e s s o f t u r n i n g , h i s t r u c k was s t r u c k by d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k which was a t t e m p t i n g t o p a s s . The impact occurred i n t h e left-hand l a n e of t r a v e l . The e v i d e n c e showed s k i d marks of 72 f e e t 3 i n c h e s p r i o r t o t h e p o i n t of impact. Burns t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s i g n a l l e d f o r 200 f e e t o r more b e f o r e s t a r t i n g h i s t u r n and t h a t he looked i n h i s rear view mirror when he s i g n a l l e d , saw no v e h i c l e s behind him, and d i d n o t check a g a i n b e f o r e he t u r n e d . A t no time d i d he see t h e c h i p t r u c k . H e was rendered unconscious and h a s no r e c o l l e c t i o n of t h e a c c i d e n t i t s e l f . H i s l a s t memory was of proceeding down t h e road i n t e n d i n g to t u r n b u t n o t y e t beginning to t u r n . The d r i v e r of t h e c h i p t r u c k , L a r r y W o l l , t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e f i r s t saw t h e f u e l t r u c k when it w a s parked a t some garbage c o n t a i n e r s , t h a t t h e f u e l t r u c k backed o n t o t h e highway and pro- ceeded s o u t h a t a slow speed. Burns denied being parked a t t h e c o n t a i n e r s and s a i d he p u l l e d o n t o t h e highway from t h e driveway o f h i s p r e v i o u s d e l i v e r y s t o p . I n any e v e n t , t h e c h i p t r u c k was p r o c e e d i n g a t a f a s t e r speed and as it approached t h e f u e l t r u c k Woll d e c i d e d t o p a s s . Woll t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s a w no t u r n s i g n a l o f any k i n d . A s Woll was a t t e m p t i n g to p a s s , Burns s t a r t e d moving o v e r t h e c e n t e r l i n e . Woll t r i e d to avoid him b u t as Burns c o n t i n u e d t o t u r n , t h e v e h i c l e s c o l l i d e d . The c h i p t r u c k went o u t of c o n t r o l and t i p p e d o v e r , and t h e f u e l t r u c k was s e n t towards t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e road. Woll was unhurt and Burns was i n j u r e d . On a p p e a l Burns c o n t e n d s t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . The major premise of h i s argument is t h a t t h e p h y s i c a l f a c t s made t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e d e f e n d a n t i n h e r e n t l y i n c r e d i b l e . F u r t h e r , Burns r e q u e s t s r e v e r s a l due to t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e j e c t i o n of h i s proposed j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e d u t y of an approaching m o t o r i s t i n t h e e v e n t a t u r n s i g n a l is t i m e l y made. Respondent asserts t h a t t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and t h a t Burns was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g to s i g n a l and i n f a i l i n g t o m a i n t a i n a p r o p e r l o o k o u t . I t is t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t an o r d e r denying a new t r i a l w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d where t h e e v i d e n c e is c o n f l i c t i n g i f t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . Frank v. B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , Inc. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 293, 538 P.2d 333; Casey v. Northern P a c i f i c Ry. Co. ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60 Mont. 56, 198 P. 141. When t h e s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s make t h e t e s t i m o n y of a w i t n e s s h i g h l y improbable o r i n c r e d i b l e , t h a t t e s t i m o n y is n o t " s u b s t a n t i a l evidence." Frank v. B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , s u p r a . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e d r i v e r of t h e c h i p t r u c k was a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e p h y s i c a l f a c t s to such an e x t e n t t h a t h i s s t o r y was i m p o s s i b l e , t h a t t h e j u r y should n o t have b e l i e v e d him. The c h i p t r u c k d r i v e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w a s f i r s t aware of an impending l e f t t u r n when he was 20 t o 25 f e e t from t h e p o i n t of impact. The s k i d marks l e f t on t h e highway by t h e c h i p t r u c k were 72 f e e t long. Taking i n t o account t h e r e a c t i o n t i m e and t h e time it t a k e s f o r t h e b r a k e s to lock, Burns a r g u e s t h a t something a l e r t e d W o l l of t h e impending t u r n more t h a n 100 f e e t from t h e p o i n t of impact. H e asserts t h a t Woll must have s e e n h i s t u r n s i g n a l . I t is t r u e t h a t undisputed p h y s i c a l f a c t s c o n t r o l o v e r t e s t i m o n y when t h e p h y s i c a l f a c t s admit of o n l y one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Bush v. A l b e r t D. Wardell C o n t r a c t o r , I n c . ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 312, 528 P.2d 215; Hayward v. Richardson C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 136 Mont. 241, 347 P.2d 475. The f a l l a c y i n a p p e l l a n t ' s argument is t h a t t h e v a r i a n c e between t h e p h y s i c a l f a c t s and Woll's testimony does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y l e a d to a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Woll must have s e e n t h e t u r n s i g n a l . The j u r y is t h e judge of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s and t h e weight t o be g i v e n testimony. M a t t e r of Holm's E s t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 588 P.2d 531, 36 St.Rep. 11. The j u r y may have r e j e c t e d Woll's estimates of d i s t a n c e s i n f a v o r of t h e evidence of t h e l e n g t h of s k i d marks w i t h o u t d i s b e l i e v i n g W o l l I s testimony t h a t h e saw no t u r n s i g n a l . When t h e r e are i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y of a w i t n e s s , t h e j u r y may a c c e p t t h e testimony i n p a r t and reject it i n p a r t , or may d i s r e g a r d it a l t o g e t h e r . N o 1 1 v. C i t y of Bozeman ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont, 447, 564 P.2d 1296. It is com- mon knowledge t h a t p e r s o n s f r e q u e n t l y f a i l to e s t i m a t e speed and d i s t a n c e s on t h e highway w i t h accuracy. F u r t h e r , t h e c h i p t r u c k d r i v e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s t r u c k was 70 f e e t long and t h a t he t h o u g h t t h e back tires must have caused t h e s k i d marks. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . A p p e l l a n t n e x t u r g e s r e v e r s a l due to t h e trial c o u r t ' s r e j e c t i o n of h i s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n which s t a t e d : " I n t h e e v e n t a l e f t - t u r n i n g motorist h a s s i g n a l l e d f o r a l e f t t u r n f o r 100 f e e t or more, t h e primary d u t y of avoiding an a c c i d e n t lies w i t h t h e v e h i c l e approaching from t h e rear." The r e q u e s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n is n o t an a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t of t h e l a w as a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . The a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t , i n c l u d i n g C u s t e r v. B r e w e r ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 519, 518 P.2d 257 and F a r r i s v. C l a r k ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 33, 487 P.2d 1307, d i d n o t i n v o l v e l e f t - t u r n i n g m o t o r i s t s . The primary d u t y of a v o i d i n g t h e c o l l i s i o n was n o t n e c e s s a r i l y on t h e p a s s i n g m o t o r i s t i n t h e s i t u a t i o n of t h e i n s t a n t case. Furthermore, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as a whole a d e q u a t e l y informed t h e j u r y of t h e d u t i e s of t h e p a s s i n g motorist and t h e l e f t - t u r n i n g m o t o r i s t . The proposed i n s t r u c t i o n , even i f it were a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e l a w , would have added nothing t o t h e j u r y ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e a p p l i c a b l e law. F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e judgment of t h e District C o u r t is af f irmed. Chief J u s t i c e n W e concur: I