Title: Lamb v. Page
Citation: 455 P.2d 337
Docket Number: 11581
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 5, 1969

455 P.2d 337 (1969) Lawrence LAMB and Clara Lamb, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Ralph PAGE and Mabel Page and Margaret M. Page, defendants and Appellants. No. 11581. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted April 14, 1969. Decided June 5, 1969. *338 Lyman H. Bennett, Jr. (argued), Bozeman, for defendants and appellants. Lamb &amp; Snyder, Franklin Lamb (argued), Billings, A.E. Sheridan, Waukon, Iowa, for plaintiffs and respondents. BONNER, Justice. The plaintiffs, Lawrence Lamb and Clara Lamb, brought this action for recovery of damages for personal injury claimed by Clara Lamb and for property damage to the automobile of Lawrence Lamb. Defendants, Ralph Page, Mabel Page and Maragaret M. Page, counterclaimed for damages to their automobile and after a jury trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $6,080. Defendants' motions for a directed verdict, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were overruled by the district court and they now appeal. This action arose out of two automobile accidents on the night of January 8, 1967, between the hours of 9 and 10 p.m. on the highway between Willow Creek and Three Forks, Montana. On the evening of January 8, 1967, the highway in question was covered with what is generally referred to in the northwest as black ice, that is, ice which is very difficult to see, through which markings on the pavement are visible, but yet is very slick. The night was such that, in the words of one witness, "it was a hazy type of night where your lights don't penetrate darkness". *339 Mabel Page, one of the defendants here, was proceeding towards Three Forks when she lost control of the automobile she was driving and left the highway. The point at which the automobile left the highway was just at the beginning of an "S" curve where the highway turns to the left, crosses a set of railroad tracks and then turns back to the right. At the beginning of the curve to the left the automobile went off the pavement on the left side, struck a utility pole breaking it off, and came to rest with its front end off the pavement and its rear end extending out onto the pavement. There is a dispute between the parties as to how far the rear of the automobile actually extended out onto the pavement. The plaintiffs contend that it stuck out into the right lane of traffic while the defendants contend it did not. Mabel Page left her automobile unattended and proceeded to the home of her married sister in order to secure help. It appears from the evidence that no lights were left burning on the vehicle to warn approaching motorists. This accident will hereinafter be referred to as the first accident. Clara Lamb, one of the plaintiffs here, left her home in Willow Creek at approximately 9:30 p.m. on the night of January 8 and was proceeding to Three Forks where she worked the "graveyard" shift at one of the local restaurants. In going from Willow Creek to Three Forks she traveled the same route and on the same side of the highway Mabel Page was traveling before she left the highway. Mrs. Lamb testified that at the bottom of a slight dip at the beginning of the "S" curve as it begins its turn to the left her lights revealed an Oldsmobile sedan crosswise on the highway, without lights and completely blocking one lane of traffic and partially blocking the lane she was in. She stated she made every possible effort to avoid a collision by carefully applying her brakes and by driving onto the right shoulder of the highway as far as possible. However, she collided with the parked vehicle and then guided her own vehicle off the highway onto an approach road which entered the highway from the right. This accident will hereinafter be referred to as the second accident. The only eyewitness to testify at the trial relative to the positions of the cars prior to the second accident was Clara Lamb. For reasons not revealed by the record defendant Mabel Page did not appear and testify at the trial. In addition, Clara Lamb was also the only eyewitness to the actual second accident. There is conflict in the record with regard to the position of the Page automobile before and after the second accident. Clara Lamb testified that the Page automobile had been left in such a position that before she struck it the rear portion extended over the center line of the highway; it extended so far over the center line that she could not avoid it by driving on the shoulder of the highway. Other witnesses for the plaintiffs testified the Page vehicle extended over the center line of the highway after the second accident. Witnesses for the defendants testified that the Page automobile, as left by Mabel Page when she went to seek help, rested with its transmission over the stub of the broken telephone pole; that both before and after the second accident the Oldsmobile sedan's transmission was resting on the broken stub of the utility pole and the car merely pivoted on the stub when hit by the Lamb vehicle. Counsel for defendants attempted to show through the testimony of Dr. Roy Wiegand, a professor of physics, that it was impossible for the Page vehicle to extend to or beyond the center line of the highway either before or after the second accident, assuming the vehicle's transmission was resting on the broken stub. The trial court sustained plaintiffs' objection to the admission of such testimony. It was stipulated by the parties in the pretrial order that all photographs of the accident location could be introduced without foundation proof. However, at the *340 trial and in spite of the stipulation and order, counsel for defendants objected to the introduction of a photograph offered by the plaintiffs asserting the photograph was remote in time from the accident and showed conditions different from those at the time of the accidents. The objection was sustained. Later defendants' counsel attempted to introduce photographs taken at some indefinite time after the accident. The court on plaintiffs' objection refused to admit them relying on plaintiffs' assertion that they did not truly represent the scene as of the time of the accidents, Clara Lamb having previously testified that conditions as portrayed in the photographs were not the same as those at the time of the accident. The court also noted there was no showing of who took the photographs and further that the stipulation in the pretrial order had "went over the board" because of defense counsel's first objection to introduction of photographs offered by the plaintiffs. As specification of error # 1, defendants contend the photographs should have been admitted since under Pilgeram v. Haas, 118 Mont. 431, 167 P.2d 339, photographs may be proved to be correct representations by witness other than the person who took them. In Pilgeram v. Haas, supra, at p. 449, 167 P.2d at p. 348, this Court said: Here, the objection made was based on the fact that the photographs did not accurately portray conditions as they existed on the night of the accidents, not that the photographs were taken by someone other than the witness testifying. This Court in Toole v. Paumie Parisian Dye House, 98 Mont. 191, 39 P.2d 965, noted that the time when photographs were taken must be satisfactorily proven. There was no attempt here to prove when the photographs were taken. In addition, In Teesdale v. Anschutz Drilling Co., 138 Mont. 427, 439, 357 P.2d 4, we held: We hold that the court below was correct in denying admission. First, there was no offer of proof of the element of time, that is, when the photographs were taken. Second, there had been substantial changes and there was no attempt to give any explanation of the changes so as to give a correct understanding of the conditions as they existed at the time of the accidents. Two of the photographs depict a highway absolutely barren of any ice or moisture, taken during daylight hours and no snow on the ground as there was the night of the accidents. The other two photographs also show substantially changed conditions in that while they are attempts to show the location of the broken utility pole, one photograph depicts the hole left by the removal of the stub, the other taken from across the highway shows three-fourths of the width of the pavement and what appears to be the stub of the *341 pole lying in the borrow pit next to the road. Specification of error # 2 is that the court erred in sustaining plaintiffs' objection to the testimony of Dr. Wiegand, defendants' expert witness. The use of Dr. Wiegand was an attempt by the defendants to show that if the Page vehicle's transmission was resting on the broken stub, then the rear of the vehicle could not possibly have extended beyond the center line of the highway either before or after the second accident. In Eby v. Foremost Insurance Co., 141 Mont. 62, 374 P.2d 857, we quoted from Nutt v. Southern Pac. Ry., 25 Or. 291, 35 P. 653 as follows: It was within the province of the jury to determine which witnesses they would believe plaintiffs' who asserted the car was resting with its bumper against the broken stub and extending over the center line, or defendants' who asserted that the vehicle's transmission was resting on the broken stub making it impossible for the rear of the vehicle to extend over the center line. The pole in question was 13 feet, 6 inches from the center of the highway; the defendants' vehicle was 17 feet, 9 inches long and the transmission was 6 feet from the front bumper. The jury needed but to make a few mathematical calculations to determine whether the rear of the vehicle extended beyond the center line. Under those circumstances we find there was no need for expert testimony and the offered proof was properly excluded. As specification of error # 3 defendants contend the court should have directed a verdict for them on the question of their liability to plaintiffs and also on the question of the liability of Clara Lamb to defendants for damages to defendants' automobile. 2B Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1075, p. 387 states the rule as follows: Also, as stated in Bailey v. Carver, 51 Wash. 2d 416, 319 P.2d 821, an automobile accident case where the appellant contended the court should have directed a verdict, the Supreme Court of Washington said: We fail to see, in light of the evidence introduced by plaintiffs, any merit in the defendants' contention that the court should have granted their motion for *342 a directed verdict. Every issue was fully controverted and in our opinion the court below acted properly and did not err in submitting the case to the jury. Defendants' specification of error # 4 asserts that the court below should have given defendants' proposed instruction No. 5 relating to credibility of witnesses and the role of the jury in relation thereto. Such proposed instruction No. 5 reads as follows: After viewing offered instruction No. 5 and comparing it with the court's instruction No. 1, we feel all that is pertinent in offered No. 5 is adequately covered in the court's No. 1. The court's No. 1 is the same as that set forth in the Montana Jury Instruction Guide (MJIG) No. 1.00. We think this was adequate instruction on credibility of witnesses and that offered instruction No. 5 was repetitious and properly refused. The court resorted to MJIG, instruction No. 15.00 in its instructions on proximate cause. Defendants' specification of error # 5 asserts that the instruction on proximate cause should have been broader. Court's instruction No. 8 reads: We feel that under the case of McNair v. Berger, 92 Mont. 441, 15 P.2d 834, the instruction was sufficient and there was no error in the court's refusing defendants' offered instruction No. 11. Defendants' specification of error # 6 contends that the court erred in refusing to give their proposed instruction No. 17. That proposed instruction dealt with the duty of a driver of a motor vehicle to drive on the right side of the highway. Plaintiffs objected to its offer on the ground that it was an incorrect statement of the law under all of the facts that might or might not be present. As we view the proposed instruction we do not feel it is an entirely correct statement of the law; it placed upon the plaintiff, Clara Lamb, a duty to drive on the right side of the highway at all times and under all conditions. If she failed to do so the instruction made her absolutely negligent as a matter of law. It is clear that in Montana there are exceptions to the rule that one must travel upon the right side of the highway, e.g., sections 32-2151, 32-2153, R.C.M. 1947. See also Harrington v. H.D. Lee Mercantile Co., 97 Mont. 40, 33 P.2d 553. The evidence and testimony relative to where Clara Lamb was driving at the time of the accident, whether on the right or left side, was in dispute. Further, no additional offer was made when the proposed instruction was refused. In those circumstances there was no error. *343 Defendants' specification of error # 7 urges that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on the doctrine of last clear chance. The instruction as offered is essentially 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 479, which statement has been recognized in Montana as part of the doctrine of last clear chance. In Mally v. Asanovich, 149 Mont. 99, 423 P.2d 294, we said at p. 104, 423 P.2d at p. 296: Recently, in Hannigan v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 142 Mont. 335, 345, 384 P.2d 493, in connection with the doctrine of last clear chance this Court said: Although that case involved a collision between an automobile and a train, we think that what we said there is applicable here. In our opinion the defendants completely failed to disclose any of the three elements set forth in the above case. The offered instruction of last clear chance was completely inapplicable; it is not error to refuse an inapplicable instruction. Townsend v. City of Butte, 41 Mont. 410, 109 P. 969; Malano v. Bressan, 76 Mont. 366, 245 P. 871. With regard to all specifications of error relative to the court's refusal to give defendants' proposed instructions, we find the court below fully and fairly instructed the jury. It almost goes without saying that where the court has fully and fairly instructed the jury it is not error to refuse requested instructions covered by those actually given. See Holmes v. Potts, 132 Mont. 477, 319 P.2d 232; Franck v. Hudson, 140 Mont. 480, 373 P.2d 951; Wollan v. Lord, 142 Mont. 498, 385 P.2d 102; State Highway Comm. v. Manry, 143 Mont. 382, 390 P.2d 97. In specifications of error #'s 8 and 9 the defendants urge that the court erred in entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the verdict returned by the jury and also erred in denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In view of our preceding discussion these contentions are wholly without merit. The judgment is affirmed. JAMES T. HARRISON, C.J., and HASWELL, JOHN C. HARRISON and CASTLES, JJ., concur.