Title: BUSH v WARDELL
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12639
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 13, 1974

No. 12639 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 STEPHEN T. BUSH, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, ALBERT D. W A R D E L L CONTRACTOR, I N C . , A CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Clayton R. Herron argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Robert F. Swanberg argued and Arthur P. Acher argued, Helena, Montana Filed : A : '974 \JQV 3 - - Submitted : September 17, 1974 Decided : NOV 1 3 1574 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal a r i s e s from a personal injury action wherein p l a i n t i f f Stephen T. Bush was awarded a $50,000 judgment against defendant Albert D. Wardell Contractor, Inc. Defendant appeals from the judgment and the denial of i t s motions f o r a directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new t r i a l . The case r e s u l t s from an accident which occurred on July 9, 1970, a t the construction s i t e of t h e Colonial Hilton Con- vention Center i n Helena, Montana. P l a i n t i f f was an employee of Lowe Construction Company, the general contractor of the pro- j e c t . Defendant was the subcontractor engaged by Lowe Construc- t i o n Company t o do the masonry work. The plans c a l l e d f o r the complex t o be b u i l t a s three separate buildings--the convention center and two wings which would house the sleeping accomodations. The two wings were t o be separated from the center by one inch of f r e e space, a measure designed t o reduce damage i n the event of an earthquake. It was a t the point where t h e center was t o p a r a l l e l one of the wings t h a t the accident occurred. The wings had been constructed f i r s t , and construction had begun on the building t h a t was t o be the convention center. A t the point where the incident occurred, there were t o be three walls raised i n positions roughly represented by the following diagram: 4 /-- sleeping quarters 8" block wall 4"masonry wall which f e l l 6" stud wall convention center- c d d The eight inch block wall had already been completed and formed the end wall of one of the wings. During construction, metal t i e s had been inserted i n the eight inch block wall with the i n t e n t t h a t they would be joined t o the four inch wall when it was b u i l t a s a means of s t a b i l i z i n g the l a t t e r wall. However, t h e a r c h i t e c t ' s plans required t h a t there be no t i e s between the two walls. Defendant and the general contractor were concerned about t h i s requirement, since the wall would be unstable unless supported by some means. After much discussion, the general contractor t o l d defendant t o build the four inch wall using the stablizing t i e s , although the number of t i e s t o be used was not specified. Defendant then constructed the four inch wall t o a height of eighteen f e e t , using some of t h e t i e s which were protruding from the eight inch wall, but bending a majority of them over r a t h e r than attaching them. Although the plans called f o r the wall t o ultimately reach a height of twenty-six f e e t and no direction had been given a s t o whether i t should be b u i l t i n e n t i r e t y o r i n stages, defendant's crew l e f t the s i t e a f t e r r a i s i n g the wall t o eighteen f e e t . The four inch wall then stood f o r approximately a week before the general contract~r ' s crews m s t r u c t e d and erected several panels of the s i x inch stud wall next t o it. The stud wall panels were constructed on the ground and then raised t o t h e i r f i n a l position within one-half inch of the four inch wall. On the afternoon of the accident, two of t h e panels had been raised and positioned several hours before p l a i n t i f f began hand tightening nuts on the b o l t s which anchored the panels t o the floor. A s he w a s doing t h i s the portion of the four inch wall which extended above the stud wall collapsed, showering p l a i n t i f f with bricks and mortar. The i n j u r i e s he sustained a r e those f o r which compensation was sought and granted i n the d i s t r i c t court. Defendant appeals the verdict and judgment here, r a i s i n g nineteen issues i n its appellate b r i e f . For purposes of t h i s opinion, t h e questions raised i n those nineteen issues w i l l be considered a s they r e l a t e t o the four general issues: 1. Was the defendant negligent? 2. Was t h e defendant's negligence, i f any, the proximate cause of p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s ? 3. Were t h e damages which the jury awarded supported by admissible evidence? 4. Should the d i s t r i c t court have granted a directed verdict, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, o r a new t r i a l ? p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint alleged four separate grounds of negligence: (1) Failure t o a t t a c h the s t a b i l i z i n g ties; (2) Failure t o brace t h e wall by some external means; (3) Erecting the wall t o a height of eighteen f e e t instead of doing i t i n stages a s the i n t e r i o r construction progressed; and (4) Failure t o warn p l a i n t i f f o r t h e general contractor of the dangerous i n s t a b i l i t y of the wall. Defendant denies t h a t any of these counts c o n s t i t u t e negligence. Defendant argues t h a t some of the t i e s were used, even though the a r c h i t e c t ' s plans required t h a t none be i n s t a l l e d . It c i t e s 13 AmOJur.2d, Building and Construction Contracts, 5 140, f o r the proposition t h a t defendant's following of the plans re- lieved it of a l l l i a b i l i t y . The pertinent portion of t h a t section reads: 'I* * * a contractor followine ~ l a n s and ( ~ m ~ h a s i s added). - However, cases footnoted i n support of t h a t proposition c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t the subcontractor i s s t i l l l i a b l e unless a contractor of average s k i l l and ordinary prudence would have followed those specifications, Ryan v. Feeney & S.Bldg. Co., 239 N.Y. 43, 145 N.E. 321, 41 A.L.R. 1; Tipton v. Clower, 67 N . M . 388, 356 P.2d 46. Since a l l the persons involved i n t h i s incident agreed t h a t an unsupported, four inch wall of t h i s height would be dangerously unstable, the evidence a t l e a s t created a jury question a s t o whether a reasonably prudent and s k i l l f u l con- t r a c t o r would have acted a s defendant did. The same considerations would apply t o defendant's f a i l u r e t o externally brace the wall, and t o defendant's one-step con- s t r u c t i o n t o a height of eighteen f e e t . It i s true t h a t no one t o l d defendant t o use braces o r t o proceed i n steps, but the jury properly could determine whether a reasonable man with defendant's knowledge of t h e w a l l ' s i n s t a b i l i t y would have taken such pre- cautions. Defendant a l s o contends there was no duty t o warn since the general contracor was on the s i t e throughout t h e time t h e wall was under construction. It i s suggested the general contractor knew, o r should have known, t h a t t h e t i e s were not used. However, the general contractor's foreman t e s t i f i e d he thought the ties had been used, and a reasonable inspection would not have proved otherwise. Again, there was evidence on which a jury might reasonably conclude t h a t defendant should have warned others, but f a i l e d t o do so. Since it appears from the record t h a t a jury could reasonably conclude t h a t defendant was negligent i n some o r a l l of the alleged a c t s o r omissions, we then must explore the contentions t h a t there were intervening causes which relieved .defendant of l i a b i l i t y f o r i t s negligence. The f i r s t suggestion i s t h a t t h e general contractor accepted the completed wall with knowledge of i t s unstable condition, and therefore the negligence which proximately caused p l a i n t i f f ' s injury was the general contractor's f a i l u r e t o provide f o r h i s employees' safety. I f those were the f a c t s here, defendant's contention would have some merit. A s suggested by defendant, the case of Sumner v. Lambert, 96 Ohio App. 53, 121 N.E.2d 189, 198, would then be close t o t h i s case on i t s f a c t s . However, a s previously dis- cussed, there was evidence the unstable condition of the wall was unknown t o anyone but defendant. This i n i t s e l f would make Sumner inapplicable, f o r t h a t opinion c l e a r l y s t a t e s : "In the case a t bar, it is not alleged t h a t there were any hidden defects in the excavation, known t o the defendants and unknown t o * * * [decedent]". Furthermore, there a r e factual questions i n the i n s t a n t case as t o whether the wall was completed (even defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t it was not) o r a s t o whether the general contractor accepted t h e wall. There c l e a r l y i s not s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o warrant a reversal on t h i s point. The other intervening cause suggested by defendant i s t h a t the stud wall allegedly struck the masonry wall during the process of r a i s i n g the former t o i t s position. P l a i n t i f f produced witnesses who participated i n the r a i s i n g of the wall who t e s t i - f i e d t h a t the stud wall didnot s t r i k e t h e masonry wall. Defendant e l i c i t e d testimony from after-the-fact witnesses t o the e f f e c t t h a t the physical evidence c l e a r l y showed t h a t the stud wall struck the masonry wall. Defendant would have us prefer t h e opinions based on the physicial evidence over the testimony of eyewitnesses. While it i s t r u e t h a t undisputed physical f a c t s control over testimony (Hayward v. Richardson Const. Co., 136 Mont. 241, 347 P.2d 475, 77 ALR2d 1144), t h a t control i s e f f e c t i v e only when the physical f a c t s admit of only one interpretation. The physical f a c t involved here i s t h a t the masonry wall fractured and f e l l a t approximately the l e v e l of the top of the stud wall. However, the evidence a l s o indicates t h a t the masonry wall stood f o r several hours a f t e r the stud wall was raised. Furthermore, t h e evidence might be interpreted t o mean t h a t t h e stud wall pre- vented the masonry w a l l from collapsing a t a lower l e v e l by acting a s a brace against t h a t portion of t h e wall. Again, it was a question f o r the jury t o determine. Having determined there was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support a jury finding of l i a b i l i t y , we look t o the admissibility of the evidence which the jury used t o a r r i v e a t a damage figure. De- fendant's challenge t o t h e damages i s t h a t the court allegedly admitted a doctor's opinion which was based, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , on the p l a i n t i f f ' s subjective complaints. It i s t r u e t h a t the testimony objected t o was that of a doctor who treated the p l a i n t i f f a t t h e time of the accident and then did not see him again u n t i l shortly before t h e t r i a l . However, the record indicates t h a t the doctor's opinion of the degree and permanency of p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s was given i n response t o a question asking him t o disregard the p l a i n t i f f ' s subjective complaints. The doctor's i n i t i a l treatment of the p l a i n t i f f , h i s subsequent examination, and h i s reading of the reports of other t r e a t i n g physicians surely qualified him t o give such an opinion without reference t o the subjective complaints. Also t h e jury was cautioned not t o consider any testimony a s t o these subjective complaints. W e find no e r r o r here. Defendant a l s o argues t h a t evidence and instructions r e l a t i n g t o mortality and annuity tables should not have been given t o the jury. The objection i s t h a t even a t the time of t r i a l p l a i n t i f f was making more money than he was a t t h e time of the accident and therefore h i s earning capacity had not been impaired by h i s i n j u r i e s . While the use of such tables c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e jury considered p l a i n t i f f ' s l o s s of future earnings, we find t h a t such consideration was warranted by the evidence. The construction job which p l a i n t i f f held when he was injured was only summer employment t o help finance h t s college education. By the time of the t r i a l he had completed the necessary education t o become a teacher and was employed i n t h a t capacity. His earnings a s a teacher were higher than h i s earnings on the construction job. Were t h i s the only evidence, there might be some merit t o defendant's contention. However t h e jury was a l s o aware t h a t teachers routinely seek other employment during t h e summer when school i s not i n session. It a l s o heard testimony t h a t plain- t i f f would not be able t o coach any a t h l e t i c teams, an a c t i v i t y which produces income i n addition t o the regular teaching salary. These factors, combined with the limitations on lai in tiff's enjoyment of h i s previously a t h l e t i c a l l y oriented l i f e indicate the introduction of the tables was c l e a r l y appropriate. Bracy v. Great Northern Railway Company, 136 Mont. 65, 69, 343 P.2d 848. The f i n a l question then is whether the court should have directed a verdict, granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, o r granted a new t r i a l . A s discussed heretofore, we have found no e r r o r i n the l e g a l theories involved here. Those theories were reflected i n the instructions given t o the jury, and we find those instructions t o be appropriate. Therefore, finding no e r r o r of law, and substantial evi- dence supporting t h e verdict, we affirm the judgment. J u s t i c e W e Concur: