Title: GREENE v KNAPP S SERVICE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 11868
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 1973

No. 11868 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1973 R O B E R T C. GREENE, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - KNAPP'S SERVICE, I N C , , et a l . , Defendants and Appellants, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the F i r s t Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Small, Cummins and Hatch, Helena, Montana. Floyd 0 . Small and Robert Cumins argued, Helena, Montana. For Respondent: Lloyd J. Skedd argued, Helena, Montana. Submitted: January 22, 1973 Decided : FEB 2 8 1973 Clerk M r . Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion o f the Court. This i s an appeal from an order o f the d i s t r i c t court o f the f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Lewis and Clark, granting p l a i n t i f f a new t r i a l . A new t r i a l was ordered following a j u r y v e r d i c t denying an award o f damages i n an action f o r personal i n j u r i e s a r i s i n g out o f an automobile accident. The basis o f the order was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support the verdict. From the order granting a new t r i a l , defendants appeal. The record discloses p l a i n t i f f , Robert C. Greene, a shoe p o l i s h salesman from Seattle, Washington, arrived i n Helena by plane on October 13, 1963. He rented an automobile from defendant Rent-A-Car Inc., which i s a licensee o f defendant Hertz Corporation. The r e n t a l was made through Rent-A-Car's agent i n Helena, which a t t h a t time was defendant Knapp's Service, Inc. The automobile rented t o Greene was a 1963 Studebaker Hawk. A f t e r renting the automobile, Greene drove t o the Placer Hotel where he was staying. He then drove the automobile from the hotel t o a laundromat on Eleventh Avenue i n Helena, where the accident i n question took place. Greene t e s t i f i e d t h a t during the course o f the d r i v e t o the laundromat he had no trouble w i t h the brakes. Upon a r r i v i n g a t the laundromat he stopped the car i n the parking area and l e f t the automobile's automatic transmission i n the d r i v e position. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d p u l l out the emergency o r hand brake. As he started t o get out o f the automobile i t began t o r o l l back- wards. Greene t e s t i f i e d : " * * * so I put the hand brake on, opened the door, stepped out w i t h m y l e f t f o o t and took m y f o o t o f f the brake pedal. I had already pulled t h i s out as f a r as it would go, took my f o o t o f f the brake pedal, and I was I ' d say h a l f way out o f the car, stepped out and the car started t o s l i d e backwards. I c o u l d n ' t get back i n , and I t r i e d t o hold it w i t h m y shoulder and the car probably weighed two tons, and the next thing I knew I was down, oh, a t l e a s t as f a r as from me t o M r . Skedd, only a l i t t l e f u r t h e r * * *." The car r o l l e d across Eleventh Avenue and came t o r e s t against a tree. Greene retrieved the automobile and drove back i n t o the parking l o t . A f t e r placing h i s laundry i n one o f the machines a t the laundromat, he ca1 l e d Knapp's Service and reported the accident. Knapp's apparently reported the accident t o the pol i c e as a few minutes l a t e r Sergeant Goodale, now Captain Goodale, a r r i v e d a t the scene. Goodale t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r learning what had happened he tested the hand brake and the automobile r o l l e d back a few feet. Captain Goodale took Greene t o the hospital. As a r e s u l t of the accident Greene received i n j u r i e s t o h i s l e f t foot, r i g h t l e g and shoulder. The automobile was taken back t o Knapp's Service where the hand brake was examined by an employee. The sole issue on appeal i s whether it was an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r the d i s t r i c t court t o grant a new t r i a l . The granting o f a new t r i a l i s governed by statute. Section 93-5603(6), R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t a new t r i a l may be granted for: "Insufficiency o f the evidence t o j u s t i f y the v e r d i c t o r other decision, o r t h a t it i s against law * * *." Apparently it was on t h i s basis the new t r i a l was granted. Although the c o u r t ' s order sets out no s p e c i f i c reason, the motion by p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel alleged there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support the verdict. This Court's task i n reviewing the actions o f the d i s t r i c t c o u r t has been recently restated i n Staggers v. United States F i d e l i t y and Guaranty Co., 159 Mont. 254, 496 P.2d 1161, 1163, 29 St.Rep. 357, wherein we held: " I n Campeau v . Lewis , 144 Mont . 543, 547, 398 P .2d 960, 962 (1965) we stated: 'The court has consistently held t h a t the evidence i s not i n s u f f i c i e n t i f it i s substan- t i a l . Adami v. Murphy, 118 Mont. 172, 164 P.2d 150. I n the Adami case, t h e court, quoting from Morton v. Mooney, 97 Mont. 1, 33 P.2d 262, held t h a t "substantial evidencet' could be defined as such "'as w i l l convince reasonable men and on which such men may not reasonably d i f f e r as t o whether i t establishes the p l a i n t i f f ' s case, and, i f a l l reasonable men must conclude t h a t the evidence does n o t establish such case, then it i s not substantial evidence.'" 118 Mont. 172, a t page 179, 164 P.2d a t page 153. The evidence may be inherently weak and s t i l l be deemed "substantial", and one witness may be s u f f i c i e n t t o establish the preponderance o f a case. Batchoff v. Craney, 119 Mont. 157, 161, 172 P.2d 308. Also, substantial evidence may c o n f l i c t w i t h other evidence presented. Win Del Ranches, Inc. v. Rolfe and Wood, Inc., 137 Mont. 44, 49, 350 P.2d 581. W e t h i n k these cases dealing w i t h substantial evidence c l e a r l y o u t l i n e the meaning o f " i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence" i n the statute. The j u r y i s dele- gated the task o f f i n d i n g the facts. Their v e r d i c t i s based upon t h e i r findings. The t r i a l judge, however, has the d i s c r e t i o n t o prevent a miscarriage o f j u s t i c e by granting a new t r i a l i f there i s an i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i - dence t o support the verdict. "' I n t h i s cause Greene and Captain Goodale t e s t i f i e d the brake d i d not work. Four defense witnesses t e s t i f i e d the hand brake was i n perfect working order, three o f whom had experience i n auto mechanics. Robert Trollope, an employee o f Knapp's Service, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he picked the automobile up the night o f the accident and t h a t he checked the hand brake and found it i n working order. The manner i n which he tested the brake was by parking i t on an i n c l i n e near the service s t a t i o n then s e t t i n g the hand brake and leaving the car i n gear. He stated the only way the auto- mobile would move i n t h i s manner was i f the motor was running and he t r i e d t o move it. The automobile was l e f t overnight i n t h i s position and i t d i d not move. George M i l l e r , an employee o f Rent-A-Car Inc., performed the same t e s t the next morning a f t e r learning the facts o f the accident from Greene. It was h i s testimony the automobile would only move w i t h the hand brake s e t i f the motor was running and the car i n gear. The automobile was taken t o Great Fa1 1s where the emergency or hand brake was checked by two mechanics employed by Rent-A-Car Inc. Both t e s t i f i e d they found no defect i n the brake. The j u r y was instructed t h a t i t was not bound t o f i n d any f a c t by the number o f witnesses produced as opposed t o only one witness. It can be presumed t h a t i t chose t o believe the defense witnesses. There was also the testimony o f Captain Goodale t h a t a t the time o f the accident Greene t o l d him he was already out o f the car and when he saw i t s t a r t t o r o l l he t r i e d t o get back i n . I n t r y i n g t o do so, the open door knocked him down. W e hold the t r i a l court abused i t s discretion i n determining t h a t there was an insufficiency o f evidence t o support the verdict. Defendants argue there was s u f f i c i e n t evidence upon which the j u r y could f i n d t h a t Greene's i n j u r i e s were not caused by the accident and thereby deny him recovery. I n l i g h t of what w e have said heretofore we observe no need t o discuss t h a t issue. The order granting the new t r i a l i s reversed and the d i s t r i c t court is directed to reinstate the j \ t / i i i L ~ ~ / ----- - ---- - -- -- --- /' Associate Justices