Title: LEARY v KELLY PIPE CO
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12894
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 28, 1976

No. 12894 I N T H E 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 1976 PATRICK L E A R Y , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, K E L L Y PIPE C O M P A N Y , a California Corporation; F-B T R U C K LINES, a Utah Corpora tion; and RICHARD WOOD, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Burgess, Joyce, Prothero, Whelan and 0 ' ~ e a r y , Butte, Montana Thomas F. Joyce argued and Robert T. 0 ' ~ e a r y argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana R. D. Corette Jr. argued, Butte, Montana Henningsen, Purcell and Genzberger, Butte, Montana Rex F. Henningsen argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: February 3, 1976 Decided : fipp 2 8 ' 9 7 6 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f P a t r i c k Leary brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S i l v e r B o w County a g a i n s t t h e Kelly Pipe Company, F-B Truck Lines and Richard Wood f o r damages based upon t h e alleged negligence of a l l defendants. P l a i n t i f f suffered personal i n j u r i e s when a load of pipe f e l l from a t r u c k - t r a i l e r onto him while he was a s s i s t i n g i n t h e process of unloading. A s e p a r a t e jury v e r d i c t w a s returned f o r each defendant and judgment was entered accordingly. P l a i n t i f f appeals. P a t r i c k Leary w a s an employee of t h e Bechtel Corporation a t t h e time of t h e accident involved i n t h i s case. Bechtel company Corporation i s a l a r g e construction/which had contracted t o b u i l d a new o r e treatment f a c i l i t y f o r t h e Anaconda Company i n t h e v i c i n i t y of Anaconda, Montana. P a r t of t h e construction required t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a w a t e r l i n e t o t h e new p l a n t , and steel p i p e f o r t h i s purpose was ordered from defendant Kelly Pipe Com- pany, a C a l i f o r n i a firm with a p l a n t a t Santa Fe Springs, C a l i - f o r n i a . Kelly Pipe o r Bechtel contracted with defendant F-B Truck Lines t o haul t h e pipe from t h e Kelly Pipe p l a n t t o Ana- conda. F-B is a Utah corporation t h a t has an I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission c e r t i f i c a t e , o r permit, t o haul goods i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce by truck. F-B uses " c o n t r a c t d r i v e r s f f t o o p e r a t e t h e t r u c k s under a system whereby t h e d r i v e r buys t h e t r a c t o r with financing guaranteed by F-B and F-B owns t h e t r a i l e r s t h a t a r e attached t o t h e t r a c t o r s . The t r a c t o r s c a r r y t h e name of F-B and i t s d i s t i n c t i v e c o l o r s . On J u l y 3 0 , 1973, one Graham, a " c o n t r a c t d r i v e r " f o r F-B, was d i r e c t e d by F-B t o pick up a load of pipe f o r F-B a t Santa Fe Springs. The load i n question consisted of twenty- four pieces of pipe, each piece being f o r t y f e e t long, eighteen inches i n diameter, and weighing approximately one ton. Graham, with t h e a s s i s t a n c e of Kelly Pipe employees, loaded t h e pipe on t h e t r a i l e r and secured t h e pipe with h i s own chains. Pieces of lumber c a l l e d dunnage and chocks were a l s o used t o prevent lateral movement of t h e pipe while i n t r a n s i t . This lumber was provided from t h e yard of Kelly Pipe. Graham drove t h e loaded truck t o Wilmington, California and l e f t it i n a storage yard used by F-B. H e removed h i s chains, leaving t h e load of pipe unbound. O n August 2 , 1973, defendant Richard Wood, another "con- tract d r i v e r " f o r F-B, was assigned by F-B t o pick up t h i s load of pipe a t t h e Wilmington yard f o r t r a n s p o r t t o t h e construction site near Anaconda, Montana. Wood had no I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission permit and no contractual r e l a t i o n s h i p with Kelly Pipe, Bechtel Corporation, o r Anaconda Company. Because Graham had removed h i s chains, Wood had t o secure t h e load again and d i d so i n a manner which became an i s s u e i n t h i s lawsuit. Leary contends t h a t had Wood secured t h e lower l a y e r s of pipe t o t h e bed of t h e trailer, t h e subsequent accident would have been avoided. F-B and Wood say t h a t t h e securing method employed was acceptable and not negligent. I n any event, Wood proceeded t o d r i v e t h e load t o Anaconda and a r r i v e d t h e r e on August 6 , 1973. Later t h e same day Wood drove t h e loaded truck t o t h e p i p e l i n e construction site where Leary and o t h e r s commenced t o help him unload t h e pipe from t h e t r a i l e r . A crane was employed t o a t t a c h cables t o e i t h e r end of a piece of pipe while Leary and another climbed onto t h e t o p of t h e load t o place t h e c a b l e s on t h e ends of t h e pipe. Wood drove t h e truck during t h e unload- ing. While Leary was standing on t h e load of pipe a f t e r t h e f i r s t piece had been removed, t h e load r o l l e d o f f t h e trailer t o t h e ground i n a sudden movement and t h e wooden dunnage cracked and broke. Leary w a s unable t o jump clear of t h e f a l l i n g pipe, f e l l with it, and was p a r t i a l l y pinned under some of t h e eighteen p i e c e s of pipe which r o l l e d t o t h e ground. Leary's i n j u r i e s n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e amputation of a forearm and a leg. Leary brought an a c t i o n i n t o r t a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e negli- gence of a l l defendants caused Leary severe i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g i n physical and mental pain and s u f f e r i n g , medical expenses, im- pairment of p a s t , p r e s e n t and f u t u r e earning c a p a c i t y , and l o s t wages f o r an i n d e f i n i t e period of t i m e i n t h e f u t u r e . H e sought judgment of $886,200. The jury returned a s e p a r a t e v e r d i c t f o r each defendant. Leary s p e c i f i e s numerous e r r o r s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t which may be summarized: 1. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n allowing f o u r peremp- t o r y jury challenges t o Kelly Pipe, and f o u r peremptory challenges c o l l e c t i v e l y t o F-B and Wood? 2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n re- fusing t o admit t h r e e photographs i n t o evidence a s o f f e r e d by Leary? 3. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n giving c e r t a i n i n s t r u c - t i o n s t o t h e jury? The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r u l e d a t t h e o u t s e t of t h e t r i a l t h a t Kelly Pipe w a s i n an adverse p o s i t i o n t o F-B and Wood, thus en- t i t l i n g Kelly Pipe t o four peremptory challenges i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f o u r allowed t o F-B and Wood. Leary objected a t t h a t t i m e and now a s s e r t s t h a t t h e r u l i n g was p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r i n t h a t t h e defendants were a b l e t o decimate t h e panel with t h e i r t o t a l of e i g h t peremptory challenges. A l l p a r t i e s r e l y on Mullery v. G r e a t Northern Ry. Co., 50 Mont. 408, 148 P. 323, i n support of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s on t h i s i s s u e . Mullery s t a n d s f o r t h e proposition t h a t under our jury challenge s t a t u t e , now c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n 93-5010, R.C.M. 1947, t h e words "each p a r t y " i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e permitted four peremptory challenges means "each s i d e " u n l e s s t h e p o s i t i o n s of codefendants a r e h o s t i l e t o each o t h e r . The opinion suggests t h a t h o s t i l i t y between nominal defendants may be shown "by plead- ing, r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r evidence." I n t h i s c a s e Leary contends t h a t defendants assumed i d e n t i c a l p o s i t i o n s , while defendants contend t h a t Kelly Pipe attempted t o s h i f t a l l l i a b i l i t y onto F-B and Wood and c r e a t e d a h o s t i l i t y between them. I n any event p l a i n t i f f must show t h a t any e r r o r i n allow- ing a d d i t i o n a l challenges w a s p r e j u d i c i a l t o him. A s s t a t e d i n Annotation, E f f e c t of allowing excessive number of peremptory challenges, 95 ALR 2d 957, 963: "The numerical weight of a u t h o r i t y i n c i v i l c a s e s supports t h e r u l e t h a t a judgment w i l l not be reversed f o r e r r o r i n allowing one o r more peremp- t o r y challenges i n excess of t h a t provided by s t a t u t e , unless t h e complaining p a r t y shows t h a t he has exhausted h i s peremptory challenges and has suffered material i n j u r y from t h e a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t , and t h a t a s a r e s u l t thereof one o r more objectionable j u r o r s sat on t h e c a s e , o r f o r some o t h e r equally cogent reasons." I n accord: Ashley v. Safeway S t o r e s , Inc., 100 Mont. 312, 47 P.2d 53. Cf. Ferron v. Intermountain Trans. Co., 115 Mont. 388, 143 P.2d 893. To t h e e x t e n t Ferron may be i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o n t r a r y t o our holding herein, it i s expressly overruled. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e Leary has advanced no f a c t which i n d i c a t e s m a t e r i a l i n j u r y , nor has he attempted t o show t h a t o b j e c t i o n a b l e j u r o r s s a t on t h e case. Thus t h e f i r s t i s s u e must be resolved i n favor of defendants. The second i s s u e concerns t h e r e f u s a l of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o admit i n t o evidence t h r e e photographs o f f e r e d by Leary a s p l a i n t i f f s Exhibits 16, 17 and 18. The photographs show an F-B t r u c k load of pipe and show t h e s t r i n g i n g of pipe from an F-B t r u c k - t r a i l e r . The photographs were taken a few days p r i o r t o t h e d a t e of Leary's i n j u r y and i n t h e same general v i c i n i t y as t h a t i n which t h e accident occurred. Leary o f f e r e d them i n evidence f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n purposes. The r e f u s a l t o admit t h e proffered photographs was not an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . Photographic evidence may be used t o " a s s i s t t h e jury i n understanding a case." Teesdale v. Anschutz D r i l l i n g Co., 138 Mont. 427, 439, 357 P.2d 4 . Here Leary was introducing photographs t o a s s i s t t h e jury only i n understand- i n g h i s theory t h a t t h e t r u c k s depicted i n p l a i n t i f f ' s Exhibits 16, 17 and 18 were properly loaded with pipe while t h e t r u c k involved i n t h e accident was improperly loaded. This purpose f o r introduction of photographic e x h i b i t s i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e purpose s t a t e d by t h i s Court i n McNair v. Berger, 92 Mont. 4 4 1 , 460, 15 P.2d 834, namely: " I * * * t h a t t h e photograph, a s explained, w i l l - g i v e a c o r r e c t understandins of t h e condition e x i s t i n s a t t h e time t o which t h e controversy r e l a t e s . I' (Emphasis supplied. ) These photographs do n o t d e p i c t any condition r e l a t e d t o t h i s controversy. The pictured t r u c k s are d i f f e r e n t t r u c k s loaded d i f f e r e n t l y from t h e F-B t r u c k and t r a i l e r involved i n t h i s c a s e . W e f i n d no e r r o r i n excluding them. The f i n a l i s s u e t u r n s on t h e p r o p r i e t y of c e r t a i n jury i n s t r u c t i o n s given by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . D i s t r i c t c o u r t In- s t r u c t i o n No. 27 states a s follows: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e manner i n which t h e pipe was secured on t h e t r u c k was t h e accepted p r a c t i c e f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and is evidence t h a t due c a r e was used by F-J3 Truck Lines and Richard Wood i n securing t h e pipe f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . " Counsel f o r Leary objected t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e grounds t h a t t h e r e i s no proof of an "accepted p r a c t i c e " ; t h e evidence o n ' p i p e loading procedures w a s c o n f l i c t i n g ; t h e i n s t r u c t i o n w a s a comment on t h e evidence; and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n makes a f i n d i n g of f a c t which c o n s t i t u t e s an invasion of t h e province of t h e jury. I n s t r u c t i o n No. 27 is r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t made its own f i n d i n g of f a c t from inconclusive testimony, i n s t r u c t e d t h e jury on t h i s f a c t as a matter of law, and i n e f f e c t d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t f o r F-B and Wood on t h e i s s u e of negligence. With t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n before it, t h e jury had no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o f i n d f o r F-B and Wood. District c o u r t I n s t r u c t i o n No. 28 s t a t e s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e shipment of pipe involved i n t h i s c a s e w a s i n I n t e r s t a t e Commerce and c o n t r o l l e d by t h e t a r i f f of F-B Truck Lines on f i l e and approved by t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission. The t a r i f f provides t h a t t h e con- signee, Bechtel Corporation, i s responsible and assumes t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e s a f e unloading of t h e pipe." Counsel f o r Leary objected t o t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e grounds t h a t t h e t a r i f f w a s i n evidence and was a f a c t which speaks f o r i t s e l f ; t h e i n s t r u c t i o n implies t h a t Wood had no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; Wood was a n agent and chargeable with any negligence on h i s p a r t ; and Bechtel d i d n o t acknowledge r e c e i p t of d e l i v e r y u n t i l a f t e r t h e accident. The t a r i f f i n question, issued t o F-B by t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission, s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "When h o i s t s , cranes, winches, jacks, pulleys, blocks and t a c k l e are required i n t h e loading o r unloading of heavy a r t i c l e s , t h e consignor o r consignee as t h e c a s e may be s h a l l f u r n i s h same and t h e necessary men t o o p e r a t e such s p e c i a l equip- ment a t h i s own expense, and a l s o assume t h e r e - s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s a f e loading o r unloading." W e hold t h a t t h e giving of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 28 w a s r e v e r s i - b l e e r r o r because it has t h e e f f e c t of misleading t h e jury t o t h e conclusion t h a t only Bechtel Corporation could be l i a b l e f o r t h e accident. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e when read together with I n s t r u c t i o n No. 23 which says t h a t i f t h e jury f i n d s " * * * t h e s o l e proximate cause of t h e accident i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e negligence of p l a i n t i f f ' s employer, Bechtel Corporation, then your v e r d i c t must be i n favor of defendants." I n s t r u c t i o n No. 28 a t l e a s t implies t h a t Bechtel Corporation w a s s o l e l y l i a b l e because of t h e t a r i f f ; and under I n s t r u c t i o n No. 23 a v e r d i c t i s d i r e c t e d f o r t h e defendants i n such circumstances. L i a b i l i t y f o r neg- l i g e n c e i n t h i s case was an i s s u e of f a c t f o r t h e determination of t h e jury. F i n a l l y , we r e f e r t o I n s t r u c t i o n No. 29, objected t o by Leary. This i n s t r u c t i o n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s t h e law with r e s p e c t t o independent c o n t r a c t o r s . However, t h e giving of t h i s i n s t r u c - t i o n was improper because t h e independent c o n t r a c t o r r u l e i s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e case. The I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission per- m i t o r c e r t i f i c a t e under which F-B operated c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t F-B i s responsible f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t i n g of goods i n i n t e r - s t a t e commerce. See t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce A c t , 4 9 U.S.C. sec- t i o n 303(c) and 4 9 C.F.R., P a r t 1057 --- Lease and Interchange of Vehicles. The r e g u l a t i o n , adopted pursuant t o s t a t u t o r y author- i t y , s t a t e s i n s e c t i o n 1057.4: " ( a ) Contract requirements. The c o n t r a c t , lease, o r o t h e r arrangement f o r t h e use of such equipment: " ( 4 ) * * * S h a l l provide f o r t h e exclusive possession, c o n t r o l , and use of t h e equipment, and f o r t h e complete assumption of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n r e s p e c t t h e r e t o , by t h e l e s s e e [here, F-B] f o r t h e d u r a t i o n of s a i d c o n t r a c t , l e a s e , o r o t h e r arrangement * * *." Thus F-B has a nondelegable d u t y pursuant t o its permit t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e possession, c o n t r o l and use of its equip- ment, any provisions of its c o n t r a c t with Wood notwithstanding. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed as t o Kelly Pipe which i s only involved i n t h e i s s u e of peremptory challenges. The judgment i s reversed a s t o F-B and Wood and remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l a g a i n s t t h e s e defendants. J u s t i c e We concur: chief'. Justice Mr. Justice Wesley Castles concurring in part and dissenting. I concur with the majority on Issues Nos. 1 and 2. I dissent as to Issue No. 3. The instructions, taken as a whole, fairly presented the issues. I would affirm the judgment. The Chief Justice joins me in this dissent.