Title: LAHMAN v ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHOSPHATE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12124
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 4, 1972

No. 12124 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1972 EDVARD C. LAHMAN and M A R G A R E T KATHERINE L A H M A N , P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, ROCKY M O U N T A I N PHOSPHATE C O M P A N Y , a Corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : M. K, Daniels argued, Deer Lodge, Montana. C. W, Leaphart, Helena, Montana. For Respondent: Malcolm MacCalman argued, Deer Lodge, Montana. Knight, Dahood and Mackay, Anaconda, Montana, Submitted : October 26, 1972 Decided: D t C ' 4 1972 M r . Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for defendant a f t e r motion for a new t r i a l was denied. Plaintiffs are man and wife. They own a small ranch i n Powell County upon which they operate a t r a i l e r court. O n March 29, 1968, they f i l e d an action t o recover damages for injury t o their person and property, and for loss of profits t o t h e i r business caused by smoke and fluoride effluents from defendant's phosphate manufacturing company. Defendant, Rocky Mountain Phosphate Company, produces an animal feed supplement from phosphate rock. In August 1963, defendant commenced operations i n the Garrison area a t i t s plant located about 1600 feet north and west of the p l a i n t i f f s ' t r a i l e r court and residence. Soon a f t e r defendant began operations, complaints were made by p l a i n t i f f s and other residents of the Garrison area. The complaints were based mostly on the smoke which produced a stinging sensation on contact and on the odor of the effluents. Several injunctive hearings and t r t a l s were held and the State Board of Health became a participant. In March 1965, defendant adopted several techniques t o eliminate the basis for com- plaints and converted i t s manufacturing process from a sulphuric acid method to a soda-ash process. This eliminated a l l effluents of sulphuric acid, including the noxious odor and the stinging effect which was caused by a type of sulphuric acid. The volume of smoke was drastically reduced. Scrubbing systems were in- stalled with varying degrees of success. Finally, i n 1968, a I I ~ e l l e r " scrubbing system was installed which system reduced the amount of fluorides discharged into the a i r from approximately 4,000 pounds per day i n 1963 t o l e s s than 10 pounds, and has eliminated the discharge of smoke except for a negligible plume. After deiendant had been i n operation f o r some four and one-half years, and a f t e r three years of marked reduction i n the discharge of nuisance effluents, p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r action i n which they claimed damages f o r personal injury, l o s s of enjoyment of t h e i r property, and l o s s of business. Jury t r i a l was had resulting i n a verdict f o r defendant. The issues on appeal a r e four i n number. The f i r s t two deal with the s t a t u t e of limitations, (1) Whether the t r i a l court erred i n permitting defendant t o amend i t s answer whereby the s t a t u t e of limitations and laches were pleaded. (2) The t r i a l court erred i n instructing the jury t h a t the two-year s t a t u t e , section 93-2607, R.C.M. 1947, a s applied t o the prop- e r t y damages, applies. P l a i n t i f f s urge t h a t section 93-2613, R.C.M. 1947, a five-year s t a t u t e , applies o r none a t a l l . A s t o issue 1, p l a i n t i f f s were n o t i f i e d four days previous t o t r i a l of defendant's intention t o amend; and, when the motion was made on the day of t r i a l counsel a t f i r s t objected, then advised the court t h a t p l a i n t i f f s would have no objection i f they were allowed t o present evidence showing progression of damages. The t r i a l court allowed p l a i n t i f f s t o put i n evidence almost without r e s t r i c t i o n a s t o t h e "progression of damages". N o prejudice i s shown i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s ruling. See: Rule 15, O n issue 2, concerning the s t a t u t e of limitations, plain- t i f f s were allowed t o put i n evidence a s t o date almost without r e s t r i c t i o n . O n the settlement of instructions, the following appears : "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , No. 1 1 i s withdrawn, Considering No. 12. "MR. DANIELS: [Counsel for p l a i n t i f f s ] W e a r e going t o object t o the giving of the ~ e f e n d a n t ' s Instruction 12, your honor, on the grounds t h a t the s t a t u t e of 1-imitations on a recurring nuisance, which i s what t h i s constitutes, does not commence u n t i l such time a s the nuisance ceases, and had t h e nuisance ceased i n 1965, then, of course, t h i s would be an appropriate instruction, but t h e nuisance recurred on almost a weekly basis, and the statute just simply does not run on these recurring instances on these nuisances. "MR. DAHOOD: [Counsel for defendant ] The authority on recurring nuisances i s that the statute runs from the date of each nuisance. "THE COURT: Overruled. No. 12 i s given. "(DEFENDANTUS P R O P O S E D INSTRUCTION NO. 1 2 W A S GIVEN A S THE COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 18:) "The jury i s instructed that the period fixed by statute for bringing an action for personal injuries i s three (3) years preceding the date of f i l i n g the complaint. In t h i s case the statute of limitations having been pled as a defense by the defendant, a l l evidence per- taining t o personal injuries occurring prior t o March 28, 1965, i s t o be disregarded and given no consideration. 11 Given: Nat Allen, Judge. "THE COURT: Take up Defendant's No. 13. "MR. LEAPHART: [Counsel for p l a i n t i f f s ] For the record, your honor, w e w i l l make the same objection as we did t o Defendant's Proposed Instruction No. 12. "THE COURT: Overruled. No, 13 i s given. "(DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 13 WAS GIVEN A S THE COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO, 19:) "The jury i s instructed that the period fixed by statute for bringing an action for injury t o property as alleged by the p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s case i s two (2) years prior t o the date of f i l i n g the complaint. In t h i s case, the statute of Limitations having been pled as a defense by the defendant, a l l evidence pertaining t o injuries t o property occurring prior to March 28th, 1966, i s t o be disregarded and given no consideration. I I Given: Nat Allen, ~udge," W o w , on appeal, counsel recognizes that the objections t o the instructions were inadequate but counsel says that he did not have adequate time t o research the matter because the pleadings were not amended u n t i l the day of t r i a l . W e are not impressed with t h i s argument. However, i n considering the issue on i t s merits, as t o the damages t o property, p l a i n t i f f s argue that section 93-2613, R.C.M. 1947, is the correct period of limitations; that i s , five years. Plaintiffs c i t e Watson v. Colusa-Parrot M. & S . Co., 31 Mont. 513, 79 P. 14. In the year 1904, the s t a t u t e , Section 524 (Code of C i v i l Procedure 1895) provided i n part: 1 t A n action f o r waste o r trespass on r e a l property * * * s h a l l be commenced within two years. 1 I The Court i n Watson said t h a t i f any s t a t u t e of limitations was applicable t o the nuisance case involving pollution of a r i v e r , it was then Section 518 (now section 93-2613, R.C.M. 1947). Following t h a t , by Chapter 172, Session Laws 1921, Section 524 was amended and became Section 9033, R.C.M. 1921, and read i n part : "Within two years : "(2) An action f o r injury t o o r f o r waste o r trespass on r e a l o r personal property * * *.I1 (Emphasis supplied) The language remains the same i n section 93-2607, R.C.M. 1947. Thus Watson i s no longer applicable and the c o u r t ' s Instruction No. 19 was correct. Also, p l a i n t i f f s seem t o argue t h a t the nuisance was and thus a d i f f e r e n t r u l e would apply. However, p l a i n t i f f s ' evidence was c l e a r l y t o the e f f e c t t h a t the alleged nuisance was continuous and unremitting. W e find no e r r o r a s t o issues 1 and 2. Issue 3 i s whether the court erred i n refusing the following instruction : "You a r e instructed t h a t the r u l e of damage f o r permanent i n j u r y t o land i s the difference between the value of the land p r i o r t o the claimed i n j u r y and i t s value a f t e r the claimed injury. 11 A t the settlement of instructions, the following appears: "THE COURT: Taking up P l a i n t i f f s ' No. 5. "MR. DAHOOD: W e object t o No. 5, your honor, upon the ground and f o r the reason t h a t there has been no evi- dence introduced indicating any permanent injury t o the land, and upon the further ground t h a t where t h e damage consisted of l o s s of r e n t a l value the true measure of damage i s the diminution of r e n t a l value, and not the question of whether or not there was permanent in- jury t o the land. "MR. DANIELS: Well, i t i s the position of the Plaintiffs, of course, that there has been per- manent injury t o the land as t e s t i f i e d t o by D r , Gordon i n h i s explanation of the ecological change which w i l l appear, and which has appeared, and which w i l l be permanent i n nature. "THE COURT. No. 5 i s refused." Plaintiffs simply had no evidence of permanency of damage to their land. Plaintiffs leased their lands for agricultural purposes, Rental payments were not reduced, N o evidence was offered showing any permanent damage. Other instructions covered damages and we find no error i n the refusal of p l a i n t i f f s ' pro- posed instruction No. 5. Issue 4 is that the evidence was insufficient t o support the jury verdict i n that the jury t o t a l l y disregarded credible, uncontradicted evidence that defendant maintained a nuisance from the date of the plant construction t o the date of t r i a l . In their complaint, p l a i n t i f f s prayed for judgment for damages for injury t o person, property,and business i n the amount of $150,000 and for an injunction. Nominal damages were not sought. The case, i n our view, i s a classic example of the jury's hearing a l l of the evidence and not believing some of it, There was conflicting evidence and the jury was free t o weigh the conflicting testimony and determine which was credible and to determine whether or not p l a i n t i f f s sustained their burden of proof. W e observe that the t r i a l judge allowed p l a i n t i f f s great latitude i n presenting evidence. Finding no error, the judgment i s affirmed. Chie Justice 1 /L---d-&-- Associate Justi District M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison dissenting: I find i t necessary t o disagree with the holding a£ the majority. I n reading the summation of f a c t s a s s e t f o r t h i n the majority opinion, it i s d i f f i c u l t t o understand why a l e g a l action was i n s t i t u t e d by p l a i n t i f f s . The f a c t s a s I read them are : P l a i n t i f f Edward C. Lahman had lived on the property,some 400 plus acres, most of h i s 70 years. H e married p l a i n t i f f Margaret Lahman i n 1946, and a f t e r remodeling the home on the property they have lived there since 1947. Original-ly the ranch was a dairy operation. In 1954, p l a i n t i f f s developed a t r a i l e r court operation t o supplement t h e i r income. While the two uses of the property did not make them wealthy, i t did provide a l i v i n g which kept them busy and able t o l i v e as they desired. This way of l i f e was rudely interrupted i n 1962, when they had a new neighbor move within 1600 f e e t of t h e i r home; t h a t neighbor was defendant Rocky Mountain Phosphate Company, which manufactures an animal feed supplement from phosphate rock. The background of Rocky Mountain Phosphate Company i s of i n t e r e s t because of what p l a i n t i f f s allege happened t o them a f t e r i t began operating i n the Garrison area. This Court began hearing about defendant e a r l y i n the 1960's when i t opened operations i n Butte, Montana. Due t o the same complaints we have here, defendant was l i t e r a l l y run out of Butte. I n place of picking a plant s i t e i n an area where the wind would disperse a i r pollutants, defendant chose instead t o locate i t s plant i n what i s described a s a "rolling valley", subject t o inversion situations. The plant was constructed during the years 1962-1963, and from the time it began operation it has been i n l e g a l d i f f i c u l - t i e s i n the d i s t r i c t courts of t h i s s t a t e and i n t h i s Court. Dutton, Moll-enberg v. Rocky Mtn, Phosphates, 151 Mont. 54, 438 P.2d 674; Mollenberg v. Rocky Mountain Phos. Co., 152 Mont. 352, 450 P.2d 672. See a l s o Charles R. Lee v. Rocky M t . Phosphate Co., Case No. 10595, f i l e d i n t h i s Court's Clerk's o f f i c e on May 9,, 1963, I n addition t o the s t a t e l e g a l actions, we note t h a t the f i r s t federal hearing --- the Powell County A i r Pollution Abate- ment Conference HEW--Public Health Service National Center fox A i r Pollution Control---was held i n July 1967, because of the operations of defendant. I n the four year period from September 1963, when the plant began operation, t o July 1967, it poured i n t o the Garrison area some two tons of fluorides, Between September 1963 and March 19, 1964, school operations i n the area were interrupted some 35 times. The physical complaints registered by human inhabitants were 1 I a stinging sensation on face, coughing, burning eyes, burning noses and such a s that." Its e f f e c t on animal and plant l i f e took longer t o detect . I n March 1965, defendant improved the s i t u a t i o n somewhat by reducing both sulphur dioxide and fluoride emissions. I n l a t e 1968, a Teller scrubber was f i n a l l y i n s t a l l e d . I n 1967, p r i o r t o the i n s t a l l a t i o n of the scrubber, ~ o n t a n a ' s Ambient A i r Quality Standards were established. Following the establish- ment of such standards, the measurement of fluoride concentra- tions i n the Garrison area, and p a r t i c u l a r l y on p l a i n t i f f s ' property, were monitored. A standard of . 3 micrograms per square centimeter f o r 28 days was established as a maximum allowable l i m i t , above which damage t o grass, t r e e s , and man occurs. After t h a t standard was established, the following t e s t s , introduced a s exhibits a t t r i a l , reveal the following concen- t r a t i o n s of fluorides on p l a i n t i f f s ' property: . " 'kxhtbit No. Dote hamtrotion =x 3 4 / 2 5 / 0 i ro 5/23/67 9 Lmg/cm2/28 days ( I N Screen ) A , i.t1tl7 to 5/23/67 1 3/Ymy/crr~2/28 days 1 W 0 Screen I I , clt c ~ t ! to 81 19/68 1 8 ug/cm2/28 day5 1 RMP not operating ) Y, , ( 2 j/bB Y/ 18/68 Li ug/crn2/28 days (Not operat~ng) - s : 2, I 9 . 5 0 0 6 / 6 8 3 1 /ug/cmz/28 days (Not operat~ng) . . . . A I J , i t u ! \ I 18 ug/cm2/28 days (Not operat~ng) .rr i I r i -;/b8 to 12/ 12/68 1 3b ug/cm2/28 days (operotlng from Nov 19) -r. 1 1 I 1 to 1 / 6 9 75 ug/cm2/28 days x 1 I 21 I 0169 to 3/10/69 58 ug/cm2/2S days .x ' L Lt i 0169 to 3/ 10169 1 06 ug/cm2/28 days .x I! 31 19/69 to 4/7/b9 1 16 ug/crn2/3Q days lrx '4 4/7/69 to 5/5/69 35 ug/cm2/28 days ' A 15 5/5/69 to 6/2/69 78 ug/crn2/28 days :x I6 51L/b9 to 6/30/69 1 7 ug/cm2/28 doys : x '7 0/30/69 to 7/28/69 1 0 ug/cm2/26 doys -.x I 8 7/28/69 to 8/29/69 l 0 ug/cm2/28 days ix 19 81 27/69 to 9/26/69 5 0 9 ug/m2/28 day; : x Zo 9/26/69 to 10/22/69 6 5 ug/cm2/28 days - A 21 10/22/69 to 1 1/24/69 4 02 ug/crn2/28 days ;X 22 l 1 /24/69 to 12/22/69 87 ug/crn2/28 days -.x 23 ' 2/22/69 to 1/21 /7C 1 36 ug/cm2/28 doys 1 >per,lt~w ~ t o ~ [ ~ r l Jar) 19 zx 24 1 2 75 ug/crn2/7 5 days Not Operot~ng x ! .i/L-lilO t J 3/25/70 46 dg/crnz/;lb days (Started March 4 ' , 1 1 t x 15 ltL>1 10 t o 4/19/70 65 ug/cm2/23 days From these exhibits it can be seen t h a t even a f t e r the Teller scrubber was i n s t a l l e d , t h a t month a f t e r month, year a f t e r year, p l a i n t i f f s were subjected t o f a r beyond the maximum permissible level of fluoride emissions, P l a i n t i f f s , almost from the beginning of defendant's plant operation, have been invaded by noxious odors of sulphur dioxide and fluorides. They have suffered sore t h r o a t s , sore eyes, burned l i p s , severe headaches and have had countless sleepless nights. P l a i n t i f f Edward Lahman developed a sinus condition and was bothered by a shortness of breath when he exerted himself. He went t o h i s family physician, D r . Benjamin of Deer Lodge, who had cdred f o r him since 1949. D r , Benjamin saw him i n 1961, and then began seeing him f a i r l y regularly a f t e r October 1968. A t t h a t Lime D r . Benjamin found he had a soreness of the mouth and tongue, and complained of mucus,/had d i f f i c u l t y with h i s circulation. The doctor ordered X-rays taken. Both he and a radiologist read the I I X-rays which revealed a questionable cardiac enlargement, and I I some lung scar. k urine t e s t f o r fluorides was negative. After t h e October 1968 examination, D r . Benjamin treated p l a i n t i f f regularly f o r complaints allegedly caused by the operation of defendant's plant. D r . Benjamin a l s o treated defendant Margaret Lahman f o r dbout 10 years, but it was not u n t i l i n e a r l y 1970 t h a t h i s examinations went t o complaints caused by defendant's plant. 3r. Benjamin t e s t i f i e d she complained of "a burning of the mouth, face, eyes, nose and throat, she had headaches, a cough and a e e l i n g of a weight on her chest plus nausea. In addition she had s t r e s s . " An X-ray revealed some scaring a t the base of t:he l e f t lung. A urine t e s t showed a normal fluoride content. D r . Benjamin t e s t i f i e d t h a t beyond t r e a t i n g h i s l o c a l p a t i e n t s , he had no experience o r contact with t r e a t i n g patients suffering from excess inhalation of fluorides, nor had he made any p a r t i c u l a r ,tudy of it. However, a t the t r i a l the court and jury were given t h e benefit of hearing the testimony of a medical expert i n the r i e l d of respiratory diseases with particular training and experience i n the f i e l d of fluorides. The f a c t they gave l i t t l e credence t o his exhaustive testimony concerning p l a i n t i f f s ' conditions i s hard t o believe, and I f e e l goes t o the instructions given by the court on the s t a t u t e of limitations. I f e e l t h a t Instruction No. 18 was d i r e c t l y responsible. Too, it i s m y b e l i e f t h a t Instruction No. 19 caused confusion within the jury i n considering damages t o p l a i n t i f f s ' r e a l property. In the f a i l u r e t o give p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed Instruction No. 5, p l a i n t i f f s ' expert witness Beck's testimony was severely limited. In D r . Samuel T. Hubbard of Spokane, Washington, p l a i n t i f f s presented t o the jury an impeccable witness. H i s background, trzining, experience i n the medical practice, and reputation as a consultant on a i r pollution a r e unquestioned. I n the f i e l d of fluarides he p a r t i c u l a r l y has p r a c t i c a l experience, f o r h i s practice and laboratory serve t o care f o r many patients working i n the aluminum plant i n Spokane, Counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f s sent them t o D r . Hubbard who performed c l i n i c a l and pathological examin- ations on both. From these extensive examinations D r . Hubbard t e s t i f i e d t h a t Edward Lahman was 75% medically disabled with a worsening prognosis, a l l d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the operation of defendant's plant. A s t o Margaret Lahman, he found t h a t "her diffusion disturbance and lung problem were the r e s u l t of the inhalation of the contaminated atmosphere, 1 I I recognize t h a t the t r i a l judge was l i b e r a l i n allowing testimony concerning the e n t i r e time of defendant's plant operation i n the Garrison area, but find h i s instructions irreparably damaged plai-ntiffs' case. The very f a c t t h a t t h i s jury took but one hour and ten minutes t o a r r i v e a t i t s findings, with a case of t h i s import and length of t r i a l , bespeaks of a misunderstanding on the part of the jury a s t o i t s functions. In Hardin v. Olympic Portland Cement Co., 89 Wash. 320, 1-54 P. 450, the Washington court said: - 12 - "No one has a r i g h t , however, t o pursue a lawful business, i f thereby he injures h i s neighbor 9 : 9 : without compensating such f o r the damages a c t u a l l y sustained, " See also: S t e r r e t t v. Northport Mining & Smelting Co., 30 Wash. 1.64, 70 P, 266; Bartel v, Ridgefield Lumber Co., 131 Wash. 183, I would reverse the findings and judgment and return the cause t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r a new t r i a l . I Associate Justice.