Title: EVANGELINE v BILLINGS CYCLE CENTER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-270
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 14, 1981

No. 80-270 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 PETER EVANGELINE and DIMITRI EVANGELINE Plaintiffs and Appellants, BILLINGS CYCLE CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Nye Law Firm, Billings, Montana Jerrold L. Nye argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: McNamer, Thompson & Cashmore, Billings, Montana Charles R. Cashmore argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: March 25, 1981 Decided: April 15, 1981. M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of the Court. P l a i n t i f f s , f a t h e r and son, brought an a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , each seeking damages f o r personal i n j u r y . Jury t r i a l r e s u l t e d i n a defendant's v e r d i c t . P l a i n t i f f s appeal. P l a i n t i f f , P e t e r Evangeline, h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s " f a t h e r " , purchased a used 1975 Yamaha d i r t bike from defendant on June 16, 1978. The bike was purchased f o r the use of D i m i t r i Evangeline, h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s "son". One day following t h e purchase t h e son, then age 1 2 , attempted t o r i d e the bike around an oval t r a c k located a t p l a i n t i f f s ' home. O n two occasions the son had the bike s l i d e o u t from under him due t o h i s i n a b i l i t y t o slow the bike. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he did n o t know whether t h e brakes worked. The record i s unclear about what caused t h e s e s p i l l s . The f a t h e r then t r i e d t o r i d e t h e bike. He too s p i l l e d f o r some unexplained reason. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t know i f h i s f o o t was on t h e brake. The f a t h e r then remounted t h e bike f o r a second t r y . A s the f a t h e r was approaching a curve, he looked down t o see i f h i s f o o t was on t h e brake and the rest i s b e s t described i n h i s own words: "By t h e t i m e I looked up I had already g o t t e n t o the l a t e r a l ditch-- t h a t bottom one--and I c o u l d n ' t g e t o u t of i t . " "And by the t i m e I looked up, it was too l a t e t o do anything because I h i t t h a t d i t c h , and I was f l y i n g i n t h e a i r . " The f a t h e r went t o the h o s p i t a l , and the following day t h e son attempted t o r i d e again, t h i s t i m e i n the company of a f r i e n d . The sequence of events preceding t h i s second a c c i d e n t was r e l a t e d by t h e son a t t r i a l : "We s t a r t e d r a c i n g t h e r e when I went down t o the Hesper ~oad--toward them d i t c h e s . I looked down t o see i f m y f o o t was on t h e thing, and by t h a t time I was a t the d i t c h . I t r i e d t o l e a n t h e bike over, and the f r o n t wheel caught i n t h a t f i r s t d i t c h ; and m e o u t onto the road and m y bike i n t o t h e second d i t c h . " The son was i n j u r e d . The f a t h e r and son brought t h i s a c t i o n i n s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y , and a l t e r n a t e l y , i n negligence. The t r i a l c o u r t reserved r u l i n g on strict l i a b i l i t y u n t i l hearing a l l of t h e evidence. The c o u r t then decided t o submit the case on negligence only. The jury was a l s o i n s t r u c t e d on the a f f i r m a t i v e defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of r i s k . O n s p e c i a l findings, t h e jury concluded t h a t the negligence of each p l a i n t i f f was a proximate cause of each accident. The jury f u r t h e r found t h a t the defendant was n o t negligent. P l a i n t i f f s claim t h e following e r r o r : I. F a i l u r e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o submit s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y . 2. F a i l u r e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make a p r e t r i a l r u l i n g on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y . 3 . The i n s t r u c t i o n s on assumption of r i s k w e r e erroneous. 4. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s comments during t r i a l were pre- j u d i c i a l . The t r i a l c o u r t may reserve r u l i n g on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y u n t i l hearing evidence, a s t h e evidence may w e l l determine what l i a b i l i t y t h e o r i e s a r e appropriate. W e do n o t here r u l e on t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y t o a used product. W e resolve t h i s question on f a c t u a l i s s u e s and, t h e r e f o r e , no a u t h o r i t y is c i t e d . I f an i n s t r u c t i o n on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y had been given under t h e evidence adduced a t t r i a l , t h e r e s u l t would n e c e s s a r i l y have been t h e same. P l a i n t i f f s claim t h a t d e f e c t i v e brakes were t h e r e s u l t of improper brake adjustment. N o o t h e r d e f e c t can be found i n t h e evidence. W e a r e asked t o hold t h a t d e f e c t i v e a d j u s t - ment of brakes i s d i f f e r e n t from negligent adjustment of brakes. W e f e e l t h a t , given these f a c t s , the proof would be t h e same f o r e i t h e r s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y o r negligence. The jury found defendant was n o t negligent i n a d j u s t i n g the brakes. The same finding would preclude d e f e c t a r i s i n g o u t of t h e brake adjustment. The testimony of both the f a t h e r and son f a i l s t o e s t a b l i s h a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between claimed brake maladjustment and accident. In each case t h e bike h i t a d i t c h while the r i d e r was looking down t o see i f he was engaging t h e brake. W e hold t h a t p l a i n t i f f s could n o t have- been prejudiced by t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o i n s t r u c t on s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y because: (1) I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case the j u r y ' s f i n d i n g of no negligence on the p a r t of the defendant i n a d j u s t i n g t h e brakes would f o r e c l o s e a finding of d e f e c t by reason of brake maladjustment. ( 2 ) P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t c a r r y t h e i r burden t o e s t a b l i s h a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between brake maladjustment and t h e a c c i d e n t i n t h a t t h e testimony f a i l s t o prove t h a t the a c c i d e n t was caused by d e f e c t i v e brakes r a t h e r than caused by t h e bike h i t t i n g the d i t c h a t a t i m e t h e d r i v e r was una t t e n t i v e . Likewise, s i n c e t h e jury found the defendant t o be n o t negligent, any e r r o r i n i n s t r u c t i o n s on a f f i r m a t i v e defenses would be harmless. Therefore, we need n o t review t h e i n s t r u c - t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o assumption of r i s k . P l a i n t i f f claims e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s following remark t o t r i a l counsel: "THE COURT: W e l l , you managed t o confuse m e . Is t h e purpose--are you t r y i n g t o impeach t h i s man o r what? " P l a i n t i f f s - d i d n o t ask f o r a m i s t r i a l , nor d i d counsel r e q u e s t t h e c o u r t f o r an admonition. F u r t h e r , t h e remark i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o r e q u i r e a new t r i a l . The judgment i s affirmed. W e concur: L - - J u s t i c e s