Title: KIRBY v KELLY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12235
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 19, 1972

No. 12235 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 MONA KIRBY, by Guardian ad 1 item, GWAW KIRBY and GWAN KIRBY, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -V8 - MELINDA P. K E T X and L E O N A R D M. KELLY, Defendants and Respondents. 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 : Arthur I ? . Acher appeared, Helena, Montana. Robert F. Swanberg argued, Helena, Montana. For Respondents: Robert T a . Johnson argued, Lewistown, Montana. Submitted: October 19, 1972 Decided : X C 1 0 1972 $ f y t : F i l e d : E c : $ , $ i d M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s a personal injury and property damage action by p l a i n t i f f s , t r i e d t o a jury i n the d i s t r i c t court of 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. After a verdict f o r defendants and denial of a motion f o r a new t r i a l , plain- t i f f s appeal from the f i n a l judgment. O n t h e morning of October 15, 1969, on I n t e r s t a t e Highway #15, an accident occurred about seven miles north of Helena. A l l p a r t i e s involved i n t h e accident were traveling south toward Helena from the Lincoln road t o attend work or school. A dense fog enshrouded the area and the highway surface was icy. The f a c t s on some controlling issues a r e i n dispute, but we w i l l r e l a t e them most favorably t o the prevailing party. P l a i n t i f f Mona Kirby and her mother Gertrude Kirby were traveling south on I n t e r s t a t e #15, which i s a four lane highway divided by a median with two driving lanes and a broad shoulder parking area, both north and south. They were passed by de- fendant Leonard M, Kelly, driving a GMC pickup truck. A s the Kirby c a r continued i n the fog, it approached Leonard ~ e l l y ' s pickup which had stopped off t o the s i d e of the road t o clean t h e i c e and f r o s t from the windshield. P l a i n t i f f s contend Leonard ~ e l l y ' s pickup was not off t h e driving lane. Gertrude Kirby stopped her au~omobile i n the r i g h t hand or outside lane of t r a f f i c , After cleaning h i s windshield, Leonard Kelly continued toward Helena. Gertrude Kirby waited f o r a short period of time a f t e r Leonard Kelly had departed and a s she was about t o move her c a r , it was struck i n the r e a r by a c a r driven by codefendant, Melinda Kelly. Both vehicles came t o a stop on t h e highway. The damage seemed minor. While the drivers were surveying the damage t o t h e i r respective automobiles, and were out of the automobiles, another automobile driven by Russell Harvey came from behind and struck Melinda Kelly's vehicle. Harvey drove heavily i n t o the r e a r of Melinda Kelly's automobile, rupturing the gasoline tank. This caused a f i r e which injured Ies. Knapp, who was r i d i n g with Melinda Kelly, and Cheryl Kelly, daughter of the Kellys, was - engulfed i n flaming gasoline. P l a i n t i f f Mona Kirby was a l s o injured i n t h i s s e r i e s of accidents. She was treated a t various times by a medical doctor a f t e r the accident. P l a i n t i f f Gwan Kirby, father of Mona, claimed damages f o r i n j u r i e s t o h i s daughter; and f o r damages t o h i s automobile. The jury found f o r defendants on both counts. P l a i n t i f f s present several issues f o r review which w i l l be discussed i n order of t h e i r presentation i n the b r i e f . P l a i n t i f f s contend there was not s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support the verdict f o r defendants and the t r i a l court erred i n i t s f a i l u r e t o grant a new t r i a l . I n reviewing t h i s issue, t h i s Court w i l l follow the long established r u l e , which was again reaffirmed i n Davis v. Davis, M o n t . , 497 P.2d 315, 318, 29 St.Rep. 65,69: "'When such a question i s before t h i s Court we w i l l review the evidence t o decide i f the verdict i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. Breen v. I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board (Mont. 1968), [I50 14ont. 4631 436 P. 2d 701. The f a c t t h a t there were c o n f l i c t s i n the t e s t i - mony does not mean there i s not substantial evidence t o support the verdict. W e must accept the evidence believed by the jury "unless t h a t evidence i s so in- herently impossible o r improbable a s not t o be e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e f ff +. Wallace v. Wallace 85 Mont. 492, 279 P.374, 377, 66 A.L.R. 587 (1929). t I' Even though there i s a c o n f l i c t i n the evidence, there i s evidence, depending on which witness the jury believed, t h a t defendant Leonard Kelly drove h i s pickup with due care and was not on o r blocking the highway when Gertrude Kirby chose t o stop on the driving lane, i n which case Gertrude Kirby could not look t o defendant Leonard Kelly t o respond f o r her misfortune, There i s f u r t h e r evidence t h a t Gertrude Kirby remained stopped on t h e highway some minutes a f t e r Leonard Kelly departed. There i s a l s o evidence t h a t t h e r e was no problem seeing the t r a f f i c lane markers on the highway surface. P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r contend t h a t Leonard Kelly was negligent per s e f o r not having defrosters under section 32-21-148, R.C.M. 1947, which requires : "(a) N o person sha.11 drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, o r other nontransparent material upon the f r o n t windshield, side wings, o r other side or r e a r windows of such vehicle which obstructs the d r i v e r ' s c l e a r view of the highvmy or any intersecting highway. " (b) The windshield on every motor vehicle s h a l l be equipped with a device f o r clearing r a i n , snow, o r other moisture from the windshield, which device s h a l l be so constructed a s t o be controlled o r operated by the driver of the vehicle. "(c) Every windshield wiper upon a motor vehicle s h a l l be maintained i n good working order. I I This s t a t u t e requires t h a t there be windshield wipers on the vehicle, t h a t they be i n good working order, and t h a t they a r e operated from the inside of the automobile. W e find no authority t o extend t h e mandate of t h i s s t a t u t e t o i n t e r i o r heating de- vices, Insofar a s Melinda Kelly's actions a r e concerned, t h e r e i s substantial evidence i n the record t h a t would allow a jury t o find t h a t she was operating her vehicle under proper control and a t a reduced speed when she entered t h e fog and came suddenly upon Gertrude Kirby's automobile i n the driving lane. The force of the described impact would reinforce the evidence of slow speed. P l a i n t i f f s further contend t h a t c o u r t ' s instruction No. 7, which i s section 32-2199, R.C.M, 1947, "Stopping, standing, or parking outside of business o r residence d i s t r i c t s , " i s not applicable t o the f a c t s here, due t o the poor v i s i b i l i t y . This statuteis c l e a r l y the law and we find no e r r o r , P l a i n t i f f s ' proposed instruction No, 5 deals with the code section on windshield wipers and we have previously commented on t h i s i s s u e of the case. With no evidence i n the record of defective wipers, the instruction w a s properly denied, P l a i n t i f f s contend the giving of c o u r t ' s instruction No. 18 was error. This instruction was given over p l a i n t i f f s ' objection and reads: "You a r e instructed t h a t i f you find negligence on the p a r t of Gertrude L. Kirby was the sole proximate cause of damage t o the p l a i n t i f f s , o r e i t h e r of them, then your verdict s h a l l be f o r t h e defendants, Leonard Kelly and Melinda Kelly.'' The record contains evidence, i f believed by the jury, t h a t Gertrude Kirby was stopped on the driving lane f o r some period of time f o r no purpose, a s there were two driving lanes available t o proceed. Leonard Kelly t e s t i f i e d t h a t it appeared she was waiting t o follow h i s machine through the fog, It was within the province of the jury t o make t h i s determination from the record. Therefore, the instruction would apply. The next issue f o r review concerns the verdicts submitted t o jury. The court gave a proposed verdict submitted by p l a i n t i f f s which required the jury t o respond t o four s e t s of questions. The defendants submitted a general v e r d i c t i n t h e i r favor. The court asked f o r objections, i f any, t o the defendants' verdict being submitted t o the jury, P l a i n t i f f s only responded t h a t they thought i t t o be r e p e t i t i o u s and the court thereupon submitted both forms t o the jury. When the jury returned i t s v e r d i c t , it used the verdict submitted by defendants, the general verdict. P l a i n t i f f s now contend t h a t it was e r r o r f o r the jury not t o have a l s o answered the questions on t h e i r proposed verdict. Nowhere i n the record i s it established t h a t p l a i n t i f f s moved under Rule 49(a), M,R, Civ.P., t h a t the jury be required t o return only a special v e r d i c t i n the form of special written finding upon each i s s u e of f a c t . Under the s t a t e of the record, we decline t o consider e r r o r on the p a r t of the t r i a l court, The f i n a l i s s u e raised by p l a i n t i f f s i s t h a t the court erred i n f a i l i n g t o s t r i k e defendants' cost b i l l . When t h i s case came t o o r a l argument i n t h i s Court, counsel f o r defendants withdrew t h e i r opposition t o t h i s argument and therefore plain- t i f f s w i l l prevail on t h a t point. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed, however the b i l l of costs entered by defendants w i l l not be allowed. ' ~ s s o c i a t e J u s t i c e I Associate Justices.