Title: KRONE v MCCANN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-060
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 5, 1982

No. 81-50 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1981 MAXINE M. KRONE , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, REX T. McCANN and D O R O T H Y G. McCANN, i n d i v i d u a l l y and as o f f i c e r s o f , and d/b/a SUPERIOR H O M E S REALTORS, I N C . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: ~ i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Musselshell, The Honorable N a t Allen, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Boschert & Zoschert, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents : Keefer, Roybal, and Hanson, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s ? August 6 , 1981 ~ e c i d e d : \Ah! 5.. 1374 8brti Kj4* 1782 F i l e d : - v - Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an a c t i o n i n negligence w i t h t h e p l a i n t i f f , Maxine Krone, seeking recovery of damages f o r an i n j u r y s h e r e c e i v e d while s h e was a b u s i n e s s i n v i t e e on t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e d e f e n d a n t s . Defendants moved f o r summary judgment on a l l i s s u e s ; p l a i n t i f f moved f o r summary judgment on t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y o n l y . The D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Four- t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , M u s s e l s h e l l County, g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' motion. The p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s . On June 13, 1976, a p p e l l a n t wrenched her knee w h i l e s h e was walking on r u r a l p r o p e r t y owned by respondents. Respondent Rex McCann, a s a r e a l t o r f o r S u p e r i o r Homes, was showing t h e p r o p e r t y t o a p p e l l a n t f o r her p o s s i b l e purchase. A t t h e time of t h e i n j u r y , McCann was l o o k i n g f o r a w e l l l o c a t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y , and t h e a p p e l l a n t was f o l l o w i n g him. I n her d e p o s i t i o n t h e a p p e l l a n t gave t h e f o l l o w i n g account of how her i n j u r y occurred: "Q. Would you e x p l a i n t o m e what happened t h a t day t h a t r e s u l t e d i n some i n j u r y t o you? A. Mr. McCann was showing us t h e p l a c e . Is t h a t what you mean? "Q. Um-hum, and what happened? A. W e -- He was d r i v i n g us around i n h i s v e h i c l e . And we stopped on t h e r o a d , g o t o u t and looked a t one w e l l t h a t we could s e e . Or what you want t o c a l l it. And t h e n he was t o show us another w e l l t h a t was r i g h t -- r i g h t around t h e r e . "Q. Go ahead. What happened? A. Well, I was following him, and . . . h u r t m y l e g . "U. Well, how d i d you come t o h u r t your l e g ? A . Like I s a i d , I was f o l l o w i n g him, ' c a u s e he c o u l d n ' t f i n d t h i s one w e l l . And . . . I s t u m b l e d o r f e l l o v e r some -- I r e a l l y _ _--_-___--___---__------------------- c o u l d n ' t t e l l you w h a t -- some d e b r i s o r ..................... whatever it was. "Q. When you s a y it was ' d e b r i s , ' do you mean t o s a y t h a t -- Can you d e s c r i b e what it was i n terms of -- Was it metal? Was it wood? Was it d i r t ? What was i t ? A. I r e a l l y d o n ' t know. I t was . . . something t h a t was -- There had been an o l d c o r r a l a t one time t h a t had been . . . oh, I suppose what I would c a l l t h e 'home c o r r a l p l a c e ' where t h e y branded t h e c a t t l e o r whatever, and t h e r e was a l o t of t h a t l a y i n g around. "Q. I t was i n t h e v i c i n i t y of an o l d c o r r a l , is t h a t r i g h t ? A. Yes. Well, I mean t h e r e was a l o t of l o g s and s t u f f l a y i n g around. I'Q . Now was t h e r e a p a t h ? Were you f o l l o w i n g something, o r were you-- A. I was f o l l o w i n g Mr. McCann. "Q. Okay. Now, was he immediately i n f r o n t of you? Was he 50 f e e t i n f r o n t of you? How much d i s t a n c e s e p a r a t e d you from Mr. McCann? A. I d o n ' t remember e x a c t l y , about 1 5 f e e t . "Q. Was your son w i t h you? A. M y son was w i t h m e , y e s . "Q. Was he a t your s i d e , o r was he behind you o r i n f r o n t of you? A. He was walking b e s i d e me, I t h i n k . "Q. Now, d i d you f a l l t o t h e ground? A. No, I d i d n ' t go c l e a r t o t h e ground. "Q. So what y o u ' r e s a y i n g is -- kind o f l i k e you t w i s t your a n k l e , you t w i s t e d your knee? Would t h a t be a f a i r s t a t e m e n t ? A. Yes. Well it happened awful f a s t - l i k e . And s o I j u s t -- And t h a t ' s been a few y e a r s ago, and I j u s t . . . Whatever happened, it h u r t l i k e -- t e r r i b l e a t t h e time. "Q. What time of t h e day was t h i s ? A. I t was about 2:00 o ' c l o c k i n t h e a f t e r n o o n . Approximately. NOW, I c o u l d n ' t p u t it r i g h t on t h e -- p i n p o i n t it r i g h t a t t h e minute. "Q. Any problem w i t h v i s i b i l i t y i n t h a t a r e a ? A. No. Hum-um* ( * n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e ) . "Q. Were you wearing your g l a s s e s a t t h e time? A. Yes. Um-hum. "Q. Was t h i s an a r e a t h a t was overgrown w i t h bushes or s h r u b s o r . . .? A. There was t a l l g r a s s and weeds. 3 "Q. And was it deep g r a s s , o r was it . . .. A. I d o n ' t remember, but I t h i n k about knee h i g h o r more. "Q. There w a s n ' t anything t h a t p r e v e n t e d you from s e e i n g t h e ground a s you walked over it, was t h e r e ? A. Yes, b u t I j u s t walked and was following Mr. McCann and w e were looking f o r t h i s w e l l . And he should have been where t h e w e l l was r i g h t away. And i f we'd have gone r i g h t from t h e c a r up t o where it w a s , t h e w e l l was a t , it w o u l d n ' t h a v e happened. And t h e r e -- i f he had had a l l t h a t s t u f f c l e a n e d o f f , c l e a r e d o f f , l i k e we d i d a f t e r w a r d s , it w o u l d n ' t have happened. "Q. So what y o u ' r e saying is t h a t t h e r e was something t h a t was on t h e ground t h a t was what y o u t r i p p e d on, but you don' t remember - - what it was? A. Well, I w o u l d n ' t know what it was e x a c t l y , b u t a p p a r e n t l y it was an o l d - c o r r a l p o l e , o r mound of d i r t . "Q. And you d o n ' t know i f it was a n a t u r a l accumulation of d i r t o r rock o r i f it was an u n n a t u r a l accumulation, is t h a t r i g h t ? A. A n a t u r a l -- N a t u r a l o r u n n a t u r a l . Could have been both. "Q. I t w a s n ' t something t h a t you f e l l i n ? A . No. "Q. t h a t what I t ' s something t h a t you t r i p p e d o v e r , is r i g h t ? A. I j u s t c a n n o t r e a l l y s a y it was, because it happened, l i k e I s a i d , so f a s t t h a t -- t h a t -- And when it happened, it was v e r y p a i n f u l . L e t ' s p u t it t h a t way. " (Emphasis added. ) A f t e r t w i s t i n g her knee, a p p e l l a n t went back t o McCann's c a r and r e t u r n e d t o B i l l i n g s . She d i d n o t go t o a d o c t o r a t t h a t time. About a year l a t e r , s h e went t o s e e a d o c t o r f o r a checkup and t o ask about her knee. She was r e f e r r e d t o another d o c t o r who l a t e r o p e r a t e d on her knee. She was i n t h e h o s p i t a l f o r f i v e days and was i n a c a s t f o r about s i x weeks. She s t a t e d i n her d e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e s u r g e r y d i d n o t s t o p t h e p a i n she s t i l l has from her knee. The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e o n l y i s s u e on review is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ' motion f o r summary judgment. Under Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., a summary judgment is proper only if the record discloses no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Reaves v. Reinbold (1980), Mont . I - 615 P.2d 896, 37 St.Rep. 1500; Rumph v. Dale Edwards, Inc. (19791, - Mont . - , 600 P.2d 163, 36 St.Rep. 1022. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the complete absence of any genuine issue as to all facts which are deemed material in light of those substantive principles which entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law. Big Man v. State (1981), - Mont . - , 626 P.2d 235, 38 St-Rep. 362; Harland v. Anderson (1976), 169 Mont. 447, 548 P.2d 613. Once the movant has established that no material issues of fact exist, the burden shifts to the opposing party to raise an issue of fact. As we stated in Rumph: "While the initial burden of proof must at- tach to the moving party, that burden shifts where the record discloses no genuine issue of material fact. Under these circumstances, the party opposing the motion must come for- ward with substantial evidence raising the issue. [Citations omitted. 1 Once the burden has shifted, the party opposing the motion is held to a standard of proof which is as sub- stantial as that initially imposed upon the moving party. [Citation ommitted.] " 600 P.2d at 167. It is also well established in Montana that " [a] ctionable negligence arises only from a breach of legal duty." Rennick v. Hoover (1980), Mont. , 606 P.2d 1079, 1081, 37 St.Rep. 308, 310, quoting Jonosky v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. (1920), 57 Mont. 63, 72, 187 P. 1014, 1015, and Cassady v. City of Billings (1959), 135 Mont. 390, 393, 340 P.2d 509, 510. As we stated recently in Rennick: ". . . i n o r d e r f o r t h e r e t o be a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t i n a neql-iqence c a s e t h e r e must be a d u t y imposed upon t h e d e f e n - -- d a n t and a l l e g a t i o n s which, i f proven, would - - - s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of a b r e a c h o f t h e d u t y . " -- - 606 P.2d a t 1081. The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was a b u s i n e s s i n v i t e e when s h e wrenched her knee w h i l e walking on t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' p r o p e r t y . I t is w e l l s e t t l e d i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t a p r o p e r t y owner's d u t y toward an i n v i t e e is t o use o r d i n a r y c a r e t o keep t h e premises r e a s o n a b l y s a f e and t o warn t h e i n v i t e e of any hidden or l u r k i n g dangers. Cassady, s u p r a , 340 P.2d a t 510, q u o t i n g Milasevich v . Fox Western Montana T h e a t r e Corp. ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 1.18 Mont. 265, 165 P.2d 1.95, 197. While t h e p r o p e r t y owner h a s t h e above-stated d u t y , it h a s been recognized many t i m e s by t h i s Court t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y owner is n o t an i n s u r e r a g a i n s t a l l a c c i d e n t s and i n j u r i e s t o i n v i t e e s . S c o t t v. Robson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 597 P.2d 1150, 1155, 36 St.Rep. 1273, 1279-1280, c i t i n g Dunham v . S o u t h s i d e N a t i o n a l Bank of Missoula ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 466, 548 P.2d 1383, and Cassady, s u p r a , 340 P.2d a t 510-511. I n Rennick, we noted: "'The t r u e ground of l i a b i l i t y is h i s [ t h e p r o p e r t y owner ' s] s u p e r i o r knowledge o v e r t h a t of b u s i n e s s i n v i t e e s of t h e dangerous c o n d i t i o n and h i s f a i l u r e t o g i v e warning of t h e r i s k , h o w e v e r , --- he i s n o t a n i n s u r e r a g a i n s t -- a l l a c c i d e n t s which may b e f a l l them upon h i s p r e m i s e s . ' . . . McIntosh v. Linder- Kind Lumber Co. (19641, 144 Mont. 1, 6, 393 P.2d 782, 785." 606 ~ . . 2 d a t l(J81. ( . ~ r n ~ h a s i s added. ) I n ~ l a 6 e y v. A s s o c i a t e d S u b d i v i s i o n s , I n c . ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 97 R . I . 3 4 , 195 A.2d 234, 3 A.L.R.3d 970, a r e a l e s t a t e agency was h e l d l i a b l e f o r i n j u r i e s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f when s h e f e l l i n a r o d e n t h o l e w h i l e l o o k i n g a t a p a r t i a l l y c l e a r e d l o t o f f e r e d f o r s a i e ~ y t h e dgency. i l h i s l o t was i n t h e C i t y of C r a n s t o n , Rhode I s l a n d , and was b e i n g d e v e l o p e d t o r home s i t e s . B l a h e y is r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s . I n Blak-ney, t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s o c c u r r e d on a c i t y l o t . She was n o t aware t h a t r o d e n t h o l e s were i n t h e l o t . Here, t n e a p p e l l a n t was w a l k i n g t h r o u g h an o p e n f i e l d I n r u r a l c o u n t r y . She s t u m b l e d o v e r s o m e t h i n g s h e c h a r a c - t e r i z e d a s " d e b r i s , " a "mound o f d i r t , " o r a n " o l d c o r r a l p o l e . " w h i l e s h e was u n s u r e of e x a c t l y what s h e t r i p p e d o v e r , s h e c o u l d see t h a t t h e r e were " l o g s and s t u f f l y i n g a r o u n a . " S i n c e s h e knew o f t h e g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e g r o u n d , no d u t y r e s t s on t h e d e f e n d a n t t o warn h e r o f it. More i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e f a c t is u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t c a n n o t d e s c r i b e what c a u s e d h e r i n j u r y . She d o e s n o t know i f it was m e r e l y a mound o f d i r t o r a n o l d c o r r a l p o l e . I n a n a c t i o n f o r n e g l i g e n c e , a p l a i n t i f f must p r o d u c e e v l d e n c e from which it c a n b e r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r r e d t h a t n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t o n t h e p a r t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t o r its a g e n t s was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s . F l a n s b e r g v . Montana Power Company ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 4 Cfiont. 53, 460 P.2d 263, approved i n S c o t t v . Robson, s u p r a , 597 P.2d a t 1155. H e r e , t h e a p p e l - l a n t s i m p l y d o e s n o t know e x a c t l y what c a u s e d h e r i n j u r y . A s n o t e d a b o v e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s c a n n o t be t h e i n s u r e r s o f t h e a p p e l - l a n t and h e l d l i a b l e f o r h e r i n j u r y m e r e l y b e c a u s e a n a c c i d e n t happened on t h e i r l a n d . Upon r e s p o n d e n t s ' showing t h a t no m a t e r i a l i s s u e s o f g e n u i n e f a c t were s t i l l i n d i s p u t e , t h e b u r d e n s h i f t e d t o t n e a p p e l l a n t t o come f o r w a r d by a f f i d a v i t and s u b s t a n t i a l evidence and r a i s e an i s s u e ot n a t e r l a l t a c t . H p p e l . l ~ n t h a s f a i l e d t o meet t h i s burden. She h a s p r e s e n t e d no s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t respondents had breached a d u t y owed t o her o r t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s ' a c t i o n s were a proximate cause of her i n j u r y . The summary judgment is a f f i r m e d . - 4 J u s t i c e v l V e concur: 2 A 4 4 4 & Chief J u s t i c e