Title: CISSEL v WESTERN PLUMBING HEATI
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14865
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 4, 1980

No. 14865 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 GARY CISSEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, WESTERN PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., A Montana Corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and For the County of Park, Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana Lyman Bennett, I11 argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Keefer, Roybal and Hanson, Billings, Montana J. Dwaine Roybal argued, Billings, Montana Filed: ' Submitted: March 28, 1980 Decided: JL'Y 4 1 9 8 1 1 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Appellant Gary C i s s e l i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n by f i l i n g a complaint i n t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Park County, before t h e Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom. The complaint a l l e g e d t h e respondent, Western Plumbing and Heating, Inc. (herein Western), n e g l i g e n t l y i n s t a l l e d a water c l o s e t valve i n a home being constructed by him r e s u l t i n g i n damage t o t h e home which rendered it worthless. Western answered t h e complaint by a s s e r t i n g t h e damages complained of by M r . C i s s e l w e r e caused by negligence on h i s p a r t . The p a r t i e s presented t h e case t o a jury on t h e com- p l a i n t and answer. The jury returned s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s f i n d i n g negligence on t h e p a r t of both p a r t i e s b u t f i n d i n g only M r . C i s s e l ' s negligence caused damages t o the house. The jury returned a general v e r d i c t f o r defendant. The D i s t r i c t Court entered judgment accordingly and t h i s appeal followed. M r . C i s s e l and William Patenaude entered i n t o a j o i n t venture agreement t o c o n s t r u c t and sell a house i n Livingston, Montana. Under t h e t e r m s of t h e agreement M r . C i s s e l w a s t o provide t h e financing f o r t h e p r o j e c t and do t h e e l e c t r i c a l work. Patenaude w a s t o a c t a s t h e general c o n t r a c t o r . Construction of t h e house began i n November 1976 and con- tinued a t a slow pace u n t i l March 1977. A t t h a t t i m e M r . C i s s e l terminated h i s agreement with Patenaude and h i r e d John Sexton t o complete construction of t h e home. When M r . Sexton began working on t h e house he d i s - covered t h a t one corner of t h e s t r u c t u r e had s e t t l e d approxi- mately five-eighths of an inch. Sexton a l s o a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t t h e house w a s moving i n a side-to-side fashion. Sexton i n s t a l l e d a cement "deadman" below t h e foundation of t h e house t o c o r r e c t t h e s e problems. Sexton s t a t e d t h a t no f u r t h e r slippage o r s e t t l i n g occurred i n t h e foundation f o r about t h e next e i g h t months while he completed construction of t h e s t r u c t u r e . M r . C i s s e l contracted with Western t o do t h e plumbing i n t h e house. A s of February 4 , 1978, a l l t h e plumbing had been completed except f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a t o i l e t i n a bathroom on t h e f i r s t f l o o r of t h e house. Western had i n s t a l l e d t h e pipe t h a t supplied water t o t h e t o i l e t and sealed it off with a water c l o s e t valve. On February 4 , 1978, M r . C i s s e l conducted a r o u t i n e inspection of t h e house. He found t h a t t h e water c l o s e t valve i n s t a l l e d on t h e t o i l e t pipe had blown off and t h a t water was flowing through t h e i n s i d e of t h e house. M r . C i s s e l presented evidence a t t r i a l t h a t t h e water flow from t h e pipe washed away a l a r g e portion of t h e f i l l d i r t around t h e foundation of t h e house. H e a l s o presented testimony t h a t t h e erosion of t h e f i l l d i r t caused t h e house t o s e t t l e approximately f i v e inches which i n t u r n caused cracks i n t h e f o o t i n g s and foundation of t h e house, cracks i n t h e stone veneer i n s t a l l e d on t h e o u t s i d e of t h e house, s e p a r a t i o n of t h e house's i n t e r i o r w a l l s , buckling of s h e e t rock i n s i d e t h e house, and eventually t h e buckling of t h e f l o o r i n t h e house. These damages rendered t h e house unsaleable and worthless according t o M r . C i s s e l . Western presented evidence along two l i n e s t o r e f u t e C i s s e l ' s theory t h a t t h e leaking pipe caused t h e damage t o t h e house. F i r s t , Western introduced testimony t h a t both t h e f i l l and foundation systems used by C i s s e l i n construct- i n g t h e house were inadequate t o support t h e s t r u c t u r e . Second, Western introduced evidence t h a t w a t e r run-off from a snow m e l t , r a t h e r than water leaking from t h e t o i l e t pipe, caused a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of t h e e r o s i o n of t h e f i l l d i r t . M r . C i s s e l ' s a t t o r n e y p u t William Patenaude on t h e stand a t t r i a l . O n d i r e c t examination M r . Patenuade testi- f i e d a s t o t h e procedure followed i n s e t t i n g the foundation of t h e house and placing t h e f i l l d i r t around t h e house. On cross-examination Patenaude w a s allowed t o t e s t i f y a s t o a n i n c i d e n t t h a t occurred a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h i s lawsuit. He r e l a t e d a n i n c i d e n t before t r i a l i n which M r . C i s s e l a l l e g e d l y grabbed him, threw him t o t h e ground and threatened " t o blow h i s b r a i n s out" i f he d i d n o t t e s t i f y favorably t o C i s s e l ' s c a s e a t trial. M r . C i s s e l r a i s e s t h e following i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Was t h e r e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence before t h e jury t o support t h e finding of no causal connection between Western's n e g l i g e n t i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e water c l o s e t valve and t h e damages sustained by M r . C i s s e l ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n admitting t h e testi- mony of W i l l i a m Patenaude concerning t h e a s s a u l t M r . C i s s e l made on him and t h e t h r e a t s C i s s e l made t o him? M r . C i s s e l frames t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d on appeal i n t e r m s of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e jury v e r d i c t . The standard f o r review of an i s s u e presented i n t h i s fashion i s w e l l s e t t l e d . The Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i f t h e record contains s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . Dodds v. Gibson Products Company (1979) r - Mont. , 593 P.2d 1022, 1026, 36 St.Rep. 348, 353; McGuire v. American Honda Co. (1977), 173 Mont. 171, 177, 566 P.2d 1124, 1127; Big Sky Livestock, Inc. v. Herzog (1976), 171 Mont. 409, 4 1 4 , 558 P.2d 1107, 1109-1110. Further, t h e evidence must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e prevailing party i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t on review. Herzog, 171 Mont. a t 4 1 4 , 558 P.2d a t 1110. Several witnesses presented testimony t h a t t h e r e w a s no causal connection between Western's negligence and t h e damage t o t h e house. The evidence indicated two causes of t h e s e t t l i n g of t h e house and r e s u l t i n g damages o t h e r than t h e leaking pipe. F i r s t , Western introduced evidence t h a t improper design of t h e hquse and inproper compaction of t h e f i l l d i r t placed under t h e house caused t h e s e t t l i n g . Two expert witnesses t e s t i f i e d t o t h a t e f f e c t . Kent B r e w e r , a s t r u c t u r a l engineer, t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e foundation system of t h e house was inadequate; t h a t t h e pylons t h a t supported t h e f r o n t of t h e house were not set i n bedrock; and t h a t t h e f i l l under the house w a s improper. Brewer d i d s t a t e t h a t water flow would a c c e l e r a t e s e t t l i n g i n a loose f i l l s i t u a - t i o n , but t h a t t h e s e t t l i n g would occur eventually even without t h e water flow. O n cross-examination Brewer s a i d t h e house would have s e t t l e d i n zero t o f i v e years without any water flow. Walter Jones a l s o t e s t i f i e d . Jones i s a c i v i l engineer with a s p e c i a l t y i n s o i l mechanics. H e s t a t e d t h a t t h e back of t h e house had been placed on bedrock and had n o t s e t t l e d . H e f u r t h e r observed t h a t t h e f r o n t of t h e house had not been placed on bedrock and had s e t t l e d . Jones explained t h a t h i s company had taken s o i l samples and run tests t o determine t h e compaction of t h e f i l l d i r t under t h e house. Jones s t a t e d t h e tests showed t h e f i l l d i r t was not compacted very well and t h a t t h e house could be expectsd t o s e t t l e aSout s i x inches under t h e e x i s t i n g f i l l conditions. Based on t h i s d a t a , Jones concluded t h e main reason f o r t h e s e t t l i n g of t h e house was improper compaction of t h e f i l l d i r t under t h e house. Jones f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he observed s e t t l i n g over t h e e n t i r e f r o n t of t h e house. H e s a i d t h e amount of t h e s e t t l i n g c o r r e l a t e d t o t h e depth of f i l l under a p a r t i - c u l a r p a r t of t h e house and t h a t t h e r e was n o t an unusual d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e s e t t l i n g where t h e erosion of t h e f i l l d i r t had occurred. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e x p e r t testimony, M r . C i s s e l himself t e s t i f i e d he w a s concerned with t h e amount of f i l l used i n constructing t h e house. H e s t a t e d he had t h e cement p i l l a r s i n s t a l l e d i n t h e f r o n t of t h e house t o add support because of h i s concern. M r . C i s s e l a l s o s t a t e d he w a s g e n e r a l l y concerned with t h e q u a l i t y of t h e work M r . Patenaude had done i n t h e f i r s t phases of construction of t h e house, t h a t t h e tamper used t o compact t h e f i l l d i r t placed under t h e house w a s a small one g e n e r a l l y used f o r d i t c h o r trench p r o j e c t s r a t h e r than a l a r g e f i l l a r e a l i k e t h e house pro- j e c t , and t h a t no tests were done on t h e s o i l compaction during t h e construction of t h e house. B i l l Patenaude a l s o t e s t i f i e d concerning t h e f i l l conditions a t t h e house. Patenaude d i d s t a t e t h a t t h e f i l l d i r t placed under t h e house was compacted with a tamper. H e t e s t i f i e d , however, t h a t he had no e x p e r t i s e i n preparing f i l l o r constructing a foundation. Patenaude f u r t h e r s a i d t h a t no t e s t i n g of t h e f i l l w a s done during t h e construction of t h e house and t h a t he was concerned about t h e condition of t h e f i l l and t h e foundation. Patenaude s t a t e d h i s con- c e r n stemmed from t h e amount of f i l l used and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f r o n t of t h e house w a s placed on f i l l d i r t while t h e back of t h e house was s i t t i n g on a rock ledge. The second theory advanced by Western a s a cause f o r t h e house's s e t t l i n g w a s erosion of t h e f i l l d i r t due t o run-off from snow melt. Myron DesChene t e s t i f i e d concerning t h i s theory. M r . DesChene i s an insurance man whom C i s s e l c a l l e d t o t h e house on t h e day he discovered t h e leaking pipe. DesChene t e s t i f i e d t h e day M r . C i s s e l c a l l e d him t o i n s p e c t t h e damage t o t h e house w a s a very warm one f o r February a s it w a s chinooking. H e s t a t e d t h e snow from t h e t o p of t h e h i l l behind t h e house was melting. DesChene s a i d water from t h e snow melt was running down t h e h i l l s i d e behind t h e house, disappearing under t h e house, and t h a t an amount of water about equal t o t h e amount disappearing behind t h e house w a s coming o u t from under t h e house i n t h e f r o n t corner of t h e house where t h e f i l l d i r t eroded. Although DesChene recognized t h a t he was n o t an e x p e r t i n t h e a r e a of w a t e r flow, he gave t h e following testimony on cross-examination: "Q. [ M r . Bennett] A l l r i g h t . I want t o know i f you know i f t h e source of t h e w a t e r which caused t h e blow hole was from melting snow? "A. [ M r . DesChene] I c a n ' t say it wasn't. "Q. Can you say it was? "A. It c e r t a i n l y appeared t o be. It had t o come from someplace, and t h a t i s t h e only water t h a t w a s laying around s i n c e when I a r r i v e d t h e water was turned o f f within t h e house and it was s i t t i n g i n puddles." Engineers B r e w e r and Jones a l s o gave testimony support- i n g t h e theory t h a t snow m e l t run-off caused t h e erosion of t h e f i l l d i r t . B r e w e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t it was p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e water from t h e leaking pipe went down a d r a i n i n t h e bathroom f l o o r r a t h e r than down under t h e house. Both B r e w e r and Jones s t a t e d they observed more receding of t h e f i l l d i r t between t h e i r f i r s t inspection of t h e site and t h e t i m e of trial. Faced with t h i s type of evidence on causation, M r . C i s s e l devotes a l a r g e p a r t of h i s argument on t h i s i s s u e t o pointing o u t evidence c o n t r a d i c t i n g t h e above testimony and tending t o show t h e leaking pipe caused t h e house t o settle. This Court has r e j e c t e d t h i s kind of argument on s u b s t a n t i a l evidence questions on numerous occasions. For example, w e have s t a t e d : " ' I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t wherever t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence t h i s Court may only review t h e testimony f o r t h e purpose of determining whether t h e r e i s any s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record t o sup- p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . . . Where t h e evidence i s c o n f l i c t i n g , b u t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence appears i n t h e record t o support the judgment, t h e judgment w i l l n o t be disturbed on appeal. . . 1 I 1 McGuire, 173 Mont. a t 177, 566 P.2d a t 1127, quoting from Strong v. W i l l i a m s , 154 Mont. 65, 68, 460 P.2d 90, 92. Further, i n Stamatis v. ~ n d u s t r i a l Indemnity Cow (19791, Mont. , 601 P.2d 403, 36 St.Rep. 1866, we s a i d : - "Thus, where t h e f i n d i n g s are based on c o n f l i c t - i n g evidence, our function of review is confined t o determining whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evi- dence supporting such findings . . . Conversely, our function i s n o t t o determine whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support contrary findings." 601 P.2d a t 406, 36 St.Rep. a t 1869. Thus it i s c l e a r l y n o t the function of t h i s Court t o determine t h a t t h e r e i s evidence on t h e record t h a t con- f l i c t s with a j u r y ' s v e r d i c t o r t h a t t h e r e i s evidence on t h e record t h a t supports a v e r d i c t o t h e r than t h e one reached by t h e jury. The Court must only determine i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence on t h e record t o support t h e conclu- s i o n t h e jury u l t i m a t e l y reached. H e r e it appears t h a t evidence e x i s t s . The p a r t i e s presented evidence p o s t u l a t i n g t h r e e p o s s i b l e causes f o r t h e damage t o t h e house. M r . C i s s e l ' s evidence tended t o show t h e damage was caused by t h e leaking pipe. Western presented evidence t h e o r i z i n g t h e damage occurred e i t h e r because of improper construction of t h e house o r erosion of t h e f i l l under t h e house caused by snow m e l t run-off. The jury found t h e evidence presented by Western more c r e d i b l e and found t h e t h e o r i e s advanced by Western represented t h e cause of t h e damage t o t h e house. The finding i s based on t h e above summarized testimony by B r e w e r , Jones, DesChene, Patenaude and even C i s s e l himself. The testimony of these witnesses r e p r e s e n t s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence on which t h e jury could base i t s v e r d i c t . Therefore, w e w i l l n o t overturn t h e v e r d i c t on appeal on t h e b a s i s of t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by M r . C i s s e l . The second i s s u e presented here involves t h e admission of testimony concerning t h e a s s a u l t M r . C i s s e l made on B i l l Patenaude and t h e t h r e a t s C i s s e l made t o Patenaude. M r . C i s s e l contends it was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r t o admit t h i s t e s t i - mony. H e o f f e r s two reasons f o r t h e exclusion of t h e evi- dence. C i s s e l f i r s t contends t h e evidence i s i r r e l e v a n t . Second, he argues t h a t even i f t h e evidence i s r e l e v a n t , t h e evidence should be excluded because i t s p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighs i t s probative value. Both t h e s e arguments have been r e j e c t e d i n o t h e r j u r i s - d i c t i o n s . Addressing t h e relevancy i s s u e , t h e c o u r t i n Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company v. Farmers Union Cooperative Elevator and Shipping ~ s s o c i a t i o n , Kirwin, Kansas (10th C i r . 1967), 377 F.2d 672, s t a t e d , h he f a c t t h a t evidence on cross-examination i s immaterial and ir- r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e of negligence does n o t make it inad- m i s s i b l e i f otherwise r e l e v a n t and material on t h e c r e d i - b i l l t y of t h e witness." 377 F.2d a t 679. See a l s o ~ t r o u d 1/.-, 1 v. I)eer-Oliver, Inc. (1976), 112 A r i z . 574, 544 ~ . 2 d 1089, 1090. Concerning prejudice, it has been held t h a t evidence i s admissible t h a t shows a witness feared a defendant i n a criminal c a s e because of t h r e a t s made t o t h e witness by t h e defendant o r an a s s a u l t on t h e witness by t h e defendant d e s p i t e t h e f a c t such evidence a l s o shows t h e defendant may be g u i l t y of another crime. Commonwealth v. W i l l i a m s (1979), Mass. , 393 N.E.2d 937, 942; Commonwealth v. Douglas - (1968), 354 Mass. 212, 236 N.E.2d 865, 874. The relevancy of t h e testimony appears t o be equally w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d under Montana l a w . Rule 611(b) ( l ) , Mont.R.Evid., expressly allows a witness t o be impeached on cross-examination. Allowable methods of impeachment include showing a motive t o t e s t i f y f a l s e l y . Clarke, Montana Rules of - Evidence, 39 Mont. L. Rev. 79, 119 (1978). A n appropriate a r e a of i n q u i r y t o demonstrate a motive t o t e s t i f y f a l s e l y previously recognized by t h i s Court is f e a r of prosecution f o r a crime on t h e p a r t of a witness f o r t h e s t a t e i n a criminal case. S t a t e v. Ponthier (1959) , 136 Mont. 198, 208, 346 P.2d 974, 979-980. Thus, f e a r of t h e consequences of giving testimony i s a l e g i t i m a t e s u b j e c t f o r cross- examination t o show a witness has a motive t o f a l s i f y testimony. That i s what Western attempted t o do i n t h i s case. M r . C i s s e l had threatened t o k i l l Patenaude i f he d i d n o t t e s t i f y i n a manner favorable t o C i s s e l . Fear of C i s s e l carrying o u t t h a t t h r e a t d e f i n i t e l y could provide a motive f o r Patenaude t o g i v e f a l s e testimony a t t r i a l . The t e s t i - mony was t h e r e f o r e r e l e v a n t t o show a motive t o t e s t i f y f a l s e l y and properly admitted by t h e D i s t r i c t Court over C i s s e l ' s relevancy objection. I t should be noted t h a t M r . C i s s e l was e n t i t l e d t o an i n s t r u c t i o n l i m i t i n g t h e scope of t h e j u r y ' s consideration of t h e evidence t o t h e s p e c i f i c purpose f o r which it was relevant. Rule 105, Mont.R.Evid. On his request, the court should have instructed the jury that the evidence of the as- sault and threat should only be considered as it pertained to Mr. Patenaude's credibility. However, a trial judge has no duty to give a limiting instruction absent a request at trial from the party wishing to limit the scope of the con- sideration of the testimony. Polster v. Griff's of America, Inc. (1974), 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745, 747; Rader v. Gibbons and Reed Company (1972), 261 Ore. 354, 494 P.2d 412, 416; Dagget v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1957), 48 Cal.2d 655, 313 P.2d 557, 564, 64 A.L.R.2d 1283. Mr. Cissel did not request a limiting instruction here. There- fore, we will not disturb the judgment of the lower court on the basis of the failure to give the limiting instruction. Although properly admitted over the relevancy objec- tion, the evidence of the assault and threats should not have been admitted if the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. Rule 403, Mont.R.Evid. It cannot be denied that the evidence preju- diced Mr. Cissel's case. On the other hand, the evidence was relevant to Mr. Patenaude's credibility. Patenaude testified as to the strength of the house's foundation and the condition of the fill dirt placed under the house. Both of these facts were crucial to the determination of the cause of the damage to the house. Thus, Mr. Patenaude's credibility was important and evidence concerning his credi- bility had significant probative value as to the crucial issue in the case. This Court faced a similar situation in State v. London (1957), 131 Mont. 410, 310 P.2d 571. There we admitted testimony that a criminal defendant's wife had offered to pay a witness $500 t o t e s t i f y favorably t o t h e defendant a t t r i a l . Further, a heavy r e l i a n c e must be placed on the District Court's d i s c r e t i o n i n determining i f t h e prejudi- cial e f f e c t of evidence s u b s t a n % i ~ . l l y outweighs i t s proba- t i v e value. Montana Rules - of Evidence, supra, 39 Mont. L. Rev. a t 101. It should a l s o be noted t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l - lowed M r . C i s s e l t o present evidence i n h i s r e b u t t a l testi- mony explaining t h e circumstances under which he allegedly assaulted M r . Patenaude and r e f u t i n g some of t h e statements Patenaude made about t h e incident. This mitigated t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of t h e evidence. Considering the probative value of the evidence, t h e f a c t t h a t evidence has been admitted under s i m i l a r circum- stances i n a p r i o r Montana case, t h e heavy r e l i a n c e placed on t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n making t h i s determination and t h e f a c t t h a t M r . C i s s e l had an oppor- t u n i t y t o mitigate t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of the evidence, it cannot be s a i d t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of t h e evidence s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed i t s probative value. The admission of t h e evidence does not, therefore, c o n s t i t u t e ground f o r reversing t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Affirmed. W e concur: / % d d % x Chief J u s t i c e 0 Q L 4. ) J u s t i c e s 1Uoncur i n t h e r e s u l t reached by t h e majority but not i n a l l t h a t i s s t a t e d .