Title: FARMERS UNION GRAIN TERM v M P C
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 83-433
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 7, 1985

N o . 83-433 I N T H E SUPREILE: C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1985 FARbERS UNION GRAIN TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, a c o r p o r a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, M O N T A N A P O W E R COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n , Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County of J u d i t h Basin, The Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For Appellant: Marra, Wenz, Johnson & Ilopkins; H-ekfi- Jensen, Great F a l l s , Montana ~ ~ c t x s 1 For Respondent : J a r d i n e , Stephenson, B l e w e t t & Weaver; Keith Tokerud, Great F a l l s , Montana - - Submitted on B r i e f s : Jan. 31, 1985 Decided: Jul\l 'r 7985 F i l e d : t \?N 'i 1'385 Lr - --- Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association (GTA) a p p e a l s a judgment following jury v e r d i c t f o r Montana Power Co. (Montana Power) i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l District, J u d i t h Basin County. W e a f f i r m . The i s s u e s presented on appeal a r e : 1. Was t h e evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o r e q u i r e a r e v e r s a l of t h e jury f i n d i n g t h a t Montana Power's negligence was n o t a proximate cause o f t h e f i r e t h a t destroyed t h e G T A e l e v a t o r ? 2. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by hampering t h e GTA e x p e r t ' s testimony a s t o t h e cause o f t h e f i r e ? 3 . Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n g i v i n g two jury i n s t r u c - t i o n s t o which G T A objected? The G T A g r a i n e l e v a t o r was l o c a t e d a t Coffee Creek, Montana, about 15 m i l e s from Stanford and 7 m i l e s from Denton. The e l e v a t o r was cribbed c o n s t r u c t i o n , which means t h a t t h e wooden 2 x 6 ' s and 2 x 4 ' s w e r e l a i d on t h e f l a t s i d e , one on t o p o f t h e o t h e r and n a i l e d t o g e t h e r . This i s a common form of g r a i n e l e v a t o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . E l e c t r i c a l s e r v i c e t o t h e e l e v a t o r 5 was furnished by Montana Power through a single-phase t r a n s f o r m e r , which furnished 110-220 v o l t power, and through a three-phase t r a n s f o r m e r , which furnished 208 v o l t power f o r l a r g e r mo- t o r s . The e l e c t r i c service l i n e s e n t e r e d through t h e roof o f t h e s c a l e room and r a n through a m e t e r base i n t o which t h e Montana Power meter was plugged and then i n t o t h e main break- er box. The m e t e r and breaker box w e r e located on t h e w e s t w a l l of t h e s c a l e room and t h e r e w e r e v a r i o u s o t h e r electri- c a l boxes located along t h a t w e s t w a l l . The Montana Power evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e Montana Power w i r e s a t t a c h e d t o t h e GTA w i r e s on t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e e l e v a t o r , s o t h a t t h e w i r e and conduit which ran down t h e w e s t w a l l o f t h e room t o t h e meter base belonged t o GTA. Although t h e meter belonged t o Montana Power, t h e m e t e r b a s e belonged t o GTA. The evidence a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e c o n d u i t , wire, v a r i o u s breaker boxes and e l e c t r i c a l equipment l o c a t e d i n t h e s c a l e room belonged t o G T A w i t h t h e s i n g l e exception o f t h e e l e c t r i c meter. On t h e weekend p r i o r t o Monday, J u l y 30, 1979, a l i g h t - ening storm occurred i n t h e Coffee Creek a r e a . Without p o s i t i v e p r o o f , v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s assumed l i g h t e n i n g had s t r u c k t h e GTA e l e v a t o r o r i n i t s v i c i n i t y , causing s i g n i f i - c a n t damage t o t h e e l e c t r i c m e t e r l o c a t e d i n t h e s c a l e room. Evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e r e had been a f i r e i n t h e s c a l e room t h a t had r e s u l t e d i n some burning along t h e w a l l s . I n a d d i t i o n , a cardboard box o f l i g h t b u l b s on t h e f l o o r had burned. O n Monday, J u l y 30, M r . Pemberton, a lineman f o r Montana Power, came t o t h e e l e v a t o r t o read t h e m e t e r . H e had worked a s a lineman i n t h i s a r e a f o r many y e a r s . The e l e v a t o r was n o t o p e r a t i n g a t t h a t t i m e , a s t h e p r i o r t e n a n t had terminat- ed i t s l e a s e and G T A had n o t y e t begun o p e r a t i n g t h e eleva- t o r . During t h i s p e r i o d , t h e e l e v a i o r was e s s e n t i a l l y empty o f g r a i n . M r . Pemberton looked a t t h e meter and saw t h a t it had been damaged, was unreadable and had t o be replaced. H e a l s o noticed t h e r e had been a f i r e i n t h e cardboard box. M r . Pemberton t e s t i f i e d he saw no damage t o any o f t h e e l e c t r i c a l equipment except t h e m e t e r , although he d i d n o t check t h e rest o f t h e equipment, which was owned by GTA. L a t e r t h a t day M r . Pemberton received a r e p o r t t h a t t h e bulk p l a n t near t h e e l e v a t o r had no e l e c t r i c power. H e determined t h a t t h e s m a l l e r transformer which served both t h e e l e v a t o r and t h e bulk p l a n t had t r i p p e d o u t . H e reset t h e transformer on Monday and ordered a replacement m e t e r , which was never i n s t a l l e d . From Monday t o Friday o f t h a t week, a number o f t h e p r i o r t e n a n t ' s and GTA's employees w e r e i n t h e e l e v a t o r . O n Friday, August 3 , 1979, a f t e r r e c e i v i n g a r e p o r t t h a t t h e l a r g e r transformer had a r e d l i g h t showing on it, M r . Pemberton r e s e t t h e l a r g e r t r a n s f o r m e r , which furnished three-phase power. Within a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t t i m e a f t e r t h e r e s e t t i n g o f t h a t t r a n s f o r m e r , t h e e l e v a t o r was r e p o r t e d t o be on f i r e . E s s e n t i a l l y a l l o f t h e e l e v a t o r , i n c l u d i n g t h e s c a l e room and a l l t h e e l e c t r i c a l equipment i n it w e r e de- stroyed. The testimony o f v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s a s t o t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n s b e f o r e t h e f i r e and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h a t evidence by t h e e x p e r t s o f both s i d e s c o n s t i t u t e d t h e e v i - dence a s t o t h e cause o f t h e f i r e . Following a jury t r i a l , a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e jury found t h a t t h e Montana Power Company was n e g l i g e n t , b u t t h a t t h e negligence o f Montana Power was n o t a proximate cause o f t h e damage t o G T A ' s e l e v a t o r . A s a r e s u l t , judgment was e n t e r e d f o r Montana Power. G T A appeals. Was t h e evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o r e q u i r e a r e v e r s a l o f t h e jury f i n d i n g t h a t Montana Power's negligence was n o t a proxi- mate cause o f t h e f i r e t h a t destroyed t h e G T A e l e v a t o r ? G T A argues t h a t overwhelming evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e f i r e was caused by t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f e l e c t r i c i t y by t h e Moiltana Power lineman. GTA b a s e s i t s primary argument upon t h e e x p e r t testimony o f D r . B e r n s t e i n , a p r o f e s s o r o f e l e c - t r i c a l engineering from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin. D r . B e r n s t e i n ' s c r e d e n t i a l s w e r e e x t e n s i v e w i t h regard t o h i s experience i n t h e t h e o r y o f e l e c t r i c i t y , h i s work i n r e v i s i n g e l e c t r i c a l codes, i n v e s t i g a t i n g approximately 1 0 0 f i r e s r e l a t i n g t o e l e c t r i c a l c a u s e s , and t e s t i f y i n g i n approximate- l y 20 t r i a l s on b e h a l f o f b o t h p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s . I n a d d i t i o n , he i s t h e a u t h o r o f v a r i o u s p u b l i c a t i o n s a b o u t l i g h t e n i n g caused f i r e s and o t h e r c a u s e s o f e l e c t r i c a l f i r e s . I n s u b s t a n c e , D r . B e r n s t e i n concluded t h a t t h e conduct o f t h e Montana Power lineman was t h e c a u s e o f t h e f i r e . H e a l s o i n d i c a t e d a n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y which w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d later. Montana Power r e l i e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y o f M r . Pemberton, t h e Montana Power lineman who had approximately 20 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e a s a lineman, i n c l u d i n g 17 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e s e r v i c i n g t h e GTA e l e v a t o r . Montana Power a l s o c a l l e d M r . Williams, t h e l i n e m e n ' s s u p e r v i s o r f o r Fergus E l e c t r i c Co-Operative o f Lewistown. M r . Williams had approximately 28 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a s a lineman. M r . Ronish, a p r i v a t e b u s i - n e s s e l e c t r i c i a n w i t h 30 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , i n c l u d i n g 11 y e a r s a s a lineman, was a l s o c a l l e d . The t e s t i m o n y o f t h e s e t h r e e w i t n e s s e s d i r e c t l y c o n t r a - d i c t e d p a r t s o f D r . B e r n s t e i n ' s testimony. A s a r e s u l t , t h e j u r y was r e q u i r e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e v a r i o u s e x p e r t s and d e t e r m i n e which p o r t i o n s o f t h e t e s t i m o n y it found more b e l i e v a b l e . While G T A a r g u e s t h a t i t s e v i d e n c e was overwhelming i n n a t u r e , t h a t i s n o t t h e s t a n d a r d o f review t o b e a p p l i e d . A s w e p o i n t e d o u t i n Gunnels v. Hoyt (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 633 P.2d 1187, 1191, 38 St.Rep. 1492, 1495: " W e review t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . W e w i l l r e v e r s e o n l y where t h e r e i s a l a c k o f s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment. "Evidence may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and s t i l l be deemed s u b s t a n t i a l , and s u b s t a n t i a l evidence may c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r evidence." ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) I n Jacques v. Montana Nat. Guard (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 649 P.2d 1319, 1325, 39 St.Rep. 1565, 1573-74, c i t i n g Galloway v. United S t a t e s (1943), 319 U.S. 372, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 87 L.Ed. 1458 (Black J., d i s s e n t i n g ) , t h i s Court agreed w i t h J u s t i c e Bl ack' s warning o f t h e p o s s i b l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l infringements i n h e r e n t i n s e t t i n g a s i d e a jury v e r d i c t : "'. . . I b e l i e v e t h a t a v e r d i c t should be d i r e c t - e d , if a t a l l , only when, without weighing t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , t h e r e is i n t h e evidence no room whatever f o r honest d i f f e r e n c e o f opinion o v e r t h e f a c t u a l i s s u e i n controversy. I s h a l l continue t o b e l i e v e t h a t i n a l l o t h e r c a s e s a judge should, i n obedience t o t h e command o f t h e Seventh Amendment, n o t i n t e r f e r e with t h e j u r y ' s function. Since t h i s i s a m a t t e r o f high c o n s t i - t u t i o n a l importance, a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s should be a l e r t t o i n s u r e t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h i s c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l r i g h t even though each c a s e n e c e s s a r i l y t u r n s on i t s p e c u l i a r circumstances. ' 319 U.S. a t 407, 63 S.Ct. a t 1096, 87 L.Ed. a t 1480." Our a p p e l l a t e review i s l i m i t e d t o an a n a l y s i s o f t h e evidence t o determine whether t h e r e i s 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 . W e may reverse t h e jury v e r d i c t only i f t h e evidence i s s o overwhelming t h a t t h e r e i s no room f o r an honest d i f f e r e n c e o f opinion on t h e i s s u e o f c a u s a t i o n . The G T A b r i e f s c a r e f u l l y review t h e evidence submitted i n behalf of GTA. W e do n o t f i n d it necessary t o review t h a t evidence i n d e t a i l . The evidence was e x t e n s i v e , w e l l pre- pared and c e r t a i n l y would have supported a v e r d i c t f o r G T A on t h e q u e s t i o n o f proximate cause, had t h e jury given such a v e r d i c t . However, o u r a n a l y s i s here must be d i r e c t e d t o t h e evidence submitted by Montana Power. O n Monday, J u l y 30, M r . Pemberton reset t h e s m a l l e r o r l i g h t e r transformer (single-phase power) a f t e r being t o l d t h a t t h e bulk p l a n t had no e l e c t r i c power. Pemberton's testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t he climbed t h e pole on which t h e transformer was located and hooked up h i s volt-ammeter t o t h e w i r e running from t h e secondary s i d e o f t h e t r a n s f o r m e r t o t h e e l e v a t o r . Wh.en he looked a t t h e ammeter t o see i f t h e r e was any c u r r e n t p a s s i n g , he found none and concluded t h a t t h e transformer had been t r i p p e d o u t . Pemberton then t e s t i f i e d t h a t he used a s t i c k t o reset t h e handle on t h e s i d e o f t h e transformer. A s he reset t h e t r a n s f o r m e r , Pemberton testi- f i e d t h a t he watched h i s ammeter t o s e e what t h e e l e c t r i c a l c u r r e n t d i d a s t h e transformer was reenergized. The ammeter needle moved j u s t a l i t t l e , i n d i c a t i n g t o Pemberton t h a t power was r e s t o r e d t o t h e secondary l i n e , b u t a l s o i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e was no s h o r t c i r c u i t o r o t h e r apparent f a u l t . In t h e absence o f any s i g n i f i c a n t amperage reading, Pemberton concluded t h a t t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n o f equipment damage t h a t r e q u i r e d f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s on h i s p a r t . D r . Bernstein t e s t i f i e d t h a t M r . Pemberton was n e g l i g e n t i n t u r n i n g on t h e e l e c t r i c i t y a f t e r viewing t h e damaged meter. M r . Williams, t h e linemen's s u p e r v i s o r from t h e Co-op, and M r . Ronish, t h e independent e l e c t r i c i a n , both t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e procedure followed by Pemberton was c o r r e c t and t h a t a damaged m e t e r does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e a problem i n an electric system. A l l t h r e e o f t h e Montana Power w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t i f t h e r e w e r e v i s i b l e damage t o o t h e r electri- c a l equipment, then t h e power should n o t be turned on. Pemberton t e s t i f i e d t h a t except f o r t h e e l e c t r i c meter, he saw no i n d i c a t i o n o f damage t o o t h e r e l e c t r i c a l equipment. A l l t h r e e Montana Power w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e reset transformer "held" and t h e r e was no flow o f power t o i n d i c a t e a s h o r t c i r c u i t o r s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n , t h e lineman could s a f e l y allow t h e power t o c o n t i n u e t o flow. The testi- mony by t h e Montana Power w i t n e s s e s a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t it was n o t t h e lineman's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o i n s p e c t o r r e p a i r equipment owned by t h e customer. The only evidence o f damage t o t h e main b r e a k e r box owned by GTA and l o c a t e d next t o t h e meter was presented i n t h e testimony of M r . P a t t e r s o n and M r . N e m e c . P a t t e r s o n , an employee o f t h e Co-op which had operated t h e e l e v a t o r , testi- f i e d t h a t while he was i n t h e s c a l e room, he opened GTA's main breaker box and showed Nemec t h a t t h e r e w e r e charred w i r e s on t h e i n s i d e . There i s no testimony t h a t t h i s i n f o r - mation was e v e r passed on t o t h e Montana Power Company. The testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a GTA employee i n s t r u c t e d one o f t h e Co-op employees t o h i r e an e l e c t r i c i a n t o t a k e c a r e of m a t t e r s i n t h e s c a l e room, b u t t h i s was n o t done p r i o r t o t h e f i r e . M r . Ronish's testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t an independent e l e c t r i c i a n was c l o s e by and a v a i l a b l e t o do t h e work. The Montana Power w i t n e s s e s ' testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , with t h e s i n g l e exception of t h e e l e c t r i c m e t e r , G T A was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e v a r i o u s components o f t h e e l e c t r i c a l system i n t h e s c a l e room. This testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t it was G T A ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o maintain and r e p a i r t h e c o n d u i t and w i r e coming i n t o t h e s c a l e room, and a l l o f t h e c o n d u i t and b r e a k e r boxes below t h e meter, i n c l u d i n g t h e b r e a k e r box i n which t h e charred w i r e s w e r e observed. I n a d d i t i o n , on Friday, August 3 , a number o f GTA per- sonnel inspected t h e e l e v a t o r i n o r d e r t o p r e p a r e it t o r e c e i v e g r a i n . One o f t h e G T A personnel, M r . F r e d r i c k , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he touched t h e main switch t o see i f it was burned o u t and t o determine i f it had t o be replaced. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he took hold o f and b a r e l y moved t h e door t o open it, t h e r e was a f l a s h and a loud buzzing sound o r a r c i n g sound. M r . F r e d r i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had n o t be- l i e v e d t h e r e was e l e c t r i c a l power running t o t h e e l e v a t o r . When t h i s a r c i n g sound and f l a s h occurred, he r e a l i z e d t h e r e was e l e c t r i c a l power running t o t h e e l e v a t o r . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t open any o f t h e o t h e r m e t e r boxes o r touch any o f t h e o t h e r equipment. The testimony on t h e p a r t o f t h e G T A personnel was t h a t they agreed t o c o n t a c t someone i n o r d e r t o have t h e electri- c a l system checked. There is no evidence t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t e i t h e r an e l e c t r i c i a n o r Montana Power w e r e advised o f t h e a r c i n g c o n d i t i o n which t h e GTA personnel observed and heard p r i o r t o t h e f i r e . The t h r e e linemen t e s t i f y i n g f o r Montana Power each emphasized t h a t t h e a r c i n g c o n d i t i o n s u f f i c i e n t l y i n d i c a t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s e r i o u s e l e c t r i c a l problems, and someone should have been n o t i f i e d immediately. M r . Pemberton a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r r e c e i v i n g a telephone c a l l t h a t a r e d l i g h t was lit on t h e l a r g e r t r a n s - former, he went t o t h e e l e v a t o r on Friday. N o G T A personnel w e r e t h e r e when he a r r i v e d . H i s testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e red warning l i g h t on t h e transformer goes on under two d i f f e r e n t circumstances. F i r s t , t h e r e may be an overload which i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o a c t u a l l y t r i p t h e c i r c u i t b r e a k e r and s t o p t h e flow of e l e c t r i c i t y , b u t s u f f i c i e n t t o cause t h e warning l i g h t t o go on. Second, t h e l i g h t w i l l go on when an overload i s s u f f i c i e n t t o t r i p t h e c i r c u i t b r e a k e r and s t o p t h e flow o f e l e c t r i c i t y . That F r i d a y , Pemberton climbed t h e p o l e on which t h e l a r g e r transformer was l o c a t e d and followed a procedure s i m i l a r t o t h a t which he had used w i t h t h e small- er transformer on Monday. He hooked h i s ammeter t o t h e l i n e coming o f f t h e secondary s i d e o f t h e transformer. The amme- ter showed a small load on t h e transformer. H e then reset t h e transformer s u f f i c i e n t l y s o t h a t t h e l i g h t went o f f and observed t h e same small load shown on t h e secondary s i d e of t h e transformer. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h i s i n d i c a t e d t o him t h a t t h e transformer had been on b e f o r e a s w e l l a s a f t e r t h e r e s e t t i n g . H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h e r e was no flow o f elec- t r i c i t y on t h e secondary s i d e a f t e r t h e r e s e t t i n g . This i n d i c a t e d t o him t h a t t h e r e was no s h o r t c i r c u i t o r o t h e r e l e c t r i c a l problem a t t h a t t i m e . The foregoing a n a l y s i s was d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d by D r . Bernstein. However, M r . Williams and M r . Ronish both testi- f i e d t h a t t h e procedure t h a t Pemberton used was c o r r e c t and s a f e . Both a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t Pemberton was warranted i n leaving t h e scene upon r e s e t t i n g t h e transformer a f t e r find- i n g no i n d i c a t i o n o f a s h o r t c i r c u i t o r o t h e r e l e c t r i c a l problem when h i s ammeter r e g i s t e r e d no s i g n i f i c a n t reading. A f t e r r e s e t t i n g t h e l a r g e r transformer, Pemberton went t o t h e e l e v a t o r t o i n s t a l 1 t h e new meter. However, t h e door was locked and he was n o t a b l e t o g e t i n . D r . Bernstein emphasized i n h i s testimony t h a t it was improper t o have r e s t o r e d power t o t h e system when t h e r e was a damaged meter and t h a t t h a t r e a d i l y could have been t h e cause o f t h e fire. I n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h a t testimony, a l l t h r e e o f t h e linemen t e s t i f i e d t h a t none of them had e v e r heard o f a meter causing a f i r e . Each t e s t i f i e d t h a t it was u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e meter had anything t o do w i t h t h e f i r e . In h i s opinion testimony, D r . B e r n s t e i n concluded t h a t t h e r e s e t t i n g of t h e transformer was t h e cause o f t h e f i r e . However, he a l s o gave an a l t e r n a t e opinion which involved G T A personnel. D r . Bernstein s t a t e d : "I b e l i e v e t h e f i r e s t a r t e d i n t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r on Friday, because M r . Pemberton reset t h e t e a s e r transformer [ t h e l a r g e r transformer] and p u t 208 v o l t s on t o t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r . The f i r e s t a r t e d s h o r t l y a f t e r he d i d t h a t . I b e l i e v e t h a t i s what s t a r t e d t h e f i r e . M y o t h e r opinion is: i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e t e a s e r transformer a c t u a l l y was on a t t h e t i m e M r . Pemberton reset it, and I do n o t b e l i e v e it was on when he reset it, because h i s method of measurement was n o t p r o p e r , I d o n ' t t h i n k he could t e l l . Then i n t h a t e v e n t t h a t it had been on a l l t h e t i m e , t h e n I b e l i e v e t h e f i r e was s t a r t - ed by some change i n t h e system, when t h e people from G T A w e r e on [ s i c ] t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r , and t h e y moved something which caused an a r c which eventual- l y l e d t o a f i r e , and t h e f i r e was caused because power had been l e f t on t h i s b u i l d i n g w i t h damaged equipment." With regard t o D r . B e r n s t e i n ' s conclusion t h a t t h e r e s e t t i n g o f t h e transformer s t a r t e d t h e f i r e , M r . Pemberton t e s t i f i e d t h e r e was no e x i s t i n g f a u l t o r s h o r t c i r c u i t on t h e secondary l i n e a t t h e t i m e he reset t h e l a r g e r transformer. H i s testimony on t h a t p o i n t was supported by t h e o t h e r two linemen. There i s no d i s p u t e i n t h e evidence t h a t Pemberton checked t h e secondary l i n e with t h e ammeter and t h a t no f a u l t was i n d i c a t e d . I n a d d i t i o n , Pemberton t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r a n experiments on t h e same l a r g e r transformer a f t e r t h e f i r e took p l a c e and concluded t h a t t h e ammeter readings b e f o r e and a f t e r reset- t i n g w e r e c o r r e c t . H e r a n a f u r t h e r experiment on a s i m i l a r transformer and reached t h e same conclusion. There was a d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n between t h e testimony o f D r . Bernstein and M r . Pemberton, Williams and Ronish. The evidence submitted on each s i d e was e x t e n s i v e and s u f f i c i e n t i n n a t u r e t o a l l o w t h e jury t o decide f o r e i t h e r t h e o r y of causation. D r . B e r n s t e i n ' s second t h e o r y a s t o t h e cause o f t h e f i r e i n d i c a t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e people from G T A moved something which caused an a r c , which e v e n t u a l l y led t o t h e f i r e . Even under t h a t t h e o r y , he concluded t h a t f a u l t l a y with Montana Power, which had l e f t t h e power on i n t h e eleva- t o r . Even i f t h e jury had accepted t h a t t h e o r y , it does n o t r e q u i r e a conclusion t h a t Montana Power's negligence was t h e cause o f t h e f i r e . The jury could have concluded t h a t it was t h e G T A employees who caused t h e problem by moving t h e i r own equipment, causing an a r c , and n e g l i g e n t l y f a i l i n g t o do anything about t h e a r c a t t h a t t i m e . A s a r e s u l t , t h e j u r y could have concluded t h a t t h e f i r e was caused by t h e a c t i o n o f G T A and r e s u l t e d from GTA's f a i l u r e t o inform Montana Power o f t h e a r c o r t o t a k e any f u r t h e r p r o t e c t i v e measures. After a careful review of the testimony, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict that the negligence of Montana Power was not the proximate cause of the fire. Clearly, the evidence established a basis for an honest difference of opinion on the question of causation. T I Did the trial court commit reversible error by hampering the GTA expert's testimony as to the cause of the fire? Montana Power's counsel made several objections during the course of Dr. Bernstein's testimony and the qualification by GTA counsel of Dr. Bernstein as an expert. Following one objection, counsel adjourned to the chambers where there was an extensive discussion of the rules of evidence. The court ultimately ruled that Dr. Bernstein could express his opinion and no limitations were placed on his testimony. GTA argues that the conduct of the trial court in considering these objections prejudiced GTA by hampering the expert's testimony. We find that the action on the part of counsel was reasonable and that the action on the part of the District Court was also reasonable. We do not find anything in the record that demonstrates prejudice to GTA. We conclude there was no error on the part of the District Court in this regard. I11 Did the trial court err in giving two jury instructions to which GTA objected? GTA's first argument is directed to Instruction No. 40, which related to the state of mind that is required before imposition of punitive damages. In substance, Instruction No. 40 provided that one who has suffered injury through the oppression, fraud o r malice of another may recover exemplary damages. "Malice" was defined a s importing a wish t o vex, annoy o r i n j u r e , o r an i n t e n t t o do a wrongful a c t . G T A argues t h i s i s confusing i n l i g h t o f I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20, which provided t h a t t h e negligence o f G T A i s n o t t o be con- s i d e r e d i f t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e e l e v a t o r was proximately caused by r e c k l e s s o r wanton misconduct by Montana Power. "Reckless o r wanton1' was defined a s i n t e n t i o n a l , wrongful, done e i t h e r w i t h knowledge t h a t s e r i o u s i n j u r y w i l l probably r e s u l t o r w i t h wanton and r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d o f p o s s i b l e r e s u l t s . GTA contends t h a t t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s e s t a b l i s h d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d s o f conduct o r i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f G T A and w e r e s o confusing t h a t t h e jury may have been misled. W e n o t e t h a t because t h e j u r y d i d n o t f i n d t h a t t h e negligence of Montana Power was a proximate cause o f t h e f i r e , t h e jury never reached t h e i s s u e o f p u n i t i v e damages under I n s t r u c t i o n No. 40. I n a s i m i l a r manner, because t h e jury concluded t h a t Montana Power's negligence was n o t t h e proximate cause, t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r applying I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20 t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case. A s w e read a l l o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o g e t h e r , w e f i n d no c o n t r a d i c t i o n s o f a r a s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 40 i s concerned. W e hold t h e r e was no p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r i n g i v i n g t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n . G T A next complains t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n g i v i n g I n s t r u c t i o n No. 24, which i n substance provides t h a t a person i s bound t o e x e r c i s e reasonable c a r e and d i l i g e n c e t o avoid l o s s and may n o t recover f o r l o s s e s which could have been prevented by reasonable e f f o r t s o r expenditures on h i s p a r t . Again w e note t h a t t h e jury d i d n o t reach t h e i s s u e o f damages because it f i r s t concluded t h a t Montana Power's negligence was n o t a proximate cause o f t h e f i r e . G T A h a s failed to show how it could have been prejudiced by this instruction. We conclude there was no error in giving Instruction No. 24. We affirm the District Court. We concur: / '