Court Opinion

ID: 9628247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:14:03.049944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:01.565369
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES
dissenting.
The fact statement reveals a bizarre situation. In addition to that recited in the majority opinion, it appears that the driver of the highway truck had one arm in a cast. Also the testimony reveals that the transport did not “rapidly” overtake the highway truck. Sanders was driving as any reasonably prudent driver would. He passed behind a left-turning vehicle in his own right-hand lane, as any driver on the streets and highways has done hundreds of times. Leach fell or was thrown from the highway truck across in front of Sanders, from the left lane over into about the center of the right lane. A complete and total surprise! Under this peculiar set of circumstances, I believe the “unavoidable accident” instruction was completely proper, in fact necessary. The majority opinion relies on Rodoni v. Hoskin, 138 Mont. 164, 355 P.2d 296, an opinion written by this writer. First, the instruction in the instant case is different from that in the Rodoni case. The instruction is more complete in that it adds the paragraph: “Bear in mind, however, that if any defendant failed to exercise care, and if that failure was a proximate cause of the accident in question, then, whether or not such *96conduct was the sole cause, the accident was not unavoidable, and the defense of unavoidability may not be maintained by that defendant.”
Next, the Rodoni case followed the reasoning of the New Mexico court in Lucero v. Torres, 1960, 67 N.M. 10, 350 P.2d 1028. In that case, the New Mexico court said at page 1031 of 350 P.2d: “* * * We believe that in a ease where the issues of negligence, contributory negligence and unavoidable accident are present, and the evidence being in conflict as to the issue of negligence and contributory negligence, the jury may conceivably find, with evidentiary support, that neither the appellant nor the appellee were negligent. There being questions present for the jury to decide as to whether appellee or appellant were negligent, or whether both or neither were negligent, we believe that in such a case, an unavoidable accident instruction is appropriate.”
And continuing in that opinion, the New Mexico court said:
“We do not mean to say that every motor vehicle accident ease warrants the giving of an unavoidable accident instruction. On the other hand, the very nature of some of the motor vehicle eases, such as this, suggests that genuine questions of mere accident or of unavoidable accident, giving foundation for the instruction, may be present. A prominent feature may be one of surprise, sudden appearance and reasonably unanticipated presence of a pedestrian, combined with circumstances which present a fair issue as to whether the failure of a driver of a motor vehicle to anticipate or sooner to guard against the danger or to avoid it, is consistent with a conclusion of the exercise of his due care. In such cases, the trial courts are inclined to grant the instruction on unavoidable accident and their action in so doing is generally approved by the appellate courts. [Citing cases.]”
In the instant case we have exactly the situation referred to in the New Mexico case. Such was not true in the Rodoni case. In the Rodoni case there was no issue of contributory *97negligence on the part of the plaintiff and also no evidence except that defendant was negligent. In the Eodoni case we specifically rejected the California case of Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652, 320 P.2d 500, 65 A.L.R.2d 1. The effect of the majority opinion in this ease is to overrule the Eodoni case and serve notice that an “unavoidable accident” instruction is improper in any case.
The majority opinion states: “The necessary evidentiary foundation is lacking if there was evidence from which the jury could infer negligence on the part of the defendant.” Simply an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant is sufficient'? The facts of the Eodoni case were such that there was only evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant and none on the part of the plaintiff. Bear in mind, too, that the instruction rejected here had the additional caution previously quoted. If the Eodoni case is interpreted to mean what the majority states above, this writer was guilty of careless opinion writing.
In the instant case the only evidence reveals that there was utter and complete surprise when a body came hurtling through the air in front of the transport. It was as if a car door came open unexpectedly and a person fell into the opposite lane of traffic. Utter surprise, utter unexpectedness, utterly unavoidable so far as the driver of the transport was concerned, except, of course, as the trial court observed in denying the motion for new trial, he could have stayed home in bed!
I believe the majority opinion has missed the mark completely, but it would do no good to further lengthen this dissent by a discussion of the other points. Suffice it to say that the majority opinion has just ruled out in Montana the use of “unavoidable accident” instructions. I think the majority is wrong.