No. 11868
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A
OR F F OTN
1973
ROBERT C. GREENE,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
KNAPP'S SERVICE, I N C , , et al.,
Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s ,
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 Nat A l l e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t s :
Small, Cummins and Hatch, Helena, Montana.
Floyd 0. Small and Robert C u m i n s argued, Helena,
Montana.
For Respondent:
Lloyd J. Skedd argued, Helena, Montana.
Submitted: January 22, 1973
Decided : FEB 2 8 1973
Clerk
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.
T h i s i s an appeal from an order o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e 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 C l a r k , g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f a new
trial. A new t r i a l was ordered f o l l o w i n g a j u r y v e r d i c t denying an award
o f damages i n an a c t i o n f o r personal i n j u r i e s a r i s i n g o u t o f an automobile
accident. The b a s i s o f t h e order was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e
verdict. From t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , defendants appeal.
The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s p l a i n t i f f , Robert C. Greene, a shoe p o l i s h
salesman from S e a t t l e , Washington, a r r i v e d i n Helena by plane on October
13, 1963. He r e n t e d an automobile from defendant Rent-A-Car Inc., which
i s a l i c e n s e e o f defendant H e r t z Corporation. The r e n t a l was made through
Rent-A-Car's agent i n Helena, which a t t h a t t i m e was defendant Knapp's
Service, I n c . The automobile r e n t e d t o Greene was a 1963 Studebaker Hawk.
A f t e r r e n t i n g t h e automobile, Greene drove t o t h e P l a c e r Hotel where he was
staying. He then drove t h e automobile from t h e h o t e l t o a laundromat on
Eleventh Avenue i n Helena, where t h e a c c i d e n t i n q u e s t i o n t o o k place. Greene
t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e course o f t h e d r i v e t o t h e laundromat he had no
t r o u b l e w i t h t h e brakes. Upon a r r i v i n g a t t h e laundromat he stopped t h e c a r
i n t h e p a r k i n g area and l e f t t h e a u t o m o b i l e ' s automatic t r a n s m i s s i o n i n t h e
drive position. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d p u l l o u t t h e emergency o r hand
brake. As he s t a r t e d t o g e t o u t o f t h e automobile i t began t o r o l l back-
wards. Greene t e s t i f i e d :
" * * * so I p u t t h e hand brake on, opened t h e door,
stepped o u t w i t h m l e f t f o o t and t o o k m f o o t o f f t h e
y y
brake pedal. I had a l r e a d y p u l l e d t h i s o u t as f a r as
i t would go, took my f o o t o f f t h e brake pedal, and
I was I ' d say h a l f way o u t o f t h e car, stepped o u t
and t h e c a r s t a r t e d t o s l i d e backwards. I c o u l d n ' t
g e t back i n , and I t r i e d t o h o l d i t w i t h m shoulder
y
and t h e c a r probably weighed two tons, and t h e n e x t
t h i n g I knew I was down, oh, a t l e a s t as f a r as from
me t o M r . Skedd, o n l y a l i t t l e f u r t h e r * * *."
The c a r r o l l e d across Eleventh Avenue and came t o r e s t a g a i n s t a
tree. Greene r e t r i e v e d t h e automobile and drove back i n t o t h e p a r k i n g l o t .
A f t e r p l a c i n g h i s l a u n d r y i n one o f t h e machines a t t h e laundromat, he
ca1 l e d Knapp's Service and r e p o r t e d t h e a c c i d e n t . Knapp's a p p a r e n t l y
r e p o r t e d t h e a c c i d e n t t o t h e p o l i c e as a few minutes l a t e r Sergeant Goodale,
now Captain Goodale, a r r i v e d a t t h e scene. Goodale t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r
l e a r n i n g what had happened he t e s t e d t h e hand brake and t h e automobile
r o l l e d back a few f e e t . Captain Goodale t o o k Greene t o t h e h o s p i t a l . As
a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t Greene r e c e i v e d i n j u r i e s t o h i s l e f t f o o t , r i g h t
l e g and shoulder. The automobile was taken back t o Knapp's S e r v i c e where
t h e hand brake was examined by an employee.
The s o l e i s s u e on appeal i s whether i t was an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n
f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o g r a n t a new t r i a l .
The g r a n t i n g o f a new t r i a l i s governed by s t a t u t e . S e c t i o n 93-5603(6),
R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t a new t r i a l may be granted f o r :
" I n s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e evidence t o j u s t i f y t h e v e r d i c t
o r o t h e r d e c i s i o n , o r t h a t i t i s a g a i n s t law * * *."
Apparently i t was on t h i s b a s i s t h e new t r i a l was granted. Although
t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r s e t s o u t no s p e c i f i c reason, t h e motion by p l a i n t i f f ' s
counsel a l l e g e d t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t .
T h i s C o u r t ' s t a s k i n r e v i e w i n g t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t has
been r e c e n t l y r e s t a t e d i n Staggers v. U n i t e d S t a t e s F i d e l i t y and Guaranty Co.,
159 Mont. 254, 496 P.2d 1161, 1163, 29 St.Rep. 357, wherein we held:
. .
" I n Campeau v Lewis , 144 Mont 543, 547, 398 P .2d 960,
962 (1965) we s t a t e d : 'The c o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d
t h a t t h e evidence i s n o t i n s u f f i c i e n t i f i t i s substan-
t i a l . Adami v. Murphy, 118 Mont. 172, 164 P.2d 150. I n
t h e Adami case, t h e c o u r t , q u o t i n g from Morton v. Mooney,
97 Mont. 1, 33 P.2d 262, h e l d t h a t " s u b s t a n t i a l evidencet'
c o u l d be d e f i n e d as such " ' a s w i l l convince reasonable men
and on which such men may n o t reasonably d i f f e r as t o
whether i t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s case, and, i f a l l
reasonable men must conclude t h a t t h e evidence does n o t
e s t a b l i s h such case, then i t i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence.'"
118 Mont. 172, a t page 179, 164 P.2d a t page 153. The
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 one witness may be s u f f i c i e n t t o
e s t a b l i s h t h e preponderance o f a case. B a t c h o f f v. Craney,
119 Mont. 157, 161, 172 P.2d 308. Also, 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 presented. Win
Del Ranches, I n c . v. R o l f e and Wood, I n c . , 137 Mont. 44,
49, 350 P.2d 581. W t h i n k these cases d e a l i n g w i t h
e
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence c l e a r l y o u t l i n e t h e meaning o f
" i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence" i n t h e s t a t u t e . The j u r y i s d e l e -
gated t h e t a s k o f f i n d i n g t h e f a c t s . T h e i r v e r d i c t i s
based upon t h e i r f i n d i n g s . The t r i a l judge, however, has
t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o prevent a m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e by
g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l i f t h e r e i s an i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i -
dence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . "'
I n t h i s cause Greene and Captain Goodale t e s t i f i e d t h e brake d i d
n o t work. Four defense witnesses t e s t i f i e d t h e hand brake was i n p e r f e c t
working order, t h r e e o f whom had experience i n auto mechanics. Robert
Trollope, an employee o f Knapp's Service, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he picked t h e
automobile up t h e n i g h t o f the accident and t h a t he checked t h e hand brake
and found i t i n working order. The manner i n which he t e s t e d t h e brake
was by p a r k i n g i t on an i n c l i n e near t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n then s e t t i n g t h e
hand brake and l e a v i n g t h e c a r i n gear. He s t a t e d t h e o n l y way t h e auto-
mobile would move i n t h i s manner was i f t h e motor was running and he t r i e d
t o move i t . The automobile was l e f t o v e r n i g h t i n t h i s p o s i t i o n and i t d i d
n o t move.
George M i l l e r , an employee o f Rent-A-Car Inc., performed t h e same
t e s t t h e n e x t morning a f t e r l e a r n i n g t h e f a c t s o f t h e a c c i d e n t from Greene.
It was h i s testimony t h e automobile would o n l y move w i t h t h e hand brake s e t
i f t h e motor was running and t h e c a r i n gear. The automobile was taken t o
Great Fa1 1s where t h e emergency o r hand brake was checked by two mechanics
employed by Rent-A-Car I n c . Both t e s t i f i e d they found no d e f e c t i n t h e brake.
The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t was n o t bound t o f i n d any f a c t by t h e number
o f witnesses produced as opposed t o o n l y one witness. It can be presumed
t h a t i t chose t o b e l i e v e t h e defense witnesses.
There was a l s o t h e testimony o f Captain Goodale t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f
the a c c i d e n t Greene t o l d him he was already o u t o f t h e c a r and when he saw
i t s t a r t t o r o l l he t r i e d t o g e t back i n . I n t r y i n g t o do so, t h e open door
knocked him down.
W h o l d t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n determining t h a t
e
t h e r e was an i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t .
Defendants argue t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence upon which t h e j u r y
c o u l d f i n d t h a t Greene's i n j u r i e s were n o t caused by t h e a c c i d e n t and thereby
deny him recovery. I n l i g h t of what we have s a i d h e r e t o f o r e we observe no
need t o discuss t h a t issue.
The order g r a n t i n g t h e new t r i a l i s reversed and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
is directed to reinstate the j
t
\
/ / ----- i - ---- i - -- -- ---
i L ~ ~
/' Associate Justices