No. 12487
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1974
LESLIE BERDINE and KENNETH H . HAGEN,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
-vs -
SANDERS C U T e t a 1. ,
O NY
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honor3ble E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants :
T i p p and Hoven, M i s s o u l a , Montana
Raymond Tipp a r g u e d , Missoula , Montana
F o r Respondents :
G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn and Robinson, Missoula , Montana
W i l l i a m Evan J o n e s a p p e a r e d and Gary Graham a r g u e d ,
Missoula , Montana
Submitted : F e b r u a r y 27, 1974
Decided -
:APR 4 1974
Filed: APR - 4 IT4
Mr. Chief 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 a p p e a l by t h e p l a i n t i f f s from a v e r d i c t and
judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S a n d e r s County, s i t t i n g w i t h
a j u r y , i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s and from t h e d e n i a l by t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t of p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r new t r i a l .
T h i s c a u s e was commenced by p l a i n t i f f s , Kenneth N. Hagen
and L e s l i e B e r d i n e , t o r e c o v e r damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s
from S a n d e r s County, t h e S a n d e r s County Board of Commissioners,
t h e Commissioners and P a u l Douglas Albano, a n employee of S a n d e r s
County. E s s e n t i a l l y t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i s a s follows:
On November 28, 1970, d e f e n d a n t P a u l Douglas Albano was
plowing snow on t h e Lower Heron Road, a g r a v e l e d r o a d , i n S a n d e r s
County. There were f o u r t o s i x i n c h e s o f snow c o v e r i n g t h e r o a d .
Albano was d r i v i n g a 1969 Ford t r u c k on which was mounted a snow-
plow w i t h a n a n g l e b l a d e 12 f e e t i n w i d t h which b e c a u s e of i t s
a n g l e plowed an 8 f o o t w i d t h . The p o r t i o n o f t h e b l a d e on d r i v e r
A l b a n o ' s l e f t was f l u s h w i t h t h e edge of t h e t r u c k and t h e p o r t i o n
on h i s r i g h t extended 2 f e e t and 9 i n c h e s beyond t h e r i g h t s i d e of
t h e truck.
Albano s t a r t e d plowing t h e r o a d g o i n g w e s t w i t h t h e l e f t
p o r t i o n o f t h e b l a d e i n t h e c e n t e r of t h e r o a d t h r o w i n g t h e snow
toward t h e o u t s i d e o r n o r t h s i d e of t h e r o a d . He t h e n proceeded
e a s t a l o n g t h e road a g a i n w i t h t h e l e f t p o r t i o n of t h e plow a t t h e
c e n t e r o f r o a d t o make s u r e t h a t he c l e a n e d t h e c e n t e r . Albano
n e x t proceeded west a l o n g t h e r o a d and a t t h e extreme r i g h t
s h o u l d e r of t h e r o a d i n o r d e r t o c o m p l e t e l y c l e a n t h e r i g h t hand
p o r t i o n of t h e r o a d .
The snowplow, which was owned by S a n d e r s County, had a y e l l o w
c a u t i o n l i g h t on t o p which was o p e r a t i n g .
P l a i n t i f f s were r e t u r n i n g from a d e e r h u n t i n g t r i p i n a n
a u t o m o b i l e o p e r a t e d by p l a i n t i f f Kenneth Hagen. Plaintiff Leslie
Berdine w a s a passenger i n t h e f r o n t s e a t of t h e automobile.
Michael B e r d i n e was a p a s s e n g e r i n t h e back s e a t . Plaintiffs
were t r a v e l i n g e a s t .
I t was on h i s t h i r d p a s s t h a t d e f e n d a n t Albano met p l a i n -
t i f f s ' automobile. Snow of t h e d e p t h o f a b o u t 8 i n c h e s s t i l l
c o v e r e d a p o r t i o n of p l a i n t i f f s ' h a l f of t h e roadway on t h e r i g h t
shoulder. A s Albano was meeting p l a i n t i f f s ' automobile, he h i t
a s o f t s p o t on t h e roadway, t r i e d t o p u l l t h e plow up, b u t found
t h a t i t would n o t r a i s e . H e p u t on h i s b r a k e s and s t a r t e d t o
shift. The b l a d e on t h e snowplow dug i n c a u s i n g t h e snowplow
t o come t o a h a l t . The snowplow s t o p p e d a b o u t 2 f e e t from where
i t had dug i n t o t h e roadway.
Albano c o l l i d e d w i t h t h e s i d e of p l a i n t i f f s ' c a r which
went i n t o t h e borrow p i t on p l a i n t i f f s ' s i d e o f t h e r o a d . A t the
t i m e t h e two v e h i c l e s met and t h e snowplow c a u g h t i n t h e s h o u l d e r
o f t h e r o a d , t h e back wheels of t h e snowplow s l i d t o w a r d s t h e
borrow p i t c a u s i n g t h e b l a d e of t h e snowplow t o s l i d e t o w a r d s t h e
c e n t e r of t h e r o a d . The r e a r wheels of t h e snowplow t r u c k w e r e
b a r e l y o f f t h e r i g h t s h o u l d e r of t h e r o a d , and t h e f r o n t wheels
were on t h e roadway.
A s a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t p l a i n t i f f s i n c u r r e d h o s p i t a l
b i l l s , d o c t o r b i l l s and o t h e r m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s and damages. Plain-
t i f f s i n s t i t u t e d t h i s cause e s s e n t i a l l y a l l e g i n g t h a t defendant
Albano was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o keep t h e snowplow i n i t s own
t r a f f i c l a n e and i n f a i l i n g t o o p e r a t e t h e snowplow i n s u c h a
manner a s t o a v o i d e n d a n g e r i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s and t h e c o l l i s i o n .
T r i a l was h e l d . Judgment on t h e v e r d i c t was e n t e r e d f o r t h e de-
f e n d a n t s and p l a i n t i f f s moved f o r a new t r i a l , which was d e n i e d .
P l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n t f o u r i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w which c a n be
summarized and s t a t e d a s f o l l o w s : (1) Whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n -
t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y ; (2) whether
t e s t i m o n y of U n d e r s h e r i f f W i l l i a m s , S a n d e r s County, was i m p r o p e r ,
and ( 3 ) whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t
p l a i n t i f f s 1 motion f o r a new t r i a l .
With r e s p e c t t o p l a i n t i f f s 1 f i r s t i s s u e , t h i s C o u r t h a s
r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t t h e f i n d e r of f a c t , t h e j u r y i n t h e i n s t a n t
c a s e , w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y
preponderates a g a i n s t t h e findings. Quitmeyer v . Theroux, 1 4 4
Mont. 302, 307, 395 P.2d 965; C l o s e v. E s t a t e of Ruegsegger, 143
Mont. 32, 4 1 , 386 P.2d 739; Marker v . Z e i l e r , 1 4 0 Mont. 4 4 , 5 5 ,
367 P.2d 311.
A s we s t a t e d i n Bernhard v . L i n c o l n County, 150 Mont. 557,
"When such a q u e s t i o n i s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t w e w i l l
only review t h e evidence t o decide i f t h e v e r d i c t
i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Breen v .
I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board (Mont. 1 9 6 8 ) , 436 P.2d 701.
The f a c t t h a t t h e r e were c o n f l i c t s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y
d o e s n o t mean t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o
s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . W must a c c e p t t h e e v i d e n c e
e
b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y ' u n l e s s t h a t e v i d e n c e i s s o
i n h e r e n t l y i m p o s s i b l e o r improbable a s n o t t o be
e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e f * * * . I Wallace v . Wallace,
85 Mont. 492, 279 P . 374, 377, 66 A.L.R. 587 ( 1 9 2 9 ) . "
A f t e r r e v i e w i n g and c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e i n s t a n t
case, we f i n d t h a t 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
v e r d i c t f o r t h e defendants. P l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h a t r e a s o n a b l e men
must c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e
snowplow c r o s s e d t h e r o a d i n t o p l a i n t i f f s 1 l a n e of t r a f f i c , which
argument i s p l a i n t i f f s 1 b a s i c t h e o r y f o r a l l e g i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t
Albano was n e g l i g e n t .
A t t h e t r i a l p l a i n t i f f Hagen t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was i n h i s
p r o p e r l a n e of t r a f f i c a s he was a p p r o a c h i n g t h e snowplow and t h a t
t h e snowplow came a c r o s s t h e r o a d and s t r u c k h i s v e h i c l e . He a l s o
s t a t e d t h a t h i s s i d e of t h e r o a d had been c o m p l e t e l y plowed b u t
n o t h i n g had been plowed on t h e s i d e t h a t t h e snowplow w a s working
on. Defendant Albano, who was c a l l e d a s a n a d v e r s e w i t n e s s by
p l a i n t i f f s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was plowing on t h e e x t r e m e o u t e r
p o r t i o n of h i s r i g h t l a n e a f t e r plowing t h e c e n t e r of b o t h s i d e s .
P l a i n t i f f B e r d i n e s t a t e d t h a t a s t h e y were d r i v i n g down
t h e r o a d t h a t he looked up and saw t h e snowplow coming a c r o s s
t h e r o a d towards t h e i r v e h i c l e . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r
t h e a c c i d e n t t h e snow plow b l a d e e x t e n d e d halfway a c r o s s t h e
p l a i n t i f f s 1 l a n e of t r a f f i c b u t d i d n o t know how f a r t h e snowplow
b l a d e went t o t h e l e f t o f where it was o r i g i n a l l y t r a v e l i n g when
it h i t t h e s o f t s p o t .
P l a i n t i f f s 1 e x p e r t w i t n e s s , J a c o b Hoover, t e s t i f i e d t h a t
when a snowplow d i g s i n t h a t it would t e n d t o go a c r o s s t h e r o a d ,
and he a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e snowplow would n o t go a c r o s s towards
t h e c e n t e r l i n e i f i t s r e a r wheels were down i n t h e borrow p i t s
on t h e r i g h t hand s i d e of t h e r o a d .
The f o l l o w i n g w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d on b e h a l f o f d e f e n d a n t s :
U n d e r s h e r i f f Williams who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e a c c i d e n t t o o k
measurements a t t h e t i m e . He found t h a t t h e r o a d a t t h e p o i n t o f
c o l l i s i o n w a s 23 f e e t from s h o u l d e r t o s h o u l d e r . There was no
centerline. The snowplow b l a d e was 12 f e e t l o n g . Two f e e t and
9 i n c h e s of t h e b l a d e e x t e n d e d beyond t h e r i g h t hand s h o u l d e r of
t h e road. From t h e extreme l e f t p o r t i o n of t h e b l a d e t o t h e r i g h t
s h o u l d e r was 9 f e e t .
Douglas Smith, a snowplow o p e r a t o r and s u p e r v i s o r of
d e f e n d a n t Albano, t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he a r r i v e d a t t h e s c e n e of
t h e a c c i d e n t t h a t he was a b l e t o d r i v e h i s f u l l snowplow by t h e
a c c i d e n t snowplow on t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 s i d e of t h e r o a d w i t h o u t
any problem i n s o f a r a s s p a c e was c o n c e r n e d . Smith a l s o i n d i c a t e d
t h a t a f t e r t h e snowplow s t o p p e d from i t s impact w i t h t h e s o f t
ground, i t c o u l d n o t have moved u n l e s s someone had p u l l e d i t .
M r . Lee, a S a n d e r s County Commissioner, went t o t h e a c c i -
d e n t s c e n e and observed t h a t t h e snowplow b l a d e was on i t s s i d e
of the centerline. He also stated that he had plenty of room
to drive by the snowplow on plaintiffs' side of the road.
As the testimony reveals, there was substantial evidence
that the snowplow did not cross the road into plaintiffs' lane
of traffic, and the jury obviously believed that it did not.
The only physical evidence introduced at the trial was the measure-
ments made by Undersheriff Williams. Williams' testimony together
with that of Douglas Smith and Lee supports the jury's verdict
that defendant Albano was not negligent.
Plaintiffs next contend that certain testimony of Under-
sheriff Williams was improper. Plaintiffs argue that testimony
as to conclusions and opinions of Williams was improperly received
by the court and, in addition, that such testimony also constituted
evidence of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff Hagen.
It is plaintiffs' position that since contributory negligence was
not an issue in the case that the verdict is contrary to the law
of the case.
At the scene of the accident Williams prepared an inves-
tigator's accident report, and at the trial he testified as to his
findings. Plaintiffs attack the testimony of Williams with respect
to his opinions concerning the accident arguing that his opinions
were without foundation and invaded the province of the jury.
Plaintiffs objected at trial as fcllows:
"Q. And did you prepare this in the ordinary
course of your investigating business based
upon the conversations at the acene with the
people who were there? A. Yes sir.
"MR. BRAULT: W o b j e c t t o any q u e s t i o n c a l l i n g
e
for a conclusion of this witness, no foundation
having been laid, and it invades the province of
the jury.
"THE COURT: Overruled."
The portion of Williams' testimony complained of by plain-
tiffs deals with the conclusions and opinions testimony. This
t e s t i m o n y was o f f e r e d a f t e r a d d i t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n had been
p r e s e n t e d a s t o W i l l i a m s ' q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and i s a s f o l l o w s :
"Q. Based upon t h o s e y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e and t h e
many a c c i d e n t s t h a t you i n v e s t i g a t e d , M r . W i l l i a m s ,
d i d you t h e n come t o a s e c t i o n of your r e p o r t where-
i n you were asked t o s t a t e your o p i n i o n a s t o what
happened? A. Yes s i r .
"Q. And i n t h a t p a r a g r a p h on your r e p o r t , what d i d
you s e t f o r t h i n t h e o f f i c i a l r e p o r t , M r . Williams?
A. I have under ' O p i n i o n s and C o n c l u s i o n s ' t h a t ve-
h i c l e number one s h o u l d have slowed down.
"Q. Which i s v e h i c l e number one now? A. The Hagen
vehicle.
"Q. A l l r i g h t , go ahead. The v e h i c l e number one
A.
s h o u l d have slowed down and w a i t e d f o r t h e plow t o
p a s s . The y e l l o w l i g h t on t h e snowplow i s f o r c a u t i o n .
I f v e h i c l e number one would have been o v e r on t h e
s i d e o f t h e r o a d t h e plow would have missed him
completely."
A f t e r t h e a d d i t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n had been p r e s e n t e d and
when Williams was e v e n t u a l l y asked a s t o h i s o p i n i o n s and con-
c l u s i o n s r e c o r d e d i n h i s f i n d i n g s , no o b j e c t i o n was made by
plaintiffs. I t i s a w e l l a c c e p t e d r u l e of law t h a t a n o b j e c t i o n
r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l i s n o t t i m e l y . Close, a t
p. 38, Boehler v. S a n d e r s , 146 Mont. 1 5 8 , 1 6 3 , 4 0 4 P.2d 885.
P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r c o n t e n d t h a t t h e above-quoted t e s t i -
mony of Williams c o n s t i t u t e d e v i d e n c e o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e .
P l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o make any o b j e c t i o n t o t h i s t e s t i m o n y on t h a t
ground d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , and f o r t h i s r e a s o n a l o n e p l a i n t i f f s '
i s s u e i s without merit. I n any e v e n t t h e e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e of
p r o x i m a t e c a u s e which was t h e i s s u e .
F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r new
t r i a l was p r o p e r l y d e n i e d and t h e v e r d i c t and judgment o f t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e hereby a f f i r m e d .
Chief J u s t i c e
We concur: '<
. - **