No. 12440
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1973
CUSTER BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
K E V I N BREWER,
Defendant and R e s p o n d e n t .
.................................................
DAVID RIVENES,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
KEVIN BREWER,
D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
.................................................
ELLA RIVENES,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
KEVIN BREdER ,
D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
Appeal f r o m : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
H o n o r a b l e C h a r l e s Luedke, J u d g e P r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f R e c o r d :
For Appellants :
Kenneth R. W i l s o n a r g u e d , Miles C i t y , Montana
Roland V. C o l g r o v e , Miles C i t y , Montana
For Respondents:
W i l l i a m R . McNamer a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
C h a r l e s cashmo more a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: November 2 6 , 1973
Filed :
dd.
&$
JAN 3, 6 1974
w c irk
I4r. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
P l a i n t i f f s C u s t e r Broadcasting Corporation, David R.ivenes
and E l l a Rivenes a p p e a l from a judgment f o r defendant Kevin
Brewer, e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Treasure County. The
a c t i o n was f o r damages a r i s i n g out of a r e a r end automobile c o l l i -
s i o n . Judgment was based on a j u r y v e r d i c t . Motion f o r new t r i a l
was denied and p l a i n t i f f s appeal.
Each p l a i n t i f f s e t f o r t h a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n f o r damages
a g a i n s t defendant. On motion under Rule 4 2 ( a ) , M.R. Civ.P., all
t h r e e c a s e s were j o i n e d f o r t r i a l .
P l a i n t i f f s David and E l l a Rivenes a r e husband and w i f e
who r e s i d e i n Miles C i t y , Montana. A t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t
b o t h were i n t h e i r l a t e f i f t i e s and f o r a number of y e a r s had
worked t o g e t h e r i n v a r i o u s b u s i n e s s e n t e r p r i s e s . David was
p r e s i d e n t and manager of Custer Broadcasting Corporation and
owner of 35% of i t s s t o c k , E l l a was s e c r e t a r y of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ,
b u t n o t a stockholder. They j o i n t l y owned t h e E a s t e r n Montana
A b s t r a c t Co, The automobile d r i v e n by David a t t h e time of t h e
a c c i d e n t was o-med by E a s t e r n Montana A b s t r a c t Co.
I n January 1971, David and E l l a were t r a v e l i n g from Miles
C i t y t o B i l l i n g s , Montana. The purpose of t h e i r t r i p was twofold
(1) t o send a video t a p e r e c o r d e r by a i r t o t h e f a c t o r y t o be
repaired, (2) David was t o t a k e a p l a n e e a s t . E l l a was t o r e t u r n
t h e c a r t o Miles C i t y . The v i s i b i l i t y was good, except f o r a
s k i f f of snow on t h e highway which caused some problems when c a r s
passed. P r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , p l a i n t i f f s had been f o l l o w i n g a
s e m i - t r a i l e r and both v e h i c l e s were t r a v e l i n g between 50 and 55
m i l e s p e r hour. The s e m i - t r a i l e r kicked up a s w i r l of snow be-
hind i t which obscured t h e view of t h e e n t i r e t r u c k body. David
t e s t i f i e d he was d r i v i n g w i t h h i s l i g h t s on d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e
j ourney .
Defendant Brewer came onto t h e highway west of F o r s y t h ,
Montana, and was t r a v e l i n g t o Hysham, Montana. Upon coming o n t o
t h e highway, he noted t h e Rivenes c a r ahead of him and followed
i t f o r s e v e r a l m i l e s a t a d i s t a n c e of about a block. He also
noted t h e s e m i - t r a i l e r ahead of t h e Rivenes c a r and t h a t i t was
k i c k i n g up a s w i r l of snow. Brewer t e s t i f i e d a v e h i c l e coming
from t h e w e s t passed t h e Rivenes v e h i c l e and h i s v e h i c l e , causing
t h e snow t o s w i r l s o t h a t v i s i b i l i t y was z e r o ; t h a t t h i s occurred
i n a c u t a r e a ; t h a t he slowed down from 50 t o 40 m i l e s per hour;
and, t h a t he never saw t h e Rivenes c a r a g a i n u n t i l he h i t i t
from t h e r e a r .
The c o l l i s i o n threw t h e Rivenes c a r through t h e o p p o s i t e
l a n e of t r a f f i c and i n t o t h e barrow p i t where i t came t o r e s t
pointed i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n t h a n i t had been t r a v e l i n g .
Both Rivenes 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 defendant came t o
II
t h e i r c a r and s a i d : I am s o r r y . It was a l l m f a u l t .
y I didn't
s e e you." Defendant denied making t h a t statement.
The i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e highway patrolman a f t e r t h e
a c c i d e n t i n d i c a t e d t h e r e were no s k i d marks made by d e f e n d a n t ' s
c a r p r i o r t o t h e r e a r end c o l l i s i o n . The patrolman's r e p o r t of
t h e a c c i d e n t showed t h a t defendant i n answer t o a q u e s t i o n of how
f a s t he was t r a v e l i n g a t t h e time of t h e c o l l i s i o n , s t a t e d : "Fly
II
a c c i d e n t r e p o r t shows 55.
A t t h e c l o s e of evidence a t t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f s moved (1)
for a directed verdict for a l l plaintiffs, (2) t o s t r i k e t h e
defense of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e , and ( 3 ) t o s t r i k e a s t o E l l a
Rivenes t h e defense of j o i n t e n t e r p r i s e o r j o i n t v e n t u r e . De-
fendant moved t o d i s m i s s a l l a c t i o n s . A l l motions were denied
by t h e c o u r t and t h e c a s e was submitted t o t h e jury.
Considering t h e p r o p r i e t y of g r a n t i n g a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t ,
t h i s Court i n Holland v. Konda, 142 Mont. 536, 541, 385 P.2d 272,
stated:
'""NO c a s e should e v e r be withdrawn from t h e
j u r y when r e a s o n a b l e men might draw d i f f e r e n t
c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e evidence. " [ C i t i n g c a s e ]
his r u l e i s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d by o t h e r
d e c i s i o n s of t h i s c o u r t , and we f e e l t h a t
I 'I
f u r t h e r c i t a t i o n on t h e p o i n t i s unnecessary.
However, i n c a s e s where a d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e i s f o l l o w i n g an-
o t h e r v e h i c l e too c l o s e l y , we follow t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t t h e primary
duty o f avoiding a c o l l i s i o n r e s t s upon t h e following d r i v e r .
I n F a r r i s and Seneca1 v. C l a r k , 158 Mont, 33, 37, 487 P.2d
1307, a r e c e n t r e a r end c o l l i s i o n c a s e , t h i s Court s u s t a i n e d t h e
t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t summary judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s .
There we reviewed t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n n o t u n l i k e t h e i n s t a n t c a s e ,
except t h a t h e r e i t was a daytime a c c i d e n t and i n F a r r i s i t was
nighttime. W noted t h a t s e c t i o n s 32-2153 and 32-2160, R.C.M.
e
1947, were a p p l i c a b l e .
T h i s Court has long h e l d t h a t v i o l a t i o n of a s t a t u t e con-
cerned w i t h highway t r a f f i c i s n e g l i g e n c e a s a m a t t e r of law.
F a r r i s should have c o n t r o l l e d t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n c o n s i d e r i n g
p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t .
I n view of t h e f a c t t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a d i r e c t e d
v e r d i c t should have been g r a n t e d , we w i l l n o t l i s t o r d i s c u s s
t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal.
The cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t r i a l on
damages a l o n e .
iI Justice.
-
/ @ief Justice
Justices. /'