No. 12770
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
OR F F
1975
D. M. WILLIAMS,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
MONTANA NATIONAL BANK O BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
F
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana
Lyman H. Bennett, Jr argued and Lyman Bennett, 1 1
1
argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
Bolinger and Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana
Page Wellcome argued, Boe eman, Montana
Submitted: January 9, 1975
Decided : rflP,\' .= 'f1,
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 of
t h e Court.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f 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 , G a l l a t i n County, f o l l o w i n g a j u r y v e r d i c t ,
i n t h e sum of $ 6 , 8 4 0 , and d e n i a l of a motion f o r new t r i a l .
M r s . Rosa J . W i l l i a m s , w i f e of p l a i n t i f f D . M . W i l l i a m s ,
t e s t i f i e d t h a t on J u l y 1 9 , 1973, s h e w a s a t t h e i r r u r a l home when
s h e saw a man coming up t h e walk. There was a n o t h e r man i n a c a r
who d i d n o t g e t o u t . The man t o l d M r s . W i l l i a m s t h a t he h e a r d
t h e y had been having some bad e l e c t r i c a l s t o r m s and t h a t he was
w i t h a l i g h t e n i n g r o d company; t h a t he h e a r d s h e had been h a v i n g
a l i t t l e t r o u b l e w i t h t h e l i g h t e n i n g r o d and wanted t o t a l k t o
him. H e a d v i s e d h e r t h a t s h e needed a new clamp on t h e l i g h t e n -
i n g r o d and s h e a u t h o r i z e d him t o p u t i t on.
M r s . Williams f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h e man t a l k e d f a s t and
moved f a s t , moved h i s f e e t a l i t t l e , and k e p t e d g i n g o f f a s s h e
t a l k e d t o him, which s h e c o n s i d e r e d u n u s u a l . The man a d v i s e d h e r
t h e clamp would be $1.26 and t h a t he had t o have a check s o he
c o u l d m a i l it i n t o t h e company. She s e c u r e d h e r check book and
a pen. The man s a i d he would f i l l i n t h e check f o r h e r and s h e
gave him t h e check book. H e f i l l e d it i n by w r i t i n g $1.26 i n f i g -
u r e s and i n longhand, p u t t i n g a d a t e on i t . H e advised her t h a t
h e would stamp t h e check w i t h t h e company stamp. She looked t h e
check o v e r and i t looked a l r i g h t t o h e r , a l t h o u g h it was n o t a s
s h e would have w r i t t e n i t . The check was w r i t t e n s o t h a t t h e
f i g u r e s were s o f a r t o t h e r i g h t hand s i d e t h a t t h e r e was ample
s p a c e t o w r i t e t h e a d d i t i o n a l f i g u r e s 6 8 4 t o t h e l e f t w i t h o u t any
a p p e a r a n c e of change. The words were w r i t t e n on t h e lower l i n e
s o c l o s e t o t h e word " D o l l a r s " t h a t t h e r e was ample s p a c e t o
w r i t e " S i x thousand e i g h t hundred f o r t y " ahead of i t w i t h o u t any
appearance of a l t e r a t i o n .
On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , M r s . W i l l i a m s t e s t i f i e d t h e i n d i v i d u a l
d i d not introduce himself; d i d not give her a business card o r
a n y t h i n g t o i d e n t i f y him; s h e d i d n o t c h e c k t h e work b e f o r e
p a y i n g ; s h e gave t h e man h e r e n t i r e check book; a n d , h e f i l l e d
o u t t h e check w h i l e i t was i n t h e check book.
The t e l l e r who c a s h e d t h e check a t d e f e n d a n t Montana
N a t i o n a l Bank, where p l a i n t i f f had a n a c c o u n t , and w i t h i t s
p r e d e c e s s o r s i n c e a b o u t 1918 o r 1919, t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e went t o
t h e j o u r n a l and checked t h e f u n d s t o s e e i f t h e r e was enough
money i n t h e a c c o u n t . She a l s o checked t h e p e r s o n ' s s i g n a t u r e
t o see i f t h e s i g n a t u r e on t h e check and on t h e s i g n a t u r e c a r d
a t t h e bank were t h e same; t h e y were, s o s h e c a s h e d t h e c h e c k .
Other w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e u s u a l and r e a s o n a b l e com-
m e r c i a l s t a n d a r d s e x i s t i n g i n t h e d e f e n d a n t bank and o t h e r banks
i n Bozeman.
James J o r d a n , a d e p u t y s h e r i f f , t e s t i f i e d and i d e n t i -
f i e d a p h o t o g r a p h i c copy of o n e s h e e t of a n A p r i l 1 9 , 1973, bank
protection bulletin. T h i s w i t n e s s f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d M r . Bruce
E l l i s , p r e s i d e n t of t h e bank, had informed t h e c i t y - c o u n t y de-
t e c t i v e team t h a t t h e method of o p e r a t i o n used h e r e was d e s c r i b e d
i n t h e A p r i l 1973, bank p r o t e c t i o n b u l l e t i n . He f u r t h e r t e s t i -
f i e d t h a t E l l i s d i d n o t have a copy of t h e b u l l e t i n i n q u e s t i o n
and s u g g e s t e d c h e c k i n g w i t h o t h e r banks. Although t h i s w i t n e s s
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l b u l l e t i n from which t h e copy was
made was n o t c i r c u l a t e d i n t h e Montana N a t i o n a l Bank t o h i s
knowledge, o v e r d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n t h e c o u r t a d m i t t e d t h e
e x h i b i t i n t o evidence. O cross-examination Jordan t e s t i f i e d
n
t h a t i t was one of h i s d e t e c t i v e p a r t n e r s , who f i r s t b r o u g h t up
t h e b u l l e t i n matter t o M r . E l l i s .
A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e , d e f e n d a n t moved
f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and d i s m i s s a l of t h e c a s e which was d e n i e d .
Bruce E l l i s t e s t i f i e d i n d e f e n d a n t t s c a s e t h a t he knew
o f f i c e r Ron Green and h e had m e t a n o t h e r o f f i c e r , whom he
presumed w a s J o r d a n . These o f f i c e r s were c o n d u c t i n g a n i n -
v e s t i g a t i o n and t h e y mentioned t o E l l i s t h a t t h e y found t h e r e
were o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s s i m i l a r t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n which had
developed i n t h e s t a t e and t h e y w e r e informed t h e r e was some
k i n d of a n o t i c e on t h i s i n d i v i d u a l i n a b a n k e r s ' b u l l e t i n .
E l l i s s t a t e d t h e o f f i c e r s wanted t h e A p r i l 1973 bank. p r o t e c t i o n
b u l l e t i n , b u t he was u n a b l e t o f i n d i t i n t h e bank and s o ad-
vised the officers. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d h e had no r e c o l l e c t i o n
of e v e r s e e i n g t h a t p a r t i c u l a r b u l l e t i n and t h a t i f a b u l l e t i n
of t h a t t y p e comes t o t h e bank, i t i s d e p o s i t e d on h i s d e s k ,
he r e v i e w s i t , and p a s s e s it on t o t h e o t h e r o f f i c e r s and it
g o e s on from t h e r e .
Upon t h i s a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t s t h e s e i s s u e s :
(1) Was t h e p l a i n t i f f n e g l i g e n t i n t h e manner i n which
t h e check was e x e c u t e d ?
(2) Did s u c h n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t e a s a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e
t o t h e i n j u r y a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f ?
(3) Was t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t t h e v e r d i c t ?
(4) W a s i t e r r o r t o admit i n e v i d e n c e t h e p h o t o s t a t i c
copy of t h e b u l l e t i n o v e r d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n ?
(5) Was i t e r r o r t o deny d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r -
ected verdict?
(6) Was i t e r r o r t o r e f u s e t o submit t h e i s s u e of assump-
t i o n of r i s k t o t h e j u r y ?
(7) Was i t e r r o r t o r e f u s e t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e
p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Uniform Commercial Code?
(8) Did t h e c o u r t err i n d e n y i n g t h e motion f o r a new
trial?
A s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s n e g l i g e n c e , h i s w i f e and a g e n t
knew how t o w r i t e a check and s i g n e d t h e check i n q u e s t i o n c o n t r a r y
t o t h e manner i n which s h e u s u a l l y made o u t a c h e c k , a c c o r d i n g
t o h e r own t e s t i m o n y . She knew t h e r e was p l e n t y of s p a c e f o r
i n s e r t i o n of l a r g e r amounts ahead of t h e f i g u r e s and words of
amount i n t h e check and was a l s o n e g l i g e n t i n n o t r e q u i r i n g
t h a t t h e p a y e e ' s name be i n s e r t e d i n t h e check and i n making
d e l i v e r y of t h e check u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d :
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t e v e r y p e r s o n i s r e -
sponsible f o r i n j u r y t o t h e person o r property
of a n o t h e r , c a u s e d by want o f o r d i n a r y c a r e o r
s k i l l , ( s u b j e c t t o t h e d e f e n s e of c o n t r i b u t o r y
n e g l i g e n c e ) . When used i n t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s ,
n e g l i g e n c e means want of such o r d i n a r y c a r e o r
s k i l l . Such want of o r d i n a r y c a r e o r s k i l l
e x i s t s when t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e t o do t h a t which
a r e a s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t p e r s o n would o r d i n a r i l y
have done under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e s i t u a t i o n ,
o r d o i n g what such p e r s o n under t h e e x i s t i n g c i r -
cumstances would n o t have done."
T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n conforms t h e 1969 d e c i s i o n i n F l a n s b e r g
Montana Power Company, 154 Mont. 53, 460 P.2d 263, 257, where t h e
Court s a i d :
" F u r t h e r , n e g l i g e n c e i m p o r t s s u c h a want o f
a t t e n t i o n t o t h e n a t u r e o r p r o b a b l e consequences
of t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n a s a p r u d e n t man o r d i n a r i l y
bestows i n a c t i n g i n h i s own c o n c e r n s . "
S e c t i o n 19-103 ( 1 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :
"The words * * * ' n e g l i g e n c e , ' * * * and ' n e g l i g e n t l y '
i m p o r t a want of such a t t e n t i o n t o t h e n a t u r e o r
p r o b a b l e consequences of t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n a s a
p r u d e n t man o r d i n a r i l y bestows i n a c t i n g i n h i s own
concerns."
S e c t i o n 1 9 - 1 0 3 ( 1 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947, was r e l i e d upon i n Mang
v . E l i a s s o n , 153 Mont. 431, 435, 436, 458 P.2d 777, where t h e
language of t h e q u o t e d s e c t i o n was f o l l o w e d w i t h t h i s language
t h e Court :
" I n o t h e r words, n e g l i g e n c e i s d e s c r i b e d a s con-
d u c t which f a l l s below t h e s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d
by law f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of o t h e r s a g a i n s t un-
r e a s o n a b l e r i s k and n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s t h e
c o n c e p t s of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s and f o r e s e e a b i l i t y . "
I n Mang, t h i s C o u r t used t h i s l a n g u a g e :
" I n t h e same v e i n , we q u o t e w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e
f o l l o w i n g language from Harper and James, The
Law of T o r t s , Volume 2 , a t page 9 2 9 :
"' * * * Negligence i s c o n d u c t i n v o l v i n g a n
u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k of harm, and t h e t e s t f o r de-
t e r m i n i n g whether a r i s k i s u n r e a s o n a b l e i s
s u p p l i e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a . The amount
of c a u t i o n "demanded of a p e r s o n by a n o c c a s i o n
i s t h e r e s u l t a n t of t h r e e f a c t o r s : t h e l i k e l i -
hood t h a t h i s conduct w i l l i n j u r e o t h e r s , t a k e n
w i t h t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of t h e i n j u r y i f i t happens,
and b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t t h e i n t e r e s t which he must
s a c r i f i c e t o avoid t h e r i s k . "
" ' I n s t r i k i n g t h i s b a l a n c e - - t h a t i s , i n weighing
t h e l i k e l i h o o d of harm, t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of t h e
i n j u r y and t h e v a l u e of t h e i n t e r e s t t o be s a c r i -
f i c e d - - t h e law j u d g e s t h e a c t o r ' s c o n d u c t i n t h e
l i g h t of t h e s i t u a t i o n a s it would have a p p e a r e d
t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e man i n h i s s h o e s a t t h e t i m e
of t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n complained o f . Not what
a c t u a l l y happened, b u t what t h e r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t
p e r s o n would t h e n have f o r e s e e n a s l i k e l y t o happen,
i s t h e key t o t h e q u e s t i o n of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s * * * . ' I r
Under t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s of n e g l i g e n c e t h e j u r y c o u l d f i n d
t h a t p l a i n t i f f was n e g l i g e n t s i n c e he knew t h a t h i s w i f e had i n
t h e p a s t s i g n e d c h e c k s p r e p a r e d by o t h e r s and t h e r e b y a u t h o r i z e d
h e r t o do s o , s i n c e he had done n o t h i n g t o s t o p h e r from t h i s p r o -
cedure. H i s w i f e s h o u l d have f o r e s e e n t h a t t h e r e was a l i k e l i -
hood of r a i s i n g t h e check when s h e l e f t i t t h e way i t had been
w r i t t e n , p e r m i t t i n g t h e p l a c i n g of t h e f i g u r e s and t h e words s o
f a r t o t h e r i g h t s o a s t o p e r m i t what o c c u r r e d .
I f t h e j u r y s h o u l d f i n d p l a i n t i f f n e g l i g e n t , t h e n it must
d e t e r m i n e whether such n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t e d a s a p r o x i m a t e
cause. The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d :
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e
of a n i n j u r y i s t h a t which i n a n a t u r a l and con-
t i n u o u s s e q u e n c e , unbroken by any new and i n d e -
p e n d e n t c a u s e , p r o d u c e s t h e i n j u r y , and w i t h o u t
which i t would n o t have o c c u r r e d . "
R e c e n t l y i n Brandenburger v . Toyota Motor S a l e s , U.S.A.,
Inc., 1 6 2 Mont, 506, 512, 513 P.2d 268, t h i s Court s t a t e d :
"The t e s t most g e n e r a l l y employed i n d e t e r m i n i n g
c a u s a t i o n i s t h e ' b u t f o r ' t e s t . Montana h a s
a d o p t e d t h i s t e s t i n numerous c a s e s . "
The j u r y under t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n h e r e c o u l d t h e n d e t e r -
mine t h e r e would have been no l o s s " b u t f o r " t h e n e g l i g e n c e of
M r s . W i l l i a m s , w i f e - a g e n t of p l a i n t i f f , a s h e r e i n b e f o r e r e l a t e d .
W t u r n now t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e p h o t o s t a t o f t h e
e
bank b u l l e t i n . P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h e reason f o r i t s introduc-
t i o n was t o show a warning t o t h e d e f e n d a n t bank r e g a r d i n g t h e
modus o p e r a n d i of t h e man who o b t a i n e d and c a s h e d t h e check. In
o u r view, t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r i t s a d m i s s i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t and
t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n admitting it i n t o evidence, p a r t i c u l a r l y
h e r e , where t h e r e i s a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n a s t o whether o r n o t t h e
f a c e o f t h e check was such a s t o c a u s e t h e bank t o q u e s t i o n i t s
validity. The t e l l e r who c a s h e d t h e check c o u l d not r e c a l l hav-
i n g s e e n t h e b u l l e t i n and upon b e i n g shown t h e p h o t o s t a t , s h e
could not i d e n t i f y t h e individual depicted. W do n o t d i s a p p r o v e
e
custom and i n f e r e n c e s a s contended by p l a i n t i f f b u t i n t h i s c a u s e
t h e i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e f o u n d a t i o n d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e i n f e r -
e n c e s a t t e m p t e d t o be drawn t h e r e f r o m .
A s regards t h e contentions w i t h r e s p e c t t o assumption of
r i s k , i n our opinion t h a t doctrine i s not applicable t o t h e f a c t
s i t u a t i o n here.
A s t o t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e c o u r t t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on
t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Uniform Commercial Code, p l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s
t h e c o u r t c o u l d have i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e
Code, b u t it endeavored t o s i m p l i f y t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s and send t h e
c a s e t o t h e j u r y on a s t r a i g h t n e g l i g e n c e , c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e ,
and p r o x i m a t e c a u s e s e t of i n s t r u c t i o n s .
While t h i s may have a p p e a l e d t o t h e c o u r t a s a s a t i s f a c -
t o r y s o l u t i o n , it d i d d e p r i v e d e f e n d a n t of p o s s i b l e d e f e n s e s based
upon t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Uniform Commercial Code. A p a r t y has
a r i g h t t o have i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n which a r e a d a p t a b l e t o h i s
t h e o r y of t h e c a s e . Wollan v. Lord, 1 4 2 Mont. 4 9 8 , 385 P.2d 1 0 2 .
Here p l a i n t i f f c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t was n e g l i g e n t i n c a s h -
i n g t h e check i n t h a t t h e bank breached i t s g e n e r a l o b l i g a t i o n
t o h a n d l e p l a i n t i f f ' s a c c o u n t by a c t i n g c o n t r a r y t o r e a s o n a b l e
commercial s t a n d a r d s . S u r e l y t h e n t h e bank should be a l l o w e d t o
have t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t e d a s t o what r e a s o n a b l e commercial s t a n d -
a r d s a r e , a s set f o r t h i n t h e Uniform Commercial Code.
The judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded f o r new
trial.
--,---,,,-----
*---,-A,------
Chief J u s t i c e
W concur:
e
.............................
- i t
Justices