No. 12787
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
19 75
GARY BOS and STEVEN BOS,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,
MIKE DOLAJAK and DOLAJAK MANUFACTURING
and IRON W R S COMPANY, I N C . , a
OK
corporation,
Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h 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 Appellants :
B o l i n g e r and Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana
Page Wellcome a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
F o r Respondents:
Berg, Angel, A n d r i o l o and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana
Richard J. A n d r i o l o a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: March 5 , 1975
F i l e d $f3mf -w lf@$
. 4i
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 a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d f o l l o w i n g a
j u r y v e r d i c t r e n d e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of G a l l a t i n County.
From t h e r e c o r d i t a p p e a r s t h a t p l a i n t i f f s Gary Bos and
S t e v e n Bos, c o n t r a c t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t s , Mike D o l a j a k and D o l a j a k
Manufacturing C o . , I n c . , r e s i d e n t s of North Dakota, f o r t h e con-
s t r u c t i o n of a m e t a l s i l o on p l a i n t i f f s ' d a i r y farm n e a r Bozeman.
P l a i n t i f f s purchased t h e s i l o secondhand from t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r ,
who had r e p o s s e s s e d i t i n C a l i f o r n i a s h o r t l y a f t e r it had been
installed there. The s i l o was d i s m a n t l e d and s h i p p e d t o Montana
where d e f e n d a n t s a g r e e d t o e r e c t it f o r t h e sum of $6,500 f o r
l a b o r , a l l m a t e r i a l s t o be f u r n i s h e d by p l a i n t i f f s .
Defendants c o n s t r u c t e d a c o n c r e t e b a s e and on J u n e 1 2 ,
1972, Mike D o l a j a k a r r i v e d a t t h e Bos r a n c h t o p e r s o n a l l y s u p e r -
v i s e t h e e r e c t i o n of t h e main p o r t i o n o f t h e s i l o by h i s c o r p o r -
ation. The g e n e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e d u r e c o n s i s t e d of p l a c i n g
t h e t o p o f t h e s i l o and two r i n g s on t h e b a s e r i n g and t h e n j a c k -
i n g t h i s p o r t i o n up and a d d i n g a d d i t i o n a l r i n g s u n t i l t h e s i l o
w a s completed. I n t h i s c a s e Dolajak u t i l i z e d e i g h t i n s i d e j a c k s
a l t h o u g h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n manual s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e d t h e u s e
of t w e l v e j a c k s d u r i n g t h e e r e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e i n a 36 f o o t d i a m e t e r
silo. The s i l o was suspended i n t h e a i r on c a b l e s hanging down
from e a c h j a c k and due t o i t s u n s t a b l e n a t u r e was r e q u i r e d t o be
lowered and b o l t e d t o t h e b a s e r i n g i n t h e e v e n t o f bad w e a t h e r
and a t n i g h t . During t h e e r e c t i o n of t h e s i l o one of t h e j a c k s
b r o k e l e a v i n g seven j a c k s r e m a i n i n g t o h o l d t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y
20,000 pound w e i g h t o f t h e s i l o . D o l a j a k ' s men had a l s o a l l o w e d
t h e s i l o t o t w i s t s o t h a t it c o u l d n o t be r e a d i l y lowered and
a f f i x e d t o t h e base r i n g . D o l a j a k a t no t i m e made any e f f o r t t o
s t a b i l i z e t h e s i l o by use of guy wires o r any o t h e r d e v i c e .
An e x p e r t w i t n e s s f o r p l a i n t i f f s s t a t e d guy wires w e r e
always u t i l i z e d a s a s t a n d a r d c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e d u r e and t h a t
he would n o t a l l o w h i s men t o work on a j o b w i t h o u t guy w i r e s .
Also, standard c o n s t r u c t i o n procedures r e q u i r e d t h a t one i n s u r e
t h e s t i f f e n e r s were a t a l l t i m e s i n a l i n e ; t h a t a l l j a c k s were
working; a n d , t h a t w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s be c l o s e l y m o n i t o r e d .
O t h e a f t e r n o o n of J u n e 1 6 , 1972, when t h e s i l o was
n
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 60 f e e t i n t h e a i r and w i t h i n a few h o u r s o f com-
p l e t i o n , a windstorm developed t h r o w i n g t h e s i l o o f f i t s founda-
t i o n and v i r t u a l l y d e s t r o y i n g i t .
A f t e r t h e s i l o was blown down, D o l a j a k r e t u r n e d t o North
Dakota and made no a t t e m p t o r o f f e r t o a s s i s t i n removal of t h e
s i l o o r t o make s p e c i f i c a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r t h e e r e c t i o n of a second
silo. A s a r e s u l t , t h e e n t i r e d e c i s i o n a s t o t h e a c t i o n t o be
t a k e n was t h r u s t upon t h e s h o u l d e r s of t h e Bos b r o t h e r s , b o t h a s
t o removal of t h e o l d s i l o and any s a l v a g e , a s w e l l a s r e - e r e c t i o n
of t h e s i l o . With t h e i r l i m i t e d knowledge of c o n s t r u c t i o n pro-
c e d u r e s , p l a i n t i f f s undertook t o remove t h e damaged s i l o and t o
s a l v a g e whatever i t e m s t h e y c o u l d . They e s t i m a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y
1 2 0 0 man h o u r s were r e q u i r e d t o complete t h e s a l v a g e and removal
operation. P l a i n t i f f s were t h e n r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e what a d d i -
t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s would be r e q u i r e d f o r e r e c t i o n of t h e s i l o and
t o secure t h e s e items. N o t h e r used s i l o s were a v a i l a b l e a t t h e
o
t i m e and t o p u r c h a s e a new s i l o , e x c l u s i v e of t h e c o s t o f e r e c t i o n ,
would have c o s t $40,000.
P l a i n t i f f s purchased t h e m a t e r i a l s n e c e s s a r y f o r r e p a i r s
and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e s i l o . They p r e s e n t e d proof of a l l e g e d
damages i n t h e s e amounts: C o s t s of r e p l a c i n g t h e downed s i l o -
$15,342.61; l o s s e s r e s u l t i n g from i n a b i l i t y t o u s e t h e s i l o -
$9,932; a t o t a l of $25,274.61. A g a i n s t t h e s e a l l e g e d damages
w a s a n o f f s e t of $2,900, a l l e g e d t o be t h e v a l u e of t h e c o n c r e t e
base which was not damaged. Plaintiffs claim the evidence
clearly shows damages of $22,374.61.
Defendants admit to damages in the maximum total of
$8.695.60, arrived at by taking the value of the silo before it
was damaged, and subtracting the salvage value.
The jury awarded $17,626.75. Defendantst motion for
new trial was denied and defendants appeal.
Defendants contend the trial court erred in instructing
the jury on the general measure of damages in tort and contract
actions; that the damages awarded are excessive under the law
and the court's instructions; and that the verdict is contrary
to the law and the evidence.
Defendants claim that in order to find damages in the
amount set by the jury it had to make an award for consequential
damages, such as the loss of milk production, corn spoilage,
baling hay and rolling feed, and the jury did this because of
the court's instructions allowing it to consider general damages
as a result of negligence and also breach of contract. They in-
sist the court should have instructed the jury solely on the
appropriate measure of damages for damage to, or destruction of,
personal property.
The court gave these instructions, over defendants1 ob-
jection:
"You are instructed that for the breach of an
obligation arising from contract, the measure
of damages is the amount which will compensate
the party aggrieved for a11 the detriment prox-
imately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary
course of things, would be likely to result
therefrom."
This instruction follows Montana's statute, section
17-301, R . C . M . 1947.
"Every person who suffers detriment from the
negligent act or omission of another person may
recover from him a compensation therefor in money
which is called damages. In this case detriment
i s t h e l o s s o r harm s u f f e r e d . The measure of
damages i s t h e amount which w i l l compensate
f o r a l l t h e detriment proximately caused
t h e r e b y h e r e i n b e f o r e d e f i n e d , whether i t c o u l d
have been a n t i c i p a t e d o r n o t . "
T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n f o l l o w s Montana's s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 17-
4 0 1 , R.C.M. 1947.
Defendants o f f e r e d two i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e measure of
damages, one where t h e p r o p e r t y c o u l d n o t be r e p a i r e d and t h e
o t h e r where i t c o u l d . These were r e f u s e d , b u t t h e c o u r t d i d
g i v e a n a b b r e v i a t e d v e r s i o n o f one of t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , which
read :
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e owner i s n o t
e n t i t l e d t o have p r o p e r t y p u t back i n t o b e t t e r
c o n d i t i o n t h a n b e f o r e t h e damage. Nor i s t h e
owner e n t i t l e d t o be compensated f o r l o s s of
u s e beyond t h e t i m e r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e d t o
complete t h e necessary r e p a i r s .
"The amount awarded, i f a n y , may n o t exceed
t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y j u s t b e f o r e i t was
damaged. "
While i t i s d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i n Spdckman v .
Ralph M . P a r s o n s Co., 147 Mont. 500, 506, 509, 510, 4 1 4 P.2d 918,
t h i s C o u r t c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e d t h e p r o p e r measure o f damages f o r
damage t o p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t h i s q u o t a t i o n i s a p t h e r e :
" A s f o r t h e i s s u e of compensatory damages, t h e
q u e s t i o n i s always a d i f f i c u l t one. I n t o r t
a c t i o n s , t h e wrongdoer i s l i a b l e , i n g e n e r a l ,
f o r any i n j u r y which i s t h e n a t u r a l and p r o b a b l e
consequence of t h e wrong. These may i n c l u d e b o t h
t h e d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t , b u t r e a s o n a b l y p r o b a b l e ,
r e s u l t s of t h e wrong. Where damage t o p r o p e r t y i s
c o n c e r n e d , t h e p u r p o s e of awarding damages i s t o
r e t u r n t h e p a r t y i n j u r e d t o t h e same, o r a s n e a r l y
p o s s i b l e t h e same, c o n d i t i o n a s he enjoyed b e f o r e
t h e i n j u r y t o h i s p r o p e r t y . The i n j u r e d p a r t y i s
t o be made a s n e a r l y whole a s p o s s i b l e - - b u t n o t t o
r e a l i z e a p r o f i t . Compensatory damages a r e de-
s i g n e d t o compensate t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y f o r a c t u a l
l o s s o r i n j u r y - - n o more, no l e s s . "
The t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s based upon s e c t i o n s 17-301
and 17-401, R.C.M. 1947, i l l u s t r a t e t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a -
t u r e t o i n s u r e t h a t one who i s i n j u r e d by t h e wrongful a c t of
a r l u ~ h e r , w l l e t k r LI; be 3 a e g l i g e l - i t a c t o r a b r e a c h 02 c o n t r a c t ,
baa a r i g h t t o r e c o v e r s u c h damages a s w i l l make him whole a g a i n .
'This b a s i c o b j e c t i v e o f making t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y whole must now
be a p p l i e d t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e .
A t t h e o u t s e t , t h i s c a s e involves a unique f a c t u a l s i t -
uation. The t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Bos b r o t h e r s w e r e d a i r y
f a r m e r s and t h e i n h e r e n t n a t u r e o f t h e i r o p e r a t i o n r e q u i r e s a n
i n t e g r a t e d program o f c r o p p r o d u c t i o n , s t o r a g e , a n d f e e d i n g which
must be d e c i d e d upon p r i o r t o t h e s p r i n g growing s e a s o n a n d
implemented a t t h e t i n e of s p r i n g p l a n t i n g . I n a n t i c i p a t i o n of
t n e s c h e d u l e d c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e s i l o p l a i n t i f f s had programmed
t h e i r d a i r y f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n t o g a i n maximum c r o p p r o d u c t i o n
aild maximum u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e s t o r a g e f a c i l i t i e s . T h i s program,
o n c e u n d e r way, c o u l d n o t be t u r n e d on and o f f l i k e a w a t e r t a p
a n d s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s a r o s e when d e f e n d a n t s ' w r o n g f u l a c t i o n s
saused t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e s i l o .
The s i l o which d e f e n d a n t s were t o e r e c t was a n i t e m o f
property with special c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t could n o t be r e p l a c e d
the n e x t d a y a t t h e l o c a l hardware s t o r e o r a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r s h i p .
T h i s was t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t t h e d i s m a n t l i n g and r e - e r e c t i o n o f a
s i l o of t h i s t y p e had been a t t e m p t e d , and p l a i n t i f f s were a b l e
t o acquire t h e s i l o a t a considerable savings. Due t o t h e s u c c e s s
o f t h e o p e r a t i o n t h e m a r k e t v a l u e a t t h e t i m e of i t s d e s t r u c t i o n
f a r exceeded t h e a c t u a l c o s t investment. No o t h e r u s e d s i l o s were
a v a i l a b l e and t h e p r i c e r e q u i r e d f o r p u r c h a s e of a new s i l o was
$40,000. Due t o p l a i n t i f f s ' e f f o r t s a n a r r a n g e m e n t was made where-
by t h e y c o u l d a c q u i r e t h e m a t e r i a l s n e e d e d i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e
s a l v a g e d from t h e downed s i l o a t a f o r t y p e r c e n t d i s c o u n t .
A n o t h e r f a c t o r i s t h e need f o r removal o f t h e downed s i l o .
This was r e q u i r e d s o t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n c o u l d be u t i l i z e d f o r t h e
r e - e r e c t i o n o f t h e s i l o and s o t h a t a s many p a r t s a s p o s s i b l e
c o u l d be s a l v a g e d t o minimize t h e c o s t of r e - e r e c t i n g t h e s i l o .
I n view of t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e downed s i l o and t h e u n u s u a l
stresses p l a c e d upon t h e m a t e r i a l , t h e d i s m a n t l i n g of i t was a n
e x t r e m e l y hazardous o p e r a t i o n .
F i n a l l y , d e f e n d a n t s would n o t r e t u r n t o r e - e r e c t t h e
s i l o and no o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e d b u i l d e r s c o u l d be found w i t h a v a i l -
a b l e t i m e t o do t h e r e - e r e c t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s determined t h a t i n
o r d e r t o minimize t h e i r damages t h e y had no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o
u n d e r t a k e t h e j o b of e r e c t i n g t h e s i l o on t h e i r own w i t h t h e h e l p
of n e i g h b o r s .
P l a i n t i f f s b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g damages from de-
f e n d a n t s on t h e b a s i s of b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t and n e g l i g e n c e . A
s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d i n t o f o r t h e e r e c t i o n of t h e s i l o
i n a good and workmanlike manner. The performance of t h e work r e -
q u i r e d under t h i s c o n t r a c t was n e v e r completed. F u r t h e r , defend-
a n t s were n e g l i g e n t i n t h e manner i n which t h e y u n d e r t o o k t o p e r -
form t h e e r e c t i o n c o n t r a c t , which n e g l i g e n c e was t h e p r o x i m a t e
c a u s e of t h e d e s t r u c t i o n and l o s s of t h e s i l o . Under t h i s f a c t
s i t u a t i o n p l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o go t o t h e j u r y w i t h i n s t r u c -
t i o n s on damages r e l a t i n g b o t h t o b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t and t o neg-
ligence. Gunderson v . B r e w s t e r , 154 Mont. 405, 4 6 6 P.2d 589.
The c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e measure of damages i n a
c o n t r a c t a c t i o n i s i n t h e words of s e c t i o n 17-301, R.C.M. 1947,
and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n f o r damages i n a n o n c o n t r a c t a c t i o n i s i n t h e
words o f s e c t i o n 17-401, R.C.M. 1947, and Montana J u r y I n s t r u c -
t i o n Guide I n s t r u c t i o n No. 30 e x c e p t t h a t t h e word " u n l a w f u l " h a s
been changed t o t h e word " n e g l i g e n t " . C i t i n g Spackman d e f e n d a n t s
c o n t e n d the p r o p e r t y damage i n s t r u c t i o n i s t h e same whether we
a r e t a l k i n g about a t o r t o r c o n t r a c t case--i.e.--the value of t h e
p r o p e r t y immediately b e f o r e , less t h e s a l v a g e v a l u e , o r t h e v a l u e
t h a t it would t a k e t o r e p a i r i t , p l u s t h e l o s s of u s e , n o t t o
exceed t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e dam-
age. T h i s r u l e i s c o r r e c t under a f a c t s i t u a t i o n s u c h a s
e x i s t e d i n Spackman, when d e a l i n g w i t h r e a d i l y r e p l a c e a b l e i t e m s
w i t h a n e s t a b l i s h e d market v a l u e . Such a r u l e i s c l e a r l y n o t
a p p l i c a b l e when d e a l i n g w i t h a f i x t u r e , a s t h e s i l o i n t h e i n s t a n t
c a s e , which i s n o t r e a d i l y r e p l a c e a b l e and which h a s no e s t a b -
l i s h e d market v a l u e and i s programmed a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of a
t o t a l d a i r y farming o p e r a t i o n . Defendant D o l a j a k was w e l l aware
of t h i s and of t h e damages which would r e s u l t from l o s s of u s e
of t h e s i l o a s he a l s o owns and o p e r a t e s a d a i r y farm i n North
Dakota.
I n Spackman t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n d e a l i n g w i t h f o r m u l a s
f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of damages:
"While such methods s e r v e a s u s e f u l g u i d e s , t h e
f i n a l answer r e s t s i n good s e n s e r a t h e r t h a n
mechanical a p p l i c a t i o n of s u c h f o r m u l a s . "
I n Spackman t h i s C o u r t f u r t h e r r e c o g n i z e d d i f f e r e n t r u l e s
f o r p r o p e r t y which h a s no market v a l u e when i t s t a t e d :
"One f u r t h e r n o t e i n t h e a r e a of compensatory
damages r e l a t e s t o p r o p e r t y which, because of i t s
p e c u l i a r n a t u r e , h a s no market v a l u e . I n s u c h
c a s e s , r e f e r e n c e c a n be made t o t h e v a l u e p l a c e d
on such a n i t e m by i t s owner, s o l o n g a s s u c h
v a l u a t i o n i s n o t f a n c i f u l o r u n r e a s o n a b l e . Prop-
e r t y w i t h i n t h i s c a t e g o r y , f o r example, would be
c l o t h i n g , luggage, heirlooms o r p o r t r a i t s . "
See a l s o 2 2 Am J u r 2d, Damages S 1 4 9 .
I n Reynolds v. Bank of America N a t i o n a l T r u s t and S a v i n g s
A s s l n , 53 Cal.2d 49, 345 P.2d 9 2 6 , 927, 73 ALR2d 716, c i t e d w i t h
a p p r o v a l by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a h l v . Farmers Union O i l Co., 145 Mont.
1 0 6 , 1 1 4 , 399 P.2d 763, t h e s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h e C o u r t was whether
t h e owner of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y which was w r o n g f u l l y d e s t r o y e d i s
l i m i t e d i n damages t o t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h e t i m e of
d e s t r u c t i o n o r may he a l s o r e c o v e r f o r t h e l o s s of u s e d u r i n g t h e
period reasonably r e q u i r e d f o r replacement. The C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t
h e l d s u c h l o s s of u s e r e c o v e r a b l e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e v a l u e of
t h e property destroyed s t a t i n g :
"There a p p e a r s t o be no l o g i c a l o r p r a c t i c a l
r e a s o n why a d i s t i n c t i o n s h o u l d be d r a m be-
tween c a s e s i n which t h e p r o p e r t y i s t o t a l l y
d e s t r o y e d and t h o s e i n which i t h a s been i n -
j u r e d b u t i s r e p a i r a b l e , and w e have concluded
t h a t when t h e owner of a n e g l i g e n t l y d e s t r o y e d
commercial v e h i c l e h a s s u f f e r e d i n j u r y by b e i n g
d e p r i v e d of t h e u s e of t h e v e h i c l e d u r i n g t h e
period required f o r replacement, he i s e n t i t l e d ,
upon p r o p e r p l e a d i n g and p r o o f , t o r e c o v e r f o r
l o s s of u s e i n o r d e r t o 'compensate f o r a l l t h e
d e t r i m e n t p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d ' by t h e wrongful
destruction."
Here, by u s e of e i t h e r t e s t t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y i s
r e a s o n a b l e and c o r r e c t . The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e d
t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had a c q u i r e d a secondhand s i l o which was e q u i v -
a l e n t t o a new s i l o a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e s a v i n g s . Thus, t h e j u r y
c o u l d q u i t e p r o p e r l y f i n d t h a t t h e "market v a l u e ' ' ( a c t u a l v a l u e )
of t h e s i l o a t t h e t i m e of t h e l o s s was between $30,000 and
$40,000. 2 2 Am J u r 2d, Damages 5142. The j u r y t h e n awarded p l a i n -
t i f f s t h e r e p l a c e m e n t c o s t of t h e s i l o , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e damages
which t h e y had i n c u r r e d f o r t h e l o s s of u s e t h e r e o f l e s s a n o f f -
s e t of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,900 t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n
of t h e foundation. The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was e m i n e n t l y f a i r and
reasonable.
The c a s e s of S e a t o n Ranch Co. v . Montana V e g e t a b l e O i l
& Feed Co., 1 2 6 Mont. 415, 252 P.2d 1 0 4 0 , and McGuire v . Nelson,
1 6 2 Mont. 3 7 , 508 P.2d 558, c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t s a r e c l e a r l y n o t
applicable t o the present f a c t situation. This is not a case
i n v o l v i n g any b r e a c h of a n e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y .
I t i s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t t h e damages awarded by t h e j u r y
were r e a s o n a b l e under t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e c o u r t and t h e l a w
applicable.
W e come now t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e r e i s sub-
s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e 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 and judgment.
Kirby v . K e l l y , 1 6 1 Mont. 6 6 , 504 P.2d 683. I n making t h i s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e e v i d e n c e i s t o be reviewed i n t h e l i g h t most
f a v o r a b l e t o the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , b e i n g
t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s cause. Rogers v . H i l g e r C h e v r o l e t Co.,
155 Mont. 1, 465 P.2d 834; ~ o l e n s t e i n . Rndrews,
v - .
Mont
( 1 9 7 5 ) , 530 P.2d 476, 32 St.Rep, 4 1 .
W e do f i n d 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 c r e d -
i b l e e v i d e n c e and t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
Chief J u s t i c e
W e concur:
/-