No. 12667
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
OR F F
1974
TAFFORD E. OLTZ ,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
T Y T M T R SALES, U.S.A.,
O O A OO Inc.,
and T Y T M T R COMPANY, LTD. ,
O O A OO
Defendants and Respondents.
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. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
F o r Appellant :
Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana
Lyman H. Bennett, Jr., argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondents:
Berg, Angel, Andriolo and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana
Charles F. Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: November 20, 1974
Decided :
%B 1 8 1975
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison 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 from a summary judgment and o r d e r of 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. This a c t i o n i s a s e q u e l t o
Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor S a l e s , U.S.A., I n c . , decided by t h i s
Court on August 7 , 1973, and r e p o r t e d i n - t.
Mon -
9 513 P.2d 268,
30 St.Rep. 808.
I n h i s complaint p l a i n t i f f Tafford O l t z sought damages f o r
p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s and p r o p e r t y damage s u f f e r e d i n t h e same a c c i d e n t
involved i n Brandenburger. Recovery was p r e d i c a t e d on an a l l e g e d
breach of implied w a r r a n t i e s of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y and f i t n e s s f o r a
p a r t i c u l a r purpose, n e g l i g e n c e , and s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t . The
a c t i o n was submitted t o t h e c o u r t on t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e t r a n s c r i p t
of t h e Brandenburger c a s e and t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n t h a t c a s e .
Both p a r t i e s r e q u e s t e d summary judgment, and t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d de-
fendants' motion.
Defendants Toyota argue t h a t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n Brandenburger
f i n d i n g O l t z g u i l t y of g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e which c o n t r i b u t e d t o
rand en burger's d e a t h i s r e s j u d i c a t a on t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether O l t z
was g u i l t y of any n e g l i g e n t a c t which c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e a c c i d e n t .
It i s p l a i n t i f f ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t a judgment i n f a v o r of a p l a i n t i f f
i n an a c t i o n a g a i n s t two o r more defendants i s n o t r e s j u d i c a t a o r
c o n c l u s i v e a s t o t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e d e f e n d a n t s among
themselves i n a subsequent a c t i o n between them, u n l e s s t h o s e r i g h t s
and l i a b i l i t i e s were e x p r e s s l y put i n i s s u e i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n by a
c r o s s c l a i m o r o t h e r a d v e r s a r y pleading o r such i s s u e s were t r i e d by
consent and determined by judgment i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n .
The d i f f i c u l t y i n p l a i n t i f f ' s p o s i t i o n on appeal i s t h a t he
chose t o p u t h i s c a s e t o d e c i s i o n by a r e q u e s t f o r a summary judgment
i n h i s f a v o r based on Brandenburger. The v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y and
t h e d e c i s i o n of t h i s Court i n Brandenburger a r e r e s j u d i c a t a on
certain controlling facts. The f a c t s e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h a t c a s e a r e :
That O l t z was found g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of h i s v e h i c l e
and t h a t such n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t e d t o rande en burger's d e a t h . The
e f f e c t of t h i s d e c i s i o n i s t h a t i t i s r e s j u d i c a t a t o a l l p a r t i e s
i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i n t h a t O l t z was g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t and c o n t r i b u t e d
of
t o t h e d e a t h l ~ r a n d e n b u r g e rand Toyota was e i t h e r g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n c e
i n t h e manufacture and d e s i g n o r t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was i n a d e f e c t i v e
and unreasonably u n s a f e c o n d i t i o n , e i t h e r of which c o n t r i b u t e d t o
t h e d e a t h of Brandenburger. W have no way o f knowing upon which
e
t h e o r y t h e j u r y found a g a i n s t Toyota i n Brandenburger.
A s between t h e p a r t i e s h e r e , t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Branden-
burger made no d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t s were s t r i c t l y l i a b l e
t o p l a i n t i f f f o r any i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d by him. That i s s u e was n o t
b e f o r e t h e Court. The d e c i s i o n of t h i s Court found t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e
of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t was a p p l i c a b l e i n Montana; t h a t t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n s given on t h e i s s u e were c o r r e c t ; t h a t t h e r e was s u f f i -
c i e n t evidence t o show t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was i n a d e f e c t i v e and
unreasonably dangerous c o n d i t i o n ; and, t h a t such c o n d i t i o n c o n t r i -
b u t e d a s a proximate c a u s e of b rand en burger's d e a t h .
Having found t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e was a proximate
c a u s e of rande en burger's d e a t h , t h e r e i s no way we can l o g i c a l l y
f i n d t h a t such g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e was n o t a proximate and c o n t r i b u t i n g
c a u s e of h i s own p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s . The t e s t f o r proximate c a u s e i n
Montana i s t h e "but f o r " t e s t . Ford v. Rupple, 161 Mont. 56, 504
P.2d 686. It i s obvious t h e j u r y i n Brandenburger determined t h a t
b u t f o r " p l a i n t i f f 0 l t z ' s g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e i n o p e r a t i n g t h e Toyota,
11
i t would n o t have l e f t t h e highway. T h e r e f o r e , such g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e
i s n o t o n l y a proximate c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e of Brandenburger's
d e a t h , b u t a l s o a proximate c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e of h i s own i n j u r i e s .
W e have c a r e f u l l y examined t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d by b o t h p a r t i e s
and hold t h a t where, a s h e r e , i n a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y c a s e i n v o l v i n g
an a l l e g e d manufacturing d e f e c t t h a t was unknown t o t h e o p e r a t o r and
which a p p a r e n t l y had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h c a u s i n g t h e a c c i d e n t i n
q u e s t i o n b u t merely c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e o p e r a t o r ' s i n j u r i e s , h i s own
c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e s o a s t o
c a u s e i t t o l e a v e t h e highway i s a proper defense. Adams v . Ford
Motor Co., 103 111.App.2d 356, 243 N.E.2d 843; General Motors
Corporation v. Walden,(CCA 10th C i r . 1969), 406 F.2d 606.
The summary judgment g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W e Concur: /
-'+--------------.!-------------------
Chief J u s t i c e
....................................
Justices.
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, s p e c i a l l y concurring:
I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . However, i n m view, t h e r u l e
y
of c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l r a t h e r than r e s j u d i c a t a i s involved
here. See: G e s s e l l v. J o n e s , 149 Mont. 418, 427 P.2d 295,
for the distinction.
Justice