Halsey v. Uithof

No. 12376

I N THE SUPRLWE COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN

DORIS HALSN, A d m i n i s t r a t r i x of t h e
E s t a t e of Richard Halsey, Deceased, e t a l . ,

P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,

ALBERT H. UITHOF, d / b / a GOLDEN STATE
TRANSPORT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant :

J a r d i n e , Stephenson, Blewett and Weaver, Great F a l l s ,
Montana
J a c k L. Lewis and John H. Weaver argued, Great F a l l s ,
Montana

For ~ e s p o n d e n t s :

Hoyt and Bottomly, Great F a l l s , Montana
Richard V . Bottomly appeared and John C. Hoyt argued,
Great F a l l s , Montana

Submitted: November 15, 1974

Decided: FE$ r 4 ;:,Ts
i d -4 +
Mr. 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 O p i n i o n o f t h e
Court .
I n t h i s a c t i o n defendant A l b e r t H. Uithof secured a

j u r y v e r d i c t i n h i s f a v o r a f t e r a n i n e day t r i a l a r i s i n g from

a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t which o c c u r r e d i n G l a c i e r County. Sub-

s e q u e n t l y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f G l a c i e r County g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f s

a new t r i a l . From t h i s o r d e r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t

appeals.

S u i t was i n i t i a t e d by R i c h a r d H a l s e y , a g a i n s t o n e David

McWhirk, d r i v e r o f t h e t r u c k t h a t h i t H a l s e y ' s t r u c k , a n d A l b e r t

N. U i t h o f , owner o f a t r u c k s t a l l e d on t h e highway, t o r e c o v e r

damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f a b i z a r r e s e r i e s

of motor v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t s . P r i o r t o t r i a l , Halsey d i e d of h i s

i n j u r i e s ; h i s widow was s u b s t i t u t e d a s p l a i n t i f f . During t h e

t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f s e t t l e d w i t h McWhirk f o r $100,000.
the
H e r e , d u e t o / c o m p l e x i t y and t h e volumes o f f a c t s p r e s e n t e d ,

i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o l i s t t h e p e o p l e i n v o l v e d and t h e i r p o s i t i o n . :

Anderson-------- Montana Highway P a t r o l m a n .
Bryant---------- P a s s e n g e r i n McWhirk t r u c k .

Byington-------- Driver of d i s a b l e d Uithof t r u c k .
Halsey---------- P l a i n t i f f a n d d r i v e r o f s e c o n d westbound
truck t o pass the disabled truck.
Harris---------- Truck d r i v e r who came upon d i s a b l e d t r u c k
e a r l y i n t h e morning.

Hermance-------- D r i v e r o f f i r s t westbound t r u c k t o p a s s
disabled truck, j u s t before t h e accident.
McWhirk--------- D r i v e r of e a s t b o u n d t r u c k i n v o l v e d i n
a c c i d e n t w i t h Halsey.
Uithof---------- D e f e n d a n t and owner of d i s a b l e d t r u c k .

Uphams---------- Man a n d w i f e who were i n e a s t b o u n d c a r r e a r
ended by Walker v e h i c l e .
r&alkers--------- Man a n d w i f e a n d c h i l d i n v e h i c l e which
h i t t h e Upham v e h i c l e .

E a r l y i n t h e morning December 22, 1 9 7 0 , a l o a d e d t a n k

t r u c k owned by U i t h o f a n d d r i v e n by B y i n g t o n , s t a l l e d some 804
f e e t east a n d d o w n h i l l from t h e t o p of Whiskey J o h n h i l l l o c a t e d
w e s t o f Browning, Montana. The w e a t h e r was below z e r o , snow

was b l o w i n g o v e r t h e r o a d i n t o t h e d i t c h e s , t h e r e were some i c e

s p o t s on t h e s t r e t c h o f r o a d b u t f o r t h e most p a r t t h e r o a d was

hare. A f t e r t h e t r u c k s t a l l e d , B y i n g t o n c h e c k e d a s t o why i t

s t a l l e d a n d found a b r o k e n c l u t c h . H e attempted t o r e p a i r t h e

c l u t c h without success. A t a b o u t 3:15 a.m. a fellow trucker,

H a r r i s , stopped and t r i e d u n s u c c e s s f u l l y t o r e p a i r t h e Uithof

truck. H a r r i s o f f e r e d t o t a k e Byington i n t o E a s t G l a c i e r ,

Montana, t h e n e x t town w e s t , b u t B y i n g t o n s t a y e d w i t h t h e t r u c k

continuing t o t r y t o r e p a i r it. Two h o u r s l a t e r , a t a b o u t 5:00

a.m., he c a u g h t a r i d e i n t o E a s t G l a c i e r w i t h t h e f i r s t v e h i c l e

going e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n a f t e r t h e H a r r i s t r u c k departed. A t East

G l a c i e r h e c a l l e d a mechanic. When h i s t r u c k s t a l l e d , B y i n g t o n

s e t o u t t h r e e r e f l e c t o r s t o warn oncoming t r a f f i c . One r e f l e c t o r

was p l a c e d some 250 f e e t w e s t and i n f r o n t o f t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k .

H e d i d n o t p u t o u t r e d f l a g s which h e had i n a k i t i n t h e t r u c k .

The t r u c k had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n r e p a i r e d a t C u t Bank, Mon-

tanra, s o t h e mechanic h e c a l l e d was a t C u t Bank, some 40 m i l e s

e a s t of t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . T h a t mechanic s u g g e s t e d h e c o n t a c t a

mechanic i n E a s t G l a c i e r f i r s t and t h i s c o n t a c t was made between

t h e h o u r s o f 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. A t a b o u t 8:00 a.m. Eyington and

t h e mechanic went o u t and a t t e m p t e d t o r e p a i r t h e t r u c k w i t h o u t
success. B y i n g t o n t h e n r e t u r n e d t o E a s t G l a c i e r where h e a g a i n

c a l l e d t h e mechanic i n Cut Bank a t a b o u t 9:45 a.m., requesting

t h a t h e come o u t t o s e r v i c e t h e t r u c k . The mechanic l e f t C u t
Bank a t 1 0 : O O a.m. and a r r i v e d i n E a s t G l a c i e r an hour l a t e r

where h e p i c k e d up B y i n g t o n and t o o k him b a c k t o t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k .
A f t e r t r y i n g u n s u c c e s s f u l l y t o r e p a i r t h e t r u c k , t h e y s e n t word

i n t o Browning, t h e n e a r e s t town, t o c a l l t h e highway p a t r o l o r

the sheriff for assistance. By t h i s t i m e o f d a y , between 1 1 : O O
a.m. and 1 2 : O O noon, t h e e a s t - w e s t t r a f f i c on t h e highway had

begun t o i n c r e a s e .

A t a b o u t 11:30 a.m. Eyington and t h e mechanic went i n t o

Browning where Byington c o n t a c t e d t h e c i t y p o l i c e and had them

c a l l Highway Patrolman Anderson, and a t a b o u t t h e same t i m e he

a g a i n c a l l e d Cut Bank t o g e t a wrecker from t h e G e t t e r T r u c k i n g

Co., t o come and remove t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . H e remained i n Brown-

i n g u n t i l t h e wrecker from Cut Bank a r r i v e d a t a b o u t 1 : 3 0 p.m.;

he t h e n went back t o t h e t r u c k o n l y t o f i n d t h a t a series of

a c c i d e n t s had o c c u r r e d .

Highway Patrolman Anderson who was s t a t i o n e d i n E a s t

G l a c i e r , r e c e i v e d a c a l l n o t i f y i n g him o f t h e d i s a b l e d t r u c k a t

a b o u t 11:45 a . m . H e a r r i v e d a t t h e t r u c k l o c a t i o n a b o u t 12:15

p.m. and t r i e d t o d i r e c t t r a f f i c f o r t e n o r f i f t e e n m i n u t e s

w i t h o u t t o o much s u c c e s s . Before l e a v i n g t h e s c e n e he moved t h e

r e f l e c t o r p l a c e d by Byington w e s t of t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k , t o a
p o i n t on t h e h i l l c r e s t where he f e l t it would warn e a s t b o u n d

traffic. N e i t h e r Byington o r Anderson p u t o u t any f l a g s , a l t h o u g h

b o t h t h e t r u c k and t h e p a t r o l c a r were equipped w i t h them.

A t a b o u t 12:30 p.m. Anderson went i n t o Browning, some

t h r e e t o f o u r m i l e s e a s t of t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k , t o g e t a s s i s t a n c e

t o f l a g t r a f f i c u n t i l t h e wrecker c o u l d a r r i v e .

During t h e n e x t f i f t e e n t o twenty m i n u t e s t h e s c e n e on

t h e e a s t s l o p e o f Whiskey John h i l l changed. F i r s t , on t h e s c e n e

coming o v e r t h e h i l l c r e s t from t h e w e s t came t h e Upham c a r con-

t a i n i n g M r . and M r s . Donald Upham. They w e r e d r i v i n g a 1968
Rambler. They had s t a r t e d from E a s t G l a c i e r and p r i o r t o l e a v i n g
had been informed by a son t h a t t h e r e was a s t a l l e d t r u c k on t h e
r o a d between t h e r e and Browning. They d e s c r i b e d t h e r o a d c o n d i -

t i o n s a s good, c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t i t was w i n t e r t i m e , and t h e y d r o v e

a t a speed of from 55 t o 6 0 m i l e s p e r h o u r , b e f o r e coming t o t h e
L o c a t i o n of t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . Upon coming o v e r t h e c r e s t o f

t h e h i l l t h e y saw t h e r e f l e c t o r p l a c e d by Anderson and slowed

down t o a b o u t 2 5 m i l e s p e r h o u r . When t h e y g o t some 100 f e e t

down from t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l , t h e y saw a westbound t r u c k

d r i v e n by Hermance g o i n g a r o u n d t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k f u r t h e r down

t h e h i l l , s o they stopped i n t h e i r l a n e , t h e eastbound l a n e ,

t o l e t t h e Hermance t r u c k p a s s t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . Just a t that

t i m e , t h e Walker c a r came o v e r t h e h i l l t r a v e l i n g e a s t and r a n

i n t o t h e r e a r end o f t h e s t o p p e d Upham c a r .

The Uphams saw t h e Walker c a r , knew i t w a s g o i n g t o h i t

thern, s o t h e y were a b l e t o b r a c e t h e m s e l v e s and t h e r e b y a v o i d e d

serious injury. Walker was r e t u r n i n g f r o m t h e w e s t t o Browning

w i t h h i s w i f e and s o n . H e t e s t i f i e d h e had been d r i v i n g a b o u t

6 0 m i l e s p e r hour b u t t h a t a t t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l h e saw t h e

r e f l e c t o r a n d slowed down. A t a b o u t t h e t i m e of t h e r e a r end

a c c i d e n t between t h e Upham c a r and t h e Walker c a r , t h e Hermance

t r u c k was a b r e a s t o f t h e two c a r s a n d i n i t s p r o p e r l a n e . It

went t o t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l , s t o p p e d a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e

d r i v e r Hermance, h e t u r n e d o n h i s l i g h t s a n d b l i n k e r s and t h e n

t r i e d t o s t o p a t r u c k d r i v e n by McWhirk which was coming o v e r t h e

c r e s t of t h e h i l l e a s t b o u n d a t from 4 5 t o 60 m i l e s p e r h o u r .

McWhirt d e n i e d t h a t Hermance's w a r n i n g l i g h t s w e r e o n , b u t acknow-

l e d g e s t h a t Hermance d i d wave a t him.

McWhirt's father-in-law B r y a n t , a l s o a t r u c k e r , was a

p a s s e n g e r i n McWhirt's t r u c k . They saw t h e r e f l e c t o r a s t h e y

p a s s e d o v e r t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l b u t s a i d i t was l y i n g down on

t h e highway. They o b s e r v e d b o t h l a n e s o f t h e highway b l o c k e d

so McWhirt a t t e m p t e d t o go t o t h e n o r t h s i d e o f t h e highway and

u s e t h e borrow p i t , b u t i n d o i n g s o h i s t r a i l e r s k i d d e d i n t o a

t h i r d westbound t r u c k d r i v e n by H a l s e y , which was t h e immediate

a a u s e of H a l s e y ' s i n j u r i e s and r e s u l t i n g d e a t h .
 One o t h e r eastbound v e h i c l e , r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e p i c k u p

w i t h two young men i n i t , a r r i v e d e i t h e r j u s t b e f o r e t h e McWhirt-

Halsey a c c i d e n t o r j u s t a f t e r , b u t e x c e p t f o r h e l p i n g o u t a f t e r

t h e a c c i d e n t t h e y were n o t i n v o l v e d .

The i s s u e s a s s i g n e d f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e

s e v e r a l , b u t t h e p r i m a r y i s s u e i s whether o r n o t t h e t r i a l c o u r t

e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . Other i s s u e s

are:

1. May a d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r t a i n and g r a n t a motion

f o r new t r i a l when t h e motion f a i l s t o s t a t e " w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y

t h e grounds t h e r e f o r " a s r e q u i r e d by Rule 7 ( b ) ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P.?

2. Should t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t

have been g r a n t e d ?

3. I f any e r r o r o r d e f e c t o c c u r r e d a t t r i a l , was s u c h

e r r o r o r d e f e c t o f a n a t u r e which a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s

of p l a i n t i f f s o t h a t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t was

i n c o n s i s t e n t with s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e ? I n o t h e r words, d i d t h e

d i s t r i c t court , i n granting new t r i a l , f a i l adhere the

r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 6 1 , M.R.Civ.P.?

F o r t h e p a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s t h i s C o u r t h a s been c a l l i n g

t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e bench and b a r t o i t s c o n c e r n w i t h t h e f a i l -

u r e of t r i a l c o u r t s t o s t a t e r e a s o n s f o r t h e g r a n t i n g of new

trials. Beebe v . Johnson, Mont . , 526 P.2d 1 2 8 , 3 1 St.Rep.

702; Haynes v . County of M i s s o u l a , 163 Mont. 270, 517 P.2d 370,

30 St.Rep. 1083; Campeau v . Lewis, 1 4 4 Mont. 543, 398 P.2d 960.

Here, p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l was m e r e l y s e t

f o r t h i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n a r y language of s e c t i o n 93-5603, R.C.M.

1947. T h a t motion s t a t e d :

" I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e p l a i n t i f f moves t h e
c o u r t f o r a n o r d e r v a c a t i n g and s e t t i n g a s i d e
t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y and g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f
a new t r i a l i n t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d c a u s e upon
t h e following grounds, t o w i t :
 " ( 1 ) I r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s of t h e
c o u r t , o r d e r s of t h e c o u r t and a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n
on t h e p a r t o f t h e c o u r t by which p l a i n t i f f s
were p r e v e n t e d from having a f a i r t r i a l .
" ( 2 ) I n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y
t h e v e r d i c t o r o t h e r d e c i s i o n , o r t h a t it i s
a g a i n s t t h e law.

" ( 3 ) E r r o r i n law o c c u r r i n g a t t h e t r i a l and
e x c e p t e d t o by t h e p l a i n t i f f . ' '

T h i s wording i s a l m o s t an e x a c t r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e wording
of s u b s e c t i o n s 1, 6 and 7 , s e c t i o n 93-5603, R.C.M. 1947, which

d e t a i l s t h e c a u s e s f o r which a new t r i a l may be g r a n t e d . Rule

7 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. p r o v i d e s t h a t such m o t i o n s s h a l l " s t a t e w i t h

p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e grounds t h e r e f o r * * *." Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P.,

p r o v i d e s f o r t h e g r a n t i n g of such a motion. Hereafter a statement
of t h e grounds i n t h e language of t h e s t a t u t e w i l l be i n s u f f i c i e n t

f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f a new t r i a l .

While motions s u b s t a n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h i s motion have

been p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t and t h e c o n t e n t s have n o t

been c h a l l e n g e d o r found i n s u f f i c i e n t , i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t

Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., i s i n t h e p r o c e s s of b e i n g changed t o r e q u i r e
t r i a l c o u r t s t o s t a t e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e grounds f o r g r a n t i n g

a new t r i a l , t h e t i m e h a s come t o r e q u i r e a s i m i l a r r e q u i r e m e n t be
p l a c e d on t h e moving p a r t y . Rule 7 ( b ) (1), M.R.Civ.P., requires

t h a t t h e grounds f o r any motion, i n c l u d i n g a motion f o r new t r i a l ,

be s t a t e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y :

"(1) An a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e c o u r t f o r a n o r d e r
s h a l l be by motion which, u n l e s s made d u r i n g a
h e a r i n q o r t r i a l , s h a l l be made i n w r i t i n g ,
s h a l l s t a t e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e qrounds
t h e r e f o r , and s h a l l s e t f o r t h t h e r e l i e f o r o r d e r
s o u g h t . The r e q u i r e m e n t of w r i t i n g i s f u l f i l l e d
i f t h e motion i s s t a t e d i n a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f
t h e h e a r i n g of t h e motion." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )

T h i s Court i n M a r t e l l o v. Darlow and Lovely, 1 5 1 Mont.
232, 235, 4 4 1 P.2d 175, s p e a k i n g of s e c t i o n 93-5603, R.C.M. 1947,
said :
 "To a u t h o r i z e g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , t h e e r r o r
complained o f m u s t b e a n e r r o r ' m a t e r i a l l y
a f f e c t i n g t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of [ t h e
a g g r i e v e d p a r t y ] ' ( s e c t i o n 93-5603, R.C.M.
1 9 4 7 ) and t h e e r r o r must b e o f s u c h c h a r a c t e r
t h a t r e f u s a l t o g r a n t a new t r i a l ' a p p e a r s
t o t h e Court i n c o n s i s t e n t with s u b s t a n t i a l
justice.' ( R u l e 6 1 , I4.R.Civ.P.) In other
words, i f t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e a g g r i e v e d
p a r t y a r e n o t prejudiced, only 'harmless e r r o r '
i s i n v o l v e d n o t a u t h o r i z i n g a new t r i a l t o be
g r a n t e d . Within t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e t r i a l
c o u r t h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n t o q r a n t a new t r i a l
a n d w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d e x c e p t f o r a b u s e t h e r e o f .
[Citing cases] "

H e r e , w e f i n d t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l was i n a d e q u a t e

and d e f e c t i v e i n i t s e s s e n t i a l r e s p e c t s i n t h a t it f a i l e d t o

m e e t t h e recognized s t a t u t o r y requirements.

A p p e l l a n t ' s i s s u e two q u e s t i o n s w h e t h e r o r n o t a p p e l l a n t

was e n t i t l e d t o a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t b e c a u s e o f i n d e p e n d e n t i n t e r -

vening causes.

A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t even i f B y i n g t o n o r U i t h o f w e r e

n e g l i g e n t , t h a t s u c h n e g l i g e n c e , i f a n y , was n o t t h e p r o x i m a t e

c a u s e o f t h e McWhirk-Halsey a c c i d e n t i n t h a t i t was s u p e r c e d e d by

t h e i n t e r v e n i n g n e g l i g e n c e o f Walker a n d McWhirk; t h a t t h e s t a l l e d

t r u c k d i d n o t h i n g more t h a n f u r n i s h a c o n d i t i o n by which t h e i n -

j u r y occurred a s t h e r e s u l t o f a subsequent independent act of

a t h i r d p e r s o n ; and t h e f a c t t h a t B y i n g t o n f a i l e d t o s e t f l a g s

1 0 0 f e e t i n f r o n t o f h i s s t a l l e d v e h i c l e was a t most a r e m o t e

c a u s e , f o r t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d more t h a n 100 f e e t i n f r o n t of

t h e s t a l l e d truck.

A p p e l l a n t f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t Walker and McWhirk w e r e

negligent i n t h a t they w e r e driving too f a s t t o stop within t h e i r
c l e a r r a n g e o f v i s i o n which, a l l e g e d l y , was 6 4 5 f e e t f r o m t h e

stalled truck. Further, t h a t Byington's f a i l u r e t o a n t i c i p a t e

Waiker and McWhirk's n e g l i g e n c e i s n o t n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t o f

Byington. The q u e s t i o n t h e n i s : Was t h e r e a n i n d e p e n d e n t i n -

tervening act?

Respondent a r g u e s t h a t any i n t e r v e n i n g a c t must h e t h e
wrongful a c t of a n o t h e r , and t h a t no n e g l i g e n c e w a s shown by

McWhirk; f u r t h e r , t h a t Byington d i d n o t have t o f o r e s e e t h e

e x a c t consequences of t h e a c c i d e n t , b u t t h a t some i n j u r y would

o c c u r from t h e s t a l l e d v e h i c l e , and t h a t t h e r e c a n be more t h a n

o n e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of a n i n j u r y and i f t h e i n t e r v e n i n g a c t s

a r e f o r s e e a b l e t o a r e a s o n a b l e man, t h e n it i s n o t a n independ-

e n t intervening cause.

W a g r e e w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t where o n e h a s n e g l i -
e

g e n t l y c a u s e d a c o n d i t i o n of d a n g e r , h e i s n o t r e l i e v e d of r e s p o n -
s i b i l i t y f o r damage c a u s e d t o a n o t h e r m e r e l y because t h e i n j u r y

a l s o i n v o l v e d t h e l a t e r misconduct of someone e l s e . But, t h i s

i s t r u e only i f both negligent a c t s a r e i n f a c t concurring proxi-

mate c a u s e s of t h e i n j u r y ; and it i s n o t t r u e i f t h e l a t e r neg-

l i g e n c e i s a n i n d e p e n d e n t , i n t e r v e n i n g s o l e c a u s e of t h e i n c i -

dent. Boepple v . Mohalt, 1 0 1 Mont. 417, 54 P.2d 857.

I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e n e g l i g e n c e i n c r e a t i n g a

h a z a r d ( t h e t r u c k s t a l l e d on t h e highway) was a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e

o f t h e a c c i d e n t , t h i s t e s t i s t o be a p p l i e d : Did t h e wrongful

a c t , i n a n a t u r a l c o n t i n u o u s sequence of e v e n t s , which m i g h t
r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d t o f o l l o w , produce t h e i n j u r y ? I f s o , it

i s a c o n c u r r i n g p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y even though t h e
l a t e r n e g l i g e n t a c t of a n o t h e r [Walker and McWhirk] c o o p e r a t e d

t o cause it. On t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e l a t t e r ' s a c t of n e g l i g e n c e

i n c a u s i n g t h e a c c i d e n t was of such a c h a r a c t e r a s n o t r e a s o n a b l y
t o be e x p e c t e d t o happen i n t h e n a t u r a l sequence of e v e n t s , t h e n

s u c h l a t e r a c t of n e g l i g e n c e i s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t , i n t e r v e n i n g
c a u s e and t h e r e f o r e t h e s o l e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r y . Jim-
i s o n v . United S t a t e s , 267 F.Supp. 674; Sumner v . Amacher, 150

Mont. 544, 437 P.2d 630; DeVerniero v . Eby, 159 Mont. 146, 496
P.2d 290; Ford v. Rupple, 1 6 1 Mont. 56, 504 P.2d 686; Brandenburger

v . Toyota Motor S a l e s , Mont ,
- ,- 513 P.2d 268; 3 0 . S t . R e p . 808.
 Applying the foregoing test to the instant situation, it
was reasonable to foresee that the eastbound drivers [Walker and
McWhirk] would see the truck parked on the highway. Considering
Montana's case law and the federal court views on our law, this
Court again finds that abstract foreseeability is not sufficient
to meet the requirements of proximate cause.
Applying Jimison here, appellant was not obliged to
foresee or anticipate that either Walker or McWhirk would come
over the hill at such speeds that they could not stop within the
assured clear distance ahead of them. Neither was appellant
obliged to foresee that Walker would continue over the hill
without braking after seeing the reflector at the top and should
have realized there might be trouble on the other side. All of
this leads to the conviction that the district court should have
granted appellant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of
respondent's case-in-chief.
We have reviewed the various other issues raised by
appellant but confine our decision to issues one and two as con-
trolling. Accordingly, the order of the court granting respond-
ent a new trial is vacated and set aside. The jury verdict in
favor of appellant and the judgment are affirmed.

Justic
We copcur:
* -CI

,
br--L
.,- . <
.