No. 13461
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
RICHARD 0. POEPPEL,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs-
VIRGIL FISHER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial
District,
Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and Phillips,
Kalispell, Montana
James I. Heckathorn argued, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondent:
Morrison, Hedman and ~rieweiler, Whitefish,
Montana
Terry ~ r i e w ~ i l eargued, Whitefish, Montana
r
-
Submitted: September 28, 1977
Decided: OEC 16 l g r
Filed : r~ka: ' Kt-(
~ 3
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
Defendant V i r g i l F i s h e r appeals from t h e f i n a l judgment of
t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Flathead County, s i t t i n g with a jury. Plain-
t i f f Richard 0. Poeppel brought t h i s c i v i l a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendant
seeking money damages f o r a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y . The j u r y returned
a v e r d i c t i n p l a i n t i f f ' s favor, awarding $5,000 damages.
This cause of a c t i o n a r i s e s out of an a l t e r c a t i o n t h a t
occurred on A p r i l 20, 1972, i n t h e Central School, Whitefish,
Montana. P l a i n t i f f , a school teacher, a l l e g e d he was a t t a c k e d
and s t r u c k by defendant, a fellow school t e a c h e r , a f t e r p l a i n t i f f
had p h y s i c a l l y e j e c t e d a student from h i s classroom. Plaintiff
f i l e d a timely complaint i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. By s t i p u l a t i o n
of t h e p a r t i e s , a d j u d i c a t i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s claim was stayed
pending f i n a l determination and appeal of t h e cause e n t i t l e d
Reliance Insurance Co. v. V i r g i l F i s h e r , Richard 0 . Poeppel and
Horace Mann Insurance Lo., 164 Mont. 278, 521 P.2d 193. This
Court's d e c i s i o n i n t h a t cause r e l e a s e d both insurance companies
from any duty t o defend o r t o pay any damages t h a t might be
awarded i n t h e present a c t i o n .
Defendant subsequently f i l e d an answer t o p l a i n t i f f ' s amended
complaint and a demand f o r j u r y t r i a l . Pursuant t o Rule 1 6 ,
M.R.Civ.P., t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered a p r e t r i a l conference and
t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of p r e t r i a l orders. On February 1 7 , 1976, t h e
D i s t r i c t Court issued i t s p r e t r i a l o r d e r p r e s e n t i n g , among o t h e r
t h i n g s , t h e s e i s s u e s of f a c t and law t o be l i t i g a t e d a t t r i a l :
I s s u e s of Fact. 1. Whether t h e conduct of defendant was
provoked by. t h e p l a i n t i f f .
2. Whether p l a i n t i f f was b e a t i n g a c h i l d and defendant
came t o t h e c h i l d ' s rescue.
- 2 -
3. Whether t h e p l a i n t i f f threatened defendant and defendant
was a c t i n g i n s e l f -defense.
4. Whether defendant's a t t a c k was malicious and wanton.
5. The n a t u r e and e x t e n t of p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s .
I s s u e s of Law. 1. The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s e l f - d e f e n s e o r
t h e defense of another t o t h e i n s t a n t case.
2. Whether p u n i t i v e damages a r e a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s
situation.
The D i s t r i c t Court then ordered:
" I T I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h i s p r e t r i a l order s h a l l
supersede and supplement t h e pleadings and govern t h e
course of t h e t r i a l i n t h i s cause, unless modified t o
prevent manifest i n j u s t i c e .
" I T IS FURTHER ORDERED t h a t a l l pleadings h e r e i n s h a l l
be amended t o conform t o t h i s p r e t r i a l order."
The matter was t r i e d before t h e D i s t r i c t Court on A p r i l 12,
1976. On A p r i l 14, 1976, t h e jury returned i t s v e r d i c t f i n d i n g
i n favor of p l a i n t i f f and a s s e s s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s damages i n t h e
amount of $5,000. The jury found p l a i n t i f f was not e n t i t l e d t o
exemplary o r p u n i t i v e damages. Defendant subsequently f i l e d a
motion f o r e n t r y of judgment f o r defendant. Defendant based h i s
motion on t h e contention t h a t p l a i n t i f f was n o t e n t i t l e d t o
recover from defendant a s a matter of law s i n c e s e c t i o n 92-204,
R.C.M. 1947 (subsequently amended and repealed by s e c t i o n
92-204.1, R.C.M. 1947; approved March 29, 1973; Section 2, Chapter
493, Laws 1973) provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"* * * Further provided, t h a t whenever such employee
s h a l l receive an i n j u r y while performing the d u t i e s
of h i s employment and such i n j u r y o r i n j u r i e s , so
received by such employee, a r e caused by t h e i n t e n -
t i o n a l and malicious a c t o r omission of a servant o r
employee of h i s employer, then such employee, o r i n
case of h i s death, h i s h e i r s o r personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ,
s h a l l i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r i g h t t o receive compensation
under t h e Workmen's Compensation Act, have a r i g h t t o
prosecute any cause of a c t i o n he may have f o r damages
a g a i n s t such s e r v a n t s o r employees of h i s employer,
causing such i n j u r y . I n t h e event s a i d employee
s h a l l prosecute an a c t i o n f o r damages f o r o r on
account of such i n j u r i e s s o received, he s h a l l n o t
be deprived of h i s r i g h t t o r e c e i v e compensation
b u t such compensation s h a l l be received by him i n
a d d i t i o n t o and independent of h i s r i g h t t o b r i n g
a c t i o n f o r such damages ** *.I'
P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a memorandum i n opposition t o defendant's
motion f o r e n t r y of judgment contending t h a t defendant's post-
t r i a l motion f o r judgment notwithstandtng t h e v e r d i c t , lshould be
denied s i n c e i t was based upon an a f f i r m a t i v e defense, i n j u r y
by a fellow s e r v a n t , which was never plead nor proved a t t r i a l .
P l a i n t i f f f u r t h e r f i l e d a p o s t - t r i a l motion and memorandum i n
support of a d d i t u r . Defendant f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s and a motion t o
s t r i k e p l a i n t i f f ' s memorandum of c o s t s on t h e ground p l a i n t i f f
was untimely i n f i l i n g h i s memorandum of c o s t s and disbursements.
The D i s t r i c t Court denied a l l p o s t - t r i a l motions and judgment
on t h e v e r d i c t was f i l e d June 22, 1976. Notice of e n t r y of
judgment was f i l e d June 24, 1976. Defendant deposited a sum of
money i n t h e amount of judgment with t h e c l e r k of t h e D i s t r i c t
Court a s supersedeas bond and t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d an
order s t a y i n g execution of judgment pending appeal t o t h i s Court.
The following i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review:
1. Whether p l a i n t i f f may recover a c t u a l damages by j u r y
v e r d i c t i n a t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n a g a i n s t a fellow employee f o r
a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y when t h e jury was n o t i n s t r u c t e d on t h e
provisions of s e c t i o n 92-204, R.C.M. 1947, and did n o t f i n d t h e
t o r t f e a s o r acted with malice?
2. Whether p l a i n t i f f must claim h i s c o s t s w i t h i n f i v e
days of a jury v e r d i c t ?
3. Whether defendant brought t h i s appeal without substan-
t i a l o r reasonable grounds, thereby e n t i t l i n g p l a i n t i f f t o recover
damages pursuant t o Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P.?
I n resolving t h e f i r s t i s s u e , defendant contends t h e j u r y ' s
f a i l u r e t o award exemplary o r p u n i t i v e damages t o p l a i n t i f f i s a
b a r t o p l a i n t i f f ' s recovery of a c t u a l damages s i n c e s e c t i o n 92-204,
R.C.M. 1947, provided p l a i n t i f f could recover d a m a s s from a
coemployee causing i n j u r y t o p l a i n t i f f only when such i n j u r i e s
were caused by t h e i n t e n t i o n a l and malicious a c t of t h e coemployee.
I n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e j u r y ' s f a i l u r e t o award exemplary o r
p u n i t i v e damages i s n o t a b a r t o t h e award of a c t u a l o r compensa-
t o r y damages. Exemplary o r p u n i t i v e damages a r e awarded a t t h e
d i s c r e t i o n of t h e j u r y , even though fraud o r malice i s shown, and
a r e n o t recoverable a s a matter of r i g h t . The s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n and cause of a c t i o n i s determined independent
of p l a i n t i f f ' s claim f o r exemplary o r p u n i t i v e damages. Spackman
v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 147 Mont. 500, 414 P.2d 918 (1966);
Gilham v. Devereaux, 67 Mont. 75, 214 P. 606 (1923), reversed i n
p a r t i n Fauver v. Wilkoske, 123 Mont. 228, 239, 211 P.2d 420 (1949);
22 Am J u r 2d, Damages $ 5 240,241. Therefore, t h e j u r y ' s f a i l u r e
t o award exemplary o r p u n i t i v e damages i n t h e i n s t a n t case i s
n o t equivalent t o a finding of no malice.
Furthermore, i t i s a well accepted proposition of law
t h a t malice i n law i s implied where defendant's conduct i s
unjustifiable. Fauver v. Wilkoske, 123 Mont. 228, 211 P.2d 420
(1949); Cashin v. Northern Pac. R.Co., 96 Mont. 9 2 , 28 P.2d 862
(1934); Moelleur v. Moelleur, 55 Mont. 30, 173 P. 419 (1918).
The j u r y ' s f i n d i n g i n favor of p l a i n t i f f and a s s e s s i n g damages
a t t h e sum of $5,000 i s equivalent t o a f i n d i n g t h a t defendant
committed t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y , absent j u s t i f i a b l e
excuse, p r i v i l e g e o r defense. Such an a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y i s an
i n t e n t i o n a l , u n j u s t i f i e d a c t and malice i n law i s implied. The
j u r y ' s f a i l u r e t o award exemplary o r p u n i t i v e damages only
implies t h a t t h e a c t complained of was not found t o be i n
t h e s p i r i t of mischief o r c r i m i n a l i n d i f f e r e n c e t o c i v i l
o b l i g a t i o n s , but an i n t e n t i o n a l , unlawful, i n j u r i o u s a c t was
t h e b a s i s f o r t h e j u r y ' s award of a c t u a l o r compensatory damages
p l a i n t i f f ' s favor.
Defendant's second i s s u e concerns t h e t i m e l i n e s s of
p l a i n t i f f ' s submission of a memorandum of c o s t s and disburse-
ments. Section 93-8619, R.C.M. 1947, i s c o n t r o l l i n g :
"The p a r t y i n whose favor judgment i s rendered,
and who claims h i s c o s t s , must d e l i v e r t o t h e c l e r k ,
and s e r v e upon t h e adverse p a r t y , within f i v e days
a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t o r n o t i c e of t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e
c o u r t o r r e f e r e e o r , i f t h e e n t r y of t h e judgment on
t h e v e r d i c t o r d e c i s i o n be stayed, then before such
e n t r y i s made, a memorandum of t h e items of h i s c o s t s
and necessary disbursements i n t h e a c t i o n o r proceeding,
which memorandum must be v e r i f i e d by t h e oath of t h e
p a r t y , o r h i s a t t o r n e y o r agent, o r by t h e c l e r k of
h i s a t t o r n e y , s t a t i n g t h a t t o t h e b e s t of h i s knowledge
and b e l i e f t h e items a r e c o r r e c t , and t h a t t h e d i s -
bursenents have been n e c e s s a r i l y incurred i n t h e a c t i o n
o r proceeding. A p a r t y d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e c o s t s
claimed may, w i t h i n f i v e days a f t e r n o t i c e of f i l i n g of
t h e b i l l of c o s t s , f i l e and serve a n o t i c e of a motion
t o have t h e same taxed by t h e c o u r t i n which t h e judgment
was rendered, o r by t h e judge thereof a t chambers."
Here, t h e jury v e r d i c t f o r p l a i n t i f f was announced and
f i l e d on A p r i l 14, 1976. O A p r i l 20, 1976, defendant f i l e d
n
h i s motion f o r e n t r y of judgment f o r defendant. Plaintiff filed
h i s memorandum of c o s t s and disbursements, and o t h e r p o s t - t r i a l
motions on A p r i l 26, 1976. On May 4 , 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t Court
issued i t s order denying a l l p o s t - t r i a l motions. O May 6 , 1976,
n
defendant f i l e d h i s o b j e c t i o n s and motion t o s t r i k e memorandum
of c o s t s with supporting b r i e f . The D i s t r i c t Court denied defendant's
motion t o s t r i k e p l a i n t i f f ' s memorandum of c o s t s and disbursements
on June 21, 1976. On June 22, 1976, judgment on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t
was f i l e d and n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d on June 24,
T h i s Court h a s h e l d t h a t t h e f i v e day p e r i o d allowed f o r
f i l i n g of a memorandum of c o s t s and disbursements " i s computed
from t h e day t h e c o u r t e n t e r s judgment, n o t from t h e day t h e
c o u r t o r a l l y announces i t s decision." Davis v. Trobough, 139 Mont.
322, 326, 363 P.2d 727 (1961). The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g on
p o s t - t r k a l ' m o t i o n s delayed e n t r y of judgment u n t i l June 24, 1976.
P l a i n t i f f f i l e d h i s memorandum of c o s t s and disbursements p r i o r
t o e n t r y o f judgment, on A p r i l 26, 1976, and such f i l i n g was
timely.
Defendant's t h i r d i s s u e i s p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m f o r damages
i n accord w i t h Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P. W f a i l t o f i n d sub-
e
that
s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e l t h i s a p p e a l was taken w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l o r
reasonable grounds o r only f o r purposes of d e l a y . Therefore,
damages under Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P., a r e denied.
The j udgmen t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed.
/ Justice
W Concur:
e
A
Chief J u s t i c e
I
Justices.