No. 13329
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
VIRGINIA NOLL, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, an incorporated
municipality and WALTER L. BATES,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
McKinley Anderson, Bozeman, Montana
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and Phillips, Kalispell,
Montana
Douglas Dasinger argued, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondents :
Brown, Pepper and Kommers, Bozeman, Montana
Anderson, Symrnes, Forbes, Peete and Brown, Billings,
Montana
Richard Cebull argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: April 20, 1977
Decided : JUN - 2 19q
Filed: Jkgm 8 QS??
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from a j u r y award o f damages r e s u l t -
i n g from a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t .
P l a i n t i f f s w e r e i n j u r e d on August 1 7 , 1973, when a
s t r e e t pavement r o l l e r o p e r a t e d by B a t e s i n t h e scope o f h i s
employment by t h e C i t y o f Bozeman s t r u c k t h e back o f a parked
c a r i n which p l a i n t i f f s were s i t t i n g . Defendants a d m i t t e d
liability. The s o l e i s s u e a t t h e t r i a l w a s t h e amount o f dam-
a g e s t o be awarded p l a i n t i f f s .
The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t o f $800 f o r No11 and $1,100
f o r Keneady. Both p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l , c l a i m i n g t h e awards a r e
inadequate. They b o t h c l a i m i n j u r i e s t o t h e i r back and neck.
I n a d d i t i o n , No11 c l a i m s a g g r a v a t i o n o f a p r e - e x i s t i n g arthritic
c o n d i t i o n and Keneady claims a g g r a v a t i o n o f a n e u r o t i c c o n d i t i o n
i n a d d i t i o n t o damage t o t h e car owned by h e r .
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w on a p p e a l :
(1) Was r e f u s a l of p l a i n t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n No.
5 reversible error?
( 2 ) Was t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t ?
P l a i n t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n No 5 r e a d s :
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e
Defendant need n o t b e t h e s o l e c a u s e of t h e
i n j u r y , it b e i n g s u f f i c i e n t t h a t it was one o f
t h e e f f i c i e n t c a u s e s t h e r e o f , w i t h o u t which t h e
i n j u r y would n o t have r e s u l t e d ; b u t it must a p p e a r
t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e p e r s o n s o u g h t t o be
c h a r g e d w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a t l e a s t o n e of t h e
causes r e s u l t i n g i n t h e injury."
For s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y p l a i n t i f f s c i t e F l e t c h e r v .
C i t y of Helena, 163 Mont. 337, 344, 517 P.2d 365. They a r g u e
it was c r i t i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t t h e j u r y u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i f t h e
a c c i d e n t was - of t h e c a u s e s of p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n d i t i o n , t h e n
one
d e f e n d a n t s would be l i a b l e ; and t h a t it was n o t n e c e s s a r y de-
f e n d a n t s be t h e s o l e c a u s e . F u r t h e r , they contend t h a t an
a p p o r t i o n m e n t of damages between t h e p r i o r c o n d i t i o n and
a g g r a v a t i o n c a u s e d by d e f e n d a n t s c a n o n l y be made where t h e r e
i s a l o g i c a l b a s i s f o r such a p p o r t i o n m e n t . O t h e r w i s e , where
no b a s i s c a n be found, such a d i v i s i o n would be a r b i t r a r y and
t h e o n l y p r a c t i c a l c o u r s e would be t o h o l d d e f e n d a n t s l i a b l e
f o r t h e e n t i r e l o s s notwithstanding t h e f a c t t h a t o t h e r causes
may have c o n t r i b u t e d t o such l o s s . Kegel v. United S t a t e s ,
289 F.Supp. 790 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . F i n a l l y , t h e y submit t h e j u r y was
m i s l e d by t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e c o u r t t o a l l o w t h e i r proposed i n -
s t r u c t i o n No. 5, e s p e c i a l l y i n view of d e f e n d a n t s ' c r o s s -
e x a m i n a t i o n t e n d i n g t o p o i n t t o o t h e r p o s s i b l e c a u s e s of p l a i n -
t i f f s ' condition.
W disagree.
e The p o i n t was a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r e d by p l a i n -
t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 g i v e n by t h e c o u r t . This in-
s t r u c t i o n reads:
" I n a n a c t i o n f o r damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s
c a u s e d by t h e wrongful a c t o r o m i s s i o n of a n o t h e r ,
t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n i s e n t i t l e d t o f u l l compensa-
t i o n f o r a l l i n j u r i e s p r o x i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n g from
t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t even though s u c h i n j u r i e s may
have been a g g r a v a t e d by r e a s o n o f h e r p r e - e x i s t i n g
p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and w e r e r e n d e r e d more d i f f i -
c u l t t o c u r e by r e a s o n of h e r e x i s t i n g s t a t e o f
h e a l t h , o r because o f a l a t e n t d i s e a s e t h e i n j u r i e s
were r e n d e r e d more s e r i o u s t o h e r t h a n t h e y would
have been had s h e been i n r o b u s t h e a l t h .
"The Defendant c a n n o t invoke t h e p r e v i o u s c o n d i t i o n
of t h e person i n j u r e d f o r t h e purpose of escaping
t h e consequences of h i s own n e g l i g e n c e o r r e d u c i n g
t h e damages f o r which he i s l i a b l e , b u t of c o u r s e
t h e r e c a n be no r e c o v e r y f o r any e l e m e n t s due t o
t h e p r e - e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n and i n no way r e s u l t i n g
from t h e i n j u r y . The r e c o v e r y i n s u c h c a s e s h o u l d
i n c l u d e no damages f o r i n j u r i e s which r e s u l t p u r e l y
from t h e o r i g i n a l c o n d i t i o n . I t must be c o n f i n e d
t o t h o s e which a r e due t o i t s enhancement and
aggravation. The d e f e n d a n t must respond i n damages
f o r such p a r t o f t h e d i s e a s e d c o n d i t i o n a s h i s neg-
l i g e n c e h a s c a u s e d , and i f t h e r e c a n be no a p p o r t i o n -
ment, o r it c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t t h e d i s e a s e would
have e x i s t e d a p a r t from t h e i n j u r y , t h e n he i s
responsible f o r t h e diseased condition. But where
t h e d i s e a s e i s more t h a n a mere l a t e n t tendency t h e
d e f e n d a n t c a n be h e l d l i a b l e o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t
t h a t her negligence proximately aggravated t h e
condition. "
T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r s t h e law r e l a t i n g t o
p l a i n t i f f s ' t h e o r y of damages. Accordingly, r e f u s a l of p l a i n -
t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 5 was n o t e r r o r .
D i r e c t i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e 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 s u p p o r t t h e damage awards, w e n o t e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s
a r g u e t h e i r e v i d e n c e i s e s s e n t i a l l y u n c o n t r a d i c t e d b e c a u s e de-
f e n d a n t s p r e s e n t e d no m e d i c a l w i t n e s s e s and t h a t t h e i r e v i d e n c e
p r o v e s damages f a r i n e x c e s s o f t h e amounts awarded by t h e j u r y .
No11 a r g u e s t h e e v i d e n c e shows s h e had t o r e s i g n h e r
t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n on h e r d o c t o r ' s recommendation b e c a u s e of t h e
p a i n s h e was s u f f e r i n g i n a r e a s t h a t had n e v e r b o t h e r e d h e r be-
f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t ; t h a t s h e had been making $12,000 p e r y e a r ;
t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l s h e had a c t u a l wage l o s s of $7,200; t h a t
b e i n g 55 y e a r s of a g e s h e would have a f u t u r e l o s s o f wages f o r
1 0 more working y e a r s o f a t l e a s t $12,000 p e r y e a r ; and t h a t s h e
had m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s of $512.87 b e s i d e s p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , a l l
a s a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t .
Keneady a r g u e s t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t s h e had m e d i c a l
expenses i n e x c e s s o f $100; t h a t s h e l o s t 1 3 weeks work t o t a l i n g
$2,067; and t h a t p r o p e r t y damage t o h e r car amounted t o $306.56;
b e s i d e s p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , a l l a s a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t .
T h i s c a s e i s v e r y s i m i l a r t o H o l e n s t e i n v . Andrews,
166 Mont. 60, 530 P.2d 476, where a v e r d i c t f o r p l a i n t i f f o f z e r o
damages w a s a f f i r m e d under s i m i l a r c o n t e n t i o n s .
On a p p e a l w e must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most
favorable t o t h e prevailing party i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. Holen-
s t e i n , supra. F u r t h e r , t h e j u r y may a c c e p t t e s t i m o n y of a w i t -
n e s s i n whole o r i n p a r t o r may r e j e c t it a l t o g e t h e r . Ibid.
The j u r y was s o i n s t r u c t e d by t h e u s u a l omnibus i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n
by t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n :
" I n weighing t h e t e s t i m o n y o f any w i t n e s s you
s h o u l d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t h i s i n t e r e s t o r want of
interest in the result of the case, his appearance
upon the witness stand, his manner of testifying,
his apparent candor or want of candor, and whether
he is supported or contradicted by the facts and
circumstances as shown by the evidence. You have
a right to believe all the testimony of a witness
or believe it in part and disbelieve it in part,
or you may reject it altogether as you may find the
evidence to be. You are to believe as jurors under
the instructions of this Court and the evidence
what you would believe as men and women, and there
is no rule of law which requires you to believe as
jurors what you would not believe as men or women."
Defendants were able on cross-examination to deflate the
thrust of plaintiffs' testimony and thus show plaintiffs' injuries
attributable to the accident were perhaps minimal. The cross-
examination revealed that perhaps Mrs. Noll's resignation from
her teaching position was motivated by her marriage and result-
ing move to Arizona. Her medical testimony under cross-examin-
ation was equivocal concerning whether her present difficulties
were a result of a progression of her prior condition notwith-
standing the accident.
As to plaintiff Keneady, her testimony under cross ex-
amination was similarly equivocal concerning whether her diffi-
culties and job loss were attributable to the accident or inde-
pendent emotional problems. At the time of the accident she was
suffering from continuing emotional problems brought on by con-
cern with her home, family and advancing age. She had suffered
a nervous breakdown years earlier and her testimony would support
a jury finding that her difficulties were the result of a con-
tinuing emotional condition. Also several years earlier she had
suffered a spinal strain similar to that complained of here.
The testimony of the driver of the pavement roller and
of the investigating police officer was introduced tending to
show the car had not been moved by the impact of the collision.
Although this is in conflict with the two plaintiffs' testimony
that the car had been jolted forward 2 or 3 feet, the evidence is
capable of supporting the conclusion that the occupants could not
have suffered a very severe whiplash.
In summary the jury weighed the positive statements of
the witnesses against the adverse circumstantial evidence and
equivocating testimony revealed on cross-examination and found
the damages attributable to the admitted negligence of the de-
fendants were much less than claimed. We cannot retry factual
determinations made at trial. Dyksterhouse v. Doornbos,
Mont . - , 34 St.Rep. 415 , (decided May 25, 1977),
P.2d- -
quoting Hellickson v. Barrett Mobile Home Transp., 161 Mont. 455,
462, 507 P.2d 523. We find sufficient evidence in the record
to support the amount of damages awarded.
Judgment affirmed.
Justice
We con ur:
- F /-