No. 13662
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
MOODY J. HARRINGTON and
V I C HARRINGTON, husband and wife,
~
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
-vs-
HOLIDAY RAMBLER CORPORATION,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
Hon. Nat Allen, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Great Falls,
Montana
Donald LaBar argued and Earl Hanson argued, Great
Falls, Montana
For Respondents:
Hoyt and Bottomly, Great Falls, Montana
John Hoyt argued and Tom Lewis argued, Great Falls,
Montana
Submitted: November 28, 1977
~ecided:JAN 13 1978
JAN 1 3 1978
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:
P l a i n t i f f s Moody J . Harrington and Vicki Harrington
commenced t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Cascade County,
a l l e g i n g fraud and breach of warranty t o recover damages from
a l l e g e d d e f e c t s i n a t r a v e l t r a i l e r purchased by them from
Holiday Rambler Corporation. The j u r y returned a v e r d i c t f o r
both g e n e r a l damags and p u n i t i v e damages i n favor of Harringtons.
From t h i s f i n a l judgment Holiday Rambler appealed.
Holiday Rambler i s a manufacturer of t r a v e l t r a i l e r s and
s e l l s t h e s e t r a i l e r s t o q u a l i f i e d independent d e a l e r s throughout
t h e United S t a t e s , who i n t u r n s e l l d i r e c t l y t o t h e p u b l i c .
The t r a i l e r involved i n t h e i n s t a n t l i t i g a t i o n i s a 1972
model Holiday Rambler Travel T r a i l e r constructed by defendant
i n Wakarusa, Indiana, i n September 1971. Similar t o t h e auto-
mobile b u s i n e s s , t h e t r a v e l t r a i l e r business manufactures some
of t h e new models p r i o r t o t h e beginning of a calendar y e a r ,
and t h e t r a v e l t r a i l e r i n question h e r e was one of t h e f i r s t
of t h e 1972 models produced i n t h e f a l l of 1971. It was 8 f e e t
wide and 31 f e e t long with tandem a x l e s .
A independent Spokane, Washington d e a l e r , Don King,
n
t r a n s p o r t e d t h e t r a i l e r t o Spokane from t h e f a c t o r y a f t e r a
d e a l e r s ' meeting i n September 1971. Before t h e t r a i l e r l e f t
t h e f a c t o r y i t s v a r i o u s components, including t h e LP gas system,
plumbing system, water system, and e l e c t r i c a l system were
checked and approved. The d e a l e r , Don King, who was never made
a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , b u t t e s t i f i e d t h e same systems were
checked f o r t h e Harringtons p r i o r t o t h e time they purchased t h e
t r a i l e r and took d e l i v e r y i n Spokane, Washington, on March 6 ,
1972.
- 2 -
The t o t a l purchase p r i c e of t h e t r a v e l t r a i l e r was
$9,506.90. They paid $2,506.90 down, and t h e remaining balance
of $7,000 was financed over 7 years a t 1 2 percent i n t e r e s t .
On March 11, 1972, t h e Harringtons l e f t Spokane f o r
Great F a l l s , Montana and a f t e r they s e t t l e d i n Montana they
complained of d e f e c t s i n t h e t r a i l e r t o Holiday Rambler. At
t h a t time Holiday Rambler o f f e r e d , i n w r i t i n g , t o make r e p a i r s
t o t h e t o t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e Harringtons without c o s t only
i f t h e Harringtons would b r i n g the t r a i l e r t o t h e f a c t o r y a t
Wakarusa, Indiana. They refused t h i s o f f e r of r e p a i r and
i n s i s t e d on a new t r a i l e r .
I n August 1972, t h e t r a i l e r was parked a d j a c e n t t o t h e
home of t h e Harringtons' a t t o r n e y and l e f t t h e r e u n t i l t h e
time of t r i a l i n November 1976. I t was s t o r e d o u t s i d e , exposed
t o t h e elements and was vandalized on one occasion. The warranty
had s e v e r a l months t o run a t t h e time t h e t r a i l e r was l e f t with
the attorney.
A f t e r t h e t r a i l e r was parked a t t h e l o t of t h e i r a t t o r n e y
no r e p a i r r e q u e s t s were made by t h e Harringtons, no e f f o r t s were
made t o e i t h e r r e p a i r o r s e l l t h e t r a i l e r , and i t was abandoned
and d e p r e c i a t i n g u n t i l t h e time of t r i a l . Monthly payments t o
t h e finance company eventually ceased i n l a t e 1973.
Holiday Rambler defended p r i n c i p a l l y upon t h e grounds t h e
Harringtons i n t e n t i o n a l l y relinquished any claims they might
otherwise have had a f t e r they r e j e c t e d the c l e a r , unequivocal
o f f e r t o r e p a i r made by Holiday Rambler t o Harringtons. Further,
Holiday Rambler claimed t h a t Harringtons f a i l e d t o m i t i g a t e t h e i r
damages and contended i t never was given a reasonable opportunity
t o repair the t r a v e l t r a i l e r .
The case was t r i e d before a j u r y commencing on November 8 ,
1976 and continued u n t i l November 11, 1976. The j u r y returned a
v e r d i c t i n favor of p l a i n t i f f s and a g a i n s t defendant, a s s e s s i n g
$17,691.90 i n g e n e r a l damages and $20,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages.
The i s s u e s presented f o r review a r e :
1. Whether the v e r d i c t f o r general damages i n favor of
p l a i n t i f f s was supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence?
2. Did t h e c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n o v e r r u l i n g
defendant's o b j e c t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f s ' testimony concerning opinions
a s t o causation of physical i l l n e s s ?
3. Did t h e c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n giving
p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n on p u n i t i v e damages?
4. Did t h e c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n g i v i n g
p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n on "implied malice"?
5. Did t h e c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n denying
defendant's motions f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s on t h e i s s u e s o f :
a . a c t u a l fraud;
b. c o n s t r u c t i v e fraud; and
c. strict liability.
I s s u e 1. I n Strong v. Williams, (1969), 154 Mont. 65, 68,
460 P.2d 90, t h i s Court s a i d :
"It i s well s e t t l e d i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t
wherever t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence t h i s
Court may only review t h e testimony f o r t h e purpose
of determining whether t h e r e i s any s u b s t a n t i a l
evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e v e r d i c t * * *.
Where t h e evidence i s c o n f l i c t i n g , b u t s u b s t a n t i a l
evidence appears i n t h e record t o support t h e judg-
ment, t h e judgment w i l l not be d i s t u r b e d on appeal * * *."
See a l s o : Kirby v. Kelly, (1972), 161Mont. 66, 504 P.2d 683;
Davis v. Davis, (1972), 159 Mont. 355, 497 P.2d 315.
I t i s apparent from t h e record t h a t t h e jury a s a matter
of law misconstrued t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e measure of
damages f o r breach of warranty i . e . , t h e d i f f e r e n c e between
t h e value of t h e goods accepted and t h e value they would have
had i f they had been a s warranted. The j u r y awarded t h e sum
of $12,691.90 f o r t h e t r a i l e r a s a p a r t of t h e g e n e r a l damages.
The t o t a l p r i c e paid by p l a i n t i f f s f o r t h e t r a i l e r was $9,506.90.
That p r i c e included options and s e r v i c e s which were sold t o
them d i r e c t l y by Don King T r a i l e r S a l e s and were not warranted
products on t h e t r a i l e r when t h e t r a i l e r was s o l d by Holiday
Rambler t o Don King. These added options and s e r v i c e s had a
t o t a l value of $1,506.90. The jury awarded t h e value of t h e
e n t i r e r e t a i l value of t h e t r a i l e r , t h e value of a l l t h e s e r v i c e s
and options supplied by Don King, and i n a d d i t i o n awarded t h e
t o t a l amount of time charges f o r t h e e n t i r e amount of t h e s a l e s
c o n t r a c t , a l l of which amounted t o $12,691.90. Although t h e r e
a r e b u t a few cases on t h i s p o i n t , i t i s t h e r u l e of law t h a t
a consumer purchaser cannot recover t h e purchase p r i c e from
t h e manufacturer who was n o t a party t o t h e s a l e on t h e grounds
of breach of w a r r a n t i e s . Carlson v. Shepbxd-Pontiac, I n c . ,
(1970), 63 Misc.2d 994, 314 N.Y.S.2d 77. The reason f o r t h i s
r u l e i s apparent i n t h e i n s t a n t case. The defendant, Holiday
Rambler, d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e s a l e s p r i c e . The a c t u a l s a l e s p r i c e
which included the d e a l e r ' s p r o f i t was received and r e t a i n e d by
Don King, t h e independent d e a l e r , who was n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s
action. The only money received by Holiday Rambler was t h e
wholesale p r f c e which was paid by Don King t o Holiday Rambler.
Therefore, Harringtons would have t o j o i n t h e d e a l e r a s a p a r t y
and sue f o r r e c i s s i o n t o recover t h e f u l l purchase p r i c e , which
included t h e d e a l e r ' s p r o f i t s . T h i s , p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o do.
The j u r y awarded damages f o r t h e f u l l purchase p r i c e which
included t h e brake c o n t r o l s , awning, t r a i l e r h i t c h , a l l i t e m s
not manufactured o r supplied by Holiday Rambler. Also, Holiday
Rambler had no p a r t i n t h e financing, which was handled through
the dealer.
Holiday Rambler contends t h a t i t i s a u n i v e r s a l r u l e t h a t
a p a r t y must m i t i g a t e a l l of h i s damages. Holiday f e e l s t h a t
Harringtons' f a i l e d t o m i t i g a t e damages by n o t having t h e
t r a i l e r r e p a i r e d by a t h i r d p a r t y , f a i l i n g t o cover by purchasing
a s u b s t i t u t e t r a i l e r and continuing t o use the t r a i l e r a f t e r
they knew of d e f e c t s . This d o c t r i n e of avoidable consequence
i s properly s t a t e d i n Spackman v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., (1966),
147 Mont. 500, 505, 414 P.2d 918, 921, where t h i s Court held:
"The duty t o reduce o r m i t i g a t e damages i s
a p o s i t i v e one upon t h e i n j u r e d person, b u t i t has
l i m i t s . The t e s t i s : What would an ordinary pru-
dent person be expected t o do i f capable, under
t h e circumstances?"
The record d i s c l o s e s t h e Harringtons d i d everything
w i t h i n t h e i r power t o have t h e t r a i l e r r e p a i r e d by t h e authorized
Holiday Rambler d e a l e r . They d i d n o t take i t t o a t h i r d party
t o be r e p a i r e d because they were f e a r f u l of voiding t h e warranty.
A suggestion t h a t Harringtons should have t o buy another t r a i l e r
f o r some $9,000 i s c l e a r l y n o t within t h e d o c t r i n e . Harringtons
had no o t h e r choice b u t t o use t h e t r a i l e r a f t e r they discovered
the defect. I t was serving a s the family home because of a
severe housing shortage i n Great F a l l s when t h e family a r r i v e d
there.
A s s t a t e d , t h e jury i n awarding damages f a i l e d t o :
(1) S u b t r a c t o u t a c c e s s o r i e s and s e r v i c e s t o t a l i n g
$1,506.90 f o r which Holiday Rambler d i d n o t warrant and i s
not liable.
(2) Take i n t o account t h a t Holiday Rambler i s n o t l i a b l e
f o r finance charges which t o t a l e d $3,185.
There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support a proper
v e r d i c t computed a s :
General Damages Given by D i s t r i c t Court $17,691.90
Less Services & Accessories -1,506.90
Less Finance Charge -3,185.00
Proper award $13,000.00.
I s s u e 2. Holiday Rambler contends t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d
i n o v e r r u l i n g i t s o b j e c t i o n t o unqualified opinion evidence given
by M r . Harrington regarding causation of p h y s i c a l i l l n e s s . Har-
r i n g t o n s presented no medical testimony of a physician. They
presented no copies of medical records o r b i l l s of any doctor o r
hospital. The only proof of any physical s i c k n e s s caused t h e
Harringtons due t o d e f e c t s i n t h e t r a i l e r was given by t h e
Harringtons themselves. The testimony given by Moody Harrington
should n o t have been admitted over o b j e c t i o n of counsel. The
testimony speculated a s t o t h e cause of sickness incurred by
Harringtons while l i v i n g i n t h e t r a i l e r . Moody Harrington was
n o t q u a l i f i e d t o make such conclusions and a l l h i s testimony was
self-serving. However, t h i s e r r o r by t h e t r i a l judge was harmless
i n view of testimony of physical i n j u r y and i l l n e s s t o t h e
Harringtons by way of Vicki Harrington which was admitted i n t o
evidence without o b j e c t i o n of defense counsel. This testimony
was, i n p a r t :
"Q. N w were t h e r e any o t h e r d e f e c t s i n t h e t r a i l e r
o
t h a t you n o t i c e d ? A. Yes, t h e r e were.
"Q. T e l l t h e j u r y about those? A. The f r o n t window
i n t h e t r a i l e r leaked, and t h e r e were some sharp edges
on t h e t a b l e , and m daughter c u t h e r f i n g e r twice on
y
that.
"Q. Now, was t h e r e a gas leak i n t h e t r a i l e r a t any
time? A. Yes, t h e r e was, a s e r i o u s gas leak.
"Q. A l l r i g h t , how s e r i o u s ? A. Well, f o r t h r e e
weeks w e kept g e t t i n g s i c k , w e l l , I should say, t h e
c h i l d r e n and I , you know, because m husband was gone
y
q u i t e a b i t of t h e time, and so we were g e t t i n g s i c k
more than he did. The way i t s t a r t e d o u t , I s t a r t e d
g e t t i n g headaches g a l o r e , and was nauseous a l l t h e
t i m e , i n f a c t , I thought t h a t t h e r e was maybe some-
t h i n g e l s e t h a t was wrong, which t h e r e w a s n ' t , b u t
w e j u s t kept g e t t i n g s i c k e r and s i c k e r , and t h e
headaches wouldn't go away, and i f w e went away f o r
a v i s i t , o r went shopping f o r t h e day, t h e headaches
would d i s a p p e r , and we would come home a t n i g h t , and
we would be i n t h e t r a i l e r f o r t h i r t y minutes, and t h e
headaches would s t a r t again, and s o I had s t a r t e d taking
t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t time t o t h e A i r Force d o c t o r , you
know, o u t a t t h e base, and he thought t h a t we had a
mild case of t h e f l u , so he s a i d f o r us t o e a t - j u s t
p l a i n t o a s t , and p l a i n soda c r a c k e r s , and t e a , b u t
n o t t o t a k e s o l i d food f o r awhile, so t h a t ' s t h e food
t h a t we stayed on f o r approximately t e n days, because
i t j u s t kept g e t t i n g worse, and f i n a l l y I kept t h i n k i n g ,
'Well,' I says, ' t h e odors were smelling s o bad, t h a t
I ' v e g o t t o do something,' so I g o t hold of Modern
Equipment Company, and I t o l d them t h a t I suspected
t h a t t h e r e might be a gas leak, b u t I d o n ' t know f o r
s u r e , but something i s c e r t a i n l y making everybody s i c k ,
and i t j u s t hasn' t gone away, and I didn' t t h i n k by t h a t
time t h a t i t was t h e f l u , because t h e r e was no d i a r r h e a
o r any of t h e o t h e r symptoms which, you know, a person
might have with t h e f l u , s o Modern Equipment came o u t ,
and, s u r e enough, t h e r e was a gas l e a k , and underneath
t h e burner, you know, would be t h e , w e l l , the second
burner i n t h i s way t h a t you t u r n on, t h e man discovered
i n t h e copper tubing t h a t comes o u t , you know, t o p u t
t h e gas i n , you know, t h a t come up t o where you t u r n t h e
b u t t o n on, t h e r e was a d e f e c t i v e h o l e underneath t h e r e ,
and t h a t ' s where t h e gas was escaping from, so he went
ahead and c u t t h i s piece o u t , and f i x e d i t .
"Q. And then d i d you a l ' l g e t w e l l ? A. Yes s i r , we d i d .
"Q. What was t h e next t h i n g , then, t h a t you discovered
was wrong with t h e t r a i l e r ? A . Well, i n t h e k i t c h e n
a r e a , t h e paneling overhead f e l l down i n t h e kitchen
a r e a a l s o , a s well a s t h e paneling i n t h e l i v i n g room.
"9. Also the paneling i n the k i t c h e n ? A. Yes.
"Q. A l l r i g h t , and then a f t e r t h a t , M r s . Harrington,
what happened? A . Well, a f t e r t h a t I s t a r t e d n o t i c i n g
t h a t t h e r e were odors i n t h e t r a i l e r , and when I say
' l i k e odors' it was l i k e t h a t maybe t h e r e was, oh, l i k e
f o r i n s t a n c e you l e f t a window open, and t h e r e was an
outhouse c l o s e by.
"Q. Did t h e s e odors bother you? A. Yes, they d i d .
"Q. H w bad d i d t h e s e odors g e t ? A . Well, they
o
g o t t o t h e p o i n t t h a t i f you were t r y i n g t o e a t your
d i n n e r , t h e odors i n t h e t r a i l e r i t s e l f , y o u know, i t
was c e r t a i n l y q u i t e evident t h a t t h e odors were t h e r e ,
and w e had a t e r r i b l e problem t r y i n g t o e a t , and I used
a g r e a t amount of Lysol and o t h e r s t u f f , you know, t r y i n g
t o g e t r i d of t h a t odor, but i t would not go away.
"Q. Did your c h i l d r e n complain a t a l l about t h e s e
odors i n t h e t r a i l e r ? A. Well, n o t t o t h e p o i n t t h a t
they complained about t h e odors i n t h e t r a i l e r so much,
b u t they knew t h a t t h e odors, w e l l , m daughter mentioned
y
t o m t h a t h e r bedroom smelled funny.
e
"Q. And d i d t h e s e odors a f f e c t t h e food t h a t you had
i n t h e t r a i l e r ? A. Yes, they did.
"Q. I n what manner? A. Well, f o r i n s t a n c e , I had
graham crackers i n t h e r e , and I had R i t z c r a c k e r s , and
1 had cookks, oh, l e t m s e e , those were Oreo cookies,
e
and I had those up i n t h e c a b i n e t , and I had Rice
K r i s p i e s s t o r e d up t h e r e i n t h e c a b i n e t t o o , and when
I would go t o feed m daughter t h i s food, oh, l i k e
y
g i v i n g h e r a bowl of Rice K r i s p i e s b e f o r e she would go
t o school. and she kept on saying, 'Ahhh, d o n ' t make m e
e a t t h a t s t u f f , ' she s a i d , because she s a i d i t was making
h e r s i c k , and I s a i d , 'Well, you've g,ot t o e a t , ' I says,
I Because you've g o t t o go t o school,' and she kept on
r e f u s i n g t o e a t h e r food. Well, I would make h e r e a t i t ,
you know, because she had t o have h e r food, and she would
throw up.
"Q. And who i s ' s h e ? ' A. M daughter, Sharon.
y
"Q. And how o l d was she then? A. That time about
f i v e and a h a l f .
"Q. And Sharon would become ill? A. Yes s i r .
"Q. Now, how much concern d i d you have, Mrs. Harrington,
f o r y o u r s e l f , and your c h i l d r e n , when they g o t so s i c k
and so ill, and when you had a l l of t h e s e problems t h a t
you have t o l d t h i s j u r y about? A . W e l l , i t made m very e
u p s e t , w e l l , n o t only u p s e t , b u t a s w e l l a s ill, due t o
t h e f a c t t h a t I having t o have t o take t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e
doctor when I was s i c k .
"Q. This would cause you a d d i t i o n a l problems, i s t h a t
r i g h t ? A . Yes sir."
There is ample evidence in the record that the ~arrington
family suffered emotional distress at the hands of Holiday
Rambler. This Court in McGuire v. American Honda Co., (1977),
Mont . , 566 P.2d 1124, 34 St.Rep. 632, relied on lay
testimony of the plaintiff, his wife, and the plaintiff's cousin
in determining that there was substantial credible evidence in
support of the plaintiff's theory of causation. The testimony
of Vicki Harrington, all of which went into evidence without
objection, is admisszble to show that a manufacturing defect
caused these injuries.
Issue 3. Holiday Rambler contends the Court erred in
giving plaintiffs' instruction on punitive damages. It character-
izes this case as one arising under contract in an attempt to
bring the case within the limitations of section 17-208, R.C.M.
1947, which provides:
11
Exemplary damass--in what cases allowed. In any
action for a breach of an obligation not arising
from contract, where the defendant has been guilty
of oppression, fraud, or malice, actual or presumed,
the jury, in addition to the actual damags may give
damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing
the defendant ," (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that in ~ontana,and generally, a party may
not pursue both an action for recission and damages for deceit
or misrepresentation. Fraser v. Clark, (1960), 137 Mont. 362,
376, 352 P.2d 681, On the other hand, an action on the contract
-
and an action for fraud or misrepresentation in the inducement
of the contract are not incompatible. See: Miller v. Fox, (1977),
Mont .
-3 P.2d , 34 St.Rep. 1367; Paulson v.
Kustom Enterprises, Inc., (1971), 157 Mont. 188, 483 P.2d 708;
Falls Sand 6 Gravel Co. v. Western Concrete, Inc., (1967), 270
Here, i t was g i p u l a t e d by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e p r e t r i a l
order should supersede t h e e a r l i e r pleadings. I n the p r e t r i a l
order Harringtons a l l e g e d Holiday should be made t o pay p u n i t i v e
damages because of f r a u d , malice and oppression by i t s u n j u s t i -
f i a b l e , deceptive and d e c e i t f u l conduct i n misrepresenting t h e
type and q u a l i t y of i t s t r a i l e r t o people such a s p l a i n t i f f s
and t o t h e consumer p u b l i c a t l a r g e . I t i s c l e a r from t h e
record and t h e pfeerhl order t h a t Harringtons were bringing t h i s
case i n t o r t , s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t from any a c t i o n a r i s i n g o u t
of c o n t r a c t . This case would f a l l w i t h i n t h e parameter of
Miller v. Fox, supra; Paulson v. Kustom E n t e r p r i s e s , I n c . , supra;
and F a l l s Sand & Gravel Co. v. Western Concrete, I n c . , supra.
Therefore p u n i t i v e damages were properly considered.
Issue 4 . The c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n g i v i n g an i n s t r u c t i o n on
implied malice. Section 17-208 a u t h o r i z e s exemplary damages where
t h e defendant "* * * has been g u i l t y of oppression, f r a u d , o r
malice, a c t u a l o r presumed * * *.'I The i n s t r u c t i o n i n q u e s t i o n
advises t h e j u r y t h a t i t i s n o t necessary t o show a c t u a l malice
t o recover p u n i t i v e damages. This i n s t r u c t i o n i s a c o r r e c t
statement of t h e law.
I s s u e 5. Holiday Rambler, a f t e r i n s t r u c t i o n s were s e t t l e d ,
made a motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e grounds t h e r e was no
evidence t o support an award f o r fraud, a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e ,
and no evidence t o support damages f o r s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t
under §402A, 2 Restatement of T o r t s 2d.
I n reviewing t h e record t h e r e was evidence of both a c t u a l
and c o n s t r u c t i v e fraud and t h e c o u r t properly allowed t h e s e i s s u e s
t o go t o t h e jury. Evidence f o r recovery under $40294, 2 Restatement
of T o r t s 2d, presented f o r j u r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n included numerous
d e f e c t s and t h e e f f e c t on t h e family, including:
1. A f l o o r which sagged.
2. A d e f e c t i v e h o t water tank.
3. A d e f e c t i v e s e p t i c tank.
4. A d e f e c t i v e b a t h tub d r a i n .
5. A d e f e c t i v e gas connection t o stove.
This Court i n MacDonald v. P r o t e s t a n t Episcopal Church,
(1967), 150 Mont. 332, 336, 435 P.2d 369, s t a t e d :
"* * * I n r u l i n g on t h e motions f o r d i s m i s s a l and
a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , t h e c o u r t must view t h e e v i -
dence i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p l a i n t i f f
and i f a prima f a c i e case i s made o u t t h e motion
should n o t be granted * * *."
Here, when applying t h e r u l e s t a t e d above, t h e evidence presented
was e n t i t l e d t o j u r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e t h e d i r e c t e d
v e r d i c t was properly denied.
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed except
f o r t h e d o l l a r amount of t h e damage award. W e s t r i k e t h e sum of
$4,691.90 from t h e g e n e r a l damage judgment and a s modified
i s affirmed i n t h e amount of $13,000.00.
//
r
Justice
W e Concur:
AG
. P e t e r G. M
Judge, s i t t i n g
J u s t i c e Paul G. & f i e l d .