Workman v. McIntyre Construction Co.

No. 14933
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980

MICHAEL WORKMAN AS THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
SUSAN E. WORKMAN,
Plaintiff and Appellant,

McINTYRE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, S.
BIRCH, INC., and the STATE OF MONTANA,
and RICHARD BLIESENER,
Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula
Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Milodragovich, Dale and Dye, Missoula, Montana
Lonnie J. Dale argued, Missoula, Montana
For Respondents:
Boone, Karlberg and Haddon, Missoula, Montana
Sam Hdddon argued, Missoula, Montana
Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana
Gary Graham argued, Missoula, Montana
Carolyn Clemens argued, Missoula, Montana
Noel Larrivee, U of M Law School, Missoula, Montana

Submitted: May 23, 1980
Decided: 8EP 10 1980
Filed: SEP 10 WO
H o n o r a b l e J o h n M. M c C a r v e l , D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f
M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. S h e a , d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .

P l a i n t i f f appeals from a judgment a f t e r a j u r y v e r d i c t i n

f a v o r o f a l l t h r e e d e f e n d a n t s and a d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a

new t r i a l i n the D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,

i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y o f M i s s o u l a .

T h e a g r e e d f a c t s a r e as f o l l o w s :

Defendants, M c I n t y r e C o n s t r u c t i o n Company and S. Birch,

Incorporated, as j o i n t v e n t u r e r s , were under c o n t r a c t f r o m t h e

S t a t e o f M o n t a n a t o w i d e n and r e s u r f a c e a p p r o x i m a t e l y t e n m i l e s

o f U. S. Highway 93 s t a r t i n g t h r e e o r f o u r m i l e s s o u t h o f A r l e e ,

Montana. Defendants, M c I n t y r e C o n s t r u c t i o n Company and S. Birch,

Incorporated, a p p l i e d one l i f t o f a s p h a l t p a v i n g t o t h e s u r f a c e

o f t h e highway, leaving a dropoff on t h e west s i d e o f t h e high-

way s h o u l d e r .

On J u n e 1 8 , 1976, at approximately s i x - t h i r t y p.m., defen-

d a n t R i c h a r d B l i e s e n e r was d r i v i n g s o u t h o n t h a t p o r t i o n o f U . S.

H i g h w a y 93 t h a t h a d b e e n r e s u r f a c e d b y d e f e n d a n t s M c I n t y r e

C o n s t r u c t i o n Company a n d S. Birch, Incorporated. Plaintiff

M i c h a e l Workman was o p e r a t i n g a v e h i c l e i n w h i c h h i s w i f e , Susan

Workman, and d a u g h t e r , R e m i n i sa Workman, were passengers, driving

n o r t h on t h a t p o r t i o n o f U . S. H i g h w a y 9 3 t h a t was b e i n g

resurfaced. The r i g h t wheel s o f d e f e n d a n t R i c h a r d B l i e s e n e r ' s

m o t o r v e h i c l e went o f f t h e r i g h t edge o f t h e pavement l i f t

and, ultimately, t h e B l i e s e n e r v e h i c l e and t h e Workman v e h i c l e

collided. S u s a n Workman d i e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e i n j u r i e s

sustained i n the c o l l i s i o n .

The t w o causes o f a c t i o n c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r j u r y t r i a l were

b y t h e p l a i n t i f f i n h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y as personal

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f S u s a n Workman, h i s deceased w i f e ,

a n d a s n e x t f r i e n d o f R e m i n i s a Workman, h i s daughter.

T h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e t e s t i m o n y and b r i e f s o f c o u n s e l con-

f i r m the following facts:

- 2 -
 1. T h e r e was o n l y o n e s i g n o b s e r v a b l e t o s o u t h b o u n d t r a f -

f i c l o c a t e d one o r t w o m i l e s b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t scene w h i c h

read: "Road C o n s t r u c t i o n , 1 0 m i l e s . "

2. T h e r e was a f o u r - i n c h d r o p o f f t h e p a v e m e n t on t h e

o u t s i d e o f t h e southbound lane.

3. Defendant B l i e s e n e r ' s v e h i c l e veered s h a r p l y t o t h e

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

f i c l a n e when B l i e s e n e r t u r n e d l e f t t o g e t h i s r i g h t w h e e l s b a c k

o n t o t h e pavement.

4. T h e r e w e r e no c o n t e n t i o n s b y d e f e n d a n t s t h a t M i c h a e l

Workman was i n a n y way n e g l i g e n t i n o p e r a t i n g h i s v e h i c l e .

5. M c I n t y r e C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, S. Birch, Incorporated,

and t h e S t a t e based t h e i r d e f e n s e on t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f B l i e s e n e r

as t h e p r o x i m a t e cause o f t h e a c c i d e n t .

6. B l i e s e n e r b a s e d h i s d e f e n s e on t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f

M c I n t y r e C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, S. Birch, Incorporated, and t h e

S t a t e as t h e 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 .

7. No s p e e d l i m i t s i g n s w e r e p o s t e d .

8. The f l o w o f t r a f f i c t h r o u g h t h e a r e a was m o v i n g a t 5 5

m i l e s per hour, t h e same s p e e d as B l i e s e n e r ' s v e h i c l e .

9. T h e r e w e r e no w a r n i n g s i g n s o r d e v i c e s o f t h e f o u r -

i n c h d r o p o f f t h e p a v e m e n t o r c e n t e r l i n e m a r k i n g s c h a n n e l i ng

traffic.

10. T h e r e w e r e no c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t a n A c t o f God was

i n v o l v e d n o r t h a t any emergency e x i s t e d , o r t h a t t h e r e was a n

i n v o l u n t a r y v i o l a t i o n o f a s t a t u t e due t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e y o n d

t h e c o n t r o l o f the defendants.

The f o l l o w i n g a r e t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w :

1. Was t h e e v i d e n c e i n s u f f i c i e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w t o

support a verdict i n favor o f a l l the defendants?

2. Did the court e r r i n admitting i n t o evidence defendant

S t a t e o f M o n t a n a ' s e x h i b i t 13A, a movie, w h i c h was n o t l i s t e d a s

an e x h i b i t i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r ?

3. D i d t h e c o u r t e r r i n p e r m i t t i n g defense counsel t o

- 3 -
mention p l a i n t i f f ' s remarriage during v o i r d i r e of the j u r y ?

4. D i d t h e c o u r t e r r i n g i v i n g a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n which

s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s conformance t o t h e Department's

i n s t r u c t i o n s i n c a r r y i n g o u t w o r k o n t h e p r o j e c t was r e l e v a n t t o

t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether t h e c o n t r a c t o r breached i t s duty o f

care toward the p l a i n t i f f s ?

5. Should Highway P a t r o l m a n B i l l e d e a u x have been per-

m i t t e d t o t e s t i f y as t o t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h e s i g n i n g a t t h e s c e n e

o f the accident?

6. D i d the t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o admit i n t o e v i -

dence t h e Manual on U n i f o r m T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s f o r S t r e e t s

and H i ghways?

7. Did the court e r r i n refusing t o admit evidence of the

c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e S t a t e o f M o n t a n a and t h e

contractors?

8. D i d the c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o admit c e r t a i n

d e m o n s t r a t i v e e x h i b i t s p r e s e n t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f ?

ISSUE NO. 1:

-- evidence
Was t h e i n s u f f i c i e n t -s- a m a t t e r - -w t o
a o f la - sup-
p o r t - v e r d i c t - f a v o r - -l- e d e f e n d a n t s ?
a i n o f a l th

T h i s issue i s not addressed i n view o f our h o l d i n g t h a t

t h e c a s e m u s t be r e m a n d e d f o r a new t r i a l a s t o a l l t h r e e d e f e n -

d a n t s b e c a u s e o f t h e p r e j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n and e x c l u s i o n o f e v i -

d e n c e b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t as h e r e i n a f t e r s e t f o r t h .

ISSUE NO. 2:

- - c o u r t -r-n a d m i t t i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e d e f e n d a n t
Did the er i

S t a t e - M o n t a n a ' s e x h i b i t -3 A , a m o v i e , w h i c h - - l i s t e d -
of 1 - was n o t as

- e x h i b i t - -e p r e t r i a l o r d e r ?
an i n th

The c o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e d e f e n d a n t

S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t 13A, a six-minute movie f i l m demonstrating t h e

e f f e c t o f d r i v i n g a 1971 F o r d P i n t o o v e r an a b r u p t edge.

On M a r c h 6, 1979, a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e was h e l d . Due t o

t h e n u m e r o u s e x h i b i t s t o be p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l the
p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d c o n f e r on t h e s t a t u s o f v a r i o u s

e x h i b i t s t o be s e t f o r t h i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r . P l a i n t i f f pre-

p a r e d a p r e t r i a l o r d e r based upon a m e e t i n g between t h e v a r i o u s

c o u n s e l o f t h e p a r t i e s a n d i t was r e a d y f o r s i g n i n g A p r i l 9 ,

1979, o n e week b e f o r e t h e t r i a l d a t e . On t h a t d a t e t h e S t a t e f o r

t h e f i r s t time advised p l a i n t i f f t h a t i t intended t o introduce

e x h i b i t 13, a C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e p o r t on

"The E f f e c t o f L o n g i t u d i n a l Edge o f Paved S u r f a c e D r o p - O f f on

Vehicle Stability", a n d on t h a t d a t e f u r n i s h e d c o u n s e l w i t h

c o p i e s o f e x h i b i t 13. The p r e t r i a l o r d e r h a d t o be i n t e r -

delineated t o include t h i s exhibit. S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t 1 3 made

r e f e r e n c e t o m o v i e s t h a t w e r e made o f t e s t s c o n d u c t e d i n m a k i n g

the report.

The f i r s t n o t i c e p l a i n t i f f had o f t h e S t a t e ' s intention to

i n t r o d u c e a n y f i l m e x h i b i t s was when t h e S t a t e , i n i t s opening

statement, i n d i c a t e d t h a t m o v i e f i l m s w o u l d be shown t o t h e j u r y .

E x h i b i t 13A was n o t l i s t e d as a n e x h i b i t i n t h e p r e t r i a l order.

Immediately a f t e r the opening statement, the p l a i n t i f f

o b j e c t e d t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f any m o v i e s f o r t w o r e a s o n s :

1. T h e y w e r e n o t l i s t e d as an e x h i b i t i n t h e p r e t r i a l

order, and

2. The m o v i e s were n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r p r e t r i a l examination

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

c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s case.

D u r i n g a r g u m e n t on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s o b j e c t i o n , the court

was a d v i s e d t h a t e x h i b i t 1 3 A was an e d i t e d s i x - m i n u t e summary

f i l m o f t e s t s demonstrating t h e e f f e c t o f d r i v i n g a 1971 Ford

P i n t o o v e r an a b r u p t e d g e . The m o v i e s r e f e r r e d t o i n e x h i b i t 1 3

consisted o f a six-hour f i l m e d s t u d y u t i l i z i n g 1 7 , 0 0 0 f e e t of

f i l m i n v o l v i n g l i g h t , m e d i u m and h e a v y v e h i c l e s and a p i c k u p

truck, d r i v e n by p r o f e s s i o n a l race car drivers a t d i f f e r e n t

s p e e d s o v e r d i f f e r e n t edge h e i g h t s . P l a i n t i f f requested t h a t i f

t h e c o u r t were g o i n g t o a d m i t e x h i b i t 13A, t h a t he s h o u l d be

- 5 -
p e r m i t t e d t o view a l l o f t h e movie t e s t f i l m s , s i n c e e x h i b i t 13A

constituted only a six-minute summary o f a s i x - h o u r f i l m test.

The c o u r t r u l e d e x h i b i t 13A a d m i t t e d upon t h e c o u r t ' s r e q u i r e m e n t

and t h e S t a t e ' s assurance t h a t a l l o f t h e movie f i l m s t a k e n

d u r i n g t h e t e s t s w o u l d be shown t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . On Monday,

A p r i l 23, 1979, s i x days a f t e r t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g , the State's

c o u n s e l showed e x h i b i t 1 3 A t o a l l c o u n s e l , except counsel f o r

defendant Bliesner. On A p r i l 2 4 , 1979, counsel for the State

a d v i s e d t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e o t h e r t e s t f i l m was n o t s e c u r e d and

t h e r e f o r e c o u l d n o t be shown t o t h e p a r t i e s . I n spite of this,

t h e c o u r t p e r m i t t e d e x h i b i t 1 3 A t o be shown t o t h e j u r y b y P a u l

O'Shea, an e x p e r t c a l l e d by t h e S t a t e , whose name h a d n o t b e e n

l i s t e d i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r as a w i t n e s s t h e S t a t e i n t e n d e d t o

call.

The p r e t r i a l o r d e r " . . . controls t h e subsequent course

o f the action, unless modified a t the t r i a l t o prevent manifest

injustice." R u l e 1 6 , M.R.Civ.P. The w h o l e p u r p o s e o f t h e

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

o f s i t u a t i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d i n t h i s case. Apparently defense

c o u n s e l f o r t h e S t a t e s t a r t e d t o p r e p a r e i t s d e f e n s e a week

before t r i a l . No j u s t i f i c a t i o n o r e x c u s e was o f f e r e d t o show why

e x h i b i t s 1 3 and 13A were n o t m e n t i o n e d a t t h e p r e t r i a l conference

h e l d a month b e f o r e t h e t r i a l . No e x p l a n a t i o n was made b y c o u n -

s e l f o r t h e S t a t e why t h e e n t i r e t e s t f i l m was n o t made a v a i l a b l e

t o t h e p l a i n t i f f a f t e r he h a d a s s u r e d t h e c o u r t a week b e f o r e

t h a t t h e e n t i r e t e s t f i l m w o u l d be made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e

plaintiff. Indeed, c o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t B l i e s n e r was n o t s h o w n

S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t 13A u n t i l i t was shown i n t h e j u d g e ' s chambers,

j u s t p r i o r t o i t s b e i n g shown t o t h e j u r y . These t a c t i c s a r e

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

i s t o prevent surprise, t o s i m p l i f y the issues, and t o p e r m i t

c o u n s e l t o p r e p a r e t h e i r case f o r t r i a l on t h e b a s i s o f t h e

p r e t r i a l order.

- 6 -
 The t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a d m i t t i n g

d e f e n d a n t ' s e x h i b i t 13A u n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 3 Moore's

F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , 1116.19. B u r d i s v. T e x a s and P a c i f i c Ry. Co., (1978),

5 6 9 F.2d 320, 323; F i r s t N a t i o n a l B a n k o f M a d i s o n v. Harrison

(1970), 2 0 5 Kan. 3 1 5 , 4 6 9 P.2d 344, 346.

ISSUE NO. 3 :

- - c o u r t -r-n
Did the er i p e r m i t t i n g defense counsel - mention
t o

p l a i n t i f f ' s remarriage during v o i r d i r e o f the jury?

P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e r e q u e s t i n g an o r d e r o f

t h e c o u r t p r o h i b i t i n g counsel from i n f o r m i n g t h e j u r y o f t h e

p l a i n t i f f ' s remarriage. The c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n , except

p e r m i t t e d c o u n s e l on v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n t o ask j u r o r s i f they

k n e w J o l e n e Workman w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o p l a i n t i f f ' s m a r r i a g e t o

her. Disregarding t h e c o u r t ' s order, counsel f o r t h e defendants,

McIntyre-Birch, asked t h e e n t i r e j u r y panel t h e f o l l owing

question:

"Ih a v e j u s t o n e o t h e r q u e s t i o n t o a s k o f y o u ;
i t concerns personnel, people. A r e any o f y o u
-- a n d t h i s w o u l d be a d d r e s s e d t o a1 1 o f y o u who
a r e on t h e c u r r e n t p a n e l - - a r e a n y o f y o u
a c q u a i n t e d w i t h M r . M i c h a e l Workman's p r e s e n t
w i f e ? Now, h e r name i s J o l e n e Workman; d o a n y
o f y o u know h e r ? "

Evidence o f a s u r v i v i n g spouse's remarriage i s

irrelevant. This i s the holding i n the great majority of courts

deciding t h i s question. Annot., 8 8 A.L.R.3d 926. C h e r r i g a n v.

C i t y and C o u n t y o f San F r a n c i s c o ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 2 6 2 C a l .App.Zd 643, 6 9

Cal .Rptr. 42. K i m e r y v. P u b l i c S e r v i c e Co. o f Oklahoma ( 1 9 7 7 ) ,

5 6 2 P.2d 8 5 8 . The r e a s o n s f o r s u c h a r u l e i s t h a t damages a r e

d e t e r m i n e d as o f t h e d a t e o f d e a t h .

Counsel f o r t h e defendants a s s e r t t h a t t h e f a c t o f

r e m a r r i a g e c o n c e r n e d o n l y damages and s i n c e t h e j u r y f o u n d n o

l i a b i l i t y t h i s i s harmless e r r o r . Who c a n s a y ' t h a t t h e j u r o r s

d i d not consider p l a i n t i f f ' s remarriage i n deciding the l i a b i l i t y

issue, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h i s c a s e when t h e j u r y c o n s i s t e d o f t e n

women a n d t w o men. Similar t o e f f o r t s t o i n j e c t insurance

c o v e r a g e i n t o e v i d e n c e i s t h e o b v i o u s i n t e n t h e r e t o show
r e m a r r i a g e o f t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse t o m i t i g a t e o r e l i m i n a t e

damages.

An a d m o n i t i o n b y t h e c o u r t t o d i s r e g a r d t h e r e m a r r i a g e

w i l l not s u f f i c e -- " t h e g o o s e i s a1 r e a d y c o o k e d . " This fact

c a n n o t be e r a s e d f r o m t h e m i n d s o f t h e j u r o r s . The p l a i n t i f f ,

a l r e a d y o v e r b u r d e n e d w i t h t h e c o s t o f p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y and

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

witnesses waiting t o testify, cannot a f f o r d , i n most cases, to

move f o r a m i s t r i a l . The d e f e n d a n t s , on t h e o t h e r hand, could

c a r e l e s s about t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a d d i t i o n a l expenses i n v o l v e d i n

t h e event o f a m i s t r i a l . This t a c t i c o f putting the remarriage

o f t h e p l a i n t i f f b e f o r e t h e j u r y a f t e r b e i n g o r d e r e d n o t t o do so

i s p r e j u d i c i a l and r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r .

ISSUE NO. 4:

- - c o u r t -r-n g i v i n g - j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h
Did the er i a

stated -- c o n t r a c t o r ' s c o n f o r m a n c e - -e D e p a r t m e n t ' s
that the t o th

i n s t r u c t i o n s - c a r r y i n g -t-o r k - t h e p r o j e c t was r e l e v a n t -
i n o u w - on to

the determination whether t h e c o n t r a c t o r breached i t s d u t y

care toward t h e p l a i n t i f f s ?

The t r i a l c o u r t gave t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n :

" I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e c o n t r a c t o r breached
any duty t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s , you are e n t i t l e d t o
consider whether i t acted i n accordance w i t h
t h e d i r e c t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e o f
M o n t a n a i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e w o r k on t h e
construction project. Such f o l l o w i n g o f d i r e c -
t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e may be c o n -
sidered i n determining i f the c o n t r a c t o r acted
reasonably."

The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n g i v i n g t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n .

D i r e c t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r b y t h e S t a t e i f

f o l l o w e d by t h e c o n t r a c t o r i s one o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t i s

r e l e v a n t as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e c o n t r a c t o r a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y .

T h i s i s n o t t h e same as s a y i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t o r i s n o t l i a b l e

i f he f o l l o w s t h e d i r e c t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o h i m b y t h e

State. This fact, t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l o f t h e o t h e r f a c t s and

circumstances, a r e t o be u t i l i z e d b y t h e j u r y i n i t s c o n -

s i d e r a t i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e c o n t r a c t o r was n e g l i g e n t . The mere
f o l l o w i n g b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r o f d i r e c t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s b y t h e

S t a t e does n o t r e l i e v e t h e c o n t r a c t o r o f a c t i n g as a r e a s o n a b l e ,

prudent person under t h e circumstances. B u s h v. Wardell (1974),

165 Mont. 312, 5 2 8 P.2d 215.

ISSUE NO. 5:

S h o u l d H i g h w a y P a t r o l m a n B i l l e d e a u x --p e r m i t t e d -
have been to

t e s t i f y - - -e a d e q u a c y
as t o t h the signing - scene
the the

accident?

T h e f o 1 1 o w i n g c o l 1 o q u y o c c u r r e d a t t r i a1 :

"Q. O f f i c e r B i l l e d e a u x , I would suppose t h a t ,
h a v i n g been w i t h t h e P a t r o l f o r t h e f o u r t e e n
y e a r s as o f 1 9 7 6 a n d h a v i n g d r i v e n t h e f i f t y
t h o u s a n d m i l e s , a p p r o x i m a t e 1 y, p e r y e a r f o r e a c h
y e a r o f t h a t s e r v i c e , y o u w o u l d have had an
o p p o r t u n i t y t o observe t r a f f i c - c o n t r o l devices
p l a c e d on Montana r o a d s . A. Yes.

"Q. And I w o u l d i m a g i n e t h a t , w i t h t h a t e x t e n -
s i v e e x p e r i e n c e , y o u w o u l d be f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e
t r a f f i c - c o n t r o l d e v i c e s p l a c e d on Montana r o a d s ?
A. Yes.

" B a s e d u p o n t h a t f a m i l i a r i t y and y o u r
experience, do you f e e l t h a t t h e road a t t h e
t i m e and p l a c e o f t h e c o l l i s i o n b e t w e e n M r .
B l i e s e n e r ' s v e h i c l e and M r . W o r k m a n ' s v e h i c l e
was a d e q u a t e l y s i g n e d ?

" M R . HADDON: O b j e c t i o n , Your Honor. T h a t c a l 1s
f o r an o p i n i o n beyond t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h i s w i t -
n e s s as a m a t t e r o f l a w .

"THE COURT: 1'11 sustain the objection.

" M R . DALE: Your Honor, t h e f u r t h e r t e s t i m o n y from
O f f i c e r B i l l e d e a u x w o u l d be t h e i n c a m e r a p r o -
c e e d i n g s t h a t we d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r .

"THE COURT: Very well.

"MR. DALE: Y o u r H o n o r , f o r t h e r e c o r d , we w o u l d
l i k e t o make a n o f f e r o f p r o o f i n r e g a r d t o t h e
testimony concerning O f f i c e r B i l ledeaux's opi-
n i o n t e s t i m o n y as t o t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h e s i g n s .

"THE COURT: Very well.

"Q. O f f i c e r B i l l e d e a u x , b a s e d u p o n y o u r e x p e r i e n c e
w i t h M o n t a n a t r a f f i c - c o n t r o l d e v i c e s and y o u r
s e v e n t e e n y e a r s as a member o f t h e M o n t a n a
H i g h w a y P a t r o l , f o u r t e e n y e a r s a s o f 1 9 7 6 , and
h a v i n g d r i v e n these f i f t y thousand m i l e s per
y e a r , i n y o u r o p i n i o n , was t h e r o a d w a y a t t h e
t i m e and p l a c e o f t h e c o l l i s i o n b e t w e e n M r .
 B l i e s n e r ' s v e h i c l e and M r . W o r k m a n ' s v e h i c l e
a d e q u a t e l y s i g n e d ? A. No.

"Q. And u p o n w h a t do y o u b a s e t h a t o p i n i o n ? A.
A c o n s t r u c t i o n area, i n o r d e r t o e n f o r c e t h e
t h i r t y - f i v e m i l e l i m i t , m u s t be - - h a v e a l e g e n d
t h a t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i r t y - f i v e m i l e s an h o u r .
T h e m o t o r i n g p u b l i c h a s t o be f u l l y a w a r e . If
t h e r e i s a h a z a r d s u c h as t h i s d r o p - o f f , t h e r e
s h o u l d be s o m e t h i n g t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e
m o t o r i n g p u b l i c w i l l know t h a t t h e r e i s a h a z a r d
t h e r e when t h e y come down t h e r o a d .

"Q. And a t t h e t i m e a n d p l a c e on J u n e 1 8 , 1 9 7 6 ,
w h a t was p r e s e n t t o a d v i s e t h e m o f t h i s h a z a r -
dous c o n d i t i o n ? A. Nothing."

T h e M o n t a n a R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e p r o v i d e as f o l l o w s :

" R u l e 702. Testimony & Experts.
I f scientific. technical .o r o t h e r s ~ e ca1 i z e d
i
knowledge w i l i a s s i s t t h e t r i e r o f f a c t t o
understand the evidence o r t o determine a f a c t
i n i s s u e , a w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d a s an e x p e r t b y
knowledge, s k i l 1, experience, t r a i n i n g , o r
e d u c a t i o n , may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e f o r m o f a n
opinion or otherwise."

" R u l e 704. Opinions on U l t i m a t e Issue.
T e s t i m o n v i n t h e f o r m o f an o ~ i n i o no r i n f e r e n c e
otherwis; admissible i s not o b j e c t i o n a b l e
b e c a u s e i t e m b r a c e s a n u l t i m a t e i s s u e t o be
decided by t h e t r i e r o f f a c t . "

An e x p e r t w i t n e s s may be q u a l i f i e d b y p r o f e s s i o n a l , scien-
t i f i c or technical training, o r h a v e p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e i n some

f i e l d o r a c t i v i t y c o n f e r r i n g upon h i m a s p e c i a l knowledge not

shared by mankind i n general, a n d o n e who h a s b e e n e n g a g e d f o r a

reasonable time i n a p a r t i c u l a r profession, trade, or calling will

b e assumed t o h a v e t h e o r d i n a r y k n o w l e d g e common t o p e r s o n s so

engaged. N e s b i t t v. City o f B u t t e (1945), 118 Mont. 84, 1 6 3 P.2d

T h e o p i n i o n o f a w i t n e s s on a m a t e r i a l q u e s t i o n o f

science, a r t o r t r a d e i n w h i c h he i s s k i l l e d i s a d m i s s i b l e i n

evidence. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f a s k i l l e d o r

e x p e r t w i t n e s s is a m a t t e r l a r g e l y w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e

t r i a l judge, and i n t h e absence o f a s h o w i n g o f abuse, ordinarily

w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d . G r a h a m v. Rolandson (1967), 1 5 0 Mont.

270, 4 3 5 P.2d 263; N e s b i t t v. City of Butte, supra.

H i g h w a y P a t r o l O f f i c e r B i l l e d e a u x was p r o p e r l y qua1 i f i e d

a s an e x p e r t , and was i n p o s s e s s i o n o f s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o
w a r r a n t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s he s t a t e d . Rude v. Neal (1974), 165

Mont. 520, 5 3 0 P.2d 4 2 8 . Expert opinion evidence i s admissible

i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e cause o f a p a r t i c u l a r a c c i d e n t . P a c h e k v.

N o r t o n C o n c r e t e Co. (1972), 1 6 0 M o n t . 1 6 , 4 9 9 P.2d 7 6 6 . The

t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w h i s

testimony.

I S S U E NO. 6:

-- t r i a l
Did the c o u r t -r-n r e f u s i n g - a d m i t i n t o e v i d e n c e
er i to

t h e Manual - U n i f o r m T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s f o r S t r e e t s and
on

Highways?

A11 p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e 1 9 7 1 f e d e r a l M a n u a l o n U n i f o r m

T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s f o r S t r e e t s and H i g h w a y s ( m a n u a l )

p u b l i s h e d by t h e U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n had b e e n

a d o p t e d a n d was l e g a l l y a p p l i c a b l e on J u n e 1 8 , 1 9 7 6 . The manual

s e t s f o r t h c e r t a i n w a r r a n t s o r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s d e s c r i b i n g t h e phy-

s i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y t o j u s t i f y t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n and u s e

o f t h e v a r i o u s w a r n i n g s i g n s recommended b y t h e m a n u a l .

P e r t i n e n t s e c t i o n s o f t h e manual p r o v i d e i n p a r t :

"1A-4. I n t h e Manual s e c t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e
d e s i g n and a p p l i c a t i o n o f t r a f f i c c o n t r o l
d e v i c e s , t h e words ' s h a l l ' , ' s h o u l d ' and 'may'
a r e used t o d e s c r i b e s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s con-
cerning these devices. To c l a r i f y t h e m e a n i n g s
i n t e n d e d i n t h i s Manual by t h e use o f t h e s e
words, t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s apply:

"1. SHALL - A m a n d a t o r y c o n d i t i o n . Where c e r -
t a i n requirements i n the design or application
o f the device are described w i t h the ' s h a l l '
s t i p u l a t i o n , i t i s m a n d a t o r y when an i n s t a l l a -
t i o n i s made t h a t t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s be m e t .

"2. SHOULD - An a d v i s o r y c o n d i t i o n . Where t h e
w o r d ' s h o u l d ' i s u s e d , i t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be
a d v i s a b l e usage, recommended b u t n o t m a n d a t o r y .

"3. MAY - A p e r m i s s i v e c o n d i t i o n . No r e q u i r e -
ment f o r d e s i g n o r a p p l i c a t i o n i s i n t e n d e d .

"2A-1. S i g n s s h o u l d be u s e d o n l y w h e r e w a r r a n t e d
b y f a c t s and f i e l d s t u d i e s . Signs are essential
w h e r e s p e c i a1 r e g u l a t i o n s a p p l y a t s p e c i f i c p l a -
ces o r a t s p e c i f i c t i m e s o n l y , o r where hazards
are not self-evident. ..
 "2A-7. Functional ly, s i g n s a r e c l a s s i f i e d as
follows:

" R e g u l a t o r y signs g i v e n o t i c e o f t r a f f i c laws o r
regulations.

" W a r n i n g s i g n s c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o c o n d i t i o n s on,
o r adjacent t o , a highway o r s t r e e t t h a t are
p o t e n t i a l l y hazardous t o t r a f f i c operations.

" G u i d e s i g n s show r o u t e d e s i g n a t i o n s ,
destinations, directions, distances, services,
p o i n t s o f i n t e r e s t , and o t h e r g e o g r a p h i c a l o r
cultural information.

"2C-1. W a r n i n g s i g n s a r e u s e d when i t i s deemed
n e c e s s a r y t o warn t r a f f i c o f e x i s t i n g o r poten-
t i a l l y h a z a r d o u s c o n d i t i o n s on o r a d j a c e n t t o a
highway o r s t r e e t . Warning signs r e q u i r e
c a u t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e m o t o r i s t and may c a l l
f o r r e d u c t i o n o f speed o r a maneuver i n t h e
i n t e r e s t o f h i s own s a f e t y and t h a t o f o t h e r
m o t o r i s t s and p e d e s t r i a n s . Adequate warnings
are of great assistance t o the vehicle operator
a n d a r e v a l u a b l e i n s a f e - g u a r d i n g and e x p e d i t i n g
traffic. . ."
A l l o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r c o u n s e l c o n c e d e t h i s a c c i d e n t

happened on a h i g h w a y u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n . The manual i n Part V I ,

p r o v i d e s f o r " T r a f f i c C o n t r o l s f o r S t r e e t and H i g h w a y

C o n s t r u c t i o n and M a i n t e n a n c e O p e r a t i o n s . " S e c t i o n 6A-3 provides

i n part:

". . . I t i s emphasized t h a t t h e s e a r e minimum
d e s i r a b l e s t a n d a r d s f o r n o r m a l s i t u a t i o n s and
t h a t a d d i t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n m u s t be p r o v i d e d when
s p e c i a l c o m p l e x i t i e s and h a z a r d s p r e v a i l . The
p r o t e c t i o n p r e s c r i b e d f o r e a c h s i t u a t i o n s h a l 1 be
b a s e d o n t h e s p e e d and v o l u m e o f t r a f f i c , d u r a -
t i o n o f o p e r a t i o n , and e x p o s u r e t o h a z a r d s . . ."
S e c t i o n 6A-4 p r o v i d e s :

"The p r o v i s i o n s f o r p u b l i c p r o t e c t i o n
e s t a b l i s h e d h e r e i n a r e f o r a p p l i c a t i o n by ( 1 )
S t a t e h i g h w a y d e p a r t m e n t , c o u n t y , and m u n i c i p a l
f o r c e s performing c o n s t r u c t i o n o r maintenance
o p e r a t i o n s on r o a d s and s t r e e t s , ( 2 ) c o n t r a c t o r s
employed i n r o a d o r s t r e e t c o n s t r u c t i o n o r main-
t e n a n c e u n d e r c o n t r a c t - any g o v e r n m e n t a l
to
authority ...
" T h e s e s t a n d a r d s , as p a r t o f t h e M a n u a l o n
U n i f o r m T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s , s h o u l d be
a d o p t e d b y a1 1 p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s c o n c e r n e d w i t h
h i g h w a y s , a n d s h o u l d be g i v e n e f f e c t b y o f f i c i a l
i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e m p l o y e e s and b y i n c o r p o r a t i o n
i n t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r a1 1 c o n t r a c t s . "
( E m p h a s i s added. )

I n t h i s case t h e o n l y s i g n s e r e c t e d were l e n g t h o f
c o n s t r u c t i o n signs l o c a t e d a t t h e l i m i t s o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n pro-

j e c t which read: "Road C o n s t r u c t i o n , 1 0 m i l e s . " The manual p r o -

v i d e s i n S e c t i o n 6B-36, i n part, as f o l l o w s :

T h e L e n g t h o f C o n s t r u c t i o n s i g n s h a l l be e r e c t e d
a t t h e l i m i t s o f any r o a d c o n s t r u c t i o n o r main-
t e n a n c e j o b o f more t h a n 2 m i l e s i n e x t e n t ,
where t r a f f i c i s maintained t h r o u g h t h e job. . ."
No " A d v a n c e R o a d C o n s t r u c t i o n S i g n " was e v i d e n t a s p r o v i d e d b y

s e c t i o n 6B-15 w h i c h r e a d s i n p a r t :

"The Advance Road ( S t r e e t ) C o n s t r u c t i o n s i q n
s h a l l be l o c a t e d i n a d v a n c e o f t h e i n i t i a l - a c t i -
v i t y o r d e t o u r a d r i v e r may e n c o u n t e r , a n d i s
i n t e n d e d f o r u s e as a g e n e r a l w a r n i n g o f
obstructions or restrictions. It c a r r i e s the
l e g e n d ROAD (STREET) CONSTRUCTION ( 1 5 0 0 ) FT. . ."
( E m p h a s i s added. )

No r e g u l a t o r y s i g n s w e r e p r e s e n t as p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 2 B - 1 :

" R e g u l a t o r y signs i n f o r m highway users o f t r a f -
f i c l a w s o r r e g u l a t i o n s and i n d i c a t e t h e a p p l i -
c a b i l i t y o f l e g a l requirements t h a t would not
o t h e r w i s e be a p p a r e n t . T h e s e s i g n s s h a l l be
e r e c t e d w h e r e v e r needed t o f u l f i l 1 t h i s p u r p o s e ,
b u t u n n e c e s s a r y m a n d a t e s s h o u l d be a v o i d e d . The
l a w s o f many S t a t e s s p e c i f y t h a t c e r t a i n r e g u l a -
t i o n s a r e e n f o r c e a b l e o n l y when made k n o w n b y
o f f i c i a l signs."

" R e g u l a t o r y s i g n s n o r m a l l y s h a l l be e r e c t e d a t
t h o s e l o c a t i o n s where r e g u l a t i o n s apply. The
s i g n message s h a l l c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h e r e q u i r e -
m e n t s i m p o s e d b y t h e r e g u l a t i o n and s h a l l be
e a s i l y v i s i b l e and l e g i b l e t o t h e m o t o r i s t
concerned." (Emphasis added.)

One o f t h e r e g u l a t o r y s i g n s i s t h e s p e e d l i m i t s i g n . Section

2B-13 i n t h e manual p r o v i d e s i n p a r t :

"Speed L i m i t s i g n s , i n d i c a t i n g speed l i m i t s f o r
w h i c h p o s t i n g i s r e q u i r e d b y l a w , s h a l l be
l o c a t e d a t t h e p o i n t s o f change f r o m one speed
l i m i t t o another. . ."
" A t t h e end o f t h e s e c t i o n t o w h i c h a s p e e d
l i m i t a p p l i e s , a Speed L i m i t s i g n s h o w i n g t h e
n e x t speed l i m i t s h a l l be e r e c t e d .
(Emphasis added.)
. ."
Section 61-8-203(1), MCA, provides:

"Department o f highways t o s i g n a l l s t a t e
highways. ( 1 ) The d e p a r t m e n t o f h i g h w a y s shal 1
p l a c e and m a i n t a i n t r a f f i c - c o n t r o l d e v i c e s , con-
f o r m i n g t o i t s manual and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , upon
a l l stateh-ways i t considers necessary t o
i n d i c a t e and t o c a r r y o u t t h i s c h a p t e r and
c h a p t e r 9 o r t o r e g u l a t e , warn, o r g u i d e
 traffic." (Emphasis added.)

The S t a t e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r , d u r i n g t h e t r i a l and i n

their briefs, a s s e r t t h a t t h e s i n g l e s i g n "Road C o n s t r u c t i o n , 1 0

m i l e s " r e q u i r e d a s p e e d n o t i n e x c e s s o f 3 5 m.p.h. because o f t h e

provision o f section 61-8-303(2)(b), MCA, on a highway u n d e r

construction or repair. Y e t a l l o f t h e t r a f f i c was m o v i n g a t 5 5

On D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 7 1 , t h e Manual on Highway T r a f f i c C o n t r o l

D e v i c e s was a d o p t e d b y t h e M o n t a n a H i g h w a y C o m m i s s i o n . The

m a n u a l was a p p r o v e d b y t h e F e d e r a l H i g h w a y A d m i n i s t r a t o r a s t h e

N a t i o n a l S t a n d a r d f o r a l l highways open t o p u b l i c t r a v e l in

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h T i t l e 23, U.S. Code, S e c t i o n s 1 0 9 ( b ) , 1 0 9 ( d ) and

I n d e c i d i n g t h e C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n W i l l i a m s v. Maley

(1967), 1 5 0 M o n t . 2 6 1 , 4 3 4 P.2d 398, J u s t i c e C a s t l e s , who

l i k e w i s e wrote t h e o p i n i o n i n t h e F a u c e t t e case, stated:

" I n the ... c a s e o f F a u c e t t e v. C h r i s t e n s e n ,
1 4 5 M o n t . 2 8 , 3 4 , 4 0 0 P.2d 8 8 3 , a d r i v e r was
charged with-negligence s e - f o r passing
w i t h i n one h u n d r e d f e e t o f a n i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n
a c t i o n p r o h i b i t e d by s t a t u t e . However, t h e
i n t e r s e c t i o n was m a r k e d b y a b r o k e n w h i t e l i n e ,
w h i c h u n d e r t h e manual i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n such an
area passing i s permitted. T h i s C o u r t asked t h e
question:
I1 I
... Should not t h e o t h e r s t a t u t o r y " r u l e s
o f t h e r o a d " and t h e h i g h w a y m a r k i n g s f o r m a l l y
e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e highway commission under sta-
t u t o r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n have equal d i g n i t y ? S h o u l d
n o t t h e s t a t u t e s , t h e n , be c o n s t r u e d t o g e t h e r
and harmonized i n d e t e r m i n i n g q u e s t i o n s o f
negligence. We be1 i e v e t h e y s h o u l d . '

" ... It i s c l e a r from a r e a d i n g o f t h e
l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e Highway Commission
t o a d o p t a u n i f o r m m a n u a l and a u t h o r i z i n g t h e
Commission t o s i g n t h e highways i n accordance
w i t h t h a t manual, t h a t t h e mere a d o p t i o n o f t h e
manual d i d n o t g i v e i t a s t a t u s equal t o t h a t o f
a statute. R.C.M. 1947, 532-2134, a u t h o r i z e s
t h e Highway Commission t o s i g n t h e highways o f
t h e s t a t e i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e manual ' a s i t
s h a l l deem n e c e s s a r y . ' T h e same s t a t u t e makes
i t u n l a w f u l f o r anyone e l s e t o e r e c t s i g n s upon
highways. Thus, u n t i l t h e Highway Commission
has acted t o d i r e c t the erection o f a sign,
t h e r e i s no d u t y p l a c e d u p o n a n y o n e t o a c t i n a
c e r t a i n manner j u s t because t h e Manual on
U n i f o r m T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s w o u l d seem t o
 i n d i c a t e t h a t s u c h a s i g n s h o u l d be e r e c t e d .
W i t h o u t d i r e c t i o n by t h e Highway Commission
t h e r e i s no d u t y t o p l a c e a s i g n . " 150 Mont.
2 6 6 , 2 6 8 , 4 3 4 P.2d a t 4 0 1 .

I n R u n k l e v. B u r l i n g t o n Northern (1980), M o n t . -9 -
P.2d , 37 St.Rep. 995, 1002, the Court said:

"The F e d e r a l - A i d Highway Act o f 1973 r e p r e s e n t s
an e f f o r t by t h e f e d e r a l government t o improve
t h e s a f e t y o f g r a d e c r o s s i n g s , and t o p r o v i d e
f u n d i n g f o r t h e same. T h a t a c t does n o t l e s s e n
i n a n y d e g r e e t h e d u t y , s t a t u t o r y o r common l a w ,
o f a r a i l r o a d t o m a i n t a i n a g o o d and s a f e
crossing. The Manual on U n i f o r m T r a f f i c C o n t r o l
Devices MU^), p r o m u l g a t e d by t h e M o n t a n a
H i g h w a y D e p a r t m e n t , may be c o n s i d e r e d - - -as a s t a n -
d a r-o r n o r m t -b-u s e d f o r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l
- d --- o e
devises. I t d o e s n o t h a v e t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t
o f l a w i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n -
s i b i l i t i e s o f a r a i l r o a d with respect t o the
safety o f grade crossings. Thus t h e f a c t t h a t
t h e Montana Highway Department o r t h e town o f
T r o y had n o t o f f i c i a l l y a c t e d t o r e q u i r e t h e
r a i l r o a d t o provide t r a f f i c control devices
o t h e r than t h e crossbucks i s not i n i t s e l f suf-
f i c i e n t t o a b s o l v e t h e r a i l r o a d o f i t s common
l a w d u t y , i f i t e x i s t e d , t o p r o v i d e a g o o d and
safe crossing. I n a d d i t i o n i t was a j u r y
q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s known
t o t h e r a i l r o a d a t and b e f o r e t h i s a c c i d e n t , t h e
r a i l r o a d i t s e l f s h o u l d have r e d u c e d t h e speed o f
i t s t r a i n s over the Third S t r e e t crossing. This
C o u r t s t a t e d t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n J a r v e l l a v.
I Northen P a c . Ry. Co. ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 1 0 1 M o n t . 3 i 3 , 5 3
P.2d 4 4 6 , 4 5 0 , when i t s a i d :

" ' I t i s n o t e w o r t h y , i n p a s s i n g , t h a t t h e mere
f a c t t h a t no s t a t u t e e x i s t s , o r t h a t no o r d e r by
a n a u t h o r i z e d p e r s o n h a s b e e n made r e q u i r i n g
gates o r other safety devices a t crossings, w i l l
n o t i p s 0 f a c t o r e l i e v e t h e r a i l w a y company f r o m
t h e duty of providing safety devices a t
c r o s s i n g s s u f f i c i e n t l y dangerous t o r e q u i r e
them. '

"We c o n s i d e r e d t h e s t a t u s o f t h e M a n u a l o n
U n i f o r m T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s i n W i l l i a m s v.
M a l e y ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 5 0 M o n t . 2 6 1 , 2 6 7 - 6 9 , 4 3 4 P.2d
398, 401-02. There t h i s Court said t h a t the
manual d i d n o t have a s t a t u s equal t o s t a t u t e .
We a l s o made r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f a c t t h a t i t was
u n l a w f u l f o r anyone o t h e r t h a n t h e S t a t e Highway
Commission t o e r e c t s i g n s on highways. However,
n e i t h e r t h a t c a s e , n o r s e c t i o n 6 1 - 8 - 2 0 3 , MCA,
s h o u l d be r e a d t o mean t h a t a r a i l r o a d i n t h e
e x e r c i s e o f o r d i n a r y c a r e may n o t i t s e l f p l a c e
w a r n i n g d e v i c e s and s i g n s u p o n i t s own p r o p e r t y
o r v o l u n t e e r t o p l a c e t h e same on s t a t e r o a d w a y s
upon n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e S t a t e Highway
Department. I t w o u l d n o t t h e r e b y e i t h e r commit
a misdemeanor o r c r e a t e a p u b l i c nuisance."
(Emphasis added.)

I n t h i s case, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e manual

w h i c h a p p l y t o b o t h t h e S t a t e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r , the contract
b e t w e e n t h e S t a t e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r p r o v i d e s :

"VIII. SAFETY; ACCIDENT PREVENTION

" I n t h e performance o f t h i s c o n t r a c t , t h e
c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h a1 1 a p p l i c a b l e
F e d e r a l , S t a t e and l o c a l l a w s g o v e r n i n g s a f e t y ,
h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n . The c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l
p r o v i d e a l l s a f e g u a r d s , s a f e t y d e v i c e s and p r o -
t e c t i v e e q u i p m e n t and t a k e a n y o t h e r n e e d e d
a c t i o n s , - -s own r e ~ ~ o n s i b - i l i t y , o r a s t h e
on h i -
S t a t e h i g h w a y d e p a r t m e n t c o n t r a c t i n g 7 f f i c e r may
determine, reasonably necessary t o p r o t e c t t h e
l i f e a n d h e a l t h o f e m p l o y e e s o n t h e j o b and t h e
s a f e t y o f t h e p u b l i c and t o p r o t e c t p r o p e r t y i n
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e work
covered by t h e c o n t r a c t . " ( E m p h a s i s added.)

I t i s h a r d t o c o n c e i v e how a c o n t r a c t o r c o u l d b e c h a r g e d

w i t h a misdemeanor o r w i t h c r e a t i n g a p u b l i c n u i s a n c e w i t h t h i s

provision i n the contract.

What was p r o n o u n c e d i n R u n k l e a p p l i e s w i t h e q u a l import

h e r e t o t h e S t a t e and t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r . The t r i a l court erred

i n r e f u s i n g t o a d m i t t h e M a n u a l on U n i f o r m T r a f f i c C o n t r o l

D e v i c e s f o r S t r e e t s and H i g h w a y s . See S c h a e f f e r v. Kansas Dept.

o f Transp. (Kan. 1980.), 6 0 8 P.2d 1309.

The p l a i n t i f f o f f e r e d t h e e n t i r e manual i n e v i d e n c e . When

t h i s case i s r e t r i e d , t h e p l a i n t i f f s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o i n t r o -

d u c e o n l y t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e manual t h a t have r e l e v a n c y t o

t h i s case.

ISSUE NO. 7:

D i d t h e c o u r t -r-n r e f u s i n g
er i a d m i t e v i d e n c e - -e
of th

c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t between t h e S t a t e Department - -
and t h e

contractors?

Plaintiff, i n cross-examining a defendant contractor's

witness, sought t o i n t r o d u c e c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e c o n t r a c t

b e t w e e n t h e S t a t e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r r e g a r d i n g c e r t a i n t r a f f i c

c o n t r o l d e v i c e s m e n t i o n e d i n a payment s c h e d u l e i n t h e c o n t r a c t

t h a t c o u l d h a v e b e e n a v a i l a b l e and u t i l i z e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r o r

the State at the job site. P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t s i n c e a payment

s c h e d u l e f o r t h e s e d e v i s e s was i n c l u d e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t , that

t h i s c o n s t i t u t e d n o t i c e t o t h e S t a t e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r t h a t

t h e s e d e v i c e s c o u l d have been u t i l i z e d p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t .

- 16 -
T h e s e w e r e y e 1 l o w and w h i t e r e f l e c t o r i z e d t e m p o r a r y s t r i p i ng

tapes. T h e c o u r t p e r m i t t e d t h e s e e x h i b i t s t o be a d m i t t e d f o r

demonstrative purposes but refused t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e p r o v i -

sions of the contract.

The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o p e r m i t t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s s o u g h t t o be i n t r o d u c e d

by the p l a i n t i f f . The q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r o r n o t c e r t a i n t r a f f i c

c o n t r o l d e v i c e s s h o u l d have been used by t h e S t a t e o r t h e

c o n t r a c t o r i n i t s e x e r c i s e o f due c a r e u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

The p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i d i n g a payment s c h e d u l e i f t h e

d e v i c e s w e r e u s e d h a s no p r o b a t i v e v a l u e and i s i r r e l e v a n t .

ISSUE NO. 8:

- - c o u r t -r-n r e f u s i n g - a d m i t c e r t a i n d e m o n s t r a -
Did the er i t o

t i v e e x h i b i t s presented the plaintiff?

P l a i n t i f f o f f e r e d i n e v i d e n c e a n " a b r u p t edge s i g n " and a

photograph o f a s t r e t c h o f highway which i n c l u d e d t h e "abrupt

edge s i g n " f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e purposes. T h e t r i a1 c o u r t r e f u s e d

t o admit both exhibits. The e x h i b i t s were i n t e n d e d t o i l l u s t r a t e

p l a i n t i f f ' s expert's testimony that t h i s t r a f f i c control "abrupt

edge" s i g n i s used where such a s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s .

E x h i b i t s f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s do n o t depend upon

w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e o b j e c t s t h e y p o r t r a y c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d i n

words, b u t o n w h e t h e r o r n o t i t w o u l d be h e l p f u l t o p e r m i t t h e

w i t n e s s t o supplement h i s d e s c r i p t i o n by t h e i r use. 29

Am J u r 2 d , E v i d e n c e 9785. Exhibits are inadmissible i n evidence

f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s o n l y when t h e y d o n o t i l l u s t r a t e

o r make c l e a r e r some i s s u e i n t h e c a s e - - t h a t is, where t h e y a r e

i r r e l e v a n t or immaterial--or where t h e y a r e o f such a c h a r a c t e r

as t o p r e j u d i c e t h e j u r y . 29 Am J u r 2 d , E v i d e n c e 9785. These

e x h i b i t s w e r e r e l e v a n t and w o u l d n o t p r e j u d i c e t h e j u r y . To

refuse t o admit p l a i n t i f f ' s e x h i b i t s f o r demonstrative purpose

was an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . B r o w n v. North

- 17 -
Am. Mfg. Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 98, 5 7 6 P.2d 711, 35 St. Rptr.

194.

For t h e f o r e g o i n g reasons, t h e judgment i s r e v e r s e d as t o

a l l t h r e e defendants and t h e c a u s e r e m a n d e d f o r a new t r i a l .

Hon. J o h n M. M c C a r v e l , D i s t r i c t
Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f M r .
J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea.

We c o n c u r :

Chief m t i c e ( \