No. 80-280
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
OSCAR A. SWENSON, M.D.; RICHARD A.
NELSON, M.D.; ABC COLLECTORS, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
BUFFALO BUILDING CO., a Montana Corporation,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Flathead.
Honorable James Salansky, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Warden, Christiansen & Johnson, Kalispell, Montana
Merritt C. Warden argued, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondents:
E. Euqene At.herton argued and Jim Moore 'argued,
Kalispell, Montana
Morrison Law Firm, Missoula, Montana
Frank Morrison Sr. argued, Missoula, Montana
McGarvey, Lence and Heberling, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted: June 16, 1981
Decided: September 28, 1981
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
Defendant B u f f a l o B u i l d i n g Company ( B u f f a l o ) a p p e a l s
from t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
F l a t h e a d County, The i s s u e s c e n t e r on t h e Uniform B u i l d i n g
F i r e and S a f e t y c o d e s of K a l i s p e l l .
Buffalo p r e s e n t s t h e following i s s u e s f o r review:
1. Defendant B u f f a l o ' s main i s s u e i s whether t h e t r i a l
c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d i t s motion t o r e t r a c t c e r t a i n a d m i s s i o n s
r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t and v a l i d i t y of uniform b u i l d i n g , f i r e ,
and s a f e t y codes p u r p o r t e d l y a d o p t e d by t h e C i t y of K a l i s p e l l ,
t h e motion t o r e t r a c t having been made two work d a y s b e f o r e
trial.
2 . To show t h a t such d e n i a l c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e
e r r o r B u f f a l o p r e s e n t s t h e i s s u e whether c i t i e s had t h e
power t o a d o p t t e c h n i c a l codes by r e f e r e n c e p r i o r t o 1967,
when t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e p a s s e d a b i l l s p e c i f i c a l l y
g i v i n g t o c i t i e s such power. Included a s subissues a r e :
a . Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y deny B u f f a l o ' s motion
i n l i m i n e t o e x c l u d e mention of t h e t e c h n i c a l c o d e s , and
p r o p e r l y g r a n t t e n a n t s ' motion i n l i m i n e t o p r e v e n t B u f f a l o
from c o n t e s t i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e codes?
b. Were e x h i b i t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e codes p r o p e r l y r e c e i v e d
i n t o evidence?
c . Was t h e j u r y p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d a s t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y
and e f f e c t s of t h e codes?
3. B u f f a l o a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o d e s were i r r e l e v a n t i n any
e v e n t under t h e i r own t e r m s .
4. B u f f a l o a s s e r t s t h a t c e r t a i n of i t s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s
c o n c e r n i n g l a n d l o r d / t e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s s h o u l d have been
g i v e n and c e r t a i n of t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s s h o u l d n o t
have been g i v e n .
5. ~ u f f a l o i t e s a s e r r o r t h e awarding of prejudgment
c
i n t e r e s t , and o f c o s t s f o r t e l e p h o n e c h a r g e s , p h o t o c o p i e s ,
e x h i b i t s and s u p p l i e s , c o n s u l t a n t f e e s , and w i t n e s s f e e s t o
t h e tenants.
W a f f i r m t h e lower c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of B u f f a l o ' s motion
e
t o r e t r a c t t h e admissions. T h e r e f o r e , w e need n o t d i s c u s s
i s s u e no. 2 o r i t s t h r e e s u b i s s u e s . Many of t h e i n s t r u c -
t i o n s which B u f f a l o c i t e s a s e r r o r a l s o need n o t be a d d r e s s e d
b e c a u s e t h e y i n v o l v e d p r o v i s i o n s of t h e t e c h n i c a l c o d e s . We
a f f i r m t h e awarding of c o s t s , b u t w e r e v e r s e t h e award of
prejudgment i n t e r e s t .
B u f f a l o purchased a n o l d e r b u i l d i n g i n K a l i s p e l l i n
1956, r e n o v a t e d i t , and r e n t e d i t o u t a s commercial and
o f f i c e s p a c e . The p l a i n t i f f s were a l l s e p a r a t e t e n a n t s i n
the building. I n 1976, t h e b u i l d i n g c a u g h t f i r e and was
t o t a l l y d e s t r o y e d , t h e f i r e a p p a r e n t l y c a u s e d by t h e a c t s
and n a t u r e of work of a n o t h e r t e n a n t , t h e F l a t h e a d D e n t a l
Laboratory. Two s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s w e r e b r o u g h t , on J u n e 2 0 ,
1978, and September 6, 1978, which w e r e e v e n t u a l l y c o n s o l i d a t e d
i n t o t h i s case. The t e n a n t s a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e by B u f f a l o i n
f a i l i n g t o i n s t a l l adequate f i r e p r o t e c t i o n m a t e r i a l s i n t o t h e
b u i l d i n g , and n e g l i g e n c e -r- i n f a i l i n g t o f u l l y comply w i t h
p e se
c i t y b u i l d i n g , f i r e and s a f e t y code s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . Buffalo
denied a l l a l l e g a t i o n s .
The codes i n v o l v e d h e r e a r e t h e 1946 and 1973 Uniform
B u i l d i n g Codes, t h e 1973 L i f e S a f e t y Code, and t h e 1970 F i r e
P r e v e n t i o n Code.
The t e n a n t s s o u g h t t o e s t a b l i s h c e r t a i n e l e m e n t s of t h e i r
c a s e d u r i n g d i s c o v e r y t h r o u g h t h e u s e of r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s ,
p u r s u a n t t o Rule 36, M.R.Civ.P. S e c t i o n 1 0 4 ( b ) of t h e uniform
B u i l d i n g Code, 1946 E d i t i o n , p r o v i d e s t h a t i f t h e c o s t of
a l t e r a t i o n s t o an older b u i l d i n g i n any one y e a r e x c e e d s
50 p e r c e n t of t h e v a l u e of t h e b u i l d i n g i t s e l f , t h e b u i l d i n g
s h a l l be made t o conform t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r new b u i l d i n g s .
The t e n a n t s r e q u e s t e d B u f f a l o t o a d m i t t h a t t h e c o s t of
r e p a i r s and remodeling i n t h e y e a r of p u r c h a s e had exceeded
50 p e r c e n t of t h e b u i l d i n g ' s value.
The r e q u e s t f o r a d m i s s i o n was d a t e d May 9, 1979.
B u f f a l o a d m i t t e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n by d e f a u l t a s p r o v i d e d by
Rule 3 6 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. : " . . . . The matter i s admitted
u n l e s s , w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r s e r v i c e of t h e r e q u e s t . . .
t h e p a r t y t o whom t h e r e q u e s t i s d i r e c t e d s e r v e s upon t h e
p a r t y r e q u e s t i n g t h e a d m i s s i o n a w r i t t e n answer o r o b j e c t i o n
a d d r e s s e d t o t h e m a t t e r , s i g n e d by t h e p a r t y o r by h i s
attorney . . ." The a d m i s s i o n by d e f a u l t was n o t mere
o v e r s i g h t by c o u n s e l f o r B u f f a l o ; t e n a n t s ' c o u n s e l w r o t e t o
B u f f a l o ' s c o u n s e l on June 1 3 , 1979, t o i n q u i r e a b o u t t h e
s t a t u s of t h e r e q u e s t f o r a d m i s s i o n s , and B u f f a l o ' s c o u n s e l
responded, by l e t t e r d a t e d June 1 8 , 1979, " I have n o t f e l t
t h a t i t w a s n e c e s s a r y t o p r e p a r e a f o r m a l r e p l y t o your
Request f o r Admissions d a t e d May 9, 1979, f o r t h e r e a s o n
t h a t under P r o v i s i o n s of Rule 36, t h o s e m a t t e r s w e r e deemed
a u t o m a t i c a l l y a d m i t t e d i n t h e a b s e n c e of a d e n i a l o r o t h e r
response."
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s c h e d u l e d t r i a l f o r October 9, 1979,
and a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e f o r August 2 9 . The t e n a n t s p r e p a r e d
a p r e t r i a l o r d e r , which was s i g n e d by t h e d i s t r i c t judge and
by a l l p a r t i e s on August 15. Buffalo a s s e r t s t h a t t h e p r e t r i a l
o r d e r was never a d o p t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . The o r d e r
was s i g n e d by t h e judge and i t was e n t e r e d i n t h e d o c k e t ,
a l t h o u g h i t a p p a r e n t l y w a s never f i l e d , as t h e o r i g i n a l i s
n o t contained i n t h e d i s t r i c t court f i l e ( t h e tenants in-
c l u d e a copy of t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r i n t h e s e p a r a t e appendix
to their brief).
The t e n a n t s i t e m i z e d 30 a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of t h e
uniform c o d e s i n t h e " P l a i n t i f f ' s C o n t e n t i o n s " p o r t i o n of
the p r e t r i a l order. I t i s clear, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t Buffalo
was aware of t h e b a s i s f o r t h e t e n a n t s ' c l a i m of n e g l i g e n c e
p e se.
-r- The o r d e r a l s o c o n t a i n e d 31 r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s ,
t h e most c r u c i a l of which a r e a s f o l l o w s :
"9. T h a t K a l i s p e l l C i t y o r d i n a n c e #515 was d u l y
a d o p t e d by t h e C i t y Council of K a l i s p e l l on Sep-
tember 3, 1946 and was i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t a t
t h e t i m e of t h e p u r c h a s e of s a i d b u i l d i n g by t h e
Defendant B u f f a l o B u i l d i n g Company, and a t a l l
t i m e s d u r i n g t h e a l t e r a t i o n of s a i d b u i l d i n g by
s a i d company d u r i n g t h e y e a r 1956.
"10. T h a t t h e Uniform B u i l d i n g Code, a s a d o p t e d
and p u b l i s h e d by t h e P a c i f i c C o a s t B u i l d i n g O f f i -
c i a l s Conference, on J a n u a r y 1, 1946 i s t h a t i d e n -
t i f i e d marked E x h i b i t A and a t t h e t i m e of t h e
p r e - t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e , p l a c e d i n t h e c u s t o d y of t h e
Court. T h a t such code i s t h a t r e f e r r e d t o i n Ordi-
nance #515 a s a f o r e m e n t i o n e d . "
On t h e same day t h a t t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r was s i g n e d ,
August 1 5 , B u f f a l o moved t h e c o u r t f o r a n o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g
i t t o withdraw i t s p r e v i o u s a d m i s s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l u e of
t h e b u i l d i n g and of improvements made t h e r e i n ( t h e a d m i s s i o n s
d a t e d May 9 ) . B u f f a l o s o u g h t t o r e v o k e i t s former a d m i s s i o n
f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t i t had " m i s t a k e n l y and i n a d v e r t e n t l y
f a i l e d t o a n a l y z e t h e wording c o n t a i n e d " i n t h e f i r s t r e q u e s t .
Leave t o revoke t h e a d m i s s i o n was g r a n t e d by t h e c o u r t o v e r
o b j e c t i o n by t h e t e n a n t s . The t e n a n t s t h e n r e q u e s t e d a s i x -
month c o n t i n u a n c e of t r i a l " r e l u c t a n t l y " , b e c a u s e t h e y were
now " f a c e d w i t h t h e n e c e s s i t y of i n d e p e n d e n t l y p r o v i n g " t h e
v a l u e s of t h e b u i l d i n g and r e p a i r work. T r i a l was reset f o r
A p r i l 1 4 , 1980.
Buffalo f i l e d i t s responses t o t h e r e q u e s t s f o r admissions
c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r on August 27, 1979. Requests
9 and 1 0 s e t f o r t h above, and o t h e r , s i m i l a r r e q u e s t s , were
s p e c i f i c a l l y admitted.
Three months p r i o r t o t r i a l t h e t e n a n t s moved f o r
summary judgment based upon a l l of B u f f a l o ' s a d m i s s i o n s .
B u f f a l o opposed t h e motion, a r g u i n g i n i t s b r i e f , f o r t h e
f i r s t t i m e , t h a t i t had n e v e r a d m i t t e d t h e c i t y t e c h n i c a l
c o d e s were p e r t i n e n t o r a p p l i c a b l e o r had been v a l i d l y
a d o p t e d by t h e c i t y c o u n c i l . The c o u r t t h e n o r d e r e d c o u n s e l
t o p r e p a r e a n amended p r e t r i a l o r d e r , s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t i n g
B u f f a l o t o i n c l u d e i n t h e amended o r d e r i t s c o n t e n t i o n s and
p o s i t i o n on n o n a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e v a r i o u s c o d e s and t h e
s p e c i f i c r e a s o n s f o r such n o n a p p l i c a b i l i t y . Neither p a r t y
e v e r p r e p a r e d an amended p r e t r i a l o r d e r . Buffalo argues
t h a t i t was p l a i n t i f f s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r e p a r e a l l p r e t r i a l
orders.
Two work d a y s p r i o r t o t r i a l , B u f f a l o moved t o r e v o k e
i t s admissions contained i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r f o r t h e
r e a s o n t h a t t h e c i t y t e c h n i c a l c o d e s had n e v e r been v a l i d l y
a d o p t e d and t h u s , any a d m i s s i o n s based t h e r e o n were i n c o r r e c t
and n o t p e r t i n e n t . A h e a r i n g was h e l d where B u f f a l o a r g u e d
t h a t c i t i e s had been g r a n t e d no power by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o
a d o p t a t e c h n i c a l code by r e f e n c e i n 1946, any such a d o p t i o n
was a v o i d a c t , and no e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e codes s h o u l d
be received a t t r i a l .
B u f f a l o ' s r e a s o n f o r r e q u e s t i n g l e a v e t o amend t h i s
time: "[Counsel f o r B u f f a l o ] assumed t h a t c o u n s e l f o r P l a i n t i f f s
had i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e a s s e r t i o n and h o n e s t l y and c o r r e c t l y
s t a t e d t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n b u t [Counsel f o r ~ u f f a l o ]h a s
now l e a r n e d t h a t such was n o t t h e c a s e and t h a t such a s s e r t i o n
w a s i n c o r r e c t and f a l s e . "
The c o u r t d e n i e d B u f f a l o ' s motion, s p e c i f i c a l l y f i n d i n g
t h a t B u f f a l o had a l r e a d y d e l a y e d t r i a l once by r e t r a c t i n g a n
a d m i s s i o n and t h a t i t s new motion went t o t h e v e r y f o u n d a t i o n
of t h e t e n a n t s ' c a s e , was n o t t i m e l y made, would c a u s e
a n o t h e r l e n g t h y d e l a y , and would s u b v e r t t h e r u l e s of p r o c e d u r e
and t h e o r d e r l y d i s p o s i t i o n of c a s e s .
B u f f a l o moved i n l i m i n e t o e x c l u d e a l l mention of t h e
t e c h n i c a l codes a t t r i a l . The motion was d e n i e d . The
t e n a n t s moved i n l i m i n e t o p r e v e n t B u f f a l o from a r g u i n g t h e
i n v a l i d i t y of t h e codes a t t r i a l . T h a t motion was g r a n t e d .
J u r y t r i a l was h e l d . The c o u r t r e c e i v e d e x h i b i t s con-
c e r n i n g t h e t e c h n i c a l c o d e s , and i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e
c o d e s ' a p p l i c a b i l i t y and e f f e c t s . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a
v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of t h e t e n a n t s and judgment w a s e n t e r e d .
The c o u r t t h e n r e c e i v e d motions and h e a r d argument on t h e
awarding o f c o s t s and prejudgment i n t e r e s t . Such i n t e r e s t
was awarded t o one t e n a n t o n l y . Buffalo appeals t h e d e n i a l
of i t s motion t o r e v o k e i t s a d m i s s i o n , t h e c o n d u c t of t h e
t r i a l , and t h e awarding of prejudgment i n t e r e s t and of
certain costs.
A p a r t y h a s no a b s o l u t e r i g h t t o f i l e l a t e answers t o
r e q u e s t s f o r admissions. The m a t t e r r e s t s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e -
t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d i n t h e ab-
s e n c e of a m a n i f e s t a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e of N.D. v.
Newberger (1980), -Mont. -, 613 P.2d 1002, 1006, 37 St.Rep.
1119, 1 1 2 4 ; Morast v . Auble ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 1 0 0 , 105, 519
P.2d 157, 159.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
motion on A p r i l 1 5 , 1980. The c o u r t t h e n found s p e c i f i c a l l y
t h a t t r i a l had been s e t t o commence on A p r i l 1 6 ; t h a t p r e v i o u s l y
t h e d e f e n d a n t had been g r a n t e d a s i m i l a r motion t o amend
r e s p o n s e s t o r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s , such o r d e r c a u s i n g a
lengthy delay i n t r i a l ; t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s had f a i l e d t o
t i m e l y a s s e r t t h e i r arguments c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e
t e c h n i c a l c o d e s ' a d o p t i o n even though t h e c o u r t had r e q u e s t e d
t h a t such c o n t e n t i o n s be s e t f o r t h ; t h a t a n o t h e r l e n g t h y
d e l a y would r e s u l t i f t h e new motion was t o be g r a n t e d ; and,
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e t h e c o u r t w i t h any
j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r o v e r t u r n i n g an a d m i s s i o n which had been
d e l i b e r a t e l y d r a f t e d by e x p e r i e n c e d c o u n s e l f o r t h e e x p r e s s
p u r p o s e of l i m i t i n g and d e f i n i n g t h e i s s u e s .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t concluded t h a t t h e i s s u e s i n v o l v e d
i n t h e c a s e were complex a n d i n v o l v e d t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of
e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s from o u t of t h e r e g i o n a l a r e a ; t h a t t h e
s u b j e c t s of t h e motion went t o t h e v e r y f o u n d a t i o n of t h e
p l a i n t i f f s ' c a s e and had been r e l i e d on by t h e p l a i n t i f f s ;
t h a t t h e motion was due t o i n s u f f i c i e n t and u n t i m e l y i n v e s t i g a t i o n
of t h e i s s u e s and f a c t s by t h e d e f e n d a n t s ; and, t h a t t h e
r u l e s of p r o c e d u r e and o r d e r l y d i s p o s i t i o n of c a s e s would be
s u b v e r t e d by a l l o w i n g t h e r e t r a c t i o n s and amendments. The
d e f e n d a n t s ' motion was d e n i e d .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t m a n i f e s t l y a b u s e i t s d i s c r e -
t i o n i n denying t h e motion. The f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by
t h e r e c o r d , and do p r o v i d e a b a s e f o r t h e c o n c l u s i o n s . In
a d d i t i o n , t h e c o n c l u s i o n s p r o p e r l y a p p l y t h e law.
Delay i t s e l f i s i n c r e a s i n g l y r e c o g n i z e d by c o u r t s a s a
problem. A s t h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n t h e r e c e n t c a s e of Owen v .
F. A. B u t t r e y Co. (19811, -Mont. -, 627 P.2d 1233, 1235,
38 St.Rep. 714, 717:
"Crowded d o c k e t s have l e d more and more c o u r t s
t o overcome . . . [ t h e i r ] r e l u c t a n c e and reem-
phasize the j u d i c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o t h e public.
Note, Rule 1, M.R.Civ.P., p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e Rules
of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e be i n t e r p r e t e d t o ' s e c u r e t h e
j u s t , speedy and i n e x p e n s i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of e v e r y
action.' This Court recognizes t h a t a predisposi-
t i o n toward d i s c o v e r y s a n c t i o n s , w h e r e i n we would
r e s o l v e d o u b t s a b o u t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s and
t h e purpose of o u r p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s i n f a v o r of r e -
s t r a i n t , may be i n c r e a s i n g l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e g i v e n t h e
c o m p e l l i n g need t o m a i n t a i n e f f i c i e n t and f a i r
judicial administration. "
Owen i n v o l v e d i m p o s i t i o n of s a n c t i o n s f o r d e l a y d u r i n g
d i s c o v e r y , b u t t h e same c o n c e r n s a p p l y i n t h i s c a s e , p a r t i c u l a r l y
b e c a u s e B u f f a l o had p r e v i o u s l y r e t r a c t e d a n a d m i s s i o n of
f a c t , and had f o r c e d t h e t e n a n t s t o r e q u e s t a postponement
o f t r i a l i n o r d e r t o a c q u i r e new p r o o f . To t h e same e f f e c t
i s Calaway v. J o n e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 624 P.2d 991, 38
St.Rep. 340, where d e l a y c a u s e d by a p a r t y ' s f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r
a t p r e t r i a l conference, together with h i s general unresponsive-
n e s s d u r i n g d i s c o v e r y was found s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y e n t r y
o f d e f a u l t judgment.
W affirm the t r i a l court's action.
e The d e n i a l was
w i t h i n t h e bounds of t h e c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n .
Because of o u r h o l d i n g on t h i s i s s u e , w e do n o t need t o
a d d r e s s d e f e n d a n t s ' i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g e r r o r i n t h e motions i n
l i m i n e , t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e
jury, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e t e c h n i c a l c o d e s i n t o e v i d e n c e ,
o r t h e i s s u e whether t h e c o d e s w e r e p r o p e r l y and v a l i d l y
a d o p t e d by t h e K a l i s p e l l C i t y Council. The e f f e c t of t h e
a d m i s s i o n s was t o c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h t h e m a t t e r s a d m i t t e d .
Rule 36 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.
B u f f a l o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t e c h n i c a l c o d e s s h o u l d have
been e x c l u d e d a s i r r e l e v a n t under t h e i r own t e r m s .
The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e Uniform B u i l d i n g Code,
1946 E d i t i o n , was i n f o r c e and e f f e c t when t h e b u i l d i n g was pur-
c h a s e d and r e n o v a t e d , and t h e code i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g pro-
vision:
"Any b u i l d i n g o r s t r u c t u r e which i s e n l a r g e d ,
a l t e r e d , r a i s e d , r e p a i r e d o r b u i l t upon t o a n
e x t e n t e x c e e d i n g e x p e n d i t u r e w i t h i n any f i v e
y e a r p e r i o d of 20 p e r c e n t of t h e v a l u e of t h e
b u i l d i n g o r s t r u c t u r e , s h a l l be made t o comply
w i t h a l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r f i r e r e s i s t a n c e of
a new b u i l d i n g o r s t r u c t u r e e r e c t e d i n F i r e Zone
.
- " S e c t i o n 1 6 0 2 ( d ) (Emphasis added. )
1.
There was t e s t i m o n y t h a t r e p a i r s t o t h e b u i l d i n g had
been made i n 1956 a t a c o s t of $205,000. The b u i l d i n g
i t s e l f was v a l u e d a t $450,000 t o $500,000. Therefore, the
code d i d a p p l y .
B u f f a l o f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e i n
t h e r e c o r d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g was l o c a t e d i n any
" F i r e Zone 1 . " However, t h a t was one of t h e f a c t s B u f f a l o
a d m i t t e d i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r ( R e q u e s t f o r Admission # 1 2
and answer t h e r e t o d a t e d August 27, 1 9 7 9 . ) T h a t was one o f
t h e a d m i s s i o n s which B u f f a l o moved t o amend on t h e e v e of
t r i a l , which motion was d e n i e d by t h e c o u r t . A s discussed
previously, t h e admission conclusively e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t f a c t
f o r t h e purpose of t r i a l . The code was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d .
B u f f a l o a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e o t h e r t e c h n i c a l c o d e s were
i r r e l e v a n t and t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n c a u s e d p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r .
The p l a i n t i f f s p r o v i d e d a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s a t t r i a l t o e s t a b l i s h
t h e r e l e v a n c y of t h e t e c h n i c a l codes. T h a t w i t n e s s had
e x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e c o n t e n t and a p p l i c a b i l i t y of
t h e codes. H i s t e s t i m o n y was u n c o n t r a d i c t e d by any o t h e r
evidence o r testimony. There was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e
r e c o r d f o r t h e i s s u e of t h e c o d e s ' a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o go t o
t h e jury. The codes w e r e p r o p e r l y r e c e i v e d i n t o e v i d e n c e .
111.
B u f f a l o a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e c o r d s of t h e K a l i s p e l l F i r e
Department ( P l a i n t i f f s ' E x h i b i t # 2 7 ) , m a t e r i a l s from t h e i n -
v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e f i r e , c o n s t i t u t e d h e a r s a y and s h o u l d have
been e x c l u d e d a s a whole. Again, however, B u f f a l o had
s t i p u l a t e d i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r , under S e c t i o n "E: ~dmission
of F a c t s and Documents R e q u i r i n g N F o u n d a t i o n o r p r o o f " a s
o
follows:
"1. R e p o r t of t h e K a l i s p e l l F i r e Department of
t h e f i r e of September 2 2 , 1976, t o g e t h e r w i t h
a l l p i c t u r e s and e x h i b i t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e r e p o r t . "
Because, i n t h $ p r e t r i a l o r d e r d a t e d August 1 5 , 1980, B u f f a l o
a g r e e d t o t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h o s e r e c o r d s a s r e q u i r i n g no found-
a t i o n o r p r o o f , B u f f a l o ' s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e r e p o r t a s h e a r s a y was
properly denied.
IV.
B u f f a l o a l l e g e s t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n g i v i n g one of
t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s , d e a l i n g w i t h c o n c u r r e n t
n e g l i g e n c e , and a l s o e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e t e n of B u f f a l o ' s
proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s . W f i n d no e r r o r .
e
P l a i n t i f f s ' i n s t r u c t i o n no. 7 was a s f o l l o w s :
"There may be more t h a n one p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of a n
i n j u r y . When n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t of two o r more
persons c o n t r i b u t e s concurrently a s proximate causes
of a n i n j u r y , t h e c o n d u c t of e a c h of s a i d p e r s o n s
i s a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y r e g a r d l e s s of
t h e e x t e n t t o which e a c h c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e i n j u r y .
A c a u s e i s c o n c u r r e n t i f i t was o p e r a t i v e a t t h e
moment of i n j u r y and a c t e d w i t h a n o t h e r c a u s e t o
produce t h e i n j u r y . I t i s no d e f e n s e t h a t t h e
n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t of a p e r s o n n o t j o i n e d a s a p a r t y
was a l s o a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y . "
There was e v i d e n c e b r o u g h t o u t a t t r i a l t o t h e e f f e c t
t h a t t h e f i r e s t a r t e d i n t h e rooms l e a s e d t o t h e F l a t h e a d
D e n t a l L a b o r a t o r y and t h a t i t was n e g l i g e n t . The i n s t r u c t i o n
i s f a i r l y d e s i g n e d t o m e e t a n i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e r e p o r t s of
t h e f i r e department.
Buffalo c i t e s e r r o r i n the c o u r t ' s f a i l i n g t o give i t s
o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n nos. I , 2 , 3, 4 , 5 , 6 , 8, 9, 1 and 13.
1
Nos. 1, 2 , 4 , 6 , 1 and 1 3 a r e n o t p r e s e n t e d w i t h any c i t a t i o n
1
o f a u t h o r i t y showing them t o be c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t s of t h e
law; B u f f a l o a l s o n e g l e c t s t o p o i n t t o e v i d e n c e i n t h e
record s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y giving the instructions. The
i n s t r u c t i o n s c i t e d a l l deal primarily with landlord/ tenant
law and t h e d u t i e s owed t h e r e u n d e r . The j u r y was a d e q u a t e l y
i n s t r u c t e d on b o t h common law n e g l i g e n c e and n e g l i g e n c e p e r
s e theories. The o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e r e p e t i t i o n s and
c o n f l i c t i n g , b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n o t d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e
two t h e o r i e s i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n . The g i v i n g of c o n f l i c t i n g
i n s t r u c t i o n s on a m a t e r i a l i s s u e h a s been h e l d t o b e re-
v e r s i b l e e r r o r by t h i s C o u r t . Bohrer v . C l a r k ( 1 9 7 8 ) , -
Mont. , 590 P.2d 117, 124, 35 St.Rep. 1878, 1887. Also,
repetitious instructions setting forth abstract principles
of law s h o u l d be a v o i d e d . O'Brien v. G r e a t N o r t h e r n Railway
Company ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 145 Mont. 1 3 , 2 2 , 400 P.2d 634, 639, c e r t . d e n .
( 1 9 6 7 ) , 387 U.S. 920, 87 S.Ct. 2034, 18 L.Ed.2d 974. The
t r i a l c o u r t properly refused the instructions.
B u f f a l o o b j e c t s t o t h e award of c e r t a i n c o s t s and of
prejudgment i n t e r e s t t o one of t h e p l a i n t i f f s .
The c o s t s t a t u t e i s s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA:
" C o s t s g e n e r a l l y a l l o w a b l e . A p a r t y t o whom
c o s t s a r e awarded i n a n a c t i o n i s e n t i t l e d t o
i n c l u d e i n h i s b i l l of c o s t s h i s n e c e s s a r y
disbursements, a s follows:
" ( 1 ) t h e l e g a l f e e s of w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g
m i l e a g e , o r r e f e r e e s and o t h e r o f f i c e r s ;
" ( 2 ) t h e e x p e n s e s of t a k i n g d e p o s i t i o n s ;
" ( 3 ) t h e l e g a l f e e s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n when p u b l i -
cation i s directed;
" ( 4 ) t h e l e g a l f e e s p a i d f o r f i l i n g and r e c o r d i n g
p a p e r s and c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s t h e r e o f n e c e s s a r i l y
used i n t h e a c t i o n o r on t h e t r i a l ;
" ( 5 ) t h e l e g a l f e e s paid stenographers f o r per
diem o r f o r c o p i e s ;
" ( 6 ) t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s of p r i n t i n g p a p e r s
f o r a h e a r i n g when r e q u i r e d by a r u l e of c o u r t ;
" ( 7 ) t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s of making t r a n s c r i p t
f o r t h e supreme c o u r t ;
" ( 8 ) t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s f o r making a map o r
maps i f r e q u i r e d and n e c e s s a r y t o be used on t r i a l
o r h e a r i n g ; and
" ( 9 ) such o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s
as a r e t a x a b l e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o u r s e and p r a c t i c e
of t h e c o u r t o r by e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n o f law."
B u f f a l o o b j e c t s t o t h e award of c o s t s f o r t e l e p h o n e
c h a r g e s ( $ 2 8 . 6 1 ) , photocopy c h a r g e s ($60.10) , e x h i b i t s , sup-
p l i e s and p h o t o g r a p h s ( $ 1 5 1 . 8 7 ) , e x p e r t w i t n e s s f e e s ( $ 1 5 0 0 ) ,
w i t n e s s f e e s i n e x c e s s of t e n d o l l a r s p e r day p l u s m i l e a g e
( $ 1 5 0 0 ) , t i t l e company c h a r g e s ($86.63) and m i s c e l l a n e o u s
c h a r g e s ($6.25) .
The p l a i n t i f f s s u b m i t t e d t h e i r memorandum of c o s t s on
A p r i l 28, 1980. They were awarded e v e r y t h i n g e x c e p t t h e
" d e p o s i t i o n s and t r a n s c r i p t s " i t e m , which was p u t a t $256.63,
and t h e i r r e q u e s t s f o r w i t n e s s f e e s were p a r e d t o $1500 from
$2,502.11 f o r e x p e r t f e e s and t o $1500 from $2,648.33 f o r
other witness fees. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on
t h e motion t o t a x c o s t s , a f t e r which i t s p e c i f i c a l l y found
t h e r e m a i n i n g i t e m s t o be r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y c o s t s
under s e c t i o n 25-10-201 ( 9 ) , MCA.
A v e r i f i e d memorandum of c o s t s and d i s b u r s e m e n t s i s
prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e i t e m s were n e c e s s a r i l y expended
and a r e p r o p e r l y t a x a b l e , u n l e s s , a s a m a t t e r of l a w , t h e y
a p p e a r o t h e r w i s e on t h e f a c e . The burden of overcoming t h i s
prima f a c i e c a s e r e s t s upon t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y . Gahagan v.
Gugler ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 100 Mont. 599, 607, 52 P.2d 150, 154. Buffalo
h a s f a i l e d t o c a r r y i t s burden of showing t h a t t h e i t e m s a r e
n o t r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y a s found by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
B u f f a l o p a r t i c u l a r l y o b j e c t s t o t h e $1,500 award f o r
"witness f e e s " , arguing t h a t i t c l e a r l y exceeds t h e t e n
d o l l a r s p e r day i n a t t e n d a n c e p l u s m i l e a g e a l l o w e d by s e c t i o n
26-2-501, MCA. However, t h e r u l i n g of t h e t r i a l judge on
t h i s i t e m d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e on what ground i t i s b a s e d , t h e
number of d a y s t h a t t h e w i t n e s s e s w e r e i n a t t e n d a n c e , o r t h e
amount of i n - s t a t e m i l e s t h e y t r a v e l e d . Under t h i s c o n d i t i o n ,
B u f f a l o ' s r a i s i n g of q u e s t i o n s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o c a r r y
i t s burden; "we c a n n o t s a y whether t h e i t e m of w i t n e s s f e e s
was p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d and we must t h e r e f o r e s u s t a i n t h e
r u l i n g of t h e t r i a l judge . . ." Broberg v . N o r t h e r n Pac.
Ry. Co. ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 120 Mont. 280, 303, 182 P.2d 8 5 1 , 863. W affirm
e
t h e award of c o s t s .
One of t h e p l a i n t i f f s was awarded i n t e r e s t f o r h e r
l o s s e s a s of t h e d a t e o f t h e f i r e . S e c t i o n 27-1-211, MCA,
provides as follows:
"Right t o i n t e r e s t . Every p e r s o n who i s e n t i t l e d
t o r e c o v e r damages c e r t a i n o r c a p a b l e of b e i n g made
c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n and t h e r i g h t t o r e c o v e r
which i s v e s t e d i n him upon a p a r t i c u l a r day i s en-
t i t l e d a l s o t o r e c o v e r i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n from t h a t
day e x c e p t d u r i n g such t i m e a s t h e d e b t o r i s p r e -
v e n t e d by law o r by t h e a c t of t h e c r e d i t o r from
paying t h e debt. "
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded prejudgment i n t e r e s t upon
motion of t h e p l a i n t i f f , a f t e r a h e a r i n g . The award was
based on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p e r t y
t h a t s h e l o s t i n t h e f i r e and t h e v a l u e of s u c h p r o p e r t y .
A s 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 c l a i m e d $43,917.15
f o r d e s t r u c t i o n of equipment, r e c o r d s , f u r n i t u r e and o t h e r
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t o g e t h e r w i t h l o s s of b u s i n e s s p r o f i t s .
A f t e r t h e t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s a s t o t h e v a l u e of t h e s e
various i t e m s , t h e j u r y awarded t h e f l a t sum of $25,000. We
do n o t f i n d t h a t t h i s p l a i n t i f f h a s shown damages c a p a b l e of
b e i n g made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n a s r e q u i r e d under t h e
statute. We, t h e r e f o r e , c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e o r d e r of prejudgment
i n t e r e s t t o p l a i n t i f f Conklin was i n e r r o r .
W a f f i r m t h e judgment w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n t h a t w e re-
e
v e r s e t h e award of prejudgment i n t e r e s t t o p l a i n t i f f Conklin.
/
Chief J u s t i c e
\