Gunnels v. Hoyt

No. 80-106
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981

RONALD L. GUNNELS,
Plaintiff and Appellant,

ROBIN W. HOYT and MICHAEL CHAPPEL BALSAM,
Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Flathead.
Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Terry N. Trieweiler, Whitefish, Montana
For Respondents:
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn & Phillips, Kalispell,
Montana

Submitted on briefs: April 22, 1981
Decided: September 9 , 1981
Filed: "EP
@-
- $I1981

IB
B Clerk
 M r . 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 .

P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment
e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d County. The j u r y found t h e d e f e n d a n t s

" [ n o t ] g u i l t y o f n e g l i g e n c e which was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of

P l a i n t i f f ' s claimed damages," and a l s o r e t u r n e d a s i m i l a r

v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f upon d e f e n d a n t H o y t ' s

counterclaim. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h e

defendants. Hoyt d o e s n o t c r o s s - a p p e a l .

P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s f o r review:

1. W s t h e r e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t
a

f o r the defendants?

2. Were d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s comments on e x c l u d e d e v i d e n c e

s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o w a r r a n t a r e v e r s a l of the v e r d i c t

f o r d e f e n d a n t s and a new t r i a l f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f ?

W a f f i r m t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment.
e

T h i s a c t i o n a r o s e o u t of a motor v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t which

o c c u r r e d on September 1 9 , 1977. P l a i n t i f f Ronald Gunnels

b r o u g h t s u i t a g a i n s t Robin Hoyt and Michael B a l s a m , a l l e g i n g

t h a t t h e i r n e g l i g e n c e had been t h e c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t
t h a t r e s u l t e d i n i n j u r y t o Gunnels. Hoyt c o u n t e r c l a i m e d

a g a i n s t Gunnels, a l l e g i n g t h a t s h e had s u s t a i n e d b o d i l y

i n j u r y a s a r e s u l t of Gunnels' n e g l i g e n c e . T r i a l w a s held
had been
i n September 1979. The j u r y found n e i t h e r d e f e n d a n t / g u i l t y

of n e g l i g e n c e which w a s t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s
c l a i m e d damages. Defendants were awarded c o s t s and d i s b u r s e -
; ments t o t a l i n g $103.25, P l a i n t i f f Gunnels a p p e a l s from t h e
v e r d i c t and judgment a g a i n s t him.
P l a i n t i f f Gunnels w a s d r i v i n g a 1972 Dodge h a l f - t o n

p i c k u p on September 1 9 , 1977. H e d r o v e i n t o t h e r e a r of a

1965 Volkswagen s e d a n i n t h e c o n t r o l of t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t
 a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11:30 p.m. The c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d on Montana
~ i g h w a y4 0 between Columbia F a l l s and W h i t e f i s h , a t a s p o t
2.9 m i l e s w e s t of Columbia F a l l s , i n t h e westbound l a n e

climbing "Dollar H i l l " .

The r o a d was w e t , and t h e r e was a s l i g h t m i s t o r d r i z z l e

i n t h e a i r a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . The n i g h t was ex-

t r e m e l y d a r k due t o t h e r a i n y c o n d i t i o n s and t h e wet a s p h a l t

road. The highway was o v e r 4 7 f e e t wide a t t h e s i t e , b u t

had no w h i t e s t r i p e o r " f o g l i n e " t o d e m a r c a t e t h e s h o u l d e r

a r e a and t o s e p a r a t e i t from t h e main roadway. Because t h e

p l a i n t i f f q u e s t i o n s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o

s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , we w i l l r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e .

According t o Hoyt and Balsam's t e s t i m o n i e s , Robin Hoyt

was d r i v i n g w e s t towards W h i t e f i s h , w i t h Balsam as a p a s -

s e n g e r , i n a f r i e n d ' s 1965 Volkswagen s e d a n . Approximately

t h r e e m i l e s w e s t of Columbia F a l l s , on " D o l l a r H i l l n , two

c a t s r a n across t h e road i n f r o n t of t h e c a r . Hoyt swerved

t o t h e r i g h t t o avoid h i t t i n g the c a t s ; she applied her

brakes t o s t o p t h e c a r b u t f o r g o t t o depress the c l u t c h

pedal, thereby causing t h e c a r t o s t a l l . The c a r s t o p p e d

o f f and t o t h e r i g h t of t h e m a i n - t r a v e l e d p o r t i o n of t h e

westbound l a n e a c c o r d i n g t o b o t h d e f e n d a n t s , a l t h o u g h t h e r e

was no s h o u l d e r s t r i p e , o r " f o g l i n e " , t o s e p a r a t e t h e

roadway from t h e s h o u l d e r a r e a .

The d e f e n d a n t s ' had had t r o u b l e s t a r t i n g t h e c a r e a r l i e r

due t o a weak b a t t e r y , and w e r e n o t a b l e t o s t a r t t h e c a r
again a f t e r s t a l l i n g . They a t t e m p t e d t o s t a r t i t by "popping

t h e c l u t c h " ; Balsam pushed t h e c a r backwards down the h i l l ,
w h i l e Hoyt remained i n t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t i n o r d e r t o l e t o u t

t h e c l u t c h while turning the i g n i t i o n . They e x e c u t e d t h i s

maneuver 12-15 t i m e s o v e r a p e r i o d of 15-20 m i n u t e s , w h i l e
 b a c k i n g down t h e h i l l 100-200 y a r d s . Both t e s t i f i e d t h a t

t h e y a t t e m p t e d t o keep t h e c a r a s c l o s e t o t h e r i g h t "west-

bound" edge of t h e highway a s p o s s i b l e , b u t t h a t Hoyt had

some d i f f i c u l t y i n s t e e r i n g backwards s t r a i g h t down t h e h i l l
and would swerve t o e i t h e r s i d e on o c c a s i o n . The c a r ' s

h e a d l i g h t s and t a i l l i g h t s were on t h r o u g h o u t t h e d e f e n d a n t s '

a t t e m p t s t o "pop t h e c l u t c h " .

During t h e above-described 15-20 m i n u t e p e r i o d , s e v e n

o r e i g h t c a r s approached t h e Volkswagen g o i n g up t h e h i l l i n

t h e westbound l a n e toward W h i t e f i s h ( t h e same d i r e c t i o n i n

which t h e d e f e n d a n t s had been t r a v e l i n g ) . Whenever a c a r

came toward them, Balsam would push t h e Volkswagen t o t h e

edge of t h e westbound l a n e , as f a r o u t of t h e roadway as

p o s s i b l e , and t h e n move t o t h e r e a r of t h e Volkswagen and

a t t e m p t t o warn t h e a p p r o a c h i n g c a r by means of waving and

shining a f l a s h l i g h t a t i t s windshield. The d e f e n d a n t s

t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l of t h e a p p r o a c h i n g d r i v e r s slowed p e r -

c e p t i b l y t o pass. One c a r even s t o p p e d .

A s p l a i n t i f f ' s t r u c k approached t h e Volkswagen from

t h e r e a r , Robin saw t h e l i g h t s of t h e t r u c k , and t o l d Balsam

of t h e v e h i c l e coming. She p l a c e d t h e c a r i n g e a r and

p u l l e d o u t t h e emergency b r a k e . Balsam walked t o t h e r e a r

of t h e Volkswagen and s t a r t e d s h i n i n g t h e f l a s h l i g h t a t t h e

w i n d s h i e l d of p l a i n t i f f ' s t r u c k . When p l a i n t i f f ' s t r u c k d i d

n o t slow down o r show any e v i d e n c e of p l a i n t i f f ' s having

s e e n them, Balsam r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was g o i n g t o

h i t them. Balsam y e l l e d a t Hoyt t o s t a y i n t h e c a r , and r a n

o f f i n t o t h e barrow p i t .

P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d h e never s a w Balsam o r t h e f l a s h -
l i g h t o r t h e Volkswagen p r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n . is t r u c k ,

however, l e f t 26 f e e t o f skidmarks i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e down
t h e r i g h t , westbound l a n e , t h e l e f t skidmark b e i n g a p p r o x i -

m a t e l y t h r e e f e e t from t h e c e n t e r l i n e . P l a i n t i f f had been

t r a v e l i n g 50-60 m i l e s p e r hour a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g

patrolman. The p a t r o l m a n a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t a d r i v e r

coming from e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n would have a n u n o b s t r u c t e d l i n e

of v i s i o n t o t h e s i t e of t h e a c c i d e n t f o r a d i s t a n c e of 500-

600 f e e t .

P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a complaint a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e defendants'

n e g l i g e n c e had c a u s e d t h e c o l l i s i o n and p r o x i m a t e l y r e s u l t e d

i n damages t o p l a i n t i f f i n t h e n a t u r e of m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s ,

p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , l o s s of e a r n i n g a b i l i t y , and i n p r o p e r t y

damage t o t h e t r u c k . The answer a d m i t t e d t h e c o l l i s i o n had

o c c u r r e d b u t d e n i e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s damages had been c a u s e d

by any n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of e i t h e r d e f e n d a n t . The

answer a l l e g e d t h a t any i n j u r i e s o r damages s u f f e r e d by t h e

p l a i n t i f f had been c a u s e d i n whole o r i n p a r t by h i s own

negligence.

J u r y t r i a l was h e l d i n September 1979. A t t h e c l o s e of

t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e , t h e p l a i n t i f f moved f o r a

d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t as t o l i a b i l i t y , arguing t h a t t h e defen-

d a n t s ' n e g l i g e n c e had been proved a s a matter of l a w . The

motion was d e n i e d . The j u r y r e t u r n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g v e r d i c t :

"SPECIAL VERDICT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM

"We, t h e j u r y , answer t h e q u e s t i o n s s u b m i t t e d t o
u s i n t h i s S p e c i a l V e r d i c t as f o l l o w s :

"QUESTION NO. 1: Were t h e f o l l o w i n g named Defendants,
o r e i t h e r o f Them, g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n c e which w a s
t h e proximate c a u s e of P l a i n t i f f ' s claimed damages?

"ANSWER: Robin Hoyt Yes No X
Michael B a l s a m Yes No X I'

The j u r y was t h e n p o l l e d , and a l l 1 2 a g r e e d w i t h t h e v e r d i c t .
Judgment upon t h e c o m p l a i n t was e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e

defendants.
 I.
Plaintiff's f i r s t i s s u e d i s p u t e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of
t h e evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . I n c o n s i d e r i n g the

s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e , w e a p p l y a l i m i t e d s t a n d a r d of

review. Where a f a c t i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e a c o u r t

s i t t i n g with a jury, and t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o

support t h e jury v e r d i c t , t h e v e r d i c t w i l l stand. Matter of

E s t a t e of Holm ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , 588 P. 2d 531, 533,

36 S t - R e p . 11, 1 3 (and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n ) .

W e r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o

the prevailing party. W e w i l l r e v e r s e o n l y where t h e r e i s a

l a c k of s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment. Ground-

w a t e r v . Wright ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. -, 588 P.2d 1003, 1004,

36 St.Rep. 4 1 , 42; Holm, 588 P.2d 532, 36 St.Rep. 14.

Evidence may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and s t i l l be deemed

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

evidence. Matter of E s t a t e of Holm, s u p r a .

I f t h e r e i s c o n f l i c t i n g evidence i n t h e record, t h e

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

t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y and n o t t h i s C o u r t . Holm; Cameron;

I n Re C a r r o l l ' s E s t a t e ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 59 Mont. 403, 41-3, 196 P. 996,

998.

I f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record t o support

t h e f i n d i n g of t h e j u r y , t h e n w e must s u s t a i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s

a c t i o n i n denying t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r -

dict. B u t l e r Manufacturing Co. v . J & L Implement Co. (1975),

167 Mont. 519, 529, 540 P.2d 962, 968.

P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t where

a n a u t o m o b i l e c o l l i s i o n i s caused by t h e v i o l a t i o n of a motor
v e h i c l e s t a t u t e , a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s h o u l d be e n t e r e d a g a i n s t

t h e p a r t y who v i o l a t e d t h e l a w upon t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y ,
and o n l y t h e i s s u e of damages s h o u l d be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e trier

of f a c t . Such a n argument i s one of n e g l i g e n c e p e r se.

The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d upon t h r e e s t a t u t e s a l l e g e d t o

have been v i o l a t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e t i m e of t h e

accident. Former s e c t i o n 32-2199, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n

61-8-353, MCA, a s t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d , p r o v i d e s i n p a r t :

"Upon any highway ... no p e r s o n s h a l l s t o p , p a r k ,
o r l e a v e s t a n d i n g any v e h i c l e , whether a t t e n d e d o r
u n a t t e n d e d , upon t h e paved o r main t r a v e l e d p a r t
of t h e highway when i t i s p r a c t i c a l t o s t o p , p a r k ,
o r s o l e a v e such v e h i c l e o f f of s u c h p a r t of s a i d
highway, b u t i n e v e r y e v e n t , a n u n o b s t r u c t e d w i d t h
of t h e highway o p p o s i t e a s t a n d i n g v e h i c l e s h a l l b e
l e f t f o r t h e f r e e passage of o t h e r vehicles. No
p e r s o n s h a l l s t o p , s t a n d , o r p a r k any v e h i c l e on
such highway u n l e s s s u c h v e h i c l e c a n be s e e n by t h e
d r i v e r o f any o t h e r v e h i c l e a p p r o a c h i n g from e i t h e r
d i r e c t i o n w i t h i n f i v e hundred f e e t and u n l e s s
d r i v e r s a p p r o a c h i n g from o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s a r e
v i s i b l e t o e a c h o t h e r when b o t h a r e a t l e a s t f i v e
hundred f e e t from t h e v e h i c l e t o be s t o p p e d , t u r n e d ,
o r p a r k e d , e x c e p t i n c a s e s of j u s t i f i a b l e emergency."

Former s e c t i o n 32-21-118, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 61-9-

204, MCA, a s t h e jury i n s t r u c t e d , provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

"Every motor v e h i c l e , ... s h a l l be equipped
w i t h a t l e a s t o n e t a i l lamp mounted on t h e r e a r
which, when l i g h t e d a s r e q u i r e d , s h a l l e m i t a
r e d l i g h t p l a i n l y v i s i b l e from a d i s t a n c e of
f i v e hundred f e e t t o t h e rear .. ."
Former s e c t i o n 32-21-104, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n 61-

8-358, MCA, a s t h e j u r y w h s i n s t r u c t e d , p r o v i d e s t h a t :

"The d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e s h a l l n o t back t h e s a m e
u n l e s s such movement c a n be made w i t h r e a s o n a b l e
s a f e t y and w i t h o u t i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h o t h e r t r a f f i c . "
I n o r d e r t o prove negligence p e r s e , t h e p l a i n t i f f w a s

required t o prove t h a t t h e defendants neglected a duty

imposed upon them by s t a t u t e . W i l l i a m s v. Maley ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 150

Mont. 261, 267, 434 P.2d 398, 4 0 1 ; Conway v. Monidah T r u s t

CO. ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 47 Mont. 269, 278, 132 P. 26, 27. In pertinent

p a r t , s e c t i o n 61-8-353, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t no p e r s o n s h a l l

s t o p o r l e a v e s t a n d i n g any v e h i c l e upon t h e main t r a v e l e d
p a r t o f t h e highway when i t i s p r a c t i c a l t o s t o p o r l e a v e s u c h

v e h i c l e o f f of s u c h p a r t of s a i d highway. What i s " p r a c t i c a l "
i n any s i t u a t i o n c l e a r l y depends upon a l l o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g

f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . See Lyndes v. S c o f i e l d ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,

- -,
Mont. 589 P.2d 1000, 1 0 0 2 , 36 St.Rep. 185, 188.

Q u e s t i o n s of f a c t a r e f o r t h e j u r y t o r e s o l v e , and s h o u l d

n o t be t a k e n from t h e j u r y when r e a s o n a b l e men m i g h t draw

d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e e v i d e n c e . Heen v . T i d d y '

( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 265, 269, 4 4 2 P.2d 434, 436. I n looking

a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ,

we f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s c o u l d have s t o p p e d t h e Volkswagen

c l o s e r t o t h e r i g h t edge of t h e pavement and f u r t h e r o f f t h e

main t r a v e l e d a r e a ; b u t w e a l s o f i n d t h a t t h e weather c o n d i -

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

head l i g h t s and t a i l l i g h t s , and t h e u s e o f t h e f l a s h l i g h t

by t h e d e f e n d a n t t o warn a p p r o a c h i n g d r i v e r s , a l l b e a r upon

t h e q u e s t i o n of p r a c t i c a l i t y . This Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b

t h e j u r y ' s determination if t h e e v i d e n c e f u r n i s h e s rea-

s o n a b l e grounds f o r d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s . Payne v . Sorenson

(1979) I -Mont. -, 599 P.2d 362, 365, 36 S t . Rep. 1610,

1613. W do n o t f i n d a v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 61-8-353,
e MCA,

a s a m a t t e r of law.

P l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were n e g l i g e n t

p e r se i n v i o l a t i n g s e c t i o n 61-9-204, MCA, t h e t a i l lamp

s t a t u t e . The e v i d e n c e showed t h a t t h e Volkswagen's b a t t e r y

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

b u t a l s o showed t h a t t h e t a i l l i g h t s o f t h e c a r w e r e on a t
t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . W e c a n n o t c o n c l u d e a s a matter o f

law t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s v i o l a t e d t h i s s e c t i o n . There i s a

q u e s t i o n o f f a c t f o r t h e j u r y t o r e s o l v e which s h o u l d n o t b e

t a k e n from t h e j u r y where r e a s o n a b l e men m i g h t draw d i f -

f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s , Heen.
 S e c t i o n 61-8-358, MCA, i s t h e backing s t a t u t e . While
t h e d e f e n d a n t s had been backing t h e Volkswagen a t a n e a r l i e r
t i m e , t h e Volkswagen was s t a t i o n a r y a t t h e t i m e of t h e

collision. A q u e s t i o n may be r a i s e d a s t o whether t h e

backing s t a t u t e should apply. I n a d d i t i o n , under t h e s t a t u t e

a d e t e r m i n a t i o n was r e q u i r e d a s t o whether o r n o t t h e move-

ment of backing c o u l d be made w i t h r e a s o n a b l e s a f e t y and

without i n t e r f e r i n g with other t r a f f i c . Again w e c o n c l u d e
t h a t t h e r e was n o t a v i o l a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e as a m a t t e r of

law, and t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s of f a c t a r e f o r t h e j u r y t o

resolve.

W f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support a determination
e

t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t b r e a c h any of t h e d u t i e s imposed
by t h e above c i t e d s t a t u t e s .
11.

P l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s on common l a w n e g l i g e n c e grounds

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

d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t b r e a c h t h e d u t y of c a r e owed t o t h e
plaintiff .
I t was up t o t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e whether t h e d e f e n d a n t

had e x e r c i s e d t h e o r d i n a r y c a r e r e q u i r e d of a r e a s o n a b l e and
p r u d e n t p e r s o n under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y

instructed. P l a i n t i f f a s s i g n s no e r r o r t o any i n s t r u c t i o n s .

S u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports the v e r d i c t i n t h i s regard
when viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s : t h e

d e f e n d a n t s a t t e m p t e d t o keep o u t of t h e roadway a s much a s
p o s s i b l e , l e f t t h e Volkswagen's l i g h t s b u r n i n g , and a t t e m p t e d
t o warn a p p r o a c h i n g cars by waving a f l a s h l i g h t a t them; t h e

d r i v e r s of seven o r e i g h t c a r s saw t h e d e f e n d a n t s and slowed
down t o p a s s p r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n . The j u r y c o u l d r e a -

sonably conclude t h a t such a c t i o n s had f u l f i l l e d t h e d u t y

t o e x e r c i s e o r d i n a r y care.
 The p l a i n t i f f a r g u e d t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e Volkswagen

was less v i s i b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t h a n i t had been t o t h e

previous approaching c a r s , f o r t h e reasons t h a t , by t h e

t i m e t h e p l a i n t i f f approached, t h e Volkswagen was f a r t h e r
o u t i n t h e roadway, was c l o s e r t o t h e c u r v e around which i t

f i r s t became v i s i b l e , and was less w e l l l i g h t e d due t o

f u r t h e r d i s c h a r g e of t h e b a t t e r y . These were a l l f a c t u a l

arguments which t h e j u r y c o u l d a c c e p t o r r e j e c t , and where

s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e defendants' favor e x i s t s , w e

w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e judgment.

111.

One of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s and framed i n

t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r was whether t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n s had

proximately caused p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r y . W find substantial
e

evidence t o support a determination t h a t they d i d not.

The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d a b o u t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s d u t y t o

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

r a t e of speed no g r e a t e r t h a n i s r e a s o n a b l e and p r o p e r under

t h e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s ( s e c t i o n 61-8-303, MCA, f o r m e r l y
s e c t i o n 32-2144, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) , and h i s d u t y t o s e e t h a t

which h e c o u l d have s e e n by k e e p i n g a p r o p e r l o o k o u t .

P l a i n t i f f a s s i g n s no e r r o r t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s . There i s

s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support a conclusion t h a t t h e plain-

t i f f ' s i n j u r y w a s p r o x i m a t e l y caused by h i s own a c t i o n s , and

n o t by any n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t s .

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

have had s e v e r a l c a u s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t t h e

p l a i n t i f f was t r a v e l i n g t o o f a s t and n o t k e e p i n g a p r o p e r

lookout. Testimony by a p l a i n t i f f t h a t he d i d n o t see
a n o t h e r v e h i c l e p r i o r t o h i t t i n g i t h a s p r e v i o u s l y been

r e c o g n i z e d a s e v i d e n c e of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s own n e g l i g e n c e
 s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t . Bernhard

v. L i n c o l n County ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 150 Mont. 557, 561, 437 P.2d 377,

380. Having reviewed t h e e v i d e n c e and concluded i t i s

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

i n q u i r y on t h i s i s s u e i s ended.

P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s of misconduct by

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , t h e most s e r i o u s b e i n g t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l

made improper comments upon and r e f e r e n c e s t o excluded

e v i d e n c e , which i n d i c a t e d t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was

concealing evidence.

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

r e c o r d s of a D r . K i l e y , who had been t h e f i r s t p h y s i c i a n t o

examine t h e p l a i n t i f f a f t e r t h e c o l l i s i o n . Dr. Kiley w a s

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

order a s a witness t o be c a l l e d a t t r i a l . The d e f e n s e c o u l d

n o t l o c a t e D r . K i l e y , and a t t e m p t e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e a c c u r a c y

of t h e r e c o r d s by c a l l i n g a n employee of t h e d o c t o r . The

employee w a s n o t f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e r e c o r d s o r t h e d o c t o r ' s

record keeping procedure; t h e r e c o r d s were excluded upon

o b j e c t i o n by t h e p l a i n t i f f . During t h e argument r e g a r d i n g

a d m i s s i b i l i t y , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l spoke a s f o l l o w s :

"THE COURT: I h a v e n ' t s e e n t h e r e c o r d s . I don't
know what s h e i s g o i n g t o t e s t i f y t o . A s I i n -
d i c a t e , I am concerned t h a t t h e d o c t o r i s n ' t h e r e
t o e x p l a i n t h i n g s , make s u r e n o t h i n g h a s been l e f t
out.

" [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : Your Honor, t h a t o f course-- I
have m c a s e , t h e c l a i m a n t h a s h i s .
y And i f h e
wants t o be s u r e t h a t n o t h i n g h a s been l e f t o u t ,
he c o u l d c a l l t h e t r e a t i n g d o c t o r . I would have
c a l l e d him. I c o u l d n ' t g e t him. But a s i t i s , I
want t h i s p o r t i o n . P l a i n t i f f had t h e same chance
t h a t I did.

" [ P l a i n t i f f ' s C o u n s e l ] : Your Honor, I d o n ' t have t o c a l l
somebody who h a s no i n f o r m a t i o n t o o f f e r , and I
d o n ' t have t o s i t h e r e and l e t h a l f of t h e inform-
a t i o n go i n b e c a u s e he d i d n ' t a s k him ahead of
time.
 "THE COURT: I am concerned a b o u t t h e l a c k of c r o s s
examination, s o I w i l l s u s t a i n t h e o b j e c t i o n . "
( T r . p. 408)

L a t e r , d u r i n g t h e c l o s i n g argument, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l

made r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r e c o r d s :

"Now, what a b o u t D r . K i l e y ? There i s a n i n s t r u c t i o n
t h a t i s on a l l f o u r ' s on t h a t . I want t o r e a d i t
t o you. And i t i s C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n number 23 and
24. 'Evidence c o n s i d e r e d n o t o n l y by i t s o n l y i n -
t r i n s i c weight, b u t according t o t h e evidence w i t h i n
t h e power o f one s i d e t o produce and t h e o t h e r t o
c o n t r a d i c t . And t h a t i f weaker and less s a t i s f a c t o r y
e v i d e n c e i s o f f e r e d , when i t a p p e a r s t h a t s t r o n g e r
and more s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e c o u l d have been pro-
duced, t h e e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be viewed w i t h d i s t r u s t .

"24, ' I f a p a r t y h a s f a i l e d t o produce a w i t n e s s
w i t h i n h i s power t o produce, you may, i f you see
f i t , i n f e r from t h a t , t h a t i f you a r e g i v e n t h e
t e s t i m o n y of such w i t n e s s i t would n o t have been
favorable t o such p a r t y . ' And t h e n i t g o e s on t o
s a y t h a t depends on whether he was a v a i l a b l e t o
both sides.

"Now, you know t h a t I subpoenaed t h e r e c o r d s of D r .
K i l e y . Now, l a i d e s [ s i c ] and gentlemen, I d o n ' t
t h i n k t h a t t h a t i s my d u t y . I am t h e d e f e n d a n t
i n t h i s case. I am n o t t h e one t h a t s h o u l d b r i n g
i n p l a i n t i f f ' s t r e a t i n g d o c t o r s . And I b e l i e v e t h a t
was t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s d u t y . And I b e l i e v e t h a t he
s h o u l d have b r o u g h t them i n . But I subpoenaed t h e
r e c o r d s , and I t r i e d t o g e t t h e r e c o r d s f o r you.
And now t h e C o u r t h a s t o l d you t h a t you c a n b e l i e v e
a s men and women what you would b e l i e v e a s j u r o r s .
Now, as men and women you may b e l i e v e t h a t t h o s e
r e c o r d s of D r . K i l e y , and D r . K i l e y ' s testimony--

" [ P l a i n t i f f ' s Counsel] : I am g o i n g t o o b j e c t , Your Honor,
T h a t i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n , which
i s t h a t he i s n o t t o comment on why t h e C o u r t made
a r u l i n g , b e c a u s e t h e y don' t know. And he c a n ' t
t e l l them. H e i s only misleading t h e jury r i g h t
now.

"THE COURT: I d o n ' t t h i n k your c o n c l u s i o n i s c o r -
r e c t , M r . Heckathorn. Go ahead.

"[Defense Counsel]: ... [Ylou may c o n c l u d e , i f you
w i s h , under t h e C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n number 25,
t h a t t h a t t e s t i m o n y would be u n f a v o r a b l e t o t h e
plaintiff . And I t h i n k t h e p l a i n t i f f had t h e
o b l i g a t i o n of b r i n g i n g t h a t w i t n e s s i n t o you and
l e t t i n g D r . K i l e y t e l l you a b o u t h i s c o n d i t i o n . "
( T r . p ~ 519-20)
.

P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h e two s t a t e m e n t s by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l

i m p l i e d t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was a t t e m p t i n g t o
c o n c e a l e v i d e n c e , and i m p r o p e r l y commented upon t h e c o u r t ' s
reasons f o r excluding evidence. W e do n o t a g r e e .

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

i m p l y i n g a concealment of e v i d e n c e ; he was r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e

c o u r t ' s q u e s t i o n of c o n c e r n t h a t t h e r e c o r d s might n o t be

complete. Defense c o u n s e l answered t h a t i f t h e p l a i n t i f f

b e l i e v e d something was l e f t o u t , he c o u l d c a l l t h e d o c t o r as

a w i t n e s s and f i n d o u t . There i s no b a s i s t o compare t h a t

s t a t e m e n t w i t h t h e one made i n Ralph v. MacMarr S t o r e s ( 1 9 3 6 ) ,

1 0 3 Mont. 4 2 1 , 436, 62 P.2d 1285, 1291, where c o u n s e l s t a t e d ,

" I f I c a n p r e v e n t i t you a r e n o t g o i n g t o h i d e t h i s l a d y ' s

c a s e from t h i s C o u r t and J u r y . "

When r e a d i n c o n t e x t , t h e second i n s t a n c e shows t h a t

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was commenting upon t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e

t o c a l l D r . Kiley o r t o provide h i s records, within t h e

c o n t e x t of t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 24. Counsel was

i n t e r r u p t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s o b j e c t i o n i n m i d s e n t e n c e , and

a s a r e s u l t , was m i s u n d e r s t o o d . He was n o t s a y i n g t h e j u r y

c o u l d b e l i e v e t h e r e c o r d s and D r . K i l e y ' s t e s t i m o n y ; o b v i o u s l y ,

s u c h would have been i m p o s s i b l e . He was s a y i n g t h e j u r y

c o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e , i f produced, would have

been f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s b u t was i n t e r r u p t e d b e f o r e

he c o u l d f i n i s h . P l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t a s s i g n any e r r o r t o t h e

instruction i t s e l f .

The o n l y r e f e r e n c e i n t h e second example which m i g h t

have been improper i s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he
had subpoenaed t h e r e c o r d s , and t r i e d t o g e t them i n .

P e r h a p s t h a t d i d comment upon t h e c o u r t ' s e x c l u s i o n a r y

ruling. But t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 1 a d e q u a t e l y warned

t h e j u r y n o t t o draw any i n f e r e n c e s from r u l i n g s on e v i d e n c e ,
n o t t o c o n s i d e r r e j e c t e d e v i d e n c e , and n o t t o c o n j e c t u r e o r
draw any i n f e r e n c e s a s t o what a n answer m i g h t have been, o r

a s t o t h e r e a s o n behind any o b j e c t i o n , Improper argument

r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l o n l y when p r e j u d i c e h a s r e s u l t e d which

prevents a f a i r t r i a l . Vogel v. F e t t e r L i v e s t o c k Co. (1964),

1 4 4 Mont. 127, 1 3 9 , 394 P.2d 766, The j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y i n -

structed. W c a n n o t s a y t h a t any p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t e d t o t h e
e

plaintiff.

W f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e j u r y ' s
e

v e r d i c t when t h e r e c o r d i s viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e

t o the defendants. W e a l s o f i n d no m i s c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t

of t h e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h a t amounts t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . We

a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .

W concur:
e

% Chief ~ u ~ t ~? c e & _ D
C ~ & J s Q

Justice

Mr. J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea d i s s e n t s and w i l l f i l e h i s w r i t t e n
dissent a t a later t i m e .