No. 83-477
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1984
PAUL AND BERNICE M. WILHEIM,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
CITY OF GREAT FALLS, STATE OF
MONTANA, et al.
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade,
The Honorable John McCarvel, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
James, Gray & McCafferty; Dennis McCafferty argued,
Great Falls, Montana
For Respondents:
Cannon and Sheehy; Edmond Sheehy argued, Helena,
Montana
-- -
Submitted: June 8, 1984
Decided: Aagust 6, 1984
Filed: 4ej;e ,
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
This case arises as an appeal from an order of the
Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, granting
respondents' motion for a new trial following a jury verdict
in a nuisance action. The jury returned a verdict finding
respondents ninety percent comparatively negligent for
damages and appellants ten percent negligent. The court
determined that insufficient evidence existed to support the
jury's verdict and that it was contrary to law. We affirm.
The facts giving rise to this case are set forth as
follows: the City of Great Falls has operated a city dump
continuously in the same location since the 1950's. Before
1969, appellants openly burned garbage at the dump site. In
1973, respondents purchased property located on the Missouri
River about one mile east of the dump site. Respondents
then spent about $125,000 to build a home on the property.
They visited the property a few times prior to the purchase.
Respondents acknowledged, at the time of the purchase,
that they were aware the City operated the dump about one
mile from their property. At the time of the purchase the
City operated a garbage shredder that apparently reduced
blowing litter problems. Respondents testified prior to
1977 they neither noticed nor suffered any problems caused
by the dump. Only once, prior to 1977, did they observe any
Litter blown onto their property.
In 1977 the City employees operating the dump went on
strike. During the strike, someone set fire to the dump.
This fire burned a considerable portion of the dump and
created great amounts of smoke and stench. The fire
t r i g g e r e d many s u b t e r r a n e a n f i r e s t h a t c o n t i n u e d t o b u r n f o r
the following two years. Respondents' home, located
downwind f r o m t h e dump, s u f f e r e d damages d u e t o t h e smoke.
Following the strike, the City quit operating the
garbage shredder. L i t t e r began t o blow o n t o r e s p o n d e n t s '
property. For t h e two y e a r s t h e s u b t e r r a n e a n f i r e s b u r n e d ,
t h e C i t y t r i e d many m e t h o d s t o c o n t r o l t h e f i r e s . The C i t y
f i n a l l y e x t i n g u i s h e d t h e f i r e s by d i g g i n g up t h e d e b r i s a n d
h o s i n g i t down. T h i s p r o c e s s a l s o c a u s e d smoke t o t r a v e l
over respondents' property.
Respondents p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t i n 1981 t h e i r w e l l
w a t e r became c o n t a m i n a t e d . They c o n t e n d e d i n t h e s p r i n g t h e
runoff o f w a t e r f r o m t h e dump c a u s e d c o n t a m i n a t i o n t o t h e
g r o u n d w a t e r on t h e i r p r o p e r t y . They c o n t e n d e d t h i s p r o b l e m
never occurred prior to that time. Appellants submitted
e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e w e l l w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n c o u l d have been
c a u s e d by r e s p o n d e n t s ' s e p t i c s y s t e m .
Respondents also presented evidence that the City
deposited sewage sludge at the dump site. Respondents
complained of times when the City failed to cover the
sludge, thereby creating a stench.
In a p r e t r i a l order, the court granted respondents'
motion in limine to preclude any assumption of the risk
instructions t o the jury. The c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t t h e j u r y
could only decide the matter on a comparative negligence
basis. The c o u r t p e r m i t t e d a p p e l l a n t t o a r g u e a s s u m p t i o n of
the risk as a basis for respondents' portion of the
n e g l i g e n c e t h a t c a u s e d t h e damages.
The jury returned a verdict on the nuisance action
that found respondents ninety percent negligent and
appellants ten percent negligent and awarded respondents
$30,000 in damages. The jury also returned a verdict
f i n d i n g no i n v e r s e c o n d e m n a t i o n by t h e a p p e l l a n t . The c o u r t
then ordered a new trial, for a finding that the facts
f a i l e d t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t a n d t h a t i t was c o n t r a r y t o
law.
A p p e l l a n t s r a i s e two i s s u e s o n a p p e a l :
(1) Did the District Court err in granting
r e s p o n d e n t s t m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l ?
( 2 ) S h o u l d t h e c a s e b e remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f o r t h e taxing of costs?
Appellants f i r s t argue t h a t t h e f a c t s c l e a r l y provide
a basis for the jury's d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t respondents were
ninety percent contributorily negligent. Appellants claim
the jury simply found that a p p e l l a n t s were negligent by
b u i l d i n g t h e i r h o u s e n e a r t h e c i t y dump and c o u l d e x p e c t t h e
problems t h a t occurred. W disagree.
e In the instant case,
we b e l i e v e t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y o r d e r e d a new t r i a l . We find
no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e t r i a l judge in
o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l .
This Court w i l l not disturb a trial court's ruling
regarding motions for a new trial in the absence of a
showing of an a b u s e o f discretion. Brothers v. Town o f
Virginia City (1976), 1 7 1 Mont. 352, 558 P.2d 464. "A
D i s t r i c t Court h a s broad a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t o r deny motions
f o r a new t r i a l . " Lyndes v. S c o f i e l d ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 1 7 7 ,
589 P.2d 1000; Brothers, supra. If there exists
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , then it
must be s u s t a i n e d . Lyndes, s u p r a ; B r o t h e r s , s u p r a .
I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e w e hold t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court
d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l . The
e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t which f o u n d t h e
respondents ninety percent negligent. The jury found
a p p e l l a n t s were t h e proximate cause of t h e n u i s a n c e which
i n c l u d e d s t e n c h from u n c o v e r e d s e w a g e , smoke f r o m f i r e s a t
t h e dump, u n c o n f i n e d l i t t e r and g r o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n .
Appellants argue t h a t respondents acted negligently i n
l o c a t i n g t h e i r h o u s e o n e m i l e f r o m t h e dump. Because t h e
parties failed to raise the i s s u e on a p p e a l , we w i l l not
c o n s i d e r t h e t h e o r i e s of a s s u m p t i o n of r i s k o r coming t o t h e
nuisance.
W need n o t d e a l w i t h a p p e l l a n t s ' second i s s u e b e c a u s e
e
it was c o n t i n g e n t upon r e v e r s a l o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
W e a f f i r m t h e order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
W concur:
e
-
Chief J u s t i c e
(&c/l/l%~%--
Honorable Robert M. H o l t e r ,
D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n
p l a c e of Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C .
Sheehy.