Ballantyne v. Anaconda Co.

No. 13768
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1978

GEORGE GRANT BALLANTVNE, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
-vs-
THE ANACONDA COMPANY,
Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,
Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Williams and Holland, Butte, Montana
D. L. Holland argued, Butte, Montana
For Respondents:
Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana
James H. Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: January 20, 1978
~ecided
: FEB 3 - 1978
Filed: iEB 3-
M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court:

Defendant The Anaconda Company appeals from an o r d e r of t h e

D i s t r i c t Court, J e f f e r s o n County, g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l t o

p l a i n t i f f s George Grant Ballantyne, George W. Ballantyne, and

Evelyn Christensen Peterson, d/b/a Cloverdale Apiaries. For

reasons h e r e i n a f t e r s e t f o r t h we remand t h i s cause t o t h e

D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r consideration.

P l a i n t i f f s brought t h i s a c t i o n seeking compensatory and

exemplary damages from The Anaconda Company f o r l o s s e s s u f f e r e d

a t p l a i n t i f f s ' commercial honeybee operation located near

Whitehall, Montana. P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d t h e i r bees were poisoned

a s a r e s u l t of gas and p a r t i c u l a t e emissions from t h e company's

Anaconda, Montana copper smelting operation. The s u i t was based

on p r i v a t e nuisance, s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y and negligence t h e o r i e s .

The cause was t r i e d before a j u r y on September 21, 1976.

The j u r y returned a v e r d i c t i n favor of t h e company on September

30, 1976. Judgment was entered on October 5 and on October 15

p l a i n t i f f s moved f o r a new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s urged t h r e e grounds

i n support of t h e i r motion: 1 ) I n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support

t h e v e r d i c t , 2) l e g a l e r r o r s including t h e admission i n t o evidence

of a l e t t e r a l l e g e d t o be a settlement o f f e r and t h e s t r i k i n g of

p l a i n t i f f s ' claim a s t o one of t h e i r bee yards, and 3) p r e j u d i c i a l

suprise a t the t r i a l .

By o r d e r dated December 16, 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted

p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a new t r i a l . The o r d e r comprises a s i n g l e

sentence. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n of t h e grounds upon which t h e

new t r i a l was granted and no explanation of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s

decision.
 A s presented, t h e i s s u e f o r review i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t

Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . Due t o t h e

D i s t r i c t Court's f a i l u r e t o s p e c i f y any grounds f o r i t s r u l i n g ,

however, t h a t c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n w i l l n o t be

reviewed a t t h i s time.

Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ,P., provides:

"Any o r d e r of t h e c o u r t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l ,
s h a l l s p e c i f y t h e grounds t h e r e f o r with s u f f i c i e n t
p a r t i c u l a r i t y a s t o a p p r i s e t h e p a r t i e s and t h e
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e r a t i o n a l e underlying t h e
r u l i n g , and t h i s may be done i n t h e body of t h e
o r d e r , o r i n an a t t a c h e d opinion. 1 1

This r u l e was adopted pursuant t o Supreme Court p r d e r and

has been i n e f f e c t s i n c e March 1, 1976. I n i t s note t o t h e

amendment which added t h i s requirement t o ~ o n t a n a ' sprocedural

r u l e s , t h e Advisory Committee s t a t e d :

"[This] amendment *** i s f o r t h e express
purpose of narrowing t h e i s s u e s on appeal and
obviating t h e need t o read t h e e n t i r e record on
appeal t o f i n d t h e r a t i o n a l e underlying t h e t r i a l
court' s ruling. * * *"
By n o t complying with t h i s requirement t h e D i s t r i c t Court has

placed t h i s Court i n t h e p r e c i s e p o s i t i o n Rule 5 9 ( f ) seeks t o

avoid. Not only t h i s Court, b u t t h e l i t i g a n t s a s w e l l a r e

compelled t o consider t h e record with r e s p e c t t o every ground

i n i t i a l l y urged by p l a i n t i f f s i n support of t h e i r motion, a s

though t h e D i s t r i c t Court had found equal merit i n each. Where,

a s h e r e , t h e t r i a l involved complex m a t t e r s and included exten-

s i v e testimony and s e v e r a l independent grounds have been a s s e r t e d

f o r a new t r i a l , e l a b o r a t i o n by the c o u r t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l

i s e s p e c i a l l y important.

I n t h i s context requirements of s p e c i f i c i t y a r e imposed a t

each s t a g e of the j u d i c i a l process. Under Rule 5 9 ( a ) , M.R.Civ,P.,
a p a r t y moving f o r a new t r i a l must " s t a t e with p a r t i c u l a r i t y "

t h e grounds f o r t h a t motion. The motion properly may be denied

when t h e movant f a i l s t o comply with t h a t requirement. Halsey v.

Uithof, (1975), 166 Mont. 319, 326, 532 P.2d 686. Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.

R.Civ.P., mandates s p e c i f i c i t y on t h e p a r t of a D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t i n g

such a motion. W n o t e t h i s Court i s s i m i l a r l y constrained.
e

Section 93-212, R.C.M. 1947, provides:

"In t h e determination of causes, a l l d e c i s i o n s
of t h e supreme c o u r t must be given i n w r i t i n g ,
and t h e grounds of t h e d e c i s i o n must be s t a t e d , and
each j u s t i c e agreeing o r concurring with t h e d e c i s i o n
must s o i n d i c a t e by signing t h e d e c i s i o n . Any j u s t i c e
disagreeing with a d e c i s i o n must s o i n d i c a t e by a
written dissent .I1

I t i s manifestly f a i r f o r a l l concerned t o r e q u i r e a t r i a l

l e v e l c o u r t t o s e t out i t s reasons f o r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . The

purpose and f u n c t i o n of such a w r i t t e n "opinion" may vary from

case t o c a s e , but g e n e r a l l y t h e following c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , a s

expressed i n The S t a t e T r i a l Judge's Book, published under t h e

sponsorship of t h e National Conference of S t a t e T r i a l Judges

and t h e J o i n t Committee f o r t h e E f f e c t i v e Administration of

J u s t i c e , West Publishing Co., S t . Paul, Minn., 1965, pp. 166-167,

I1
When t h e time comes t o prepare a w r i t t e n exposi-
t i o n of t h e b a s i s f o r a d e c i s i o n , t h e judge has a
heavy t a s k on h i s hands. He f e e l s t h e need t o do h i s
p a r t w e l l , i n j u s t i c e t o t h e p a r t i e s , t o himself and
t o t h e p o s i t i o n he occupies. The judge w i l l w r i t e b e t t e r
opinions i f he considers some of t h e important purposes
they a r e intended t o serve. A well-considered opinion
can be of value t o t h e judge himself, t o counsel and t h e
p a r t i e s . It i s invaluable t o t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , i f
t h e case goes up on appeal.

"The function of an opinion i s t o s t a t e t h e reason
which l e d t h e c o u r t t o decide t h e case t h e way i t d i d .
Moreover, s i n c e i n t h e process of preparing an opinion
t h e judge must d i s c i p l i n e h i s t h i n k i n g , he i s more a p t
t o reach a j u s t d e c i s i o n i n a complex c a s e i f he reduces
 h i s reasoning t o w r i t i n g . Referring t o t h e f r u i t f u l
e f f e c t of the process, Chief J u s t i c e Hughes once
commented, 'The importance of w r i t t e n opinions a s a
p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t j u d i c i a l c a r e l e s s n e s s i s very
great. I

"Opinions may be of s e r v i c e t o t h e l i t i g a n t s and
counsel i n determining what t h e i r f u t u r e caurse should
be. The opinion may p o i n t t h e way t o an appeal, o r
i t may e l i m i n a t e one. I n e i t h e r event t h e p r a c t i c a l
value t o those most concerned i s g r e a t .

"A w e l l - s t a t e d opinion i s of g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a s a c h a r t of t h e reasoning followed by
t h e t r i a l judge i n reaching a d e c i s i o n . Not everyone
would agree with t h e c y n i c a l o l d judge who i s c r e d i t e d
with saying, 1 A s f a r a s t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s concerned,
maybe they can t h i n k up a good reason t o support m y
judgment. I d o n ' t want t o give them a bad one.'"

Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., makes i t c l e a r t h e t i m e i s p a s t when

a D i s t r i c t Court can summarily g r a n t a new t r i a l and r e l y on t h i s

Court t o provide a l e g a l l y adequate reason f o r i t s o r d e r .

The cause i s remanded and t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s d i r e c t e d t o

e n t e r reasons f o r i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f s a new t r i a l ,

i n accord with Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P.

W Concur:
e
/