Butcher v. Petranek

No. 14450

I N THE S P E E CWKF O THE STATE: O M3NTANA
UR M F F

1979

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

CISIFUS PEzwNEK and
(3M3AGE A. P ; R N K
ET A E ,
Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal f m : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable B. W. ThoaMs, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record:

For Appellants:

Bradley B. Parrish, mistawn, Montana

For Respondent:

Morrow, Sedivy and Olson, Bozeman, Ibntana

SutrPTlitted on briefs: February 23, 1979

Decided: APR 2 4 1979
Filed: HR 2 4 1979
P
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .

D e f e n d a n t s C h a r l e s and George P e t r a n e k a p p e a l from a n

o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F e r g u s County, d e n y i n g t h e i r

m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l .

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

roadway a c r o s s p l a i n t i f f Edward B u t c h e r ' s l a n d which

P e t r a n e k s , owners o f a n e i g h b o r i n g t r a c t , had used f o r some

years with Butcher's permission. T h i s same roadway was t h e

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

Court. Taylor v. Petranek (1977), Mont. , 568 P. 2d

1 2 0 , 34 St.Rep. 905. I n t h a t case, t h i s Court held t h a t

P e t r a n e k s d i d n o t have a n e a s e m e n t i n t h e r o a d .

A t t h e t i m e t h e q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n w a s pending i n t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t , B u t c h e r had p l a n t e d t h e r o a d o v e r w i t h

wheat. A l t h o u g h P e t r a n e k s w e r e f u l l y aware t h a t t h e m a t t e r

was i n l i t i g a t i o n , o n May 24, 1976, t h e y t r e s p a s s e d on

B u t c h e r ' s l a n d w i t h a r o a d g r a d e r and plowed a s w a t h t h r o u g h

t h e w h e a t f i e l d , a p p r o x i m a t e l y where t h e r o a d had o n c e b e e n ,

b e f o r e t h e y w e r e r u n o f f by B u t c h e r . The s w a t h plowed by

P e t r a n e k s w a s a b o u t one-half m i l e l o n g , twelve f e e t wide,

and some f o u r t o s i x i n c h e s d e e p , t h u s s t r i p p i n g t h e t o p s o i l

On May 28, 1976, B u t c h e r f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r a y i n g f o r $1000 i n a c t u a l damages t o t h e

l a n d , $50,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages f o r i n j u r y t o t h e l a n d ,

$150 i n a c t u a l damages f o r l o s s o f t h e w h e a t c r o p damaged by

t h e g r a d e r , and $50,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages f o r m a l i c i o u s

d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e crops. Butcher a l s o sought i n j u n c t i v e

r e l i e f , which was g r a n t e d and i s n o t a n i s s u e on a p p e a l .

E v i d e n c e adduced a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t when B u t c h e r

e v i c t e d P e t r a n e k s from h i s l a n d , a somewhat v i o l e n t a l t e r -

c a t i o n took place. B u t c h e r c l a i m e d t h a t George P e t r a n e k ,
who w a s d r i v i n g a p i c k u p behind t h e r o a d g r a d e r d r i v e n by

C h a r l e s P e t r a n e k , rammed t h e h o r s e B u t c h e r w a s r i d i n g w i t h

t h e pickup. Butcher a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t b o t h P e t r a n e k s and

t h e i r h i r e d hand, who was r i d i n g i n t h e p i c k u p , advanced

t h r e a t e n i n g l y toward him, w i t h C h a r l e s P e t r a n e k g r a b b i n g f o r

B u t c h e r ' s l e g s a s h e s a t on h i s h o r s e . Butcher t e s t i f i e d he

had t o t h r e a t e n P e t r a n e k s w i t h a . 2 2 c a l i b e r p i s t o l b e f o r e

t h e y would l e a v e .

O t h e r e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t P e t r a n e k s had s e v e r a l

t i m e s i n t h e p a s t c u t B u t c h e r ' s f e n c e s and t r e s p a s s e d a c r o s s

h i s land. I t w a s a l s o shown t h a t P e t r a n e k s a r e q u i t e w e a l t h y ,

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

and r e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s i n Lewistown) t o t a l i n g more t h a n

$1,500,000.

On May 5 , 1978, a f t e r a j u r y t r i a l w i t h t h e Honorable

Bernard W. Thomas p r e s i d i n g , a v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d i n f a v o r

of Butcher. The j u r y awarded $825 a c t u a l damages w i t h

$10,000 p u n i t i v e damages f o r damage t o t h e l a n d , and $100

a c t u a l damages w i t h $10,000 p u n i t i v e damages f o r d e s t r u c t i o n

of t h e crops. P e t r a n e k s s u b s e q u e n t l y moved f o r a new t r i a l

on t h e ground t h a t t h e award of p u n i t i v e damages w a s e x c e s -

s i v e and g i v e n under t h e i n f l u e n c e of p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion, and P e t r a n e k s a p p e a l .

The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s simply: Were t h e p u n i t i v e

damages awarded t o B u t c h e r by t h e j u r y e x c e s s i v e ? Petraneks

a r g u e t h e y w e r e and t h e r e f o r e t h i s C o u r t must e i t h e r r e d u c e

them o r o r d e r a new t r i a l .

I n approaching t h i s i s s u e , w e note t h a t Petraneks are

n o t c h a l l e n g i n g t h e award o r amount of a c t u a l damages,

t o t a l i n g $925. N e i t h e r a r e t h e y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e award of
p u n i t i v e damages i t s e l f ; t h e y a p p a r e n t l y concede t h a t some

award of p u n i t i v e o r exemplary damages i s p r o p e r .

What P e t r a n e k s a r e c h a l l e n g i n g i s t h e amount of t h e

p u n i t i v e damages awarded. T h e i r argument e s s e n t i a l l y i s
t h a t t h e amount o f p u n i t i v e damages awarded h e r e ( $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 )

i s " p a t e n t l y e x c e s s i v e " t o t h e p o i n t t h a t " t h e r e c a n b e no

o t h e r c o n c l u s i o n t h a n t h a t t h e j u r y was i n f l u e n c e d by pas-

s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , o r from improper m o t i v e . "

The law g o v e r n i n g p u n i t i v e o r exemplary damages i s w e l l
developed i n Montana and h a s been f o l l o w e d w i t h u n e r r i n g

c o n s i s t e n c y by t h i s C o u r t . S i n c e f i r s t e n a c t e d i n 1895,

s e c t i o n 17-208, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 27-1-221 MCA, h a s

read:

" I n any a c t i o n f o r a b r e a c h of a n o b l i g a t i o n n o t
a r i s i n g from c o n t r a c t , where t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s
been g u i l t y of o p p r e s s i o n , f r a u d , o r m a l i c e , ac-
t u a l o r presumed, t h e j u r y , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e
a c t u a l damages, may g i v e damages f o r t h e s a k e of
example, and by way of p u n i s h i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t . "

From t h e numerous c a s e s c o n s t r u i n g t h i s s e c t i o n , g e n e r a l
p r i n c i p l e s f o r i t s a p p l i c a t i o n may b e d e r i v e d . An e a r l y ,
y e t r e l a t i v e l y complete, statement of t h e s e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s
i s found i n De C e l l e s v . Casey ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 48 Mont. 568, 576,

"The amount t o b e awarded i n t h i s c l a s s of c a s e s
i s lodged i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e j u r y ; b u t t h i s
d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t unlimited o r t o be exercised
arbitrarily. I t w i l l n o t do t o s a y t h a t t h e j u r y
a r e f r e e t o make t h e measure of punishment what-
e v e r t h e y c h o o s e , w i t h o u t any j u s t o r r e a s o n a b l e
r e l a t i o n t o t h e wrong done. N d e f i n i t e r u l e c a n
o
be d e c l a r e d a s t o when t h e c o u r t s h o u l d i n t e r f e r e
and when i t s h o u l d n o t ; y e t s i n c e a new t r i a l may
b e o r d e r e d when i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e j u r y have
a c t e d under t h e i n f l u e n c e of p a s s i o n and p r e j u -
d i c e (Rev. Codes, s e c . 6 7 9 4 ) , i t f o l l o w s t h a t
when t h e award i s s o l a r g e t h a t i t c a n n o t b e ac-
c o u n t e d for on any o t h e r t h e o r y and i s wholly o u t
o f p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e wrong done and t h e c a u s e of
i t , t h e c o n c l u s i o n i s i r r e s i s t i b l e t h a t it was
measured by t h e p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e of t h e j u r y ,
r a t h e r t h a n by a n e s t i m a t e made i n t h e e x e r c i s e
o f t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n , and i t becomes t h e d u t y of
t h e c o u r t t o set it aside."
Accord, Cornner v. Hamilton ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 62 Mont. 239, 245, 204

I n d e s c r i b i n g t h e n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t s t o j u s t i f y such a n

award, t h i s C o u r t a few y e a r s l a t e r s t a t e d :

"A g u i l t y i n t e n t on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t s
i s a n e s s e n t i a l t o c h a r g e them w i t h exemplary
damages ... 'While e v e r y l e g a l wrong e n t i t l e s
t h e p a r t y i n j u r e d t o r e c o v e r damages s u f f i c i e n t
t o compensate f o r t h e i n j u r y i n f l i c t e d , n o t
e v e r y l e g a l wrong e n t i t l e s t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y t o
r e c o v e r exemplary damages. To w a r r a n t t h e r e -
c o v e r y o f s u c h damages t h e a c t complained of
must n o t o n l y b e u n l a w f u l , b u t must a l s o p a r t a k e
somewhat of a c r i m i n a l o r wanton n a t u r e . And s o
it i s an almost u n i v e r s a l l y recognized r u l e t h a t
s u c h damages may b e r e c o v e r e d i n cases, and o n l y
i n s u c h c a s e s , where t h e w r o n g f u l a c t complained
o f i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by some s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s
of a g g r a v a t i o n a s w i l l f u l n e s s , wantonness, m a l i c e ,
oppression, b r u t a l i t y , i n s u l t , recklessness, gross
n e g l i g e n c e , o r g r o s s f r a u d on t h e p a r t of t h e de-
f e n d a n t . ' ( 8 R.C.L. 585, 5 8 6 . ) " L u t h e r v . Lee
( 1 9 2 2 ) , 62 Mont. 174, 179, 2 0 4 P. 365, 367.

The j u r y may a l s o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t whether t h e a c t s

complained o f a r e "of s u c h a c h a r a c t e r a s t o i n d i c a t e a

r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d of t h e r i g h t s of t h e p l a i n t i f f " i n award-

i n g a " r e a s o n a b l e amount" of p u n i t i v e damages. Mosback v .

Smith B r o t h e r s Sheep Co. ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 65 Mont. 4 2 , 46-47, 210 P.

E l a b o r a t i n g f u r t h e r on t h e c o n c e p t of m a l i c e , w e s t a t e d

i n 1927 t h a t :

" ' M a l i c e , a s a b a s i s f o r exemplary damages, may
b e proved d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y ; t h a t i s t o s a y ,
by d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f t h e e v i l m o t i v e and i n t e n t
o r by l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t o b e drawn from
o t h e r f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n e v i d e n c e . '
( K l i n d v . V a l l e y County Bank, 69 Mont. 386, 222
Pac. 439.) 'The t e r m " m a l i c e , " as a p p l i e d t o
t o r t s , d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean that which must
p r o c e e d from a s p i t e f u l , m a l i g n a n t o r r e v e n g e f u l
d i s p o s i t i o n b u t a conduct i n j u r i o u s t o another,
though p r o c e e d i n g from an i l l - r e g u l a t e d mind,
n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y cautious before it occasions
an i n j u r y t o another. I f t h e c o n d u c t of t h e
d e f e n d a n t was u n j u s t i f i a b l e and a c t u a l l y c a u s e d
t h e i n j u r y complained o f by p l a i n t i f f , which was
a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y , m a l i c e i n l a w would b e
i m p l i e d from s u c h c o n d u c t ... 1 11
Ramsbacher v .
Hohman ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 80 Mont. 480, 487-88, 261 P . 273,
276.
" I m p l i e d m a l i c e may be shown by proof t h a t d e f e n d a n t engaged

i n a c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t knowing i t t o b e h a r m f u l and unlaw-

ful." Ferguson v . Town Pump, I n c . (1978), - Mont. I

I n Ramsbacher, w e went on t o d i s c u s s t h e f a c t o r s prop-

e r l y c o n s i d e r e d by a j u r y i n s e t t i n g t h e amount of damages

and o u r f u n c t i o n i n r e v i e w i n g t h e award:

"Having concluded t h e j u r y was w i t h i n i t s r i g h t s
i n a l l o w i n g exemplary damages, a r i s e s t h e ques-
t i o n , i s t h e amount a l l o w e d on e i t h e r c a u s e of
a c t i o n e x c e s s i v e ? The amount w a s l a r g e l y i n t h e
d i s c r e t i o n of t h e j u r y . 'The g e n e r a l r u l e i s
t h a t a n award o f exemplary damages by a j u r y
w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d as e x c e s s i v e , u n l e s s i t s
amount, c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f a c t s ,
i s i n d i c a t i v e of p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e o r c o r r u p -
t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e j u r y . * * * The j u r y
should - a k e i n t o consideration - a t t e n d a n t
t. the
Y ----I ----
c i r c u m s t a n c e c .r s l i r h a s t---- ma1 ice - - - - -
he -- or wantonness
- -- - -

o f -e-c t , t h e i n j u r y i n t e n d e d , --i- -r
- th a t h e mot ve f o
t h e - - manner i n which i t was comrni t t e d
- act, the
- - d e t e r r e n t e f f e c t u p - o t:hers. * * * Ac-
and t h e - on -
c o r d i n g - -e g e n e r a l r u l e , i t - p r o p e r f o r
t o th is
t h e 3 u r y - c o n s i d e r d e f e n d a n F s, w e a l t h a - d
to n
p e c u n i a r y a b i l i t y i n f i x i n g t- 'amount o? dam-
he - -
aaes.'
A
(17 C . J . 994, 995.) There i s evidence
on a l l t h o s e p o i n t s and i t i s presumed t h e j u r y
c o n s i d e r e d i t . 'The p u b l i c go* i n t h e r e s t r ai n t
-
o f -h e r*s-
- ot - from wrongd . -a- s t h e p u n i s h -
-- - - i s t o b e.
ment o f t- h-e o f f e n d e r . - - - -con. s i d e r e d i n
es t i m a t i exemplary damages. ' (War d v . ward, 4 1
Iowa. 61
- ..
-- . 8. B a s e d on t h o s e d e t e r m i n a t i v e f a c t o r s
-
6
and g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , i n t h i s s t a t e t h e r u l e
i s t h a t t h e amount o f exemplary damages must b e
reasonable. 'Where t h e a c t s complained of a r e
shown t o b e wanton, m a l i c i o u s o r o p p r e s s i v e and
o f such a c h a r a c t e r a s t o i n d i c a t e a r e c k l e s s
d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e r i g h t s of t h e p l a i n t i f f , t h e
j u r y , i n t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n , may award a r e a s o n a b l e
amount as t h e p u n i t i v e damages, i n a d d i t i o n t o
compensatory damages.' (Mosback v . Smith B r o t h e r s
Sheep Co., 65 Mont. 42, 210 Pac. 910.) What was
reasonable w a s f o r t h e jury t o say, s u b j e c t t o
t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , upon motion f o r
new t r i a l , and t h e judgment of t h i s c o u r t , upon
a p p e a l . Being a m a t t e r f o r t h e d i s c r e t i o n of
t h e j u r y , w e d o n o t see t h a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n w a s
abused. W e w i l l n o t s a y t h e award is e x c e s s i v e
---
n o r- - - i s i n d i c a t i v e of p a s s i o n
- t h a t it or prejudice
n o r t h a t , under a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s - -n-
--n t i f f ' s _ r s i o n of _h e c-a s e ( a c c e p t e d & and i view
- plai
of ve _ t
-
the jury), it - - - i s even u n r e a s o n a b l e . " 80 Mont.
a t 489-90, 261 P. a t 277. (Emphasis a d d e d . )
 P e t r a n e k s a r g u e t h a t t h e amount o f p u n i t i v e damages

p e se
awarded h e r e i s -r- e x c e s s i v e b e c a u s e t h e y a r e a p p r o x i -

m a t e l y twenty-two t i m e s t h e amount of t h e a c t u a l damages

awarded. W e r e j e c t e d any such " m a t h e m a t i c a l r a t i o " a p p r o a c h

t o c a l c u l a t i n g p u n i t i v e damages i n Johnson v . Horn ( 1 9 2 9 ) ,

86 Mont. 314, 318-19, 283 P. 427, 429:

". . . The c o u r t s have n o t e s t a b l i s h e d a d e f i n i t e
formula t o b e f o l l o w e d i n a s c e r t a i n i n g whether
a n award f o r exemplary damages i s e x c e s s i v e . A s
a consequence many c o u r t s h o l d t h a t b e c a u s e a n
award of p u n i t i v e damages i s t e n t i m e s t h e amount
o f a c t u a l damages awarded, a s h e r e , d o e s n o t of
i t s e l f d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e award i s e x c e s s i v e .

"An award o f $1,000 exemplary damages m i g h t b e
e x c e s s i v e under c e r t a i n f a c t s and as a g a i n s t o n e
o f impoverished c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and y e t r e a s o n -
a b l e under d i f f e r e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s and a s a g a i n s t
o n e of more f a v o r a b l e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n . "

F u r t h e r , p u n i t i v e damages may b e awarded i n c a s e s where o n l y

nominal a c t u a l damages a r e awarded o r even where no monetary

v a l u e i s p l a c e d on t h e a c t u a l damages s u f f e r e d . Miller v.

Fox ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mont. , 571 P.2d 804, 808, 34 St.Rep.

1367, 1371. I t i s t h e r e f o r e i n c o n s i s t e n t t o e s t a b l i s h some

m a t h e m a t i c a l formula o r r a t i o f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f

s u c h p u n i t i v e damages.

W e have q u o t e d e x t e n s i v e l y from t h e s e o l d e r d e c i s i o n s

(and t h e r e a r e many o t h e r s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e ) t o i l l u s t r a t e

t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g t h i s a p p e a l are v e r y w e l l

e s t a b l i s h e d and have been c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d . Applying

t h e s e time-honored p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e f a c t s a t hand, w e

c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e award o f $20,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages

a g a i n s t P e t r a n e k s i s r e a s o n a b l e and s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e .

U n d i s p u t e d l y , P e t r a n e k s , w i t h f u l l knowledge of r e l e v -

a n t pending l i t i g a t i o n and g r o s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e r i g h t s

and p r o p e r t y of B u t c h e r , d r o v e a r o a d g r a d e r o n t o t h e l a t t e r ' s
p r o p e r t y and d e l i b e r a t e l y plowed a h a l f - m i l e l o n g , t w e l v e -

f o o t wide s w a t h t h r o u g h h i s growing w h e a t c r o p . The j u r y

a l s o h e a r d B u t c h e r t e s t i f y t h a t , when h e r o d e up t o c o n f r o n t

t h e P e t r a n e k s , George P e t r a n e k rammed h i s p i c k u p t r u c k i n t o

B u t c h e r ' s h o r s e and C h a r l e s P e t r a n e k g r a b b e d a t B u t c h e r ' s

l e g s a s i f t o p u l l him o f f h i s h o r s e . From t h i s s e t o f

f a c t s , t h e jury w a s f u l l y e n t i t l e d t o conclude t h a t t h e

Petraneks acted extremely maliciously.

E n t e r i n g i n t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f damages a t t h i s p o i n t

i s t h e wealth of t h e Petraneks. The j u r y w a s informed as t o

t h e l a r g e h o l d i n g s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o t a l i n g more t h a n $1.5

million. I n d e t e r m i n i n g what would b e a s u i t a b l e p u n i s h m e n t

( a l e g i t i m a t e s t a t u t o r y purpose) f o r t h e a c t s of t h e P e t r a n e k s ,

t h e j u r y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e t h a t a n y smaller award

would n o t b e s u f f i c i e n t . Such a c o n c l u s i o n was f o r t h e j u r y

t o make, a f t e r l i s t e n i n g t o t h e t e s t i m o n y and w e i g h i n g t h e

evidence. On a p p e a l , w e w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h a t c o n c l u s i o n .

F i n a l l y , P e t r a n e k s ' a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e award of p u n i -

t i v e damages w a s t h e r e s u l t o f p a s s i o n o r p r e j u d i c e on t h e

p a r t o f t h e j u r y i s u n s u p p o r t e d by a n y r e f e r e n c e t o t h e

r e c o r d , t o i m p r o v i d e n t r e m a r k s by c o u n s e l o r w i t n e s s e s f o r

Butcher, t o i n c o r r e c t o r objectionable jury i n s t r u c t i o n s , o r

t o any o t h e r source. Petraneks accept t h a t t h e jury acted

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

B u t c h e r a t $925 o u t o f a p r a y e r f o r $1150. I n t h e absence

o f any showing o f t h e p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f p a s s i o n o r p r e j u -

d i c e , i t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t t o assume t h a t a j u r y , a c t i n g

r e a s o n a b l y i n a s s e s s i n g a c t u a l damages s o p r e c i s e l y , sud-

d e n l y was overcome by p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e i n a s s e s s i n g

p u n i t i v e damages.
W e concur:

% J u s4 u
di c e% @
Chief t

Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea, deeming h i m s e l f d i s q u a l i f i e d ,
did not participate i n t h i s decision.