No. 83-31
IN THE SUPRE:ME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1983
PETER A. MORRISON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
E V I J P. IIIGBEE, et a1 . ,
DJ?
Defendants.
.........................................
JAMES E. ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs-
LETJIS HUGHES and MILDRED HUGHES, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,
In and for the County of l,ladison,
The Honorable Joseph Gary, Judge presising.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Moore, Rice, 0'Connell & Refling, David C. Moon,
Bozeman, Montana
For Respondents:
filorrow,
Sedivy & Olson; J. I I . Morrow, Rozenan,
Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 31, 1983
Decided: June 30, 1983
Filed:
J M 3 0 1983
U
P
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the
Court.
Robertson brought an actiorl i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of
the F i f t h J u d i c i a l District, Madison C o u n t y , t o obtain an
injunction against the defendants Hughes to prevent them
from f u r t h e r u t i l i z i n g a p o r t i o n of R o b e r t s o n ' s irrigation
ditch to convey water. The Hughes counterclaimed for
damages, b o t h a c t u a l and p u n i t i v e , a l l e g i n g t h a t Robertson
n e g l i g e n t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h e d i t c h , which c a u s e d e r o s i o n , a n d
maliciously refused t o take corrective action t o prevent the
erosion. The c a s e was t o be t r i e d by j u r y , b u t a t t h e c l o s e
of the evidence, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i r e c t e d verdicts in
f a v o r of t h e Hughes r e g a r d i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n a n d R o b e r t s o n
regarding the counterclaim. Both p a r t i e s a p p e a l .
S i n c e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 9 4 9 , L e w i s Hughes and R o b e r t s o n
h a v e been r a n c h i n g i n Madison C o u n t y . I n 1953, Robertson
and h i s w i f e gave t h e Hughes o r a l permission to use the
d i t c h i n c o n t r o v e r s y ( t h e Robertson d i t c h ) t o i r r i g a t e t h e i r
r a n c h . P r i o r t o t h a t t i m e , h o w e v e r , t h e Hughes' p r e d e c e s s o r s
a l s o used t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. The l e n g t h o f
t i m e d u r i n g which t h e Hughes' p r e d e c e s s o r s used the ditch
was n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y d i s c l o s e d a t t r i a l .
On O c t o b e r 8 , 1959, t h e Robertsons s e n t a l e t t e r t o
the Hughes revoking their permission to use the ditch.
S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , L e w i s Hughes a s k e d t h e R o b e r t s o n s i f h e
could continue t o use t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. An
agreement was then drafted by the Robertsons ' attorney,
which g r a n t e d t o t h e Hughes a l i c e n s e t o u s e t h e d i t c h . The
a g r e e m e n t a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e l i c e n s e was s u b j e c t t o t e r -
m i n a t i o n a t any t i m e by t h e R o b e r t s o n s and t h a t t h e Hughes
pay f o r one-half of t h e maintenance c o s t s of t h e d i t c h .
L e w l s Hughes s i g n e d t h e a g r e e m e n t i n the Robertsons'
a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e and t h e n t o o k t h e a g r e e m e n t home f o r h i s
wife t o sign. L e w i s Hughes t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t c a r e -
f u l l y r e a d t h e a g r e e m e n t and d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d i t . He also
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e R o b e r t s o n s ' a t t o r n e y t o l d him t h e a g r e e -
ment was d r a f t e d t o g i v e him a r i g h t i n t h e R o b e r t s o n d i t c h
forever. M i l d r e d Hughes t e s t i f i e d t h a t when s h e s i g n e d t h e
agreement, s h e was r e l y i n g upon what h e r husband t o l d h e r
t h e agreement s a i d . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she did not
read t h e agreement very c a r e f u l l y . The a g r e e m e n t was i n t h e
Hughes' possession for at least two days before it was
returned t o the attorney's office.
Both R o b e r t s o n and t h e Hughes continued t o use the
ditch for i r r i g a t i o n purposes f r o m 1 9 5 9 t o 1980. During
that time, t h e Hughes and R o b e r t s o n o r his l e s s e e s main-
tained t h e d i t c h by a n n u a l l y removing b r u s h which impeded
the fl o w of water through the ditch. At various times,
Robertson's lessees also helped the Hughes maintain the
d i t c h by removing t h e t r e e s and b u i l d i n g up t h e d i t c h b a n k s .
During t h a t period, however, the Hughes w e r e required to
move a fence located on the south s i d e of t h e Robertson
d i t c h b e c a u s e of w a s h i n g and e r o s i o n which t h e Hughes a l l e g e
occurred in the ditch. Lewis Hughes also testified that
R o b e r t s o n a l l o w e d a h e a d g a t e on t h e d i t c h t o wash o u t , which
ruined eight acres of his land. On cross-examination,
however, Hughes a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e wash-out occurred before
R o b e r t s o n had a c q u i r e d a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i t c h .
On March 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 , R o b e r t s o n ' s a t t o r n e y s e n t a l e t t e r
t o t h e Hughes r e v o k i n g t h e l i c e n s e . The Hughes, however,
continued t o use t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. Robert-
s o n t h e n f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g t o e n j o i n t h e Hughes f r o m
using the ditch. The Hughes b r o u g h t a c o u n t e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g
t h a t Robertson's n e g l i g e n t maintenance of t h e d i t c h caused
e r o s i o n which damaged t h e i r p r o p e r t y . The Hughes a l s o a s k e d
f o r p u n i t i v e damages b e c a u s e of R o b e r t s o n ' s a l l e g e d o p p r e s -
sive and m a l i c i o u s refusal t o do anything t o prevent the
erosion.
At trial, t h e Hughes p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t
erosion had occurred i n t h e R o b e r t s o n d i t c h and that the
e r o s i o n damaged t h e i r p r o p e r t y . The Hughes d i d n o t p r e s e n t
testimony, however, to prove when the erosion occurred.
L o u i e Day ( H u g h e s ' e x p e r t w i t n e s s ) t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t
know when t h e e r o s i o n o c c u r r e d , b u t t h a t i t c o u l d h a v e hap-
pened f i f t y o r o n e hundred y e a r s ago. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t
t h e e r o s i o n h a s c o n t i n u e d s i n c e t h e d i t c h was f i r s t p u t i n .
At t h e c l o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , b o t h R o b e r t s o n and t h e
Hughes moved f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s , a n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
g r a n t e d b o t h m o t i o n s . R o b e r t s o n now a p p e a l s f r o m t h e p o r t i o n
of t h e v e r d i c t w h e r e i n t h e Hughes w e r e a d j u d g e d t o h a v e a
p r e s c r i p t i v e easement i n t h e Robertson d i t c h . The Hughes
a l s o appeal, arguing that the i s s u e of whether Robertson
n e g l i g e n t l y maintained t h e d i t c h should have been p r e s e n t e d
t o the jury.
B a s i c a l l y , two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r o u r r e v i e w :
1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t
f o r t h e Hughes by f i n d i n g t h a t t h e October 1 9 , 1 9 5 9 , a g r e e -
ment d i d n o t d i v e s t t h e Hughes o f a n y d i t c h r i g h t s ?
11. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t
for R o b e r t s o n by finding that t h e Hughes f a i l e d t o prove
t h a t Robertson's a c t i o n caused t h e Hughes' damages, which
removed t h a t i s s u e f r o m t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n ?
I. DIRECTED VERDICT FOR THE HUGHES
Pursuant t o t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge,
t h e j u r y found a s f o l l o w s :
"On t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson's claim
a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes f o r a n
i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughest
continued use of t h e 'Robertson' c a n a l o r
d i t c h , f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes
h a v e a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t by u s e o f u n i n -
terrupted, continuous use of t h i s d i t c h
f o r a p e r i o d of t i m e i n e x c e s s of t e n
y e a r s p r i o r t o October 1 9 , 1959, a d v e r s e
t o t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson and h i s p r e d e -
cessors in interest, a n d by r e a s o n
t h e r e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t of O c t o b e r 1 9 , 1 9 5 9
being without consideration, did not
d i v e s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes of a n y
r i g h t s i n t h e d i t c h and d i d n o t c r e a t e a
mere l i c e n s e i n t h e u s e of s a i d d i t c h a n d
by r e a s o n t h e r e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson
is n o t e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t f o r a n
injunction prohibiting the defendants
Hughes f r o m u s i n g s a i d d i t c h . "
R o b e r t s o n p r e s e n t s many a r g u m e n t s f o r h i s c o n t e n t i o n
that the District Court erred by refusing to grant the
i n j u n c t i o n , b u t t h e argument we f i n d most compelling is t h a t
no p r e s c r i p t i v e easement existed. In Montana, a party
c l a i m i n g t o h a v e a c q u i r e d a n e a s e m e n t by p r e s c r i p t i o n m u s t
show o p e n , notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous, and
uninterrupted use of the easement claimed for the full
s t a t u t o r y period. Madison County v. Elford (1983),
Mont. , 6 6 1 P.2d 1266, 40 St.Rep. 457. If the use
b e g i n s as a p e r m i s s i v e u s e , it c a n n o t r i p e n i n t o a p r e s c r i p -
t i v e r i g h t , no matter how l o n g i t may c o n t i n u e , u n l e s s t h e r e
is a d i s t i n c t and p o s i t i v e a s s e r t i o n o f a right hostile t o
t h e owner. Drew v . B u r g g r a f ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 405, 387 P.2d
In t h i s case, t h e Hughes' own a c t i o n s indicate that
t h e i r u s e o f t h e d i t c h was p e r m i s s i v e r a t h e r t h a n h o s t i l e .
For e x a m p l e , i n 1 9 5 3 , Lewis Hughes a s k e d t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f
t h e Robertsons t o use t h e d i t c h t o i r r i g a t e h i s ranch. In
1959 when the Robertsons revoked their permission, the
Hughes signed a license agreement which stated that the
K o b e r t s o n s c o u l d r e v o k e t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n a t any t i m e . The
Hughes a r g u e t h a t b e c a u s e they did not read t h e agreement
c a r e f u l l y and d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d i t , t h e y s h o u l d n o t be h e l d
accountable to the terms of the agreement. However, "a
p a r t y t o a c o n t r a c t c a n n o t a v o i d t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e g r o u n d
t h a t h e made a mistake where there has been no m i s r e p r e -
s e n t a t i o n , no a m b i g u i t y i n t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e
o t h e r p a r t y h a s no n o t i c e o f s u c h m i s t a k e and a c t s i n good
faith.'' S i l v a v. McGuinness (1980), Mont. , 615
P.2d 8 7 9 , 37 S t . R e p . 1401.
The Hughes also argue that t h e y had a prescriptive
easement i n t h e d i t c h p r i o r t o s i g n i n g t h e l i c e n s e agreement
because of their predecessors' u s e of the ditch. The o n l y
testimony regarding the use of the ditch by the Hughes'
predecessors came from Lewis Hughes who stated that the
ditch had been used for fifty years and that the "old
t i m e r s " p u t t h e i r w a t e r t o g e t h e r i n t o o n e d i t c h i n times o f
d r o u g h t s o t h a t t h e w a t e r would r e a c h t h e end o f the ditch
where the r a n c h e s were located. This testimony does not
i n d i c a t e h o s t i l e u s e , b u t on t h e c o n t r a r y i n d i c a t e s f r i e n d l y
c o o p e r a t i o n between n e i g h b o r s . Even i f Lewis Hughes' t e s t i -
mony c o u l d be construed to indicate t h a t h i s predecessors
o b t a i n e d a p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t , Hughes' s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n s
of asking permission to use the ditch and o f signing the
license agreement are incompatible with the nature of a
p r e s c r i p t i v e easement. As stated i n s e c t i o n 70-17-111(3),
MCA: "A s e r v i t u d e is e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f a n y
a c t upon e i t h e r t e n e m e n t by t h e owner o f the servitude or
with his assent which is i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h its nature o r
exercise. 'I
The a c t i o n s o f t h e Hughes d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t they d i d
not obtain an interest in t h e d i t c h by p r e s c r i p t i o n , but
merely acquired a license to use the ditch. The term
" l i c e n s e " has been d e f i n e d a s t h e p e r m i s s i o n o r a u t h o r i t y t o
do a particular act or series of acts upon the land of
a n o t h e r w i t h o u t p o s s e s s i n g an i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n . Renfro e t
a l . v . D e t t w i l e r ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 95 Mont. 3 9 1 , 26 P.2d 992. Because
no p o s s e s s o r y interest exists in the licensee, the license
may be revoked at will. "The licensee is conclusively
presumed, a s a matter of law, t o know t h a t t h e l i c e n s e i s
r e v o c a b l e a t t h e p l e a s u r e o f t h e l i c e n s o r , and i f h e e x p e n d s
money in connection with his entry upon the land of the
l a t t e r he does s o a t h i s p e r i l . Any o t h e r d o c t r i n e would
render most licenses i r r e v o c a b l e a n d make them o p e r a t e a s
conveyances of i n t e r e s t s i n land." R e n f r o , 9 3 Mont. a t 3 9 8 ,
26 P.2d a t 994.
W reverse the District Court's
e finding that a pre-
scriptive easement existed in the Hughes and order the
Dlstrict Court t o i s s u e an i n j u n c t i o n preventing f u r t h e r use
by t h e Hughes of t h e R o b e r t s o n d i t c h .
I . DIRECTED VERDICT FOR ROBERTSON
P u r s u a n t t o t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge,
t h e j u r y found a s f o l l o w s :
"On t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m o f t h e defendants
Hughes a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson,
w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was a f a i l u r e o f p r o o f
t o show t h a t a n y a c t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f
R o b e r t s o n c a u s e d damages t o t h e d e f e n -
d a n t s Hughes inasmuch a s t h e ' R o b e r t s o n '
d i t c h i n q u e s t i o n had b e e n l o c a t e d a n d
e s t a b l i s h e d a t l e a s t 20 y e a r s p r i o r t o
t h e a c q u i r i n g of i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d s i n
q u e s t i o n by e i t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f o r t h e
d e f e n d a n t s , and t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e
t h a t a n y a c t i o n of t h e p l a i n t i f f c a u s e d
t h e e r o s i o n o r i g i n a l l y and t h a t t h e sub-
s e q u e n t , g r a d u a l e r o s i o n is no d i f f e r e n t
t h a n t h a t of any o t h e r i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h
i n e x i s t e n c e and is n o t p r o x i m a t e l y
c a u s e d by a n y a c t i o n o r i n a c t i o n o f t h e
plaintiff Robertson, and by r e a s o n
thereof, the defendants a r e not e n t i t l e d
t o any c l a i m of damages a g a i n s t t h e
p l a i n t i f f Robertson."
The r u l e f o r determining whether a directed verdict
s h o u l d be g r a n t e d i n n e g l i g e n c e a c t i o n s h a s b e e n s t a t e d i n
Lawlor v . C o u n t y o f F l a t h e a d ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 5 0 8 , 582 P.2d
751, a s f o l l o w s :
". . . a s a g e n e r a l r u l e , t h e i s s u e s of
negligence and c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e
m u s t b e d e c i d e d by t h e j u r y u n d e r a p p r o -
priate instructions ... and t h e s e t t l e d
r u l e is t h a t a c a s e s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n
from t h e j u r y u n l e s s it f o l l o w s a s a
m a t t e r of law t h a t p l a i n t i f f c a n n o t
r e c o v e r upon a n y v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t o be
drawn f r o m i t ; e v e r y f a c t w i l l be deemed
proved which t h e e v i d e n c e t e n d s t o
prove. " Q u o t e d f r o m A u t i o v . Miller
( 1 9 3 2 ) , 92 Mont. 1 5 0 , 1 6 7 , 1 P.2d 1 0 3 9 ,
1
1044.
The Hughes c o n t e n d t h a t t h i s r u l e s h o u l d h a v e p r e c l u d e d t h e
District Court from issuing a directed verdict because
i n f e r e n c e s c o u l d h a v e b e e n drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t o show
t h a t R o b e r t s o n was n e g l i g e n t i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e d i t c h and
t h a t h i s negligence caused t h e erosion. We disagree.
I n t h i s c a s e , no e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o p r o v e t h a t
R o b e r t s o n b r e a c h e d a n y d u t y which c a u s e d t h e damages com-
p l a i n e d of by t h e Hughes. " [ A ] b r e a c h o f d u t y r e l i e d upon
must have been t h e proximate c a u s e of the injury, and t h e
f a c t s p l e a d e d must d i s c l o s e the causal connection between
t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n t a c t and t h e i n j u r y c o m p l a i n e d o f . "
Fusselinan v. Yellowstone Valley e t c . Co. (1917), 5 3 Mont.
254, 1 6 3 P. 473. The m o s t w h i c h c a n b e d e d u c e d f r o m t h e
e v i d e n c e i s t h a t a n y damages which d i d i n f a c t o c c u r t o t h e
Hughes' property occurred before Robertson acquired his
i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i t c h . F o r e x a m p l e , L o u i e Day t e s t i f i e d t h a t
t h e e r o s i o n had c o n t i n u e d s i n c e t h e d i t c h was o r i g i n a l l y p u t
in. ( T h e e v i d e n c e r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e d i t c h was " p u t i n " l o n g
b e f o r e t h e Hughes and R o b e r t s o n owned t h e i r r a n c h e s . ) Even
L e w i s Hughes a d m i t t e d t h a t Mrs. Robertson, who was R o b e r t -
s o n ' s p r e d e c e s s o r , was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a n y damages c a u s e d b y
t h e d i t c h . C l e a r l y , such evidence is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support
a n award of damages.
The p r e s e n t c a s e d i f f e r s f r o m t h e r e c e n t c a s e o f M a r t a
v. Smith ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 622 P.2d 1 0 1 1 , 38 S t . R e p .
28, wherein t h i s Court upheld a District Court's judgment
which a w a r d e d damages for e r o s i o n c a u s e d by t h e n e g l i g e n t
a c t s of t h e defendant. I n Marta, t h i s Court quoted p a r t i a l l y
f r o m C a l v e r t v. Anderson ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 7 3 Mont. 551, 236 P. 847,
w h i c h w e now q u o t e i n t o t o a s f o l l o w s : " I t is t h e r u l e i n
t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e owner of an i r r i g a t i n g d i t c h is n o t a n
insurer thereof, and i s l i a b l e o n l y f o r damages c a u s e d by
his willful acts, or by his negligence in constructing,
maintaining, or using h i s ditch." The f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e ,
u n l i k e t h o s e i n M a r t a , d o n o t show t h a t R o b e r t s o n w i l l f u l l y
or negligently constructed, maintained, or used the ditch.
We therefore hold that the District C o u r t was correct in
directing a v e r d i c t which found that the Hughes were n o t
e n t i t l e d t o damages.
Reversed i n p a r t and a f f i r m e d in part. N costs to
o
e i t h e r party.
i '
" L \I ,Y$ t LGkl,
/ Justice
W e concur: