Slagsvold v. Johnson

No. 13023

I N T E SUPREME C U T OF THE STATE O M N A A
H OR F OTN

197 5

MARY SLAGSVOLD, Executrix of t h e E s t a t e
of E s t h e r C h r i s t i n a Johnston, Deceased,

P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

-vs -
C. ALLAN JOHNSON,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant :

Mcnonough, Cox and Simonton, Glendive, Montana
Dale Cox argued and Richard A. Simonton argued,
Glendive, Montana

For Respondent :

Anderson, Symmes , Forbes, P e e t e and Brown, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
Richard F. Cebull argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted : September 25, 1975
--
Decided : 9 0 1975
YK. Jus c i c e !desley 3 a s i l e s d e l l v e r e i l t h e pinion o f t h e C o u r t .

O November 21, 1974, t h e Hon. Robert H. Wilson, p r e s i d i n g
n

o v e r a jury t r i a l i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, g r a n t e d

a J i r e c t e d v e r d i c t t o d e f e n d a n t C. A l l a n Johnson i n t h e w r o n g f u l
d e a t h and s u r v i v a l a c t i o n b r o u g h t by Mary S l a g s v o l d , e x e c u t r i x o f
the e s t a t e of Esther C h r i s t i n a Johnston.

p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t E s t h e r C h r i s t i n a J o h n s t o n was a
v a s s e n g e r i n a n a u t o m o b i l e d r i v e n by Carl Dohlman, whose v e h i c l e

was i n v o l v e d i n a c o l l i s i o n w i t h one d r i v e n by C . A l l a n Johnson

a i t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f U. S . Highway 87 and t h e n o r t h f r o n t a g e r o a d

n e a r B i l l i n g s on October 2 2 , 1971.
The c o l l i s i o n t o o k p l a c e a f t e r Dohlman s t o p p e d a t t h e s t o p

j i g n where t h e f r o n t a g e r o a d c r o s s e s Highway 87. Dohlman t h e n

proceeded t o c r o s s t h e highway, headed i n a s o u t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n .

Defendant meanwhile was t r a v e l i n g i n t h e southernmost e a s t b o u n d

Lane of Highway 87 a t a speed o f 35-40 m i l e s p e r h o u r , which was
w i t h i n t h e 45 m i l e s p e r hour speed l i m i t . Dohlman s u c c e s s f u l l y

n a v i g a t e d a c r o s s t h e westbound l a n e s of t h e highway t o a t r a f f i c

i s l a n d i n t h e middle o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , where he a g a i n s t o p p e d .

But Dohlman t h e n a t t e m p t e d t o t r a v e r s e t h e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s i n a

Less t h a n d i r e c t f a s h i o n . The f a c t s a r e i n d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e

e x a c t manner o f t h i s c r o s s i n g , b u t t h e t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e s

; h a t t h e Dohlman v e h i c l e was a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y t u r n e d i n t o t h e

northern eastbound l a n e , then turned s h a r p l y t o t h e r i g h t (south)

and f i n a l l y proceeded a c r o s s t h e s o u t h e r n e a s t b o u n d l a n e toward a

gas s t a t i o n l o c a t e d d i r e c t l y s o u t h o f Highway 87. Defendant's v e h i c l e
remained i n t h e s o u t h e r n e a s t b o u n d l a n e and c o l l i d e d w i t h t h e Dohlman
v e h i c l e a s i t c r o s s e d t h a t southernmost l a n e i n f r o n t o f t h e g a s
3cation. P l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t was i n j u r e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t and d i e d
t h e n e x t day.
 I.'his a c t i o r ~was Sroilgni a g a i n ~ t3ohLrnan and defendant

bur s e t t l e m e n t was reached w i t h Dohlman p r i o r t o t r i a l . A t trial

a f t e r p l a i n t i f f had put on h e r c a s e , defendant moved f o r a d i r e c t e d
verdict. That motion was g r a n t e d and i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h i 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, which can be
corrlbined i n t o a s i n g l e i s s u e by determining whether t h e r e was
evidence of d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n c e , r e q u i r i n g submission of t h e c a s e
ro the jury.
The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h e law of Montana on d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s

i s s t a t e d i n Autio v. M i l l e r , 92 Mont. 150, 167, 1 P.2d 1039:
1
"* * * a s a g e n e r a l r u l e t h e i s s u e s of n e g l i g e n c e
and c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e must be decided by t h e
***
jury under a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s and t h e
s e t t l e d r u l e i s t h a t a c a s e should n o t be taken from
t h e j u r y u n l e s s i t 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 cannot r e c o v e r upon any view of t h e evidence
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 from
i t ; e v e r y f a c t wI i l l be deemed proved which t h e evidence
cends t o prove. I
L i s a l s o s t a t e d i n Lamb v. Page, 153 Mont. 171, 178,
t

L79, A55 V. 2d 337, which c i t e d t h i s passage from " 2 ~
Barron and
Y o l t z o f f , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and Procedure, $1075, p. 387 * +< ;k
11 1
Thus a v e r d i c t may be d i r e c t e d i f t h e r e i s no
evidence o r a t most a mere s c i n t i l l a on which t o
b a s e a v e r d i c t f o r t h e p a r t y having t h e burden of
p r o o f . The q u e s t i o n f o r t h e c o u r t i s n o t whether
chere i s l i t e r a l l y no e v i d e n c e , b u t whether t h e r e i s
any upon which t h e j u r y could p r o p e r l y proceed t o f i n d
a v e r d i c t . A d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i s proper o n l y where
t h e r e i s no c o n t r o v e r t e d m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t f o r
the jury. I f viewing t h e evidence i n l i g h t most f a v o r -
a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f , t h e r e should be no s u b s t a n t i a l
evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t f o r him, t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
niotion should be g r a n t e d .
$1I
I n viewing t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e
motion i s made must be given t h e b e n e f i t of e v e r y
Legitimate i n f e r e n c e which can be drawn from t h e e v i -
dence; even i f t h e f a c t s a r e u n d i s p u t e d , t h e c a s e must
30 t o t h e j u r y iI f c o n f l i c t i n g i n f e r e n c e s may be drawn
from t h e f a c t s . 11
While p l a i n t i f f u r g e s t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence
f o r a j u r y t o f i n d d e f e n d a n t n e g l i g e n t , we hold a s a m a t t e r of law
on t h e b a s i s of t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d t h a t defendant a c t e d w i t h i n
t h e s t a n d a r d of conduct r e q u i r e d of automobile d r i v e r s i n such
.5ituatioris. L n ~ n i s n s t a n c e , l e i e n d a i ? ~was che i a v u l ed d r i v e r
i

under s e c t i o n 32-2172, K.C.M. 1947, which m o d i f i e s t h e g e n e r a l

r i g h t o f way r u l e s of s e c t i o n 32-2170, R.C.M. 1947. The d r i v e r o f

t h e a u t o m o b i l e i n which p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t was a p a s s e n g e r was

under t h e d u t y o f s e c t i o n 32-2172, which p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t

part :

" ( a ) The d r i v e r o f a v e h i c l e s h a l l s t o p a s
r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 32-2195 a t t h e e n t r a n c e t o a
t h r o u g h highway and s h a l l y i e l d t h e r i g h t o f way
--

t o o t h e r v e h i c l e s which have e n t e r e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n
from s a i d t h r o u g h highway o r which a r e a p p r o a c h i n g
s o c l o s e l y on s a i d t h r o u g h highway a s t o c o n s t i t u t e
an immediate h a z a r d ** f:." ( E m ~ h a s i ss u p p l i e d ) .

Kacher t h a n y i e l d t h e r i g h t o f way t o d e f e n d a n t a s r e -

q u i r e d by s t a t u t e , Dohlman, a c c o r d i n g t o h i s own t e s t i m o n y ,

attempted t o s i g n a l t o d e f e n d a n t a s a f e way around h i s c a r a s
h e proceeded t o c r o s s Highway 87 i n f r o n t o f d e f e n d a n t . This

maneuver by t h e Dohlman v e h i c l e a s i t a t t e m p t e d t o c r o s s t h e

e a s t b o u n d l a n e s of Highway 87 i s n o t a r e c o g n i z e d o r a c c e p t e d

s i g n a l between d r i v e r s . Hence d e f e n d a n t was under no l e g a l d u t y
11
t~ l o o k o u t f o r o r r e a c t t o such a "jog" o r squirm." o f a v e h i c l e

e r t e r i n g t h e highway i n f r o n t of him.
~

Defendant c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e

i~ohlrnanv e h i c l e was making a l e f t t u r n i n t o t h e n o r t h e r n e a s t -

Sound l a n e r a t h e r t h a n p r o c e e d i n g a c r o s s t h e s o u t h e r n e a s t b o u n d

Lane i n f r o n t of him. No b a s i s e x i s t s f o r f i n d i n g d e f e n d a n t
n e g l i g e n t i n such a c a s e .

Faced w i t h such e v i d e n c e and t h e s t a t u t o r y d u t y o f s e c t i o n
32-2172, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r
a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and p r o p e r l y d e n i e d p l a i n t i f f ' s motion to set
d s i d e t k d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and g r a n t a new t r i a l .

Judgment i s a f f i r m e d .
We Concur:

/,-J

f
Justices.