No. 12639
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1974
STEPHEN T. BUSH,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
ALBERT D. WARDELL CONTRACTOR,
I N C . , A CORPORATION,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
C l a y t o n R . Herron a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
F o r Respondent :
R o b e r t F. Swanberg a r g u e d and A r t h u r P. Acher a r g u e d ,
Helena, Montana
- -
Submitted : September 17, 1974
Decided : NOV 1 3 1574
F i l e d : \JQV
A 3 '974
:
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This appeal a r i s e s from a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n wherein
p l a i n t i f f Stephen T. Bush was awarded a $50,000 judgment a g a i n s t
defendant A l b e r t D. Wardell C o n t r a c t o r , I n c . Defendant a p p e a l s
from t h e judgment and t h e d e n i a l of i t s motions f o r a d i r e c t e d
v e r d i c t , judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t , and new t r i a l .
The c a s e r e s u l t s from an a c c i d e n t which occurred on J u l y
9, 1970, a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e of t h e C o l o n i a l H i l t o n Con-
v e n t i o n Center i n Helena, Montana. P l a i n t i f f was an employee of
Lowe Construction Company, t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r of t h e pro-
ject. Defendant was t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r engaged by Lowe Construc-
t i o n Company t o do t h e masonry work.
The p l a n s c a l l e d f o r t h e complex t o be b u i l t a s t h r e e
s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g s - - t h e convention c e n t e r and two wings which
would house t h e s l e e p i n g accomodations. The two wings were t o
be s e p a r a t e d from t h e c e n t e r by one i n c h of f r e e space, a
measure designed t o reduce damage i n t h e event of an earthquake.
I t was a t t h e p o i n t where t h e c e n t e r was t o p a r a l l e l one
of t h e wings t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t occurred. The wings had been
c o n s t r u c t e d f i r s t , and c o n s t r u c t i o n had begun on t h e b u i l d i n g t h a t
was t o be t h e convention c e n t e r . A t t h e p o i n t where t h e i n c i d e n t
o c c u r r e d , t h e r e were t o be t h r e e w a l l s r a i s e d i n p o s i t i o n s roughly
r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e following diagram:
4
/ -
-
sleeping quarters
8" block w a l l
4"masonry w a l l
which f e l l
6" s t u d w a l l
c d
convention c e n t e r -
d
The e i g h t inch block w a l l had a l r e a d y been completed and
formed t h e end w a l l of one of t h e wings. During c o n s t r u c t i o n ,
metal t i e s had been i n s e r t e d i n t h e e i g h t i n c h block w a l l w i t h
t h e i n t e n t t h a t they would be j o i n e d t o t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l when
i t was b u i l t a s a means of s t a b i l i z i n g t h e l a t t e r w a l l .
However, t h e a r c h i t e c t ' s p l a n s r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e r e be no
t i e s between t h e two w a l l s . Defendant and t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r
were concerned about t h i s requirement, s i n c e t h e w a l l would b e
u n s t a b l e u n l e s s supported by some means.
A f t e r much d i s c u s s i o n , t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r t o l d defendant
t o b u i l d t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l u s i n g t h e s t a b l i z i n g t i e s , although
t h e number of t i e s t o b e used was n o t s p e c i f i e d . Defendant then
c o n s t r u c t e d t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l t o a h e i g h t of e i g h t e e n f e e t ,
u s i n g some of t h e t i e s which were p r o t r u d i n g from t h e e i g h t i n c h
w a l l , b u t bending a m a j o r i t y of them over r a t h e r than a t t a c h i n g
them.
Although t h e plans c a l l e d f o r t h e w a l l t o u l t i m a t e l y r e a c h
a h e i g h t of twenty-six f e e t and no d i r e c t i o n had been given a s
t o whether i t should be b u i l t i n e n t i r e t y o r i n s t a g e s , d e f e n d a n t ' s
crew l e f t t h e s i t e a f t e r r a i s i n g t h e w a l l t o e i g h t e e n f e e t . The
f o u r i n c h w a l l then stood f o r approximately a week b e f o r e t h e
g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t ~'rs crews m s t r u c t e d and e r e c t e d s e v e r a l p a n e l s of
t h e s i x inch stud wall next t o it. The s t u d w a l l p a n e l s were
c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e ground and then r a i s e d t o t h e i r f i n a l p o s i t i o n
w i t h i n one-half inch of t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l .
On t h e a f t e r n o o n of t h e a c c i d e n t , two of t h e p a n e l s had been
r a i s e d and p o s i t i o n e d s e v e r a l hours b e f o r e p l a i n t i f f began hand
t i g h t e n i n g n u t s on t h e b o l t s which anchored t h e p a n e l s t o t h e
floor. A s he w a s doing t h i s t h e p o r t i o n of t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l
which extended above t h e s t u d w a l l c o l l a p s e d , showering p l a i n t i f f
w i t h b r i c k s and mortar. The i n j u r i e s he s u s t a i n e d a r e t h o s e f o r
which compensation was sought and g r a n t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
Defendant a p p e a l s t h e v e r d i c t and judgment h e r e , r a i s i n g
nineteen issues i n i t s appellate b r i e f . For purposes o f t h i s
opinion, t h e questions r a i s e d i n those nineteen i s s u e s w i l l
be considered a s they r e l a t e t o t h e f o u r g e n e r a l i s s u e s :
1. Was t h e defendant n e g l i g e n t ?
2. Was t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n c e , i f any, t h e proximate
cause o f p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s ?
3. Were t h e damages which t h e j u r y awarded supported by
a d m i s s i b l e evidence?
4. Should t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t have g r a n t e d a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t ,
a judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t , o r a new t r i a l ?
p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint a l l e g e d f o u r s e p a r a t e grounds of
negligence: (1) F a i l u r e t o a t t a c h t h e s t a b i l i z i n g t i e s ; (2)
F a i l u r e t o b r a c e t h e w a l l by some e x t e r n a l means; (3) Erecting
t h e w a l l t o a h e i g h t of e i g h t e e n f e e t i n s t e a d o f doing i t i n
s t a g e s a s t h e i n t e r i o r c o n s t r u c t i o n progressed; and (4) Failure
t o warn p l a i n t i f f o r t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r of t h e dangerous
i n s t a b i l i t y of t h e w a l l . Defendant d e n i e s t h a t any of t h e s e
counts c o n s t i t u t e negligence.
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t some of t h e t i e s were used, even
though t h e a r c h i t e c t ' s p l a n s r e q u i r e d t h a t none be i n s t a l l e d .
It c i t e s 1 3 AmOJur.2d, Building and Construction C o n t r a c t s , 5 140,
f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s f o l l o w i n g of t h e p l a n s r e -
lieved i t of a l l l i a b i l i t y . The p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n o f t h a t
section reads:
'I* ** a contractor followine ~ l a n s
and
-
( ~ m ~ h a s added).
is
However, c a s e s f o o t n o t e d i n support of t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n
c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e subcontractor i s s t i l l l i a b l e unless a
c o n t r a c t o r of average s k i l l and o r d i n a r y prudence would have
followed t h o s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , Ryan v. Feeney & S.Bldg. Co., 239
N.Y. 43, 145 N.E. 321, 4 1 A.L.R. 1; Tipton v. Clower, 67 N.M.
388, 356 P.2d 46. Since a l l t h e persons involved i n t h i s i n c i d e n t
agreed t h a t an unsupported, f o u r i n c h w a l l of t h i s h e i g h t would
b e dangerously u n s t a b l e , t h e evidence a t l e a s t c r e a t e d a j u r y
q u e s t i o n a s t o whether a reasonably prudent and s k i l l f u l con-
t r a c t o r would have a c t e d a s defendant d i d .
The same c o n s i d e r a t i o n s would apply t o d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e
t o e x t e r n a l l y b r a c e t h e w a l l , and t o d e f e n d a n t ' s one-step con-
s t r u c t i o n t o a h e i g h t of e i g h t e e n f e e t . I t i s t r u e t h a t no one
t o l d defendant t o use b r a c e s o r t o proceed i n s t e p s , b u t t h e j u r y
p r o p e r l y could determine whether a r e a s o n a b l e man w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s
knowledge of t h e w a l l ' s i n s t a b i l i t y would have taken such p r e -
cautions.
Defendant a l s o contends t h e r e was no duty t o warn s i n c e
t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c o r was on t h e s i t e throughout t h e time t h e w a l l
was under c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t i s suggested t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r
knew, o r should have known, t h a t t h e t i e s were n o t used. However,
t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r ' s foreman t e s t i f i e d he thought t h e t i e s
had been used, and a r e a s o n a b l e i n s p e c t i o n would n o t have proved
otherwise. Again, t h e r e was evidence on which a j u r y might
reasonably conclude t h a t defendant should have warned o t h e r s , b u t
f a i l e d t o do so.
Since i t appears from t h e r e c o r d t h a t a j u r y could reasonably
conclude t h a t defendant was n e g l i g e n t i n some o r a l l of t h e
a l l e g e d a c t s o r omissions, we then must e x p l o r e t h e c o n t e n t i o n s
t h a t t h e r e were i n t e r v e n i n g causes which r e l i e v e d .defendant of
l i a b i l i t y f o r i t s negligence. The f i r s t suggestion i s t h a t t h e
g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r accepted t h e completed w a l l w i t h knowledge
o f i t s u n s t a b l e c o n d i t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e t h e n e g l i g e n c e which
proximately caused p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r y was t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r ' s
f a i l u r e t o provide f o r h i s employees' s a f e t y .
I f t h o s e were t h e f a c t s h e r e , d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n would
have some m e r i t . A s suggested by defendant, t h e c a s e o f Sumner
v. Lambert, 96 Ohio App. 53, 121 N.E.2d 189, 198, would then be
c l o s e t o t h i s c a s e on i t s f a c t s . However, a s p r e v i o u s l y d i s -
cussed, t h e r e was evidence t h e u n s t a b l e c o n d i t i o n of t h e w a l l
was unknown t o anyone b u t defendant. T h i s i n i t s e l f would make
Sumner i n a p p l i c a b l e , f o r t h a t opinion c l e a r l y s t a t e s :
"In t h e c a s e a t b a r , i t i s n o t a l l e g e d
t h a t t h e r e were any hidden d e f e c t s i n t h e
excavation, known t o t h e defendants and
unknown t o *** [decedent]".
Furthermore, t h e r e a r e f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e
as t o whether t h e w a l l was completed (even defendant t e s t i f i e d
t h a t i t was n o t ) o r a s t o whether t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r accepted
t h e wall. There c l e a r l y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o warrant
a r e v e r s a l on t h i s p o i n t .
The o t h e r i n t e r v e n i n g cause suggested by defendant i s t h a t t h e
s t u d w a l l a l l e g e d l y s t r u c k t h e masonry w a l l d u r i n g t h e process
of r a i s i n g t h e former t o i t s p o s i t i o n . P l a i n t i f f produced
w i t n e s s e s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e r a i s i n g of t h e w a l l who t e s t i -
f i e d t h a t t h e s t u d w a l l d i d n o t s t r i k e t h e masonry w a l l . Defendant
e l i c i t e d testimony from a f t e r - t h e - f a c t w i t n e s s e s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t
t h e p h y s i c a l evidence c l e a r l y showed t h a t t h e s t u d w a l l s t r u c k
t h e masonry w a l l . Defendant would have u s p r e f e r t h e o p i n i o n s
based on t h e p h y s i c i a l evidence over t h e testimony of eyewitnesses.
While i t i s t r u e t h a t undisputed p h y s i c a l f a c t s c o n t r o l over
testimony (Hayward v. Richardson Const. Co., 136 Mont. 241, 347
P.2d 475, 77 ALR2d 1144), t h a t c o n t r o l i s e f f e c t i v e o n l y when t h e
p h y s i c a l f a c t s admit o f only one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The p h y s i c a l
f a c t involved h e r e i s t h a t t h e masonry w a l l f r a c t u r e d and f e l l
a t approximately t h e l e v e l o f t h e t o p o f t h e s t u d w a l l . However,
t h e evidence a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e masonry w a l l stood f o r
s e v e r a l hours a f t e r t h e s t u d w a l l was r a i s e d . Furthermore, t h e
evidence might be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t t h e s t u d w a l l pre-
vented t h e masonry w a l l from c o l l a p s i n g a t a lower l e v e l by a c t i n g
a s a b r a c e a g a i n s t t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e w a l l . Again, i t was a
q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y t o determine.
Having determined t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support
a j u r y f i n d i n g of l i a b i l i t y , we look t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e
evidence which t h e j u r y used t o a r r i v e a t a damage f i g u r e . De-
f e n d a n t ' s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e damages i s t h a t t h e c o u r t a l l e g e d l y
a d m i t t e d a d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n which was b a s e d , a t l e a s t i n p a r t ,
on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s s u b j e c t i v e c o m p l a i n t s . It i s t r u e t h a t t h e
testimony o b j e c t e d t o was t h a t of a d o c t o r who t r e a t e d t h e
p l a i n t i f f a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t and then d i d n o t s e e
him a g a i n u n t i l s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l . However, t h e r e c o r d
i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n of t h e degree and permanency
of p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s was given i n r e s p o n s e t o a q u e s t i o n a s k i n g
him t o d i s r e g a r d t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s s u b j e c t i v e complaints. The
d o c t o r ' s i n i t i a l t r e a t m e n t of t h e p l a i n t i f f , h i s subsequent
examination, and h i s r e a d i n g of t h e r e p o r t s of o t h e r t r e a t i n g
p h y s i c i a n s s u r e l y q u a l i f i e d him t o g i v e such an o p i n i o n w i t h o u t
r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s u b j e c t i v e complaints. Also t h e j u r y was
c a u t i o n e d n o t t o c o n s i d e r any testimony a s t o t h e s e s u b j e c t i v e
complaints. W f i n d no e r r o r h e r e .
e
Defendant a l s o a r g u e s t h a t evidence and i n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t i n g
t o m o r t a l i t y and a n n u i t y t a b l e s should n o t have been g i v e n t o t h e
jury. The o b j e c t i o n i s t h a t even a t t h e time of t r i a l plaintiff
was making more money t h a n he was a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t and
t h e r e f o r e h i s e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y had n o t been impaired by h i s
injuries.
While t h e u s e of such t a b l e s c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e j u r y
c o n s i d e r e d p l a i n t i f f ' s l o s s of f u t u r e e a r n i n g s , we f i n d t h a t
such c o n s i d e r a t i o n was warranted by t h e evidence. The c o n s t r u c t i o n
job which p l a i n t i f f h e l d when he was i n j u r e d was o n l y summer
employment t o h e l p f i n a n c e h t s c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n . By t h e t i m e o f
t h e t r i a l he had completed t h e n e c e s s a r y e d u c a t i o n t o become a
t e a c h e r and was employed i n t h a t c a p a c i t y . His e a r n i n g s a s a
t e a c h e r were h i g h e r than h i s e a r n i n g s on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n job.
Were t h i s t h e o n l y evidence, t h e r e might be some m e r i t t o
defendant's contention. However t h e j u r y was a l s o aware t h a t
t e a c h e r s r o u t i n e l y seek o t h e r employment d u r i n g t h e summer when
school i s not i n session. I t a l s o heard testimony t h a t p l a i n -
t i f f would n o t be a b l e t o coach any a t h l e t i c teams, an a c t i v i t y
which produces income i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a r t e a c h i n g s a l a r y .
These f a c t o r s , combined w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n s on lai in tiff's
enjoyment of h i s p r e v i o u s l y a t h l e t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d l i f e i n d i c a t e
t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e t a b l e s was c l e a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e . Bracy
v. Great Northern Railway Company, 136 Mont. 65, 69, 343 P.2d
848.
The f i n a l q u e s t i o n then i s whether t h e c o u r t should have
d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t , g r a n t e d a judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e
v e r d i c t , o r g r a n t e d a new t r i a l . A s d i s c u s s e d h e r e t o f o r e , we
have found no e r r o r i n t h e l e g a l t h e o r i e s involved h e r e . Those
t h e o r i e s were r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s given t o t h e j u r y ,
and we f i n d t h o s e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o be a p p r o p r i a t e .
Therefore, f i n d i n g no e r r o r of law, and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i -
dence s u p p o r t i n g t h e v e r d i c t , we a f f i r m t h e judgment.
Justice
W Concur:
e