Mallory v. Cloud

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CLAYTON M MALLORY and JEANNE M MALLORY, husband and w i f e ,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
'VS'
JAMES LLOYD CLOUD, D e f e n d a n t and Respondent,
and
CHARLES L HASH, A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e E s t a t e of Thomas
A M a l l o r y , d e c e a s e d , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs-
JAMES LLOYD CLOUD,
Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court o f t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R o b e r t C. S y k e s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellants: Hash, J e l l i s o n and O ' B r i e n , K a l i s p e l l ,
Montana
Kenneth E O ' B r i e n a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l ,
Montana
F o r Respondent: Warden, W a l t e r s k i r c h e n and C h r i s t i a n s e n ,
K a l i s p e l l , Montana
Merritt N Warden a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l ,
Montana

Submitted: J a n u a r y 21, 1975
Decided: 2 7 1975

Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t , F l a t h e a d County, on a j u r y v e r d i c t and a n o r d e r d e n y i n g
a motion f o r a new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s C l a y t o n M. M a l l o r y and

J e a n n e M. M a l l o r y , i n s t i t u t e d a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r damages f o r
t h e i n j u r i e s and d e a t h of t h e i r son,Thomas A . M a l l o r y , r e s u l t i n g
from a c o l l i s i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d between a m o t o r c y c l e o p e r a t e d by

Thomas Mallory and a n a u t o m o b i l e d r i v e n by d e f e n d a n t , James

Lloyd Cloud. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t .

P l a i n t i f f s moved f o r a new t r i a l b u t t h e c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion

on t h e ground t h a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion was n o t t i m e l y , pur-

s u a n t t o Rule 59 ( b ) , M.R.Civ . P .
However, i n i t s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l

b e c a u s e of l a p s e of t i m e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t acknowledged t h a t sub-

s t a n t i a l e r r o r may have been committed by t h e c o u r t by n o t i n -

s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e and t h e d e f e n s e s a v a i l a b l e

under t h e f a c t s . The t r i a l judge was c o r r e c t .
The f a c t s a r e n o t i n d i s p u t e . On August 2 1 , 1972, a t

a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11:30 p.m., a c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d on t h e Big Mountain

Road i n F l a t h e a d County, between a m o t o r c y c l e d r i v e n u p g r a d e by

Thomas A . Mallory and a v e h i c l e d r i v e n downgrade by James Lloyd
Cloud. A s a r e s u l t of t h a t c o l l i s i o n , Thomas Mallory d i e d .

P r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , approximately one-quarter mile
from t h e s c e n e of t h e a c c i d e n t , d e f e n d a n t p u l l e d i n t o a t u r n o f f

t o admire t h e view of t h e v a l l e y . He t u r n e d o f f h i s v e h i c l e l i g h t s
and d i d n o t a g a i n t u r n them on when he began h i s d e s c e n t down t h e
mountain. The r o a d was winding and c o n t a i n e d b l i n d c u r v e s , b u t
d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d h e c o u l d see ahead a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s t a n c e be-
cause of t h e b r i g h t moonlight. Defendant t u r n e d on h i s v e h i c l e

l i g h t s j u s t b e f o r e impact w i t h t h e m o t o r c y c l e and s t a t e s h e saw
a n image, b u t w a s u n a b l e t o a v o i d c o l l i d i n g w i t h i t . Only a f t e r
t h e collisioa 3rd he d i s c o v e r t h e image was a m o t o r c y c l e d r i v e n

by Thomas Mallory.

The highway p a t r o l m a n t e s t i f i e d t h e h e a d l i g h t of t h e

niotorcycle was n o t on a t t h e t i m e of i m p a c t , and t h e r e was no

inarked c e n t e r l i n e on t h e r o a d . A t t h e t i m e of impact d e f e n d -

a n t ' s c a r was i n t h e l e f t h a n d d r i v i n g l a n e of t h e r o a d .
There were two p a s s e n g e r s w i t h Cloud on t h e n i g h t i n

q u e r k i o n , b o t h s u b s t a n t i a t e d C l o u d ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e happenings

tiza t n i g h t .

The t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d t o g i v e p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed

i r i s t r u c t i o n 110. 2 on r e c k l e s s and wanton misconduct and t h e de-

f e n s e of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e , which r e a d s :
" C o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e of t h e d e c e d e n t i s n o t a
b a r t o p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y f o r i n j u r i e s and d e a t h
c a u s e d by t h e r e c k l e s s o r wanton misconduct of t h e
defendant.
" R e c k l e s s o r wanton misconduct i s i n t e n t i o n a l ,
wrongful c o n d u c t , done e i t h e r w i t h knowledge
t h a t s e r i o u s i n j u r y t o another w i l l probably r e -
s u l t , o r w i t h a wanton and r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d o f
t h e p o s s i b l e r e s u l t s . An i n t e n t t o i n j u r e i s n o t
a n e c e s s a r y element o f r e c k l e s s and wanton m i s -
conduct.

"To p r o v e such m i s c o n d u c t , i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o
e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e defendant himself recognized
h i s conduct a s d a n g e r o u s . It i s s u f f i c i e n t i f i t
he e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e man under t h e same
o r s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s would be awzre o f t h e
dangerous c h a r a c t e r of such c o n d u c t . "

A f t e r t h e j u r y r e t i r e d , and d u r i n g i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s ,
i n q u i r y was made o f t h e c o u r t a s t o whether t h e r e c o u l d be more

t h a n one proximate c a u s e o f a n a c c i d e n t . The c o u r t t h e n s u b m i t t e d

a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e jury with r e s p e c t t o proximate
c a u s e and r e f u s e d p l a i n t i f f s t h e r i g h t t o p r e s e n t f u r t h e r o r a l
argument a f t e r t h e g i v i n g of t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s . The

j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t and a g a i n s t p l a i n -

tiffs.
P l a i n t i f f s on a p p e a l b r i n g t h r e e a s s i g n m e n t s of e r r o r ,
( ~ o w ~ v ~1 1 1 ,
L V L ~ W 3.t 3 u . ~ i ~ l d i r i j ,we wi1.l Slscuss o n l y t h e i n -

s c r u c t i o n on n e g l i g e n c e .

P l a i n t i f f s c o r r e c t l y argue t h a t t h e u n i v e r s a l l y accepted

r u l e and t h e r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e o f

t h e p l a i n t i f f i s no b a r t o p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y f o r i n j u r i e s

c a u s e d by t h e r e c k l e s s and wanton misconduct of a d e f e n d a n t .

M i h e l i c h v . B u t t e E l e c t r i c Ry. Co., 8 5 Mont. 6 0 4 , 281 P. 540.

P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r a r g u e , and we a g r e e , t h a t t h i s C o u r t

h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d n e g l i g e n c e o r any b r e a c h of d u t y i s f o r t h e

t r i a l c o u r t t o d e c i d e o n l y i f t h e e v i d e n c e i s u n d i s p u t e d and

o n l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o b u t o n e c o n c l u s i o n by a r e a s o n a b l e man, and

t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u c h t h a t i t w i l l s u p p o r t no o t h e r l e g i t i -

mate i n f e r e n c e . I f r e a s o n a b l e minds might draw a d i f f e r e n t con-

c l u s i o n from t h e e v i d e n c e , it i s a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y . Suhr

v . S e a r s Roebuck and Company, 152 Mont. 344, 450 P.2d 87; D a h l i n
v . Rice Truck L i n e s , 137 Mont. 430, 352 P.2d 801.
A number of o u t of j u r i s d i c t i o n c a s e s have been c i t e d t o

t h i s C o u r t which do h o l d , i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h a t d r i v i n g

on t h e wrong s i d e of t h e s t r e e t w i t h l i g h t s o f f amounts t o wanton

and w i l l f u l misconduct a s a m a t t e r of l a w ; b u t e a c h c a s e must be

d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s . W e have reviewed t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n

khe i n s t a n t c a s e and t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . his C o u r t f i n d s

c h a t t h e q u e s t i o n of w i l l f u l and wanton n e g l i g e n c e w a s a q u e s t i o n

of f a c t and n o t a q u e s t i o n of law.

The arguments p r e s e n t e d by b o t h p a r t i e s d e m o n s t r a t e how

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

opposing c o n c l u s i o n s a s t o whether d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d u c t amounted

t o w i l l f u l and wanton misconduct.

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e p l a i n t i f f s ' pro-

posed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 , i n e f f e c t , i n c o r r e c t l y r u l e d t h a t a s a

l n a t t e r of law t h e r e was no f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n whether o r n o t d e f e n d a n t
 VI~; willfully and w a n t o i ~ l yn e g l i g e n t . 'The J i s t r i c t z o u r t

e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 .

The m a t t e r o f a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s a f t e r t h e j u r y h a s

r e t i r e d f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n s h o u l d n o t a r i s e i n a new t r i a l .

The judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e

c a d s e i s remanded f o r a new t r i a l .

Justice
W e concur.

. a
.

- I

----
#
---L--%-r-*--A--L-d,--'%&d-b-

Chief J u s t i c e
Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d i s s e n t i n g :

I dissent. Here two v e h i c l e s one a motorcycle t h e o t h e r
a Volkswagen, d r i v i n g a narrow mountain road w i t h o u t l i g h t s i n
the moonlight,collide. Such conduct on t h e p a r t of b o t h d r i v e r s
was ill a d v i s e d ; b u t , h a r d l y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o each o t h e r was i t
r e c k l e s s o r wanton conduct. I t may w e l l have been g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e

w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n o t h e r d r i v e r w i t h h i s h e a d l i g h t s on, b u t h e r e
b o t h d r i v e r s were e q u a l l y a t f a u l t . I n o t h e r words, i f t h e
defendant Cloud i s t o be charged w i t h g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e o r r e c k l e s s
and wanton conduct f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o have h e a d l i g h t s i n o p e r a t i o n ,
then t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' decedent Mallory i s e q u a l l y g u i l t y of t h e
same kind of conduct. Thus, I b e l i e v e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was
c o r r e c t i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t on w i l l f u l and wanton conduct.
I would a f f i r m t h e judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t .

Justice. A