Brothers v. Town of Virginia City

No. 13283 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA F 197 6 BILL BROTHERS, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - TOWN OF VIRGINIA cIm, VIRGINIA CITY MONTANA, and WALTER EVERLY, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s , T W O V I R G I N I A CITY, V I R G I N I A CITY O N F MONTANA, T h i r d P a r t y P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , STANFORD 0 . DUGDALE, T h i r d P a r t y Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. R o b e r t J. Boyd, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : C h e s t e r Lloyd J o n e s a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , V i r g i n i a C i t y , Montana For Respondents: C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana R. D. C o r e t t e a r g u e d and J o h n L a r s o n a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Submitted: October 22, 1976 Decided:DEC 2 8 i97b F i l e d : JEh; 2 : J76 M r . 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 Court. This i s an appeal from a f i n a l judgment following a j u r y v e r d i c t rendered i n favor of p l a i n t i f f B i l l Brothers i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Madison County. O J u l y 21, 1972, B i l l Brothers Construction e n t e r e d i n t o n a c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e Town of Virginia C i t y , Montana, whereby t h e c o n t r a c t o r agreed t o c o n s t r u c t a s a n i t a r y sewer system and lagoon f o r t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e of $139,681.50. V i r g i n i a C i t y subsequently requested changes i n t h e sewer system which reduced t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e t o $138,629.20. These changes were approved by t h e c o n t r a c t o r and V i r g i n i a C i t y ' s supervising engineer. The c o n t r a c t o r commenced performance of t h e c o n t r a c t i n accordance with a " n o t i c e t o proceed" and continued t o perform under t h e c o n t r a c t except during those periods when inclement weather caused t h e suspension of work. The c o n t r a c t o r received p e r i o d i c payments under t h e c o n t r a c t a s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n progressed u n t i l September 5 , 1973, when t h e c o n t r a c t o r gave notce performance of t h e c o n t r a c t was complete. I n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e c o n t r a c t o r contended t h e following sums remained due, owing and unpaid under t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t o r subsequent c o n t r a c t s : -Count One - $17,195.15, t o g e t h e r with i n t e r e s t , a s t h e f i n a l payment due under t h e o r i g i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t . Count Two - $3,829.55, together with i n t e r e s t , a s payment f o r work requested and authorized by V i r g i n i a City i n t h e r e p a i r of wash-out conditions caused by a ruptured water l i n e . Count Three P - $468.60, together with interest, as payment for part performance on a contract for extra work performed in connection with the lagoon. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for directed verdict on Count Two, ruling that defendant was indebted to plaintiff but leaving the amount of indebtedness to the jury, The jury returned verdicts for the plaintiff and in the sums prayed for by the plaintiff with the exception of Count Three for which the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $400. Defendant presents five issues for review: 1. Whether the district court erred in granting plaintiff's motion in limine which restricted defendant from questioning I plaintiff regarding litigation between plaintiff and defendant's supervising engineer? 2. Whether the district court erred in not granting defendant's motion for directed verdict on Counts One and Three? 3. Whether the district court erred in not granting defendant's motion for a new trial on Counts One, Two and Three? 4. Whether the district court erred in not granting defend- ant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Count Three? 5. Whether the district court erred in giving Instruction No. 10 and refusing to give defendant's proposed instructions No. 2, 10 and 11? Defendant's first allegation of error concerns the district court's granting of plaintiff's motion in limine, Defendant con- tends that evidence of pending litigation between plaintiff and defendant's engineer was r e l e v a n t and m a t e r i a l i n proving t h e bad f a i t h of t h e engineer and thus wrongly withheld from t h e j u r y . Defendant concludes t h a t p l a i n t i f f would n o t have recovered had defendant been allowed t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e n g i n e e r ' s bad f a i t h i n i s s u i n g extensions of time f o r performance and i n h i s determination t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t had been completed. W b e l i e v e defendant has i n c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e law e of Montana regarding t h e e f f e c t of d e c i s i o n s of a supervising engineer. C l i f t o n , Applegate & Toole v. Big Lake Drain D i s t r i c t No. 1, 82 Mont. 312, 327, 330, 267 P. 207, c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s t h e Montana r u l e : "The law appears t o be d e f i n i t e l y s e t t l e d t h a t ' t h e d e c i s i o n , e s t i m a t e , o r c e r t i f i c a t e of an a r c h i - t e c t , engineer, o r superintendent, i n approving o r d i s - approving t h e work a s a performance of a c o n t r a c t , o r i n passing on questions r e l a t i n g t h e r e t o , i s , i n t h e absence of f r a u d , bad f a i t h , o r mistake, conclusive and binding on t h e p a r t i e s , where t h e c o n t r a c t , e i t h e r i n express terms provides t h a t i t s h a l l be f i n a l and con- c l u s i v e , o r i n p l a i n language shows t h a t it was t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e person t o whom t h e q u e s t i o n i s submitted should be t h e a r b i t e r t h e r e o f . ' "An honest mistake i n measurement o r i n judgment i s not a ground f o r impeachment of t h e e n g i n e e r ' s e s t i m a t e s . i t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o say t h a t t h e engineer came t o a conclusion of f a c t erroneously. Although t h e c o u r t might have made,a d i f f e r e n t e s t i m a t e , i t may not s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e engineer." See: P o l l e y ' s Lumber Co. v. United S t a t e s , 115 F.2d 751; United P a c i f i c Insurance Co. v. County of Flathead, 499 F.2d 1235. Absent a showing of fraud, t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e supervising engineer a r e binding upon t h e c o n t r a c t i n g p a r t i e s . W fail to e perceive how t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of evidence regarding l i t i g a t i o n between p l a i n t i f f and t h e supervising engineer would e s t a b l i s h such fraud. The i s s u e t o be resolved was whether o r n o t p l a i n t i f f could recover from defendant under a c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t . Evidence of pending claims and counterclaims'between p l a i n t i f f and defendant's supervising engineer were n o t m a t e r i a l i n r e s o l v i n g such a question of law and f a c t . This Court reviewed t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e motion i n limine i n Wallin v. Kenyon E s t a t e , 164 Mont. 160, 164, 519 P.2d "Authority f o r t h e g r a n t i n g of a motion i n limine r e s t s i n t h e i n h e r e n t power of t h e c o u r t t o admit o r exclude evidence and t o take such precautions a s a r e necessary to afford a f a i r t r i a l for a l l parties. *** "The d e c i s i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n excluding questions a t t r i a l of t h e proponent's a l l e g e d p r a c t i c e of law was conducive t o t h e prevention of i r r e l e v a n t , immaterial arid p r e j u d i c i a l evidence being heard by t h e jury. The pur- pose, and e f f e c t , of t h e c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g t h e motion i n limine was t o prevent t h a t which occurred i n t h e c a s e of I n t h e Matter of t h e E s t a t e of Powers, 163 Mont. 67, 515 P.2d 368, where many d i v e r s e i s s u e s were allowed ** t o d i v e r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t from t h e s i n g l e i s s u e* * *'." The advantages of t h e motion i n limine a r e many. It speeds, s i m p l i f i e s and p u r i f i e s t h e process of obtaining j u s t v e r d i c t s by excluding p r e j u d i c i a l evidence which lacks probative value. The motion i n limine allows t h e judge and j u r y t o concentrate on t h e main d i s p u t e by i s o l a t i n g t h e jury from p r e j u d i c i a l i n f e r e n c e s and c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e s . See: 20 Am J u r T r i a l s p. 441. W hold t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t properly exercised i t s e discre- t i o n when i t granted p l a i n t i f f ' s motion i n limine. I n i t s second a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r defendant contends the d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g defendant's motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on Counts One and Three. The law i s c l e a r i n Montana . that a party asserting error i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t has t h e burden of showing t h a t e r r o r was committed. Fuchs v. Huether, 154 Mont. 11, 459 P.2d 689. When reviewing an order denying motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t only evidence of t h e non-moving p a r t y w i l l be considered and such evidence w i l l be considered i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h a t p a r t y . Mueller v. Svejkovsky, 153 Mont. 416, 458 P.2d 265. The reviewing c o u r t must concede a s t r u e a l l of p l a i n t i f f ' s evidence and give p l a i n t i f f t h e bene- f i t of a l l l e g i t i m a t e inferences. Gerard v. Sanner, 110 Mont. 7 1 , 103 P.2d 314. The evidence must be reviewed from t h e standpoint most favorable t o p l a i n t i f f and every f a c t which t h e evidence tends t o prove must be deemed proved. Leybold v. Fox Butte Theater Corp., 103 Mont. 232, 62 P.2d 223. I f t h e record should c o n t a i n s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u s t a i n i n g t h e jury f i n d i n g then t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n i n denying t h e motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and submitting t h e cause t o t h e j u r y , and t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i t s e l f , must be s u s t a i n e d . I n r e Dillenburg's E s t a t e , 136 Mont. 542, 349 P.2d 573. W f i n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t properly concluded t h a t p l a i n t i f f e introduced s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u s t a i n i n g t h e j u r y ' s finding. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y denied defendant's motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on Counts One and Three. Defendant's t h i r d a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r concerns t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of defendant's motion f o r a new t r i a l on Counts One, Two and Three. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t has broad d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n t o r deny motions f o r new t r i a l and i t s r u l i n g s w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on review i n t h e absence of a c l e a r showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Gunderson v. Brewster, 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589. Where t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g r a n t a new t r i a l w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d . S t a t e Highway Commission v. Roth, 159 Mont. 268, 496 P.2d 1136. Even where t h e evidence i s i n c o n f l i c t , t h e judgment w i l l n o t . be d i s t u r b e d on appeal when s u b s t a n t i a l evidence appears i n t h e record t o support t h e judgment. This r u l e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i - c a b l e when t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t has passed upon t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence on motion f o r new t r i a l and has upheld i t s s u f f i - ciency. Strong v. Williams, 154 Mont. 65, 460 P.2d 90. W f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e e jury v e r d i c t and f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n o r e r r o r i n d e n i a l of t h e motions f o r new t r i a l . Defendant's f o u r t h a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r concerns t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g r a n t defendant's motion f o r judgment, n o t - withstanding t h e v e r d i c t on Count Three. A s i n t h e c a s e of a motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , t h e Court reviewing a motion f o r judgment notwithstanding t h e v e r d i c t must view t h e evidence i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e motion i s made. The moving p a r t y admits t h e t r u t h of adverse evidence and every l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e which may be drawn from t h e adverse evidence. The motion f o r judgment notwithstanding t h e v e r d i c t should be granted only where i t appears from t h e evidence, viewed i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e non-moving p a r t y , t h a t t h e r e i s no s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . Hauter v. Zogarts, 120 Cal.Rptr.681, 534 P.2d 377. C l e a r l y , p l a i n t i f f introduced s u b s t a n t i a l evidence which would support t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t on Count Three. W f i n d no e e r r o r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of defendant's motion f o r judgment notwithstanding t h e v e r d i c t . Defendant's fifth allegation of error is that the district court erred in its instructions to the jury and in refusing to give several of defendant's proposed instructions. When determining whether jury instructions were properly given or refused the reviewing court considers the instructions in their entirety. Furthermore, the instructions are read in connection with other instructions given and they are cohsidered in light of the evidence adduced. Fox v. Fifth West, Inc., 153 Mont. 95, 454 P.2d 612. Where the instructions to the jury in their entirety state the law applicable to the case, a party cannot claim reversible error as to the giving or denying of certain instruc- tions. Franck v. Hudson, 140 Mont. 480, 373 P.2d 951. Upon reviewing the jury instructions given by the district court, we find no reversible error. The judgment of the district court We Concur: 1 n. L.C. Gulbrandson, District dge, sitting for Justice Wesley