Leary v. Kelly Pipe Company

No. 12894 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN 1976 PATRICK LEARY , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , KELLY PIPE COMPANY, a C a l i f o r n i a Corporation; F-B T U K LINES, a RC Utah Corpora t i o n ; and RICHARD WOOD, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f the Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Burgess, Joyce, P r o t h e r o , Whelan and 0 ' ~ e a r , y B u t t e , Montana Thomas F. Joyce argued and Robert T. 0 ' ~ e a r y argued, B u t t e , 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 Jr. argued, B u t t e , Montana Henningsen, P u r c e l l and Genzberger, B u t t e , Montana Rex F. Henningsen argued, B u t t e , Montana Submitted: February 3 , 1976 fipp 2 8 '976 Decided : Mr. 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 C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f P a t r i c k Leary b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S i l v e r Bow County a g a i n s t t h e K e l l y P i p e Company, F-B Truck L i n e s and Richard Wood f o r damages based upon t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e of a l l d e f e n d a n t s . Plaintiff s u f f e r e d p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s when a l o a d o f p i p e f e l l from a t r u c k - t r a i l e r o n t o him w h i l e he was a s s i s t i n g i n t h e p r o c e s s of u n l o a d i n g . A s e p a r a t e jury v e r d i c t w a s returned f o r each d e f e n d a n t and judgment was e n t e r e d a c c o r d i n g l y . Plaintiff appeals. P a t r i c k Leary w a s a n employee of t h e B e c h t e l C o r p o r a t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e . Bechtel company C o r p o r a t i o n i s a l a r g e c o n s t r u c t i o n / w h i c h had c o n t r a c t e d t o b u i l d a new o r e t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y f o r t h e Anaconda Company i n t h e v i c i n i t y of Anaconda, Montana. P a r t of t h e construction required t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a w a t e r l i n e t o t h e new p l a n t , and s t e e l p i p e f o r t h i s p u r p o s e was o r d e r e d from d e f e n d a n t K e l l y P i p e Com- pany, a C a l i f o r n i a f i r m w i t h a p l a n t a t S a n t a Fe S p r i n g s , C a l i - fornia. K e l l y P i p e o r B e c h t e l c o n t r a c t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t F-B Truck L i n e s t o h a u l t h e p i p e from t h e K e l l y P i p e p l a n t t o Ana- conda. F-B i s a Utah c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t h a s a n I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission c e r t i f i c a t e , o r p e r m i t , t o h a u l goods i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce by t r u c k . F-B u s e s " c o n t r a c t d r i v e r s f f t o o p e r a t e t h e t r u c k s under a system whereby t h e d r i v e r buys t h e t r a c t o r w i t h f i n a n c i n g g u a r a n t e e d by F-B and F-B owns t h e t r a i l e r s t h a t a r e attached t o the tractors. The t r a c t o r s c a r r y t h e name of F-B and i t s d i s t i n c t i v e c o l o r s . On J u l y 3 0 , 1973, o n e Graham, a " c o n t r a c t d r i v e r " f o r F-B, was d i r e c t e d by F-B t o p i c k up a l o a d of p i p e f o r F-B at S a n t a Fe S p r i n g s . The l o a d i n q u e s t i o n c o n s i s t e d of twenty- f o u r p i e c e s of pipe, each p i e c e being f o r t y f e e t long, eighteen i n c h e s i n d i a m e t e r , and weighing a p p r o x i m a t e l y one t o n . Graham, w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e of K e l l y P i p e employees, l o a d e d t h e p i p e on t h e t r a i l e r and s e c u r e d t h e p i p e w i t h h i s own c h a i n s . Pieces o f lumber c a l l e d dunnage and chocks were a l s o used t o p r e v e n t l a t e r a l movement of t h e p i p e w h i l e i n t r a n s i t . T h i s lumber was p r o v i d e d from t h e y a r d o f K e l l y P i p e . Graham d r o v e t h e l o a d e d t r u c k t o Wilmington, C a l i f o r n i a and l e f t it i n a s t o r a g e y a r d used by F-B. H e removed h i s c h a i n s , l e a v i n g t h e l o a d of p i p e unbound. On August 2 , 1973, d e f e n d a n t Richard Wood, a n o t h e r "con- t r a c t d r i v e r " f o r F-B, was a s s i g n e d by F-B t o p i c k up t h i s l o a d o f p i p e a t t h e Wilmington y a r d f o r t r a n s p o r t t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e n e a r Anaconda, Montana. Wood had no I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission p e r m i t and no c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h K e l l y P i p e , B e c h t e l C o r p o r a t i o n , o r Anaconda Company. Because Graham had removed h i s c h a i n s , Wood had t o s e c u r e t h e l o a d a g a i n and d i d s o i n a manner which became a n i s s u e i n t h i s l a w s u i t . Leary c o n t e n d s t h a t had Wood s e c u r e d t h e lower l a y e r s o f p i p e t o t h e bed o f t h e t r a i l e r , t h e s u b s e q u e n t a c c i d e n t would have been a v o i d e d . F-B and Wood s a y t h a t t h e s e c u r i n g method employed was a c c e p t a b l e and not negligent. I n any e v e n t , Wood proceeded t o d r i v e t h e l o a d t o Anaconda and a r r i v e d t h e r e on August 6 , 1973. Later t h e same day Wood d r o v e t h e l o a d e d t r u c k t o t h e p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e where Leary and o t h e r s commenced t o h e l p him u n l o a d t h e p i p e from t h e t r a i l e r . A c r a n e was employed t o a t t a c h c a b l e s t o e i t h e r end of a p i e c e of p i p e w h i l e Leary and a n o t h e r climbed o n t o t h e t o p o f t h e l o a d t o p l a c e t h e c a b l e s on t h e e n d s of t h e p i p e . Wood d r o v e t h e t r u c k d u r i n g t h e unload- ing. While Leary was s t a n d i n g on t h e l o a d o f p i p e a f t e r t h e f i r s t p i e c e had been removed, t h e l o a d r o l l e d o f f t h e t r a i l e r t o t h e ground i n a sudden movement and t h e wooden dunnage c r a c k e d and b r o k e . Leary w a s u n a b l e t o jump c l e a r o f t h e f a l l i n g p i p e , f e l l w i t h i t , and was p a r t i a l l y pinned under some of t h e e i g h t e e n p i e c e s of p i p e which r o l l e d t o t h e ground. Leary's i n j u r i e s n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e a m p u t a t i o n o f a f o r e a r m and a l e g . Leary b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n i n t o r t a l l e g i n g t h a t the negli- g e n c e o f a l l d e f e n d a n t s c a u s e d Leary s e v e r e i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g i n p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s , i m - p a i r m e n t o f p a s t , p r e s e n t and f u t u r e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , and l o s t wages f o r a n i n d e f i n i t e p e r i o d of t i m e i n t h e f u t u r e . H e sought judgment o f $886,200. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a s e p a r a t e v e r d i c t f o r each defendant. Leary s p e c i f i e s numerous e r r o r s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t which may be summarized: 1. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n a l l o w i n g f o u r peremp- t o r y j u r y c h a l l e n g e s t o K e l l y P i p e , and f o u r peremptory c h a l l e n g e s c o l l e c t i v e l y t o F-B and Wood? 2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n re- f u s i n g t o a d m i t t h r e e p h o t o g r a p h s i n t o e v i d e n c e a s o f f e r e d by Leary? 3. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n g i v i n g c e r t a i n i n s t r u c - t i o n s t o t h e jury? The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r u l e d a t t h e o u t s e t o f t h e t r i a l t h a t K e l l y P i p e w a s i n a n a d v e r s e p o s i t i o n t o F-B and Wood, t h u s en- t i t l i n g K e l l y P i p e t o f o u r peremptory c h a l l e n g e s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f o u r a l l o w e d t o F-B and Wood. Leary o b j e c t e d a t t h a t t i m e and now a s s e r t s t h a t t h e r u l i n g was p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r i n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were a b l e t o d e c i m a t e t h e p a n e l w i t h t h e i r t o t a l o f e i g h t peremptory c h a l l e n g e s . A l l p a r t i e s r e l y on M u l l e r y v . G r e a t N o r t h e r n Ry. Co., 50 Mont. 408, 148 P. 323, i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s on t h i s i s s u e . M u l l e r y s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t under o u r j u r y c h a l l e n g e s t a t u t e , now c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n 93-5010, R.C.M. 1947, t h e words " e a c h p a r t y " i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p e r m i t t e d f o u r peremptory c h a l l e n g e s means "each s i d e " u n l e s s t h e p o s i t i o n s of codefendants a r e h o s t i l e t o each o t h e r . The o p i n i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t h o s t i l i t y between nominal d e f e n d a n t s may be shown "by p l e a d - ing, r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r evidence." I n t h i s c a s e Leary c o n t e n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t s assumed i d e n t i c a l p o s i t i o n s , w h i l e d e f e n d a n t s contend t h a t Kelly Pipe attempted t o s h i f t a l l l i a b i l i t y o n t o F-B and Wood and c r e a t e d a h o s t i l i t y between them. I n any e v e n t p l a i n t i f f must show t h a t any e r r o r i n a l l o w - i n g a d d i t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e s w a s p r e j u d i c i a l t o him. As stated in A n n o t a t i o n , E f f e c t o f a l l o w i n g e x c e s s i v e number of peremptory c h a l l e n g e s , 95 ALR 2d 957, 963: "The n u m e r i c a l w e i g h t of a u t h o r i t y i n c i v i l c a s e s s u p p o r t s t h e r u l e t h a t a judgment w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d f o r e r r o r i n a l l o w i n g o n e o r more peremp- t o r y c h a l l e n g e s i n e x c e s s of t h a t p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e , u n l e s s t h e c o m p l a i n i n g p a r t y shows t h a t he h a s e x h a u s t e d h i s peremptory c h a l l e n g e s and h a s s u f f e r e d material i n j u r y from t h e a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t , and t h a t a s a r e s u l t t h e r e o f o n e o r more o b j e c t i o n a b l e j u r o r s s a t on t h e c a s e , o r f o r some o t h e r e q u a l l y c o g e n t r e a s o n s . " I n accord: Ashley v. Safeway S t o r e s , I n c . , 100 Mont. 312, 47 P.2d 53. Cf. F e r r o n v . I n t e r m o u n t a i n T r a n s . Co., 115 Mont. 388, 143 P.2d 893. To t h e e x t e n t F e r r o n may be i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o n t r a r y t o o u r h o l d i n g h e r e i n , it i s e x p r e s s l y o v e r r u l e d . In the instant c a s e Leary h a s advanced no f a c t which i n d i c a t e s m a t e r i a l i n j u r y , n o r h a s he a t t e m p t e d t o show t h a t o b j e c t i o n a b l e j u r o r s s a t on t h e case. Thus t h e f i r s t i s s u e must be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f defendants. The second i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e r e f u s a l o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o a d m i t i n t o e v i d e n c e t h r e e p h o t o g r a p h s o f f e r e d by Leary a s p l a i n t i f f s E x h i b i t s 1 6 , 17 and 1 8 . The p h o t o g r a p h s show a n F-B t r u c k l o a d of p i p e and show t h e s t r i n g i n g o f p i p e from a n F-B t r u c k - t r a i l e r . The p h o t o g r a p h s were t a k e n a few d a y s p r i o r t o t h e d a t e o f L e a r y ' s i n j u r y and i n t h e same g e n e r a l v i c i n i t y a s t h a t i n which t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . Leary o f f e r e d them i n evidence f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n purposes. The r e f u s a l t o a d m i t t h e p r o f f e r e d p h o t o g r a p h s was n o t an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . P h o t o g r a p h i c e v i d e n c e may be u s e d t o " a s s i s t t h e jury i n understanding a case." T e e s d a l e v . Anschutz D r i l l i n g Co., 138 Mont. 427, 439, 357 P.2d 4 . Here Leary was introducing photographs t o a s s i s t t h e jury only i n understand- ing h i s theory t h a t t h e trucks depicted i n p l a i n t i f f ' s Exhibits 1 6 , 17 and 18 were p r o p e r l y l o a d e d w i t h p i p e w h i l e t h e t r u c k i n v o l v e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t was i m p r o p e r l y l o a d e d . This purpose f o r introduction of photographic e x h i b i t s i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e p u r p o s e s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t i n McNair v . B e r g e r , 92 Mont. 4 4 1 , 460, 1 5 P.2d 834, namely: " I * * * t h a t t h e photograph, a s explained, w i l l- give a c o r r e c t understandins of t h e condition e x i s t i n s a t t h e t i m e t o which t h e c o n t r o v e r s y r e l a t e s . I' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) These p h o t o g r a p h s do n o t d e p i c t any c o n d i t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h i s controversy. The p i c t u r e d t r u c k s a r e d i f f e r e n t t r u c k s l o a d e d d i f f e r e n t l y from t h e F-B t r u c k and t r a i l e r i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e . W f i n d no e r r o r i n e x c l u d i n g them. e The f i n a l i s s u e t u r n s on t h e p r o p r i e t y o f c e r t a i n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . D i s t r i c t c o u r t In- s t r u c t i o n No. 27 s t a t e s a s f o l l o w s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e manner i n which t h e p i p e was s e c u r e d on t h e t r u c k was t h e a c c e p t e d p r a c t i c e f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and i s e v i d e n c e t h a t due c a r e was used by F-J3 Truck L i n e s and Richard Wood i n s e c u r i n g t h e p i p e f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . " Counsel f o r Leary o b j e c t e d t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e grounds t h a t t h e r e i s no proof of a n " a c c e p t e d p r a c t i c e " ; t h e e v i d e n c e o n ' p i p e l o a d i n g p r o c e d u r e s w a s c o n f l i c t i n g ; t h e i n s t r u c t i o n w a s a comment on t h e e v i d e n c e ; and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n makes a f i n d i n g o f f a c t which c o n s t i t u t e s an invasion of t h e province of t h e jury. I n s t r u c t i o n No. 27 i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t made i t s own f i n d i n g of f a c t from i n c o n c l u s i v e t e s t i m o n y , i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h i s f a c t a s a m a t t e r o f law, and i n e f f e c t d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t f o r F-B and Wood on t h e i s s u e of negligence. With t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n b e f o r e i t , t h e j u r y had no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o f i n d f o r F-B and Wood. D i s t r i c t c o u r t I n s t r u c t i o n No. 28 s t a t e s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e shipment of p i p e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e w a s i n I n t e r s t a t e Commerce and c o n t r o l l e d by t h e t a r i f f o f F-B Truck L i n e s on f i l e and approved by t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission. The t a r i f f p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e con- s i g n e e , B e c h t e l C o r p o r a t i o n , i s r e s p o n s i b l e and assumes t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e s a f e u n l o a d i n g of t h e p i p e . " Counsel f o r Leary o b j e c t e d t o t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e grounds t h a t t h e t a r i f f w a s i n e v i d e n c e and was a f a c t which s p e a k s f o r i t s e l f ; t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i m p l i e s t h a t Wood had no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; Wood was a n a g e n t and c h a r g e a b l e w i t h any n e g l i g e n c e on h i s p a r t ; and B e c h t e l d i d n o t acknowledge r e c e i p t of d e l i v e r y u n t i l a f t e r t h e accident. The t a r i f f i n q u e s t i o n , i s s u e d t o F-B by t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission, s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "When h o i s t s , c r a n e s , winches, j a c k s , p u l l e y s , b l o c k s and t a c k l e a r e r e q u i r e d i n t h e l o a d i n g o r u n l o a d i n g of heavy a r t i c l e s , t h e c o n s i g n o r o r c o n s i g n e e a s t h e c a s e may be s h a l l f u r n i s h same and t h e n e c e s s a r y men t o o p e r a t e s u c h s p e c i a l e q u i p - ment a t h i s own e x p e n s e , and a l s o assume t h e r e - s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s a f e loading o r unloading." W h o l d t h a t t h e g i v i n g of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 28 w a s r e v e r s i - e b l e e r r o r b e c a u s e it h a s t h e e f f e c t of m i s l e a d i n g t h e j u r y t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t o n l y B e c h t e l C o r p o r a t i o n c o u l d be l i a b l e f o r the accident. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e when r e a d t o g e t h e r w i t h I n s t r u c t i o n No. 23 which s a y s t h a t i f t h e j u r y f i n d s " * * * the s o l e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e n e g l i g e n c e of p l a i n t i f f ' s employer, B e c h t e l C o r p o r a t i o n , t h e n your v e r d i c t must be i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s . " I n s t r u c t i o n No. 28 a t l e a s t implies t h a t Bechtel Corporation w a s s o l e l y l i a b l e because of t h e t a r i f f ; and under I n s t r u c t i o n No. 23 a v e r d i c t i s d i r e c t e d f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n such c i r c u m s t a n c e s . L i a b i l i t y f o r neg- l i g e n c e i n t h i s c a s e was a n i s s u e o f f a c t f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e jury. F i n a l l y , we r e f e r t o I n s t r u c t i o n No. 29, o b j e c t e d t o by Leary. T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s t h e law w i t h r e s p e c t t o independent c o n t r a c t o r s . However, t h e g i v i n g o f t h i s i n s t r u c - t i o n was improper b e c a u s e t h e i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r r u l e i s i r r e l e v a n t t o the case. The I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission p e r - m i t o r c e r t i f i c a t e under which F-B o p e r a t e d c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t F-B i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t i n g o f goods i n i n t e r - s t a t e commerce. S e e t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce A c t , 4 9 U.S.C. sec- t i o n 3 0 3 ( c ) and 4 9 C.F.R., P a r t 1057 --- Lease and I n t e r c h a n g e of Vehicles. The r e g u l a t i o n , a d o p t e d p u r s u a n t t o s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r - i t y , s t a t e s i n s e c t i o n 1057.4: " ( a ) Contract requirements. The c o n t r a c t , lease, o r o t h e r a r r a n g e m e n t f o r t h e u s e of s u c h equipment: " ( 4 ) * * * S h a l l provide f o r t h e exclusive p o s s e s s i o n , c o n t r o l , and u s e of t h e equipment, and f o r t h e c o m p l e t e a s s u m p t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n r e s p e c t t h e r e t o , by t h e l e s s e e [ h e r e , F-B] f o r t h e d u r a t i o n of s a i d c o n t r a c t , l e a s e , o r o t h e r arrangement * * *." Thus F-B h a s a n o n d e l e g a b l e d u t y p u r s u a n t t o i t s p e r m i t t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p o s s e s s i o n , c o n t r o l and u s e o f i t s e q u i p - ment, any p r o v i s i o n s o f i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Wood n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g . The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d a s t o K e l l y P i p e which i s o n l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e i s s u e o f peremptory challenges. The judgment i s r e v e r s e d a s t o F-B and Wood and remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l a g a i n s t t h e s e defendants. Justice We concur: chief'.Justice Mr. Justice Wesley Castles concurring in part and dissenting. I concur with the majority on Issues Nos. 1 and 2. I dissent as to Issue No. 3. The instructions, taken as a whole, fairly presented the issues. I would affirm the judgment. The Chief Justice joins me in this dissent.