No. 14216
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
RICHARD CECH, as Administrator of the
Estate of Kelly Cech, Deceased, and
ARLENE CECH, Deceased, and as Guardian
of the Estate of Bruce Cech and Kerry
Cech, Minor Children,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana
Dolphy 0 Pohlman argued, Butte, Montana
.
For Respondents:
Berger, Anderson, Sinclair & Murphy, Billings, Montana
Richard Anderson argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: September 14, 1979
Decided: BEC 1 2 1974
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
t h e Court.
P l a i n t i f f R i c h a r d Cech, a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f
t h e e s t a t e s of h i s w i f e , A r l e n e Cech, and h i s c h i l d , K e l l y
Cech, and a s g u a r d i a n o f t h e e s t a t e s o f h i s c h i l d r e n Bruce
and Kerry Cech, s u e d t h e S t a t e o f Montana under p r o v i s i o n s
o f t h e Montana T o r t C l a i m s A c t f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from a n
a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t on I n t e r s t a t e 90, a p p r o x i m a t e l y e l e v e n
m i l e s e a s t o f W h i t e h a l l , Montana. The j u r y t r i a l began
November 1 4 , 1977, i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t h J u d i -
c i a l D i s t r i c t , P a r k County. The j u r y r e t u r n e d f o u r s e p a r a t e
v e r d i c t s f o r p l a i n t i f f as f o l l o w s :
For t h e e s t a t e of A r l e n e Cech $15,000
(deceased)
F o r t h e e s t a t e of K e l l y Cech $35,000
(deceased)
F o r t h e g u a r d i a n o f Bruce Cech $25,000
(minor c h i l d )
F o r t h e g u a r d i a n o f Kerry Cech $25,000
(minor c h i l d )
From t h e e n t r y o f judgment on t h e v e r d i c t s , t h e S t a t e ap-
peals. The o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n i n t h i s case w a s i s s u e d August
1, 1979. A p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g w a s f i l e d August 1 4 ,
1979, and t h i s C o u r t o r d e r e d a r e h e a r i n g on August 22, 1979.
The c a s e w a s s e t o n t h e September c a l e n d a r , r e b r i e f e d and
reargued t o t h e Court.
The S t a t e raises t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r o u r review:
1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by denying t h e
S t a t e ' s motions f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t made a t t h e c l o s e of
p l a i n t i f f ' s case-in-chief and a t t h e c l o s e of a l l t h e e v i -
dence?
2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g
e v i d e n c e o f s u b s e q u e n t r e m e d i a l measures?
3. Whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t
t h e jury v e r d i c t i n favor of p l a i n t i f f ?
The s i n g l e - v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t s u b j e c t of t h i s a c t i o n
o c c u r r e d on t h e a f t e r n o o n o f November 29, 1974, on I n t e r -
s t a t e 901 on a p o r t i o n o f t h a t r o a d known a s Cottonwood
Hill. R i c h a r d Cech w a s d r i v i n g t h e f a m i l y c a r , a 1967
Rambler, w e s t on t h e freeway. H i s p a s s e n g e r s were h i s w i f e ,
A r l e n e , and t h r e e o f t h e i r seven c h i l d r e n . The w e a t h e r on
t h e day of t h e a c c i d e n t was d e s c r i b e d by Cech a s " s u n s h i n y , "
" ~ 0 0 1 , " " c l e a r and f a i r l y n i c e . " H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e road
was " f a i r l y d r y " and " i n good shape" from L i v i n g s t o n , t h e
town from which t h e y were t r a v e l i n g , t o Bozeman. From
Bozeman westward t h e c o n d i t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t ; t h e l e f t
l a n e was snow-packed, b u t t h e r i g h t l a n e , i n which he w a s
d r i v i n g , w a s " d r y " a c c o r d i n g t o Cech. He testified that
n e a r t h e h i l l o n which t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d b o t h l a n e s had
s t a r t e d t o c l e a r up and t h e r e was l e s s snow on t h e r o a d .
Cech f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was d r i v i n g around 55
m i l e s p e r hour and had m a i n t a i n e d t h a t speed a l m o s t a l l t h e
way. H i s c a r d i d n o t have snow t i r e s . H e s t a t e d t h a t he d i d
n o t r e c a l l s e e i n g t h e r o a d s i d e s i g n warning o f ice on t h e
n e x t t h r e e m i l e s o f highway, w i t h i n which s p a c e t h e a c c i d e n t
occurred. The a u t o m o b i l e , a t an e s t i m a t e d speed o f 55 t o 60
m i l e s p e r h o u r , p a s s e d from a d r y s e c t i o n o f t h e highway
o n t o a n i c y s e c t i o n on a shaded c u r v e . The a u t o m o b i l e went
i n t o a s k i d , and Cech l o s t c o n t r o l .
Cech s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d n o t b r a k e w h i l e on t h e highway
o r o n c e t h e c a r l e f t t h e pavement. However, once t h e c a r
was on t h e " f i e l d o r p a s t u r e " a s h e d e s c r i b e d i t ( t h e S t a t e
c a l l s i t t h e " r e c o v e r y a r e a " ) , h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e must
have been b r a k i n g b e c a u s e " t h e c a r w a s coming t o a s l o w e r
motion." The car d i d n o t s t o p w i t h i n t h i s r e c o v e r y area b u t
went o v e r t h e e d g e i n t o a r a v i n e .
Cech's wife w a s k i l l e d i n t h e accident. One s o n ,
K e l l y , d i e d i n a G r e a t F a l l s h o s p i t a l a b o u t a week l a t e r .
Cech and t h e o t h e r two boys s u s t a i n e d r e l a t i v e l y minor
i n j u r i e s from which t h e y r e c o v e r e d .
A t t h e t i m e of the accident, guardrails protected t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r c u r v e e x c e p t f o r a p o r t i o n of t h e c u r v e a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y 600 f e e t i n l e n g t h . Through t h i s g a p o f g u a r d r a i l ,
t h e Cech a u t o m o b i l e t r a v e l e d i n t o t h e r e c o v e r y a r e a . Evi-
d e n c e showed t h a t t h e a u t o m o b i l e s k i d d e d 84 f e e t 2 i n c h e s on
t h e o i l m a t of t h e highway, 378 f e e t 1 i n c h on t h e r e c o v e r y
area, and t h e n o v e r t h e edge of t h e r e c o v e r y area i n t o t h e
r a v i n e where presumably t h e i n j u r i e s o c c u r r e d .
This s e c t i o n of t h e i n t e r s t a t e w a s designed during t h e
mid-1960's by t h e S t a t e Highway Department. The c o n s t r u c -
t i o n c o n t r a c t w a s l e t i n 1968, and t h e f o u r - l a n e i n t e r s t a t e
w a s opened t o t h e t r a v e l i n g p u b l i c i n t h e f a l l of 1970.
The S t a t e contended t h r o u g h o u t t h e t r i a l t h a t t h e
d e s i g n o f t h e highway and g u a r d r a i l s , o r l a c k of g u a r d r a i l s ,
was p r o p e r . I t contended t h e r e w a s a " r e c o v e r y a r e a " a t t h e
p l a c e o f t h e gap i n t h e g u a r d r a i l ; t h a t t h i s r e c o v e r y area
was s a f e r t h a n a g u a r d r a i l ; and, t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of a
g u a r d r a i l where t h e gap e x i s t e d would n o t have p r e v e n t e d t h e
accident.
P l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t e n t i o n was, and h i s e v i d e n c e t e n d e d t o
p r o v e , t h a t a f t e r t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e i n t e r s t a t e had been
completed, t h e S t a t e n o t i c e d t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n o f
t h e roadway was d a n g e r o u s when i c y ; t h a t i c e always accumu-
l a t e d d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r months; t h a t t h e l a c k of g u a r d r a i l
p e r m i t t e d v e h i c l e s t o s t r a y o u t upon t h e g r a s s y s l o p e d e s i g -
n a t e d a s t h e " r e c o v e r y a r e a ; " and t h a t v e h i c l e s going o u t
upon t h e r e c o v e r y a r e a would be unable t o s t o p on t h e s l o p e
and would go i n t o t h e deep r a v i n e . Further, p l a i n t i f f
contended t h a t w h i l e a g u a r d r a i l would n o t have prevented
t h e a c c i d e n t , i t would have prevented t h e i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d .
The S t a t e a l s o contended t h a t a s an economic c h o i c e i n
t h e o r i g i n a l d e s i g n of t h e highway, and l a t e r i n m a i n t a i n i n g
i t , t h e c o s t of g u a r d r a i l s a s compared t o t h e c o s t of pro-
v i d i n g a recovery a r e a was a f a c t o r i n i t s d e c i s i o n .
A look a t t h e testimony w i l l demonstrate t h e kind of
evidence t h a t was adduced by t h e S t a t e i n s u p p o r t of i t s
theory. David S. Johnson was c a l l e d by t h e S t a t e . He i s a
p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r f o r t h e Department of Highways. At
t h e time of t r i a l he was s u p e r v i s o r of e n g i n e e r i n g spe-
c i a l i t i e s f o r t h e Department.
Johnson t e s t i f i e d :
"Q. N w w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e second page of Defen-
o
d a n t ' s E x h i b i t I , would you look a t t h a t page of
t h e document and t e l l me i f you i n your review
of t h e d e s i g n of t h i s highway, and p o s s i b i l y
[ s i c ] o t h e r s , f o r t h e S t a t e of Montana, would
f o l l o w t h e i n f o r m a t i o n provided on t h a t document?
A. Yes, we would u s e t h i s .
"Q. G e n e r a l l y what does t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e
t o ? A. I t r e l a t e s t o t h e p r o v i d i n g of c l e a r
r e c o v e r y a r e a s wherever you can on a highway.
"Q. Does i t make a d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h a t document
w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e median a s opposed t o t h e
s h o u l d e r of t h e road recovery a r e a s ? A. Well,
I d o n ' t s e e a r e f e r e n c e t o median i n h e r e , j u s t
o f fhand.
"Q. So it would be s a f e t o s a y t h a t t h a t ap-
p l i e s t o r e c o v e r y a r e a s along t h e s h o u l d e r s of
i n t e r s t a t e highways? A. Yes, I t h i n k so.
"Q. A s a d e s i g n e r , and based upon your educa-
t i o n and your e x p e r i e n c e i n t h a t f i e l d , i s t h e r e
a p r e f e r e n c e t h a t you f o l l o w w i t h r e g a r d t o
s h o u l d e r of t h e road a r e a s , a p r e f e r e n c e t h a t
you t a k e of r e c o v e r y a r e a o v e r g u a r d r a i l ? A.
W e l l , i t ' s always b e t t e r -o have a c l e a r space
t --
where a v e h i c l e c a n r e c o v e r a s opposed t o h a v i n g
- g u a r a r a i l , which i s something t h a t a v e h i c l e
a
can run i n t o .
"Q. Do you c o n s i d e r , a s a d e s i g n e r , t h a t guard-
r a i l i s a h a z a r d ? A. Oh, d e f i n i t e l y .
"Q. I n your d e s i g n of i n t e r s t a t e highways would
you p r e f e r t o have a r e c o v e r y area b u i l t o r a
g u a r d r a i l b u i l t ? A. W e l l , a s a d e s i g n e r , and
a s a d r i v e r , I would r a t h e r have t h e r e c o v e r y
area.
"Q. A l l right. On t h i s a r e a of Cottonwood H i l l
i s t h e r e i n t h e d e s i g n o f t h e i n t e r s t a t e highway
a d e s i g n o f r e c o v e r y a r e a ? A. Y e s , there i s . "
(Emphasis added.)
Ronald J . Hensen, a c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r from Boulder,
Colorado, a l s o t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e S t a t e :
"Q. Do you have a term t h a t you u s e i n d e s c r i b -
i n g s u c h a n area on t h e s h o u l d e r of t h e r o a d ?
A. Where t h e y have been d r e s s e d down, s u c h a s
i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a r e a , t h e y are r e f e r r e d t o
as a secondary recovery area.
"Q. - -e-s-o f g s e c o n d a r y r e c o v e r y - -a n
Is t h u e area
accepted p r a c t i c e i n protecting a vehicle - - a s it
l e a v e s t h e travelerway? A. - - -.
y e s , it i s
"Q. And i s t h a t method, t h e u s e of a r e c o v e r y
a r e a , a primary o r secondary s a f e t y f e a t u r e
w i t h r e q a r d t o p r o t e c t i o n on t h e s h o u l d e r s ?
A. weli, -- p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e --
- it's the i n road-
way d e s i g n t o p r o v i d e a r e c o v e r y a r e a wherever
p o s s i b l e , s u c h t h a t a v e h i c l e which i n a d v e r t e n t l y
leaves t h e road has an opportunity t o g e t i t s e l f
back under c o n t r o l w i t h o u t i m p a c t i n g e i t h e r an-
other vehicle o r a fixed object.
"Q. Is g u a r d r a i l used f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n a t t h e
s h o u l d e r s o f t h e r o a d when a v e h i c l e l e a v e s t h e
t r a v e l e d way? A. G u a r d r a i l - - -i n d e s i g n
i s used
a s-a s e c o n d a r y s o l u t i o n where - p h y s i c a l s p a c e
- the
c a n n o t be p r o v i d e d . T h a t i s , where t h e t o p o g r a -
phy i s s u c h t h a t t o p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l s p a c e o u t
t h e r e would b e p r o h i b i t i v e i n t e r m s o f t o t a l
cost.
"Q. NOW, a r e you s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e r e are eco-
nomic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t h e u s e of r e c o v e r y
a r e a s , as opposed t o g u a r d r a i l ? A. W e l l , there
a r e economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t h e d e s i g n of
roadways. And t h e b a s i c economics o f t h i s , t h e r e
h a s t o be some t r a d e o f f between how many m i l e s
o f roadway c a n be improved v e r s u s how s a f e t h e y
c a n be made. The u l t i m a t e end o f it i s on o n e
end you merely p r o v i d e s p a c e f o r a v e h i c l e t o
move, and on t h e o p p o s i t e end you make it c r a s h
p r o o f such t h a t no m a t t e r what a d r i v e r would d o
he would be p r o t e c t e d from h i m s e l f . " (Emphasis
added. )
The f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e p o s t u r e o f t h e
State--that r e c o v e r y a r e a s were s a f e r t h a n g u a r d r a i l s , more
economical, and w i t h i n t h e s t a n d a r d s . In contrast t o that
e v i d e n c e , p l a i n t i f f produced an i n t e r o f f i c e memorandum d a t e d
December 1 0 , 1974, i n which t h e manager o f t h e t r a f f i c u n i t
o f t h e Department of Highways r e p o r t e d t o t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r
o f t h e Department i n p a r t a s f o l l o w s :
". . . W have made a n a c c i d e n t a n a l y s i s r u n
e
from t h e H.I.S. System and a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n -
f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d , t h e r e have been f i v e a c c i -
d e n t s ( p l u s t h e s e two) which have happened i n
t h i s a r e a i n t h e t i m e p e r i o d o f J a n u a r y 1, 1972
t o November 11, 1974. The e x a c t l o c a t i o n of
t h e s e a c c i d e n t s i s i n t h e westbound l a n e ,
m i l e p o s t 259.9.
" T h i s a r e a h a s a shaded s p o t which g e t s v e r y
s l i p p e r y a t t i m e s i n t h e w i n t e r . When v e h i c l e s
l o s e c o n t r o l and go i n t o t h e d i t c h t h e y a r e i n
t r o u b l e b e c a u s e t h e y c a n s l i d e behind t h e s h o u l -
d e r g u a r d r a i l and i n t o a h o l e which i s a t l e a s t
100 f e e t deep. This s i t u a t i o n could very e a s i l y
be f i x e d by a d d i n g a b o u t 600 f e e t o f g u a r d r a i l
which would c o n n e c t t o t h e g u a r d r a i l on b o t h
e n d s . T h e r e i s now a s a f e t y p r o j e c t which i s
under c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s a r e a and g u a r d r a i l i s
b i d a t $2.75 a f o o t . T h e r e f o r e , w e f e e l t h a t
t h i s g u a r d r a i l s h o u l d be added t o t h e p r o j e c t . "
The e v i d e n c e a l s o showed t h a t e v e n t u a l l y t h e 6 0 0 f e e t
o f g u a r d r a i l was i n s t a l l e d by t h e Department, a f t e r t h e Cech
a c c i d e n t , a t a c o s t t o t h e s t a t e of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $145,
disregarding the federal contribution.
The S t a t e c h a l l e n g e s t h e l e g a l p r o p r i e t y of t h e v e r -
d i c t s . I t d i r e c t s t h e C o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n t o e v i d e n c e sup-
p o r t i n g i t s d e f e n s e s t h a t t h e d e s i g n and c o n s t r u c t i o n of
t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e i n t e r s t a t e w e r e p r o p e r and i n a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h a c c e p t e d s t a n d a r d s , conforming t o t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t
a t the t i m e .
A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , a f t e r submission of p l a i n t i f f ' s
pretrial memorandum and his counsel's statements of clari-
fication made during trial, the only issue was whether the
State was negligent in not placing guardrails at the edge of
the interstate where the accident occurred after the initial
construction and before the accident involving the Cech
family. Plaintiff's counsel stated, "[tlhis case is limited
strictly to the subject of guardrails. And we aren't con-
tending there is any engineering defect other than that."
During cross-examination, plaintiff's counsel made it clear
that he was not alleging or contending that the State failed
to warn of icy road conditions or that plaintiff's visi-
bility was in any way interfered with or obstructed at the
time of the accident.
At the close of plaintiff's case, the State made a
motion for a directed verdict which reads in part:
"MR. POHLMAN: Comes now the Defendant, and pur-
suant to Rule 50 of the Montana Rules of Civil
Procedure, moves for a directed verdict in favor
of the Defendant, upon the grounds and for the
reasons that Plaintiff has not by a preponderance
of the evidence proved a prime [sic] facie case,
in that the Defendant negligently designed the
highway in question in its initial design. And
further, that the Defendant negligently failed
to provide adequate guardrails at the scene in
accordance with its initial design of guardrails.
And further, that the Plaintiff has not proved a
prime [sic] facie case that the Defendant negli-
gently constructed the highway in question in
accordance or not in accordance with the design
as to the highway, including guardrail and other
factors or elements of design and construction.
Further, that we want to note to the Court that
in Plaintiff's Pre-Trial memorandum Plaintiff
has abandoned and withdrawn all initial conten-
tions that the Defendant negligently failed to
give warning of hazards, and that Defendant
negligently maintained the highway, and in the
terms of the Plaintiff's Pre-Trial memorandum,
as maintenance pertaining to the usual proce-
dures of sanding, etcetera. The Motion is based
upon the record and the testimonial evidence
and the exhibits in the Plaintiff's case in
chief. Further, that there has been no testi-
mony or other evidence presented by Plaintiff
whatsoever showing or proving that there was
n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e d e s i g n of t h e highway on be-
h a l f of t h e S t a t e of Montana. T h a t t h e r e was
no e v i d e n c e whatsoever by e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y o r
o t h e r w i s e t h a t t h e r e was a d u t y o r s t a n d a r d o f
care f o r t h e d e s i g n o f t h e highway a s t o a l i g n -
ment, s l o p e , g r a d e , g u a r d r a i l p l a c e m e n t , r e c o v e r y
a r e a , s i g n i n g o r any o t h e r c o n c e p t s o f d e s i g n .
And f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d
by P l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e r e w a s any s u c h b r e a c h o f
t h e s a i d d u t y o r s t a n d a r d of c a r e by t h e Defen-
dant.
" F u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e h a s been no t e s t i m o n y o r
o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by P l a i n t i f f p r o v i n g
t h e Defendant w a s n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o pro-
v i d e g u a r d r a i l s s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e o r i g i n a l de-
s i g n and c o n s t r u c t i o n b u t p r i o r t o t h e Cech
a c c i d e n t o f 11-29-74. And f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e
h a s been no e v i d e n c e o f a d u t y o r a s t a n d a r d of
c a r e f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n and e r e c t i o n o f g u a r d r a i l
s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e i n i t i a l d e s i g n and c o n s t r u c -
t i o n , b u t p r i o r t o t h e Cech a c c i d e n t o f 11-29-
74, and no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d o f a b r e a c h of any
s u c h d u t y by t h e Defendant. And f u r t h e r , t h a t
t h e r e h a s been no e v i d e n c e o f a s t a n d a r d of care
o r d u t y on b e h a l f o f t h e Defendant w i t h r e g a r d
t o accident frequency r a t i o a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s
highway i n q u e s t i o n . And f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e
h a s been no e v i d e n c e showing any b r e a c h of d u t y
o r s t a n d a r d o f care f o r t h e c o m p i l a t i o n and re-
p o r t i n g of a c c i d e n t s and a c c i d e n t d a t a f o r t h i s
i n t e r s t a t e 90 highway."
W e note t h a t t h e f i r s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r i s d i r e c t e d
a t t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o d i r e c t a v e r d i c t on t h e q u e s t i o n
of t h e S t a t e ' s negligence t o place a g u a r d r a i l a t t h e scene
o f t h e a c c i d e n t a t t h e t i m e t h e freeway w a s f i r s t d e s i g n e d
and b u i l t . The motion d i d n o t go t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether
t h e S t a t e was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o p u t a g u a r d r a i l t h e r e
a f t e r t h e r e had been a c c i d e n t s i n t h e area. With t h e uncon-
t r o v e r t e d e x p e r t testimony before it a t t h e t i m e , the court
m i g h t w e l l have d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t on t h i s v e r y narrow
issue. However, t h e c o u r t was n o t r e q u e s t e d t o d i r e c t a
verdict for failing t o put a guardrail i n a f t e r the i n i t i a l
c o n s t r u c t i o n and d e s i g n , s o i t w a s n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o
d i r e c t o r r e f u s e t o d i r e c t a v e r d i c t on t h i s p o i n t . There-
f o r e , w e f i n d no e r r o r .
The second issue concerns the admission of evidence of
subsequent remedial measures taken by the State after the
accident. The investigating officer of the Cech accident
requested an emergency study of the area which went to the
Spot Safety Unit of the Department of Highways. Approxi-
mately a month after the accident, after an investigation, a
recommendation was made which resulted in the placement of a
guardrail across the entrance of the recovery area. This
construction was done subsequent to the Cech accident and
was completed in 1975.
Over the State's objection, the court allowed evidence
of this "subsequent request for an emergency study" to be
admitted into evidence. The objection was based on Rule
"When, after an event, measures are taken which,
if taken previously, would have made the event
less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent
measures is not admissible to prove negligence
or culpable conduct in connection with the event.
This rule does not require the exclusion of evi-
dence of subsequent measures when offered for
another purpose, such as proving ownership, con-
trol, or feasibility of precautionary measures,
if controverted, or impeachment."
Plaintiff argues that the admission of other incidents
is both relevant and material under the case law of Montana,
citing Leonard v. City of Butte (1901), 25 Mont. 410, 65 P.
425, and Robinson v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (1927), 80 Mont.
In view of the foregoing testimony, we find no error in
the trial court's ruling allowing the offered testimony. In
Raybell v. State (1972), 6 Wash.App. 795, 496 P.2d 559, the
Washington court found the duty applying to a municipality
to maintain adequate protective barriers where such barriers
are shown to be practical and feasible. The court commented
that the feasibility of such a guardrail was shown by the
fact that the State later installed one in the very location
of the accident.
The interdepartmental memorandum quoted above stated
that the dangerous situation "could very easily be fixed" by
adding about 600 feet of guardrail. This is further proof
of feasibility.
Under Rule 407, Mont.R.Evid., the subsequent installa-
tion was also admissible for impeachment. The State con-
tended that the so-called recovery area was preferable to
guardrail and its experts contended that the absence of a
guardrail conformed in every way with acceptable standards
so as to refute negligence. They also indicated that eco-
nomically the recovery areas were preferable to guardrails.
In Lawlor v. County of Flathead (1978), Mont. , 582
P.2d 751, 35 St.Rep. 884, we found that repair of a chuck-
hole by the county two days after an accident occurred was
admissible to establish feasibility of repair, and to im-
peach the testimony given by a county road foreman.
The point on which this decision turns should be governed
by the appellate rule that the question of admissibility of
evidence must in every case be left largely to the sound
discretion of the trial court, subject to review only in
case of manifest abuse. Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154
Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589.
Affirmed.
We concur:
&Afi@?Lh4Qf
Chief Justice
\3dkq
yJustices