Lyndes v. Scofield

No. 14398

I THE S P
N U- CCURT OF' THE STATE OF MONTANA

1978

HXKGG 0. LYNDES and Rfl- LYNDES ,

Plaintiffs a d Respondents,
r

Deferdant and Appellant.

Appeal f r m : District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
Honorable Edward Dussault, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant:

George, W i l l i a m s and Benn, Missoula, mntana

For Respordent:

Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, )untana

,Wmitted on briefs: Mvember 3, 1975

Decided: JAN 2 .. . ~ q
, -,-
jc.;"
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 Court.

p l a i n t i f f s Kellogg and Rosemary Lyndes (Lyndes) f i l e d

t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t Ruthanne S c o f i e l d ( S c o f i e l d )
on October 7 , 1977, i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F o u r t h

J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County, t o r e c o v e r damages

a r i s i n g o u t of an automobile c o l l i s i o n .

Lyndes a l l e g e d t h a t S c o f i e l d n e g l i g e n t l y and c a r e l e s s l y
o p e r a t e d h e r v e h i c l e c a u s i n g i t t o c o l l i d e w i t h t h e Lyndes'

v e h i c l e and t h a t a s a d i r e c t and proximate r e s u l t of Sco-

f i e l d ' s n e g l i g e n c e , Rosemary Lyndes was i n j u r e d and t h e

v e h i c l e damaged.

The c a u s e was t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y on A p r i l 1 7 , 1978,
t h e Honorable Edward T. D u s s a u l t p r e s i d i n g . 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 S c o f i e l d and a g a i n s t Lyndes.

On A p r i l 27, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t .

Lyndes t h e r e a f t e r moved t h e c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l . On

May 11, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d a new t r i a l and

from t h i s o r d e r S c o f i e l d a p p e a l s .

O t h e morning of January 5, 1 9 7 6 , a t a b o u t 7:45 a.m.,
n

t h e p a r t i e s were t r a v e l i n g i n o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s on 39th

S t r e e t i n Missoula, Montana. The Lyndes, Kellogg Lyndes

d r i v i n g and h i s w i f e Rosemary a p a s s e n g e r , were eastbound

and S c o f i e l d was westbound when t h e two v e h i c l e s c o l l i d e d .
A t t h e time of t h e c o l l i s i o n some snow was f a l l i n g and t h e

r o a d s i n t h e v i c i n i t y were s l i p p e r y . Kellogg ~ y n d e sde-
scribed t h e roads a s " s o l i d ice" with t h e p r e c i p i t a t i o n
p u t t i n g a watery g l a r e o v e r t h e i c e . S c o f i e l d ' s v e h i c l e had
new t i r e s and had sandbags placed i n i t s r e a r t o improve i t s
traction. S c o f i e l d had experienced d r i v i n g i n snowy w i n t e r s

and had h e r windshield w i p e r s and l i g h t s on. There was a
s t e a d y s t r e a m of c a r s t r a v e l i n g i n both d i r e c t i o n s . Because

of t h e weather and r o a d c o n d i t i o n s , t h e t r a f f i c , i n c l u d i n g

~ c o f i e l d ,was c a u t i o u s l y going a b o u t 25 m.p.h., although t h e

p o s t e d speed l i m i t was 35 m.p.h., when t h e r i g h t f r o n t wheel
of S c o f i e l d ' s c a r s t r u c k a chuckhole. T h i s caused t h e r e a r

end t o swing o u t toward t h e oncoming t r a f f i c . Scofield at-

tempted t o c o r r e c t h e r s k i d b u t b e f o r e s h e could do s o t h e

r e a r end of h e r c a r was c l i p p e d by an oncoming v e h i c l e

d r i v e n by Dora Mosher. This caused S c o f i e l d ' s c a r t o swing

f i r s t v i o l e n t l y t o t h e r i g h t and t h e n t o come back a c r o s s
t h e c e n t e r l i n e i n t o t h e oncoming Lyndes v e h i c l e . Kellogg

Lyndes, s e e i n g S c o f i e l d ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s , had almost brought

h i s vehicle t o a stop. The impact was between S c o f i e l d ' s

d r i v e r ' s door and t h e l e f t f r o n t f e n d e r and g r i l l of Lyndes'

car. N e i t h e r c a r could be d r i v e n away from t h e scene.
A t t r i a l S c o f i e l d , an elementary s c h o o l t e a c h e r , t e s t i -

f i e d t h a t s h e drove t h e 39th S t r e e t r o u t e once a week on h e r

way t o h e r job. ( A t an e a r l i e r d e p o s i t i o n , s h e had t e s t i -

f i e d s h e drove it d a i l y . ) She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d , however,

t h a t t h e morning of t h e a c c i d e n t , January 5, was t h e f i r s t

time s h e had d r i v e n over t h i s r o u t e s i n c e December 2 4 be-
c a u s e s h e had gone t o S e a t t l e f o r a v a c a t i o n d u r i n g t h e

s c h o o l ' s Christmas h o l i d a y . She s t a t e d a t t r i a l s h e had n o t

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

a l t h o u g h s h e d i d admit s h e knew t h a t chuckholes were a

common o c c u r r e n c e d u r i n g Montana w i n t e r s .
The g e n e r a l i s s u e i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d
i n g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a new t r i a l a f t e r a j u r y
v e r d i c t had been r e t u r n e d i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t . ~ased
on
t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g a new
t r i a l , t h i s g e n e r a l i s s u e breaks down i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g

s p e c i f i c questions:
 1. Was t h e e v i d e n c e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a v e r d i c t

f o r S c o f i e l d on t h e i s s u e o f l i a b i l i t y ?

2. Was d e f e n d a n t n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law f o r

v i o l a t i n g s e c t i o n 32-2144, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r i n g d r i v e r s t o

d r i v e a t a r e a s o n a b l e r a t e of speed f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n s of

t h e r o a d where t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e of u n r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i s t h a t

s h e h i t a chuckhole and was thrown i n t o a s k i d on a n i c y

road?

3. Was S c o f i e l d n e g l i g e n t as a m a t t e r of law by r e a s o n

of v i o l a t i n g s e c t i o n 32-2151, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r i n g d r i v e r s

t o d r i v e on t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e r o a d , when t h e r e a s o n f o r

h e r v i o l a t i o n was t h a t h e r c a r w a s s k i d d i n g on a n i c y r o a d

a f t e r h i t t i n g a chuckhole?

A D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s broad a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t o r deny

m o t i o n s f o r a new t r i a l . B r o t h e r s v . Town of V i r g i n i a C i t y

( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 352, 558 P.2d 464, 467, 33 St.Rep. 1250,

1254. T h i s d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t w i t h o u t l i m i t s , however.

Thus, " t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i s e x h a u s t e d when it f i n d 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 . " Kincheloe v.

Rygg ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 1 8 7 , 191, 448 P.2d 1 4 0 , 142. Neither

may a D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t a new t r i a l o n l y on t h e b a s i s

t h a t i t c h o s e t o b e l i e v e o n e l i n e of t e s t i m o n y d i f f e r e n t

from t h a t which t h e j u r y b e l i e v e d . Y e r k i c h v . Opsta ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,

Mont. , 577 P.2d 857, 859, 35 St.Rep. 465, 467; I n

r e E s t a t e of Hardy ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 133 Mont. 536, 547-48, 326 P.2d

692, 698.

I n Campeau v. L e w i s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 543, 549, 398

P.2d 960, 963, w e made t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t which i s

p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p o s i t e t o t h e i n s t a n t case:

"When t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e s a motion f o r a
new t r i a l and t h e r e b y i n d i c a t e s f a i t h i n t h e
j u r y v e r d i c t w e are more a p t t o r e f r a i n from
d i s t u r b i n g t h a t o r d e r t h a n where t h e t r i a l
 judge sets a s i d e t h e j u r y ' s f i n d i n g s and r e -
q u i r e s t h a t t h e f a c t s be decided a g a i n . Where
t h e t r i a l judge i s p r e s e n t e d w i t h evidence i n
f a v o r of t h e v e r d i c t , b u t proceeds t o g r a n t a
new t r i a l , w e f e e l it i s our d u t y t o t e s t t h e
evidence a g a i n s t t h e v e r d i c t . "

The preceding p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t e d i r e c t l y t o t h e f i r s t

two i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r review. A s t o the f i r s t issue, the

D i s t r i c t Court s t a t e s i n i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e new t r i a l :

". . . The o n l y a p p a r e n t b a s i s f o r t h e jury
v e r d i c t i s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e j u r y must have
f e l t h i t t i n g t h e chuckhole j u s t i f i e d t h e De-
f e n d a n t l o s i n g c o n t r o l of h e r v e h i c l e . There
i s no o t h e r evidence which would e x p l a i n o r
j u s t i f y t h e Defendant l o s i n g c o n t r o l of h e r
car. "

The D i s t r i c t Court t h e n s t a t e s t h a t h i t t i n g a chuckhole

and l o s i n g c o n t r o l of a v e h i c l e i s a v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n
32-2144, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s i n p a r t :

"A p e r s o n o p e r a t i n g o r d r i v i n g a v e h i c l e of
any c h a r a c t e r on a p u b l i c highway of t h i s
s t a t e s h a l l d r i v e i t i n a c a r e f u l and prudent
manner, and - t a r a t e of speed no g r e a t e r t h a n
a ---
i s r e a s o n a b l e - proper under t h e c o n d i t i o n s
- and -
e x i s t i n g - -e p o i n t of o p e r a t i o n , t a k i n g
a t th
i n t o a c c o u n t t h e amountand c h a r a c t e r of t r a f -
f i c , c o n d i t i o n of b r a k e s , weight of v e h i c l e ,
g r a d e - w i d t h of highway, c o n d i t i o n of -r -
and - su
~.
f a c e . and f r e e d o m o f o b s t r u c t i o n t o view ahead,
and he s h a l l d r i v e i t s o a s n o t t o unduly o r
unreasonably endanger t h e l i f e , limb, p r o p e r t y ,
o r o t h e r r i g h t s of a person e n t i t l e d t o t h e
u s e of t h e s t r e e t o r highway." (Emphasis by
D i s t r i c t Court. )

The t r i a l c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e chuckhole h i t by

S c o f i e l d was a " c o n d i t i o n of t h e s u r f a c e " which S c o f i e l d was
bound t o t a k e i n t o account i n o p e r a t i n g h e r v e h i c l e . While

a chuckhole undoubtedly i s a c o n d i t i o n of t h e s u r f a c e whose
p r e s e n c e should be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t , w e d i s a g r e e under t h e
f a c t s of t h i s c a s e t h a t S c o f i e l d was n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r
of law.
Our c o n c l u s i o n i s based on t h e s t a n d a r d f o r judging

speed imposed by t h e s t a t u t e of " r e a s o n a b l e and p r o p e r under

t h e c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g a t t h e p o i n t of o p e r a t i o n . " What i s
r e a s o n a b l e and p r o p e r under t h e c o n d i t i o n s i s c l e a r l y a

q u e s t i o n of f a c t t o be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e j u r y . Nissen v.

Johnson ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 3 5 Mont. 329, 331-33, 339 P.2d 651, 652-53.

"Whether under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t was

n e g l i g e n t a p p e a r s t o be a f a c t q u e s t i o n and f a c t q u e s t i o n s

must b e s u b m i t t e d t o a j u r y under a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s . "

N i s s e n , 1 3 5 Mont. a t 333-34, 339 P.2d a t 653; Heen v . Tiddy

( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 265, 269, 4 4 2 P.2d 434, 436.

While t h e r e i s c o n f l i c t i n some p a r t s o f t h e e v i d e n c e ,

t h e j u r y d i d h e a r u n r e f u t e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e r o a d on which

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

falling. Both S c o f i e l d and t h e d r i v e r p r e c e d i n g h e r t e s t i -

f i e d a s t o t h e s i z e and d e p t h of t h e c h u c k h o l e . Scofield

t e s t i f i e d a s t o h e r r a t e of s p e e d , t h e c o n d i t i o n of h e r c a r ,

and t h e care w i t h which s h e d r o v e .

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

a l m o s t succeeded i n c o n t r o l l i n g h e r c a r ' s s k i d when h e r l e f t

r e a r f e n d e r was " c l i p p e d " by t h e oncoming c a r d r i v e n by Dora

Mosher c a u s i n g h e r c a r t o once a g a i n s t a r t s k i d d i n g a c r o s s

t h e roadway where i t e v e n t u a l l y c o l l i d e d w i t h Lyndes' c a r .

The j u r y w a s e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e v e t h i s e v i d e n c e . As this

C o u r t s t a t e d i n S t a g g e r s v. United S t a t e s F i d e l i t y and

Guaranty C o . ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 254, 258-59, 496 P,2d 1161,

" T h i s C o u r t h a s on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s reviewed
t h e r u l e s on s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e . I n Cam-
peau v . L e w i s , 1 4 4 Mont. 543, 547, 398 P.2d
960, 962 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , w e s t a t e d :

"'The c o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e
evidence i s n o t i n s u f f i c i e n t i f it i s substan-
t i a l . Adami v. Murphy, 118 Mont, 1 7 2 , 164 P.2d
150. I n t h e Adami case, t h e c o u r t , q u o t i n g
from Morton v , Mooney, 97 Mont. 1, 33 P.2d 262,
h e l d t h a t " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " c o u l d be de-
f i n e d as s u c h " a s w i l l c o n v i n c e r e a s o n a b l e men
and on which s u c h men may n o t r e a s o n a b l y d i f f e r
 a s t o whether i t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s
c a s e , and, i f a l l r e a s o n a b l e men must c o n c l u d e
t h a t t h e evidence does not e s t a b l i s h such case,
t h e n it i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . " 118 Mont.
1 7 2 , a t page 179, 164 P.2d a t page 153. The
e v i d e n c e may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and s t i l l b e
-
deemed " s u b s t a n t i a l " , and- o n e w i t n e s s m a y be
s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e of a
case. ~ a t c h o f fv . Craney, 119 Mont. 1 5 7 , 1 1 6;
172 P.2d 308. Also, s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e m a y
c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . Win
D e l Ranches, I n c . v. R o l f e and Wood, I n c . ,
137 Mont. 4 4 , 49, 350 P.2d 581. .. I It (Empha-
s i s added.)

F i n a l l y t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d p r o p e r l y under t h e

circumstances. S e c t i o n 32-2144, q u o t e d above, was g i v e n a s

a n i n s t r u c t i o n as w e r e s t a n d a r d i n s t r u c t i o n s on n e g l i g e n c e .

The j u r y , i n r e t u r n i n g i t s v e r d i c t f o r d e f e n d a n t , neces-

s a r i l y decided t h a t , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e condi-

t i o n s of t h e s u r f a c e and a l l t h e s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

Scofield was not negligent. A s w e have s t a t e d numerous

times: t h e mere happening of an a c c i d e n t i s n o t e v i d e n c e of

negligence. F r i e s v. Shaughnessy ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 307,

310, 496 P.2d 1159, 1160; F l a n s b e r g v . Montana Power Co.

( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 53, 58, 460 P.2d 263, 266; S t o c k i n g v .

Johnson F l y i n g S e r v i c e ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 143 Mont. 61, 65, 387 P.2d

312, 314; N i s s e n v . Johnson ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 135 Mont. 329, 332, 339

P.2d 651, 653.

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

case i s Rodoni v. Hoskin ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 138 Mont. 1 6 4 , 355 P.2d

296. I n t h a t case t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e a l s o h i t a chuck-

h o l e on a n i c y s t r e e t c a u s i n g it t o s k i d i n t o an oncoming

car. T h e r e a r e , however, s e v e r a l c r u c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s be-

tween t h a t a c c i d e n t and t h e Scofield-Lyndes c o l l i s i o n , a l l

of which weigh i n f a v o r o f S c o f i e l d . For example, i n Rodoni

t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d h e had d r i v e n t h e r o u t e which h e w a s

d r i v i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t e v e r y day f o r f o u r y e a r s

and t h a t h e knew of t h e approximate l o c a t i o n of t h e c h u c k h o l e
and was watching f o r i t because he knew it could throw h i s

c a r i f he h i t it. I n c o n t r a s t Scofield, although she £re-

q u e n t l y d r o v e o v e r 3 9 t h S t r e e t , had n o t d r i v e n it a t l e a s t

f o r some two weeks p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t and d i d n o t know of

t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e chuckhole. A s t h e Lyndes n o t e , chuck-

h o l e s a r e a common o c c u r r e n c e b u t t h e y t e n d t o a p p e a r sud-

d e n l y and a t t i m e s a r e r e p a i r e d q u i c k l y . (The chuckhole

s t r u c k by S c o f i e l d h e r e was a p p a r e n t l y r e p a i r e d w i t h i n f o u r

h o u r s of t h e a c c i d e n t . ) N e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o show
o

t h a t t h e chuckhole had been p r e s e n t two weeks p r i o r t o t h e

a c c i d e n t when S c o f i e l d l a s t c o u l d have d r i v e n o v e r t h i s

route. I n f a c t Kellogg Lyndes, who d r o v e o v e r 3 9 t h S t r e e t

t w i c e a day, "had n o t n o t i c e d any s e v e r e chuckholes i n t h a t

area. "
Lyndes' r e l i a n c e of t h e c a s e of Huey v . Stephens (Okla.

1 9 5 4 ) , 275 P.2d 254, o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r grounds, Hayward v .

Ginn (Okla. 1 9 5 7 ) , 306 P.2d 320, i s m i s p l a c e d . The Oklahoma

C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of i c e on a r o a d may l e a d

t o an a c c i d e n t w i t h no n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of any d r i v e r .

E r i c k s o n v . P e r r e t t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 167, 545 P.2d

1074, a l s o r e l i e d on by Lyndes, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . In

P e r r e t t , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e skidded i n t o a n o t h e r c a r a s

he approached a n i n t e r s e c t i o n . The d e f e n d a n t claimed t h a t a

t h i r d v e h i c l e suddenly changing l a n e s was an i n t e r v e n i n g

c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t . However, i n t h a t c a s e a s t h e t h i r d

v e h i c l e ' s d r i v e r c o u l d n o t be found f o r t r i a l , w e h e l d t h e r e

was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n .

169 Mont. a t 173, 545 P.2d a t 1078.

W e conclude t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n b a s i n g i t s

o r d e r g r a n t i n g Lyndes a new t r i a l on i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e

e v i d e n c e and v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 32-2144.
 The t h i r d b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r con-

c e r n e d S c o f i e l d ' s v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 32-2151, R.C.M. 1947.

I n i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t con-

cluded :

" F i n a l l y , it s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t
r e s u l t e d from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s
v e h i c l e went o u t of c o n t r o l and c r o s s e d t h e
centerline. R.C.M. 1947, S e c t i o n 32-2151 re-
q u i r e s t h a t a v e h i c l e s h a l l b e o p e r a t e d on t h e
r i g h t h a l f of t h e roadway. While t h e C o u r t
recognizes t h a t t h e r e are exceptions t o t h i s
s t a t u t o r y d u t y , none of t h o s e e x c e p t i o n s was
a p p l i c a b l e under t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s
case. The Defendant v i o l a t e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s
of R.C.M. 1947, S e c t i o n 32-2151. Such c o n d u c t
would be n e g l i g e n c e a s a matter of law a n d , as
set f o r t h earlier i n t h e Court's opinion, t h e
e x i s t e n c e of a c h u c k h o l e would n o t a l t e r t h e
D e f e n d a n t ' s d u t y t o o p e r a t e h e r v e h i c l e on t h e
r i g h t s i d e of t h e r o a d . "

S e c t i o n 32-2151, R.C.M. 1947, r e a d s :

" ( a ) Upon a l l roadways o f s u f f i c i e n t w i d t h a
v e h i c l e s h a l l be d r i v e n upon t h e r i g h t h a l f of
t h e roadway e x c e p t a s f o l l o w s :

" (1) When o v e r t a k i n g and p a s s i n g a n o t h e r v e h i c l e
p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n under t h e r u l e s
g o v e r n i n g s u c h movement;

" ( 2 ) When t h e r i g h t h a l f of a roadway i s c l o s e d
t o t r a f f i c w h i l e under c o n s t r u c t i o n o r r e p a i r ;

" ( 3 ) Upon a roadway d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e ( 3 ) marked
l a n e s f o r t r a f f i c under t h e r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e
thereon; o r

" ( 4 ) Upon a roadway d e s i g n a t e d and s i g n p o s t e d f o r
one-way t r a f f i c . "

I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t ,

S c o f i e l d ' s v e h i c l e was s k i d d i n g down t h e r o a d i n t h e l e f t -

hand l a n e and t h a t a t t h e p o i n t of c o l l i s i o n , t h e Lyndes'

v e h i c l e w a s w e l l w i t h i n i t s p r o p e r l a n e of t r a f f i c . The

q u e s t i o n s i m p l y i s , d o e s t h i s mean S c o f i e l d w a s n e g l i g e n t a s

a m a t t e r of law? W e c o n c l u d e i t d o e s n o t and r e v e r s e t h e

c o n c l u s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h i s p o i n t .

I n Lamb v . Page ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 1 7 1 , 181, 455 P.2d

337, 342, t h i s C o u r t h e l d , " [ i l t i s c l e a r t h a t i n Montana
t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e r u l e t h a t one must t r a v e l upon

t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e highway." The r e a s o n f o r t h e d e f e n -

d a n t ' s v e h i c l e b e i n g on t h e wrong s i d e of t h e r o a d i n t h a t

case w a s t h a t i t had h i t a p a t c h of b l a c k i c e . See a l s o

H a r r i n g t o n v. H. D. Lee M e r c a n t i l e Co. ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 97 Mont. 40,

33 P.2d 553. I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , ~ o d o n i . Hoskin ( 1 9 6 0 ) ,
v

138 Mont. 1 6 4 , 355 P.2d 296, i s a g a i n i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e o f

i t s f a c t u a l s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e i n s t a n t case. In t h a t case,

where d e f e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e s k i d d e d i n t o t h e l e f t - h a n d lane

and c o l l i d e d w i t h p l a i n t i f f ' s v e h i c l e w e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d

t h a t whether t h e f a i l u r e t o s t a y on t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e

r o a d was n e g l i g e n c e w a s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t f o r t h e j u r y .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d . i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t v i o l a t i o n

o f t h e s t a t u t e c o n s t i t u t e d n e g l i g e n c e a s a m a t t e r of law.

I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n v o l u n t a r y v i o l a t i o n of a

s t a t u t e i n a n emergency due t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s beyond t h e

a c t o r ' s c o n t r o l d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e n e g l i g e n c e -r-
p e se.

Duchesneau v. Mack Truck, I n c . ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 158 Mont. 369, 377,

492 P.2d 926, 930. Rather, S c o f i e l d ' s presence i n t h e

i n c o r r e c t l a n e i s o n l y prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e of n e g l i g e n c e

which may be r e b u t t e d . McGinnis v. P h i l l i p s ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 62

Mont. 223, 228, 205 P. 215, 216. This r a i s e s a f a c t u a l

i s s u e which must be l e f t t o t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e . Duchesneau,

supra. The Michigan Supreme C o u r t i n M a r t i n i a n o v . Booth

( 1 9 6 0 ) , 359 ~ i c h . 680, 103 N.W.2d\ 502, 506, summed up o u r

position very w e l l :

". . . t h e m e r e f a c t t h a t an a u t o m o b i l e i s on
t h e wrong s i d e of t h e highway a t t h e t i m e of
c o l l i s i o n d o e s n o t of i t s e l f make t h e d r i v e r
t h e r e o f g u i l t y o f n e g l i g e n c e a s a m a t t e r of law.
The f a c t t h a t a n a u t o m o b i l e s k i d s a c r o s s t h e
highway a s a r e s u l t of s t r i k i n g a r u t o r a p a t c h
o f i c e , o r b e c a u s e of a s l i p p e r y pavement,
t h r o u g h no f a u l t of t h e d r i v e r , h a s been h e l d t o
e x c u s e f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t of
 t h e s t a t u t e t h a t t h e d r i v e r of a c a r must keep
on t h e r i g h t s i d e of a s t r e e t o r highway ...
The i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n how d e f e n d a n t s t r u c k t h e
r u t and t h e d i s t a n c e of p l a i n t i f f ' s d r i v e r ' s c a r
from d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r a t t h e t i m e d e f e n d a n t s k i d -
ded o n t o t h e n o r t h h a l f of t h e highway w e r e f a c -
t u a l and w e r e p r o p e r l y s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y i n
a charge t h a t , taken i n i t s e n t i r e t y , c a r e f u l l y
p r o t e c t e d t h e r i g h t s of p l a i n t i f f a s w e l l a s
t h o s e of d e f e n d a n t . The w e i g h t t o b e g i v e n t o
t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e d i f f e r e n t w i t n e s s e s and
t h e i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn from such t e s t i m o n y
r e s t e d i n t h e good judgment and common s e n s e of
t h e jurors." (Citations omitted.)

Thus, t h e t h i r d i s s u e a l s o u l t i m a t e l y r e s o l v e s i t s e l f

i n t o a f a c t question f o r t h e jury t o decide. Its decision,

which i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , may n o t be

o v e r t u r n e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court.

S c o f i e l d presented s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o prove t h a t

a s s h e was d r i v i n g i n a r e a s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t manner t h e

r i g h t f r o n t wheel of h e r v e h i c l e h i t a n u n u s u a l l y l a r g e

chuckhole c o n c e a l e d by new snow and t h a t a s a r e s u l t h e r
v e h i c l e was s e n t s k i d d i n g down t h e highway and e v e n t u a l l y

c o l l i d e d w i t h t h e Lyndes v e h i c l e . The j u r y h e a r d t h i s

e v i d e n c e t o g e t h e r w i t h e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y p r e s e n t e d by

t h e Lyndes and concluded t h a t S c o f i e l d was n o t n e g l i g e n t .

There b e i n g 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 v e r d i c t and

t h e r e b e i n g no e r r o r of law, t h i s v e r d i c t c o u l d n o t be
o v e r t u r n e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on a motion f o r a new

trial.

The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g Lyndes a new

t r i a l i s reversed. The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o r e i n s t a t e t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y .

I

,/ Justice
We concur: