No. 81-100
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
TIMOTHY LITTLE and SHARON LITTLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
GRIZZLY MANUFACTURING, FRED J.
BERNATZ, BOLIVER REALTY and
DON CROSLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and for the County of Silver Bow
Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Schultz Law Firm, Hamilton, Montana
Jeffrey H. Langton argued, Hamilton, Montana
For Respondent:
John L. Hamner argued, Butte, Montana
Submitted: October 26, 1981
Filed: 2 5 1981
M r . C h i e f ~ u s t i c eF r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
The L i t t l e s 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 ,
S i l v e r Bow C o u n t y , t o r e c o v e r damages f o r t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e ,
b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t and b r e a c h o f g e n e r a l w a r r a n t i e s ( s e c t i o n s
30-11-214 t o 30-11-216, MCA) , a r i s i n g from t h e sale o f a m o d u l a r
home by G r i z z l y M a n u f a c t u r i n g to t h e L i t t l e s . The j u r y r e t u r n e d
a v e r d i c t f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e amount o f $ 9 , 0 0 0 . A
crossclaim i n v o l v i n g Don C r o s l e y o f B o l e v e r R e a l t y was a l s o
t r i e d , b u t t h e r e is no a p p e a l from t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e case.
I n August, 1977, the L i t t l e s entered i n t o a purchase o r d e r
f o r a home m a n u f a c t u r e d b y G r i z z l y M a n u f a c t u r i n g of H a m i l t o n ,
Montana. The L i t t l e s had v i s i t e d t h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g p l a n t and
p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e d e s i g n o f t h e home. The h o u s e p u r c h a s e d by
t h e L i t t l e s w a s a modul.ar h o u s e which was c o n s t r u c t e d a t t h e
p l a n t i n t w o s e c t i o n s and s h i p p e d t o t h e L i t t l e s t h o m e s i t e i n
B u t t e , Montana. A c c o r d i n g to s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f u r n i s h e d b y
G r i z z l y , t h e L i t t l e s c o n s t r u c t e d a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e h o u s e which
was a p p r o v e d b y G r i z z l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
I n November, 1 9 7 7 , G r i z z l y e m p l o y e e s d e l i v e r e d t h e h o u s e
t o t h e s i t e and t h e t w o h a l v e s were p l a c e d o n t h e L i t t l e s ' foun-
d a t i o n , one s e c t i o n a t a t i m e . Timothy L i t t l e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t w o
s t e e l r a i l s were l a i d across t h e f o u n d a t i o n to s u p p o r t t h e sec-
t i o n s as t h e y were p u l l e d across t h e f o u n d a t i o n . The i n s t a l l e r s
e x p e r i e n c e d d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n due to t h e w e i g h t
o f a s t o n e f i r e p l a c e which had b e e n b u i l t i n t o t h e s e c t i o n a t t h e
factory. A s t h i s s e c t i o n was p u l l e d across it bowed b e c a u s e
t h e r e w a s no s u p p o r t i n t h e m i d d l e . O n l y t w o r a i l s were used to
r o l l t h e house a c r o s s . G r i z z l y e m p l o y e e s t o l d Tim L i t t l e t h a t
t h r e e r a i l s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n used d u e t o t h e f i r e p l a c e , and t h a t
t h e f i r e p l a c e should have been i n s t a l l e d a f t e r d e l i v e r y . Once
t h e h o u s e was on t h e f o u n d a t i o n i t was " s t i t c h e d " t o g e t h e r and
s u p p o r t beams were s e t up i n t h e b a s e m e n t .
On h e r f i r s t i n s p e c t i o n of t h e home, Mrs. L i t t l e saw t h a t
t h e f i r e p l a c e was a b o u t f o u r i n c h e s from t h e c e i l i n g and t h e r e w e r e
cracks in the w a l l . T h e r e were a l s o d e f e c t s i n t h e l i n o l e u m , t h e
c o u n t e r t o p s , t h e windows and t h e p a t i o d o o r . A p p a r e n t l y most o f
t h e s e d e f e c t s were f i x e d a f t e r Mrs. L i t t l e c o m p l a i n e d t o F r e d
Bernatz, president of Grizzly. G r i z z l y e m p l o y e e s j a c k e d up t h e
house s o t h a t the f i r e p l a c e m e t t h e c e i l i n g . T h e r e were s e v e r a l
d e f e c t s w h i c h had n o t b e e n c u r e d a t t i m e o f t r i a l . The r o o f
l e a k e d , t h e f i r e p l a c e m a n t e l was w a r p e d , and t h e r e w a s a n o t i c e -
a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n h e i g h t between t h e t w o h a l v e s of t h e house.
The l i n e n c l o s e t d o o r w a s f o u r i n c h e s s h o r t o f t h e f l o o r and t h e
k i t c h e n c l o s e t was d e f e c t i v e and u n f i n i s h e d . G r i z z l y employees
a t t e m p t e d t o f i x t h e l e a k i n g r o o f and t h e v a r i a t i o n i n t h e f l o o r
b u t t h e r e p a i r s were u n s u c c e s s f u l .
The p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f t h e home was $ 3 8 , 0 0 1 . A t t i m e o f
t r i a l t h e L i t t l e s had p a i d a l l b u t $397.24 o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e
a n d had l i v e d i n t h e home f o r a l m o s t t h r e e y e a r s . The L i t t l e s
a d m i t t e d removing t w o of t h e s u p p o r t p o s t s i n t h e basement i n
o r d e r to b u i l d a basement w a l l . 'I'im L i t t l e s t a t e d h e i n f o r m e d a
G r i z z l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f h i s p l a n s to b u i l d t h e w a l l . Bernatz
t e s t i f i e d he d i d n o t a u t h o r i z e t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e s u p p o r t p o s t s .
T e s t i m o n y o n damages was g i v e n by R o b e r t A l d e n , t h e f a t h e r
o f Sharon L i t t l e . Mr. Alden was a c e r t i f i e d r e a l e s t a t e
appraiser. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v a l u e o f t h e home w i t h i t s
d e f e c t s was $ 5 , 0 0 0 lower t h a n it would be w i t h o u t t h e d e f e c t s i n
1 9 7 9 , and t h a t t h e d i s c r e p a n c y i n v a l u e s would be g r e a t e r a t
p r e s e n t due to i n f l a t i o n . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d over objection t h a t
t h e hump i n t h e f l o o r c o u l d be r e p a i r e d f o r $ 2 , 0 0 0 , and t h e man-
t e l p i e c e r e p l a c e d b y a c a r p e n t e r and p e r f - a - t a p e r working a t
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $100 p e r d a y f o r o n e week. Fred B e r n a t z t e s t i f i e d
t h a t t h e m a n t e l c o u l d be r e p l a c e d f o r a c o u p l e h u n d r e d d o l l a r s .
Mr. Alden t e s t i f i e d t h e r o o f would h a v e t o be removed and
r e p l a c e d , b u t he g a v e no e s t i m a t e o f t h e c o s t . T h e r e was no
f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e on d a m a g e s . The j u r y r e n d e r e d a v e r d i c t i n
f a v o r of t h e L i t t l e s f o r $9,000.
A p p e l l a n t s Fred B e r n a t z and G r i z z l y M a n u f a c t u r i n g , Inc.,
raise t h e following i s s u e s :
1) W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g F r e d
B e r n a t z l s m o t i o n t h a t h e be d i s m i s s e d a s a p a r t y d e f e n d a n t
b e c a u s e h e was m e r e l y a n a g e n t f o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e
not personally liable ;
2 ) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g
d e f e n d a n t s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n s b a s e d upon t h e Montana U n i f o r m
Commercial Code;
3 ) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n g i v i n g an i n s t r u c -
t i o n on t h e d o c t r i n e o f res i p s a l o q u i t u r ;
4 ) W h e t h e r t h e r e was 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 t h e
d a m a g e s a w a r d e d by t h e j u r y ;
5 ) W h e t h e r t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d to c o n s i d e r t h e
e f f e c t s o f in£ l a t i o n i n a s s e s s i n g damages;
6 ) W h e t h e r a r e a l e s t a t e a p p r a i s e r w a s q u a l i f i e d to
t e s t i f y as t o cost o f c u r i n g t h e d e f e c t s i n t h e home.
On t h e b a s i s o f numerous e r r o r s c o m m i t t e d b y t h e t r i a l
c o u r t , w e r e v e r s e and remand f o r a new t r i a l .
I. L i a b i l i t y of C o r p o r a t e Agent.
J u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t Fred B e r n a t z , individually,
and G r i z z l y Manufacturing, Inc. Appellants contend t h a t Bernatz,
who was p r e s i d e n t o f G r i z z l y M a n u f a c t u r i n g , s h o u l d h a v e b e e n
d i s m i s s e d as a p a r t y .
The l i a b i l i t y o f a n a g e n t to a p a r t y d e a l i n g w i t h t h e
p r i n c i p a l or c o r p o r a t i o n is c o v e r e d b y s e c t i o n 28-10-702, MCA, as
follows:
"One who a s s u m e s t o a c t as a n a g e n t is r e s p o n -
s i b l e to t h i r d p e r s o n s a s a p r i n c i p a l f o r h i s
a c t s i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s agency i n any of t h e
f o l l o w i n g cases and i n no o t h e r :
"1) When, w i t h h i s c o n s e n t , c r e d i t is g i v e n to
him p e r s o n a l l y i n a t r a n s a c t i o n ;
" 2 ) when he e n t e r s i n t o a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t i n t h e
name o f h i s p r i n c i p a l w i t h o u t b e l i e v i n g i n good
f a i t h t h a t h e h a s a u t h o r i t y t o d o so; o r
- 4 -
" 3 ) when h i s a c t s are w r o n g f u l i n t h e i r n a t u r e ."
T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t Fred B e r n a t z r e c e i v e d p e r s o n a l c r e d i t
o r a c t e d w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y o r a c t e d o u t s i d e t h e scope of h i s
agency. I n o r d e r f o r B e r n a t z to be p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e , t h e r e f o r e ,
t h e r e m u s t be e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t he was per-
s o n a l l y n e g l i g e n t or t h a t h i s a c t i o n s o r o m i s s i o n s were t o r t i o u s
i n nature.
Mr. B e r n a t z was n o t p r e s e n t when t h e m o d u l a r home was
i n s t a l l e d on t h e L i t t l e s ' f o u n d a t i o n . He t e s t i f i e d , "There could
h a v e b e e n bad h a n d l i n g o r s o m e t h i n g i n t h e p r o c e s s o f t h e
t r a n s f e r f r o m t h e t r a i l e r to t h e f o u n d a t i o n , b u t n o t h i n g I am
a w a r e o f or was r e p o r t e d b y o u r p e o p l e . " H e s t a t e d t h a t h e had
b e e n t h r o u g h t h e home w i t h t h e L i t t l e s when it was b e i n g
constructed a t the plant. Mrs. L i t t l e c a l l e d him on s e v e r a l
o c c a s i o n s w i t h c o m p l a i n t s , and a G r i z z l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e would
make a s e r v i c e c a l l . B e r n a t z p e r s o n a l l y d i d n o t know o f a n y case
w h e r e t h e company f a i l e d t o r e s p o n d to a c o m p l a i n t . T h e r e was no
e v i d e n c e t h a t h e w a s aware o f a n y n e g l i g e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n , o r t h a t
he participated in the actual construct ion process.
A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e of " p i e r c i n g t h e c o r p o r a t e
v e i l " t o a v o i d f r a u d o r i n j u s t i c e is i n a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e . In
Montana, o f f i c e r s of a c o r p o r a t i o n have been h e l d p e r s o n a l l y
l i a b l e where it was shown t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was m e r e l y a n
" a l t e r ego" f o r a p e r s o n u s i n g a s h i e l d f o r p u r p o s e s of f r a u d .
S e e S h a f f e r v. Buxbaum ( 1 9 6 0 ) t 1 3 7 Mont. 3 9 7 , 3 5 2 P.2d 8 3 ;
W i l s o n v. M i l n e r Hotels, I n c . ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 1 1 6 Mont. 4 2 4 , 1 5 4 P.2d
265. T h e r e is no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n w a s d e f e c t i v e l y
f o r m e d o r t h a t it was formed w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o a v o i d p e r s o n a l
liability. A s a matter o f p u b l i c p o l i c y , t h e o f f i c e r s and a g e n t s
o f a c o r p o r a t i o n m u s t be s h i e l d e d from p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y f o r
a c t s t a k e n on b e h a l f o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f cor-
p o r a t e g o a l s , p o l i c i e s and b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s . P h i l l i p s v.
Montana Ed. A s s l n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 6 1 0 P.2d 1 5 4 , 37 S t . R e p .
821. The e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s p o l i c y is w h e r e t h e o f f i c e r per-
s o n a l l y committed a t o r t . T h e r e is no e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t a
f i n d i n g t h a t B e r n a t z committed a t o r t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e motion to
d i s m i s s him as a p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n g r a n t e d .
11. A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f U n i f o r m Commercial Code.
The t r i a l c o u r t , o v e r a p p e l l a n t s g o b j e c t i o n s , g a v e t h r e e
j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s b a s e d o n t h e g e n e r a l s t a t u t o r y w a r r a n t i e s of
s e c t i o n s 30-11-214 , 30-11-215 , and 30-11-216, MCA. Appellants
a r g u e d t h a t t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s were i n a p p l i c a b l e on t h e g r o u n d
t h a t t h e U n i f o r m Commercial Code a p p l i e d to t h e t r a n s a c t i o n and
p r e c l u d e d t h e use of t h e g e n e r a l s t a t u t o r y w a r r a n t i e s .
A p p e l l a n t s contend t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t h e i r pro-
p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s b a s e d o n t h e U.C.C. , s e c t i o n s 30-2-606,
30-2-607 30-2-717 30-2-714( 2 ) , 30-2-605 and 30-2-314, MCA. We
agree.
A r t i c l e 2 o f t h e U n i f o r m Commercial Code a p p l i e s to sales
o f "goods." "Goods" is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 30-2-105, MCA, as
follows:
" ( 1 ) ' G o o d s g means a l l t h i n g s ( i n c l u d i n g s p e -
c i a l l y m a n u f a c t u r e d g o o d s ) w h i c h are movable a t
t h e t i m e of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to t h e c o n t r a c t f o r
s a l e o t h e r t h a n t h e money i n which t h e p r i c e is
t o be p a i d , i n v e s t m e n t s e c u r i t i e s
things in action ... ... and
" ( 2 ) Goods m u s t be b o t h e x i s t i n g and i d e n t i f i e d
b e f o r e a n y i n t e r e s t i n them c a n p a s s . Goods
w h i c h are n o t b o t h e x i s t i n g and i d e n t i f i e d a r e
' f u t u r e ' g o o d s . A p u r p o r t e d p r e s e n t s a l e of
f u t u r e g o o d s or o f a n y i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n o p e r a t e s
as a c o n t r a c t t o s e l l . "
The q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a s a l e o f a m o d u l a r home is g o v e r n e d b y
t h e U.C.C. h a s been decided by o n l y t w o c o u r t s . The I n d i a n a
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e s a l e of a m o d u l a r home was a s a l e
o f " g o o d s " and t h e r e f o r e g o v e r n e d b y t h e U.C.C. S t e p h e n s o n v.
F r a z i e r ( ~ n d . C t . ~ p p . ,1 9 8 0 ) , 399 N.E.2d 794. I n Cates v. Morgan
p o r t a b l e ~ u i l d i n gC o r p . , ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) , 5 9 1 F.2d 17, the court
a p p r o v e d o f t h e lower c o u r t gs c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t w o p r e f a b r i c a t e d
m o d u l a r h o t e l u n i t s were " g o o d s " u n d e r U.C.C. s 2-105.
The r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e a r g u e d t h a t G r i z z l y M a n u f a c t u r i n g had
c h a r g e o f t h e home u n t i l a f t e r it w a s p e r m a n e n t l y a f f i x e d to t h e
f o u n d a t i o n , a t which p o i n t it no l o n g e r had m o b i l i t y . However,
t h e t i m e o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e c o n t r a c t is n o t d e p e n d e n t upon
c o n t r o l o f t h e g o o d s b y e i t h e r p a r t y o r upon d e l i v e r y . According
t o A n d e r s o n , U n i f o r m Commercial Code S 2-501:4:
" I n t h e case o f t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f g o o d s t o t h e
b u y e r ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e goods
a r e t o t h e b u y e r ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s is a s u f -
f i c i e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e g o o d s to t h e
contract. C o n s e q u e n t l y t h e r e is a n i d e n -
t i £ i c a t i o n o f t h e g o o d s from t h e moment when t h e
f i r s t s t e p o f p r o d u c t i o n i s made w i t h t h e raw
m a t e r i a l s w h i c h are i n t e n d e d t o be f i n a l l y
worked i n t o t h e g o o d s r e q u i r e d b y t h e b u y e r ' s
contract."
The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e m o d u l a r home was m a n u f a c t u r e d to t h e
Littles' s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o d e s i g n and d e c o r a t i o n .
T h u s t h e t i m e o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e c o n t r a c t was t h e time o f
the f i r s t s t e p in production. A t t h a t t i m e t h e m o d u l a r home was
movable. The U n i f o r m Commercial Code t h e r e f o r e g o v e r n s t h i s case
a n d t h e g e n e r a l s t a t u t o r y w a r r a n t i e s o f s e c t i o n s 30-11-201 et
seq., MCA a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e by v i r t u e o f s e c t i o n 30-11-224, MCA.
111. R e s I p s a L o q u i t u r I n s t r u c t i o n .
A p p e l l a n t s contend t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e d o c t r i n e of
res i p s a l o q u i t u r should n o t have been g i v e n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
They o b j e c t on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e d e f e c t i n t h e f l o o r c o u l d h a v e
been caused by the L i t t l e s ' s t r u c t u r a l r e m o d e l i n g and t h a t t h e
L i t t l e s had e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l o f t h e h o u s e b e f o r e t h e l e a k i n t h e
roof developed.
The d o c t r i n e o f res i p s a l o q u i t u r is s t a t e d i n W h i t n e y v .
N o r t h w e s t Greyhound L i n e s ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 2 5 Mont. 5 2 8 , 5 3 3 , 2 4 2 P.2d
" [W] h e n a n i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y which c a u s e s i n j u r y ,
w i t h o u t a n y f a u l t o f t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n , is
under t h e e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l of t h e d e f e n d a n t a t
t h e time of t h e i n j u r y , and t h e i n j u r y is s u c h
a s i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of t h i n g s d o e s n o t
o c c u r i f the one having such c o n t r o l uses proper
c a r e , t h e n t h e law i n f e r s n e g l i g e n c e o n t h e p a r t o f
t h e o n e i n c o n t r o l as t h e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r y . "
A l l o f t h e e l e m e n t s m u s t be found to e x i s t b e f o r e t h e i n f e r e n c e
o f n e g l i g e n c e may be d r a w n . Where, as h e r e , t h e r e is a f a c t u a l
q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r t h e e l e m e n t s o f res i p s a l o q u i t u r e x i s t ,
t h e i n s t r u c t i o n m u s t be s t a t e d i n c o n d i t i o n a l terms r a t h e r t h a n
m a n d a t o r y terms.
The i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n was t a k e n d i r e c t l y from t h e Montana
J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n G u i d e , J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 22.00. I t is made
c o n d i t i o n a l o n t h e f i n d i n g by t h e j u r y t h a t a l l o f t h e e l e m e n t s
o f res i p s a l o q u i t u r e x i s t . Therefore the i n s t r u c t i o n a s given
was p r o p e r .
IV. Damages.
The case was s u b m i t t e d to t h e j u r y o n t w o t h e o r i e s : 1)
n e g l i g e n c e and 2 ) b r e a c h o f g e n e r a l s t a t u t o r y w a r r a n t i e s . The
j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d o n t h e m e a s u r e o f damages f o r n e g l i g e n c e ,
s e c t i o n 27-1-317, MCA, b u t t h e y were n o t i n s t r u c t e d as to t h e
m e a s u r e o f damages f o r b r e a c h o f g e n e r a l w a r r a n t y . F u r t h e r , we
h a v e d e c i d e d t h a t t h e U.C.C. s h o u l d have been a p p l i e d , t h e r e b y
precluding the general s t a t u t o r y warranties instructions. There
i s no way t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e j u r y r e l i e d o n n e g l i g e n c e or
b r e a c h o f w a r r a n t y i n r e a c h i n g i t s v e r d i c t o f $ 9 , 0 0 0 i n f a v o r of
t h e respondents. W e c a n n o t be c e r t a i n t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t r e l y
o n a n i m p r o p e r t h e o r y i n a s s e s s i n g t h e damages.
Even a s s u m i n g a r g u e n d o t h a t t h e j u r y r e l i e d o n t h e n e g l i -
g e n c e t h e o r y , t h e award o f damages was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y s u f -
f i c i e n t evidence. Mr. Alden, c e r t i f i e d real estate a p p r a i s e r ,
t e s t i f i e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e home w i t h i t s d e f e c t s was $ 5 , 0 0 0 l e s s
t h a n it would h a v e b e e n w i t h o u t d e f e c t s i n 1 9 7 9 , and t h a t t h e
m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e home had i n c r e a s e d b y d a t e o f t r i a l d u e to
inf lation. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t as t h e v a l u e o f t h e home g o e s up,
t h e d i s c r e p a n c y i n v a l u e due to t h e d e f e c t also i n c r e a s e s .
N o p e r c e n t a g e r a t e of i n f l a t i o n was g i v e n t o t h e j u r y .
Mr. A l d e n ' s estimates on t h e c o s t to c u r e t h e d e f e c t s
t o t a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $3,000. Appellants argue t h a t M r . Alden
- 8 -
was n o t q u a l i f i e d t o t e s t i f y a s t o t h e c o s t o f c u r e . He
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had a t o n e t i m e worked a s a m a n a g e r o f t h e
r e m o d e l i n g d e p a r t m e n t o f a l u m b e r company. The t r i a l c o u r t h a s
b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a w i t n e s s may q u a l i f y as
an expert. Mets v. G r a n r u d ( 1 9 8 0 ) Mont. 6 0 6 P.2d 1384,
37 S t . R e p . 3 1 3 ; Haynes v. County o f M i s s o u l a ( 1 9 7 3 ) 1 6 3 Mont.
2 7 0 , 517 P.2d 370. See a l s o 1 Moore1s F e d e r a l p r a c t i c e
1
S 702.10[3]. The d e g r e e o f a w i t n e s s 1 q u a l i f i c a t i o n a f f e c t s t h e
w e i g h t r a t h e r t h a n t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of h i s t e s t i m o n y . Nesbitt
v . C i t y o f B u t t e ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 1 1 8 Mont. 8 4 , 1 6 3 P.2d 251. The t r i a l
c o u r t d i d n o t abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n a l l o w i n g M r . Alden to
testify.
However, t h e j u r y m u s t h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t s o f
i n £ l a t i o n i n o r d e r t o r e a c h t h e amount o f $ 9 , 0 0 0 . They d i d s o i n
t h e a b s e n c e o f s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s d e r i v e d from t h e e v i d e n c e . We
c o n c l u d e t h a t i n t h i s case t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o n
which t h e j u r y could have c o n s i d e r e d in£ l a t i o n .
R e v e r s e d and remanded f o r a new t r i a l t o be l i m i t e d to t w o
b a s e s of l i a b i l i t y : n e g l i g e n c e and b r e a c h o f o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r
t h e U n i f o r m C o m m e r c i a l Code.
Chief J u s t i c e
--me---