McAlpine v. Midland Electric Co.

Summarize Case

Related Cases

No. 80-109 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 NANCY McALPINE, Individually and as Personal Representative, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS. MIDLAND ELECTRIC CO., and THE STATE OF MONTANA, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade. Honorable H. William Coder, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hoyt and Trieweiler, Great Falls, Montana John C. Hoyt argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Cure and Borer, Great Falls, Montana Edward Borer argued, Great Falls, Montana Marra, Wenz, Iwen & Johnson, Great Falls, Montana Joseph Marra argued, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: June 9, 1981 Decided: September 28, 1.981 SEP 2 9 198Q Filed: -Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . ~aniel McAlpine was k i l l e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t on ~ p r i l 27, 1975. is widow, Nancy McAlpine, f i l e d a wrongful d e a t h a c t i o n a g a i n s t Roger Dahl, Midland E l e c t r i c Company, and t h e S t a t e of Montana. Summary judgment was e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of a l l t h r e e d e f e n d a n t s i n May 1977. Nancy McAlpine a p p e a l e d , and t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e o r d e r s g r a n t i n g summary judgment. Dahl s e t t l e d w i t h McAlpine, and t r i a l was had a s t o t h e remaining d e f e n d a n t s i n November 1979. On December 1, 1979, t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d v e r d i c t s f o r Midland E l e c t r i c Company and t h e S t a t e of Montana. P l a i n t i f f McAlpine f i l e d combined motions t o s e t a s i d e t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and f o r a new t r i a l on t h e i s s u e of damages o n l y . The d i s t r i c t judge r e f u s e d t o g r a n t t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t by McAlpine, and s h e appeals. W e reverse. On Sunday, A p r i l 27, 1975, A r t h u r Krueger w a s d r i v i n g a one-ton pickup w i t h a gooseneck f i f t h wheel t r a i l e r westward on a two-lane s t r e t c h of Highway 89 n e a r G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. Krueger was a job foreman f o r Midland E l e c t r i c Company of B i l l i n g s , Montana, and t h e v e h i c l e s belonged t o Midland. A t a b o u t 9:30 p.m., a wheel came o f f of t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e trailer. The t r a i l e r was immobilized and blocked t h e westbound l a n e of t r a f f i c . Krueger had no warning d e v i c e s , b u t was g i v e n t h r e e r e f l e c t o r s by p a s s e r s b y . These were p l a c e d behind t h e t r a i l e r t o t h e e a s t . A short t i m e later ~ighway Patrolman James Coey a r r i v e d . Coey r a d i o e d f o r a wrecker and D a h l ' s Wrecker S e r v i c e d i s p a t c h e d a v e h i c l e . Coey s t a y e d on t h e s c e n e f o r a b o u t one-half hour, b u t l e f t before t h e wrecker a r r i v e d . Coey d i d n o t p l a c e any warning d e v i c e s upon t h e highway, b u t g a v e Krueger two f u s e e s b e f o r e d e p a r t i n g . H e l e f t i n order t o a s s i s t a fellow o f f i c e r i n t h e apprehension o f a s u s p e c t on a bad check c h a r g e . The o t h e r o f f i c e r had not requested assistance. Coey p a s s e d t h e Dahl wrecker on t h e highway and i n s t r u c t e d Dahl o v e r t h e r a d i o t h a t t h e t r a i l e r s h o u l d b e towed t o a n approach 300-400 f e e t e a s t of where i t had come t o r e s t . Dahl hooked h i s wrecker t o t h e l e f t r e a r of t h e t r a i l e r ( t h e s i d e without wheels). T h i s p u t t h e Dahl wrecker i n t h e westbound l a n e of t r a f f i c b u t facing i n an e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n . D a h l l s c l e a r a n c e l i g h t s , four-way f l a s h e r s , r o t a t i n g beacon and work l i g h t were a l l i n o p e r a t i o n . The Midland v e h i c l e ' s c l e a r a n c e l i g h t s and f l a s h e r s were on. There were f u s e e s and r e f l e c t o r s on t h e roadway t o t h e e a s t . Ronald Mammen, D a h l l s s t e p s o n , was s t a n d i n g i n t h e highway a l o n g s i d e t h e t r a i l e r h o l d i n g a f l a s h l i g h t w i t h a y e l l o w h a z a r d l i g h t on top. Dahl began towing t h e d i s a b l e d f i f t h wheel t r a i l e r i n a n e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n b u t i n t h e westbound l a n e . Krueger was i n t h e p i c k u p , d r i v i n g i t i n r e v e r s e . They w e r e t r a v e l i n g a t a v e r y slow s p e e d . A t t h i s time t h e v e h i c l e owned by D a n i e l McAlpine approached t h e s c e n e . McAlpine was a f a r m e r / r a n c h e r from S u n b u r s t , Montana. He had s p e n t t h e day a t S t a n f o r d , Montana, attending a bull sale. Michael Hofer had accompanied him t o the sale. Hofer had moved t o t h e McAlpine r a n c h two d a y s before the accident. H e had been h i r e d t o h e l p w i t h s p r i n g planting. Whether he had begun work was a t r i a l i s s u e . A t t r i a l two w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t o s e e i n g b o t h Hofer and McAlpine consume a l c o h o l a t d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s i n S t a n f o r d a f t e r the b u l l sale. Two o t h e r w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e McAlpine v e h i c l e p a s s e d them a t a h i g h r a t e of speed and was b e i n g d r i v e n i n a n e r r a t i c manner. Roger Dahl and Ronald Mammen t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e McAlpine v e h i c l e approached t h e d i s a b l e d v e h i c l e a t a h i g h r a t e of speed and d i d n o t a p p e a r t o slow down. When t h e McAlpine v e h i c l e r e a c h e d t h e w r e c k e r , i t passed t o t h e r i g h t of i t b u t s t r u c k t h e r i g h t r e a r c o r n e r of t h e Midland t r a i l e r . Michael H o f e r , who was d r i v i n g , and D a n i e l McAlpine were k i l l e d i n s t a n t l y . Hofer d i e d w i t h a b e e r c a n between h i s l e g s . There were empty beer cans i n the vehicle. H o f e r ' s blood a l c o h o l l e v e l was Nancy McAlpine b r o u g h t s u i t and judgment was e v e n t u a l l y e n t e r e d f o r d e f e n d a n t s Midland E l e c t r i c Company and t h e S t a t e of Montana. Because we a r e r e v e r s i n g t h e judgment, we w i l l o n l y a d d r e s s t h o s e i s s u e s t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o reemerge i f the case i s retried: 1. Was i t e r r o r t o a d m i t t h e blood a l c o h o l t e s t s of Hofer and McAlpine? 2 . Were t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e blood a l c o h o l t e s t s inadmis- s i b l e because t h e i r proponents f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a foundation which would a s s u r e t h e i r t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s ? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by i m p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on t h e i s s u e of c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence? 1 ) A p p e l l a n t McAlpine b a s e s h e r argument on t h i s i s s u e upon t h e r e s t r i c t i o n of t h e Uniform A c c i d e n t R e p o r t i n g Act. T h a t A c t c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g language a t s e c t i o n 61-7- 1 1 4 , MCA: " A c c i d e n t r e p o r t s c o n f i d e n t i a l , (1) A l l r e q u i r e d a c c i d e n t r e p o r t s and s u p p l e m e n t a l r e p o r t s s h a l l be w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l s o r e p o r t - i n g and s h a l l b e f o r t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l u s e of t h e d i v i s i o n o r o t h e r s t a t e a g e n c i e s having u s e f o r t h e records f o r accident prevention purposes, o r f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e laws of t h i s s t a t e r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e p o s i t of s e c u r i t y and proof of f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by p e r s o n s d r i v i n g o r t h e owners of motor v e h i c l e s , e x c e p t t h a t t h e d i v i - s i o n may d i s c l o s e t h e i d e n t i t y of a p e r s o n i n v o l v e d i n a n a c c i d e n t when such i d e n t i t y i s n o t o t h e r w i s e known o r when s u c h p e r s o n d e n i e s h i s p r e s e n c e a t such a c c i d e n t . " (2) A l l a c c i d e n t r e p o r t s and s u p p l e m e n t a l inform- a t i o n f i l e d a s r e q u i r e d by t h i s p a r t s h a l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l and n o t open t o g e n e r a l p u b l i c i n s p e c - t i o n , n o r s h a l l copying of l i s t s of such r e p o r t s be p e r m i t t e d , e x c e p t , however, t h a t t h e r e p o r t and s u p p l e m e n t a l i n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d by law e n f o r c e m e n t p e r s o n n e l , a s r e q u i r e d by t h i s p a r t , may be examined by any p e r s o n named i n such r e p o r t o r r e p o r t s o r by any d r i v e r , p a s s e n g e r , o r p e d e s t r i a n i n v o l v e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d e s i g n a t e d i n w r i t i n g , o r i f such p e r s o n s h a l l be d e c e a s e d , by h i s e x e c u t o r o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r o r by t h e a t t o r n e y . r e p r e s e n t i n g such e x e c u t o r o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r " ( 3 ) N such r e p o r t s h a l l be used a s e v i d e n c e i n o any t r i a l , c i v i l o r c r i m i n a l , a r i s i n g o u t of an accident, except t h a t the division s h a l l furnish upon demand of any p e r s o n who h a s o r c l a i m s t o have made such a r e p o r t o r upon t h e demand of any c o u r t a c e r t i f i c a t e showing t h a t a s p e c i f i e d a c c i d e n t r e - p o r t h a s o r h a s n o t been made t o t h e d i v i s i o n s o l e l y t o p r o v e a compliance o r a 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 t h a t such a r e p o r t b e made t o t h e division. " The blood a l c o h o l p e r c e n t a g e s of t h e a c c i d e n t v i c t i m s were b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e j u r y i n t h e form of t h e l a b o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s r e p o r t s o f b o t h t h e Michael Hofer and D a n i e l McAlpine blood samples. Appellant d i d not r a i s e t h e prohibitory l a n g u a g e of s e c t i o n 61-7-114, MCA, i n her objection t o the a d m i s s i o n of t h e s e r e p o r t s . Normally, t h e p a r t y c o m p l a i n i n g of e r r o r must s t a n d o r f a l l upon t h e ground r e l i e d upon i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t and o b j e c t i o n s which a r e urged f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d by t h i s C o u r t . Bower v. Tebbs ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 132 Mont. 146, 160, 314 P.2d 731, 739. Nevertheless, t h i s C o u r t h a s a d u t y t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e p a r t i e s b e f o r e i t have been d e n i e d s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e by the t r i a l court. T h i s C o u r t c a n , w i t h i n i t s sound d i s c r e t i o n , c o n s i d e r whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s d e p r i v e d a l i t i g a n t of a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l , even i f t h e p a r t i e s i g n o r e d t h e mandate of a s t a t u t e o r a n e s t a b l i s h e d p r e c e d e n t . Halldorson v . H a l l d o r s o n ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 Mont. 170, 573 P.2d 169; Kudrna v . Comet Corp. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 Mont. 29, 572 P.2d 183. If the p r o h i b i t i o n o f s e c t i o n 61-7-114, MCA, s h o u l d have been a p p l i e d t o t h e blood t e s t r e s u l t s of Hofer and McAlpine, i t would have been p l a i n e r r o r t o a l l o w t h e t e s t s i n t o e v i d e n c e d e s p i t e t h e l a c k of a s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s t a t u t e i n the objection. I n order t o determine i f t h e a p p e l l a n t has been d e n i e d s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e , w e w i l l c o n s i d e r whether s e c t i o n 61-7-114, MCA, mandates e x c l u s i o n of t h i s e v i d e n c e . C l e a r l y , any r e p o r t s r e q u i r e d by t h e Uniform A c c i d e n t R e p o r t i n g A c t , s e c t i o n 61-7-101 e t s e q . , and any r e p o r t s which supplement t h e r e q u i r e d r e p o r t s a r e n o t a d m i s s i b l e i n court. However, t h e blood t e s t r e s u l t forms themselves w e r e a d m i t t e d below. W c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e blood t e s t r e s u l t s a r e e n o t required o r supplemental a c c i d e n t r e p o r t s a s contemplated by t h e s t a t u t e . The i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y d i s c l o s e r e l a t e s s o l e l y t o t h e t e s t i n g of blood from a n i n d i v i d u a l . The forms do n o t p r o v i d e f o r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o c c u r r e n c e of a n a c c i d e n t o r 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 t i m e of t h e o c c u r r e n c e of a n a c c i d e n t . F u r t h e r , t h e forms c o n t a i n a " N o t i f i c a t i o n of R i g h t s " which s t a t e s i n p a r t t h a t : "Prior t o m v o l u n t a r y c o n s e n t t o g i v e a sample of body s u b s t a n c e y f o r c h e m i c a l a n a l y s i s , I was informed . . . 3. That t h e r e s u l t s of t h e chemical a n a l y s i s of t h e body s u b s t a n c e , g i v e n by m e , m i g h t b e used a g a i n s t m e i n a c o u r t of law. 4. T h a t any a d m i s s i o n s I make, o r any i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d by me, may be used a g a i n s t m i n t e r e s t i n a c o u r t of law." y The " N o t i f i c a t i o n of R i g h t s " c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e l a b t e s t form i s n o t a r e q u i r e d r e p o r t t o which a g u a r a n t e e of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was meant t o a t t a c h . I n addition, the l a n g u a g e of s e c t i o n 61-7-109 ( 2 ) , MCA, shows t h a t t h e l a b t e s t r e s u l t forms a r e n o t s u p p l e m e n t a l r e p o r t s r e q u i r e d under t h e s t a t u t e : "The d i v i s i o n [of motor v e h i c l e s ] may r e q u i r e any d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e i n v o l v e d i n an a c c i d e n t of which r e p o r t must be made a s p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n t o f i l e s u p p l e m e n t a l r e p o r t s whenever t h e o r i g i n a l r e p o r t i s insufficient . . ." The l a b t e s t r e s u l t forms a r e n o t addenda used t o complete a p r i o r i n s u f f i c i e n t r e p o r t , n o r were t h e y r e q u i r e d of a " d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e i n v o l v e d i n a n accident." They a r e n o t " s u p p l e m e n t a l r e p o r t s " and were n o t e x c l u d a b l e by r e a s o n of s e c t i o n 61-7-114, MCA. D e s p i t e o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e l a b r e p o r t forms which were a d m i t t e d w e r e n o t r e q u i r e d r e p o r t s , we must s t i l l c o n c e r n o u r s e l v e s w i t h c a s e s c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t which h o l d t h a t t h a t which g o e s i n t o a r e p o r t r e q u i r e d by t h e Uniform Accident Reporting Act i s a s inadmissible a s t h e r e p o r t itself. C o u r t s which s o c o n c l u d e g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w t h e r e a s o n i n g of c a s e s such a s Cooper v. S t a t e ( F l a . D i s t . Ct. App. "There c a n be no q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t t h e t a k i n g o f t h e blood sample w a s i n t e n d e d a s a p a r t of t h e i n v e s t i - g a t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e of c o m p l e t i n g t h e r e p o r t , re- q u i r e d o f t h e o f f i c e r . F u r t h e r , i t was a t t h e i n - s i s t e n c e and r e q u e s t of t h e o f f i c e r t h a t t h e d o c t o r took t h e blood sample. T h i s blood sample formed a b a s i s , o r a t l e a s t a p o r t i o n of t h e b a s i s f o r t h e o f f i c e r ' s written report. I f t h e r e p o r t was i n a d - missible . . . t h e n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d by what- e v e r method, i f o b t a i n e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e of making t h e r e p o r t speak t h e f a c t s , was i n a d m i s s i b l e . " (Em- phasis i n original.) W w i l l n o t c o n s t r u e s e c t i o n 61-7-114, e MCA, i n t h e same manner a s t h e F l o r i d a c o u r t . The r e a s o n i n g of Cooper c o u l d , i f taken t o t h e l i m i t s of i t s l o g i c , r e q u i r e t h e exclusion of any i n f o r m a t i o n , r e g a r d l e s s of i t s s o u r c e , which c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c o m p l e t i o n of a r e q u i r e d r e p o r t . W e cannot accept s u c h a broad a p n l - i c a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t o r y e x c l u s i o n . I t has been h e l d i n C a l i f o r n i a t h a t : "[The V e h i c l e Code] r e q u i r e s t h e d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e i n v o l v e d i n an a c c i d e n t ... t o cause a w r i t t e n r e p o r t t o be made ... [and] p r o v i d e s t h a t no s u c h r e p o r t s h a l l be used as e v i d e n c e i n any t r i a l a r i s i n g o u t of such a c c i d e n t . But i t was n o t a r e p o r t s o p r o v i d e d t o be made t h a t was o f f e r e d ... No e v i d e n c e of t h e f a c t s t h a t o c c u r r e d a t t h e t i m e of a vehicular accident i s privileged. Only t h o s e r e p o r t s a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l which a r e s o made by [ t h e Code]. To make a s t a t e m e n t p r i v i l e g e d and i n a d - m i s s i b l e i t must come w i t h i n t h e e x p r e s s terms of the section." S t r o u d v . Hansen ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 48 Cal.App. 2d 556, 559-560, 1 2 0 P.2d 1 0 2 , 104. ( S t r o u d a l s o con- t a i n e d language r e l a t i v e t o c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e instructions. T h a t language was " d i s a p p r o v e d " i n Cummings v. County of Los Angeles ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 56 Cal.2d 258, 268, 363 P.2d 900, 906, 1 4 C a l . R p t r . 668, 674. The d e c i s i o n i n Cumminqs d i d n o t i n v o l v e t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of a c c i d e n t r e p o r t s . ) The f a c t t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t v i c t i m s had consumed a l c o h o l was e n t e r e d upon o f f i c e r C o e y ' s a c c i d e n t r e p o r t . Although t h e e x a c t f i g u r e s from t h e l a b t e s t s were n o t w r i t t e n i n t o C o e y ' s r e p o r t , t h e f i g u r e s formed a b a s i s f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n of h i s r e p o r t . ( W e n o t e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s o u g h t t o have t h i s r e q u i r e d r e p o r t a d m i t t e d i n s p i t e of t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e consumption of a l c o h o l . Defendants s u c c e s s f u l l y p r e v e n t e d i t s a d m i s s i o n by r a i s i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n now i n question. ) Even though t h e l a b t e s t r e s u l t s formed a p o r t i o n of t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n of t h e o f f i c e r ' s r e p o r t , t h e l a b t e s t r e s u l t forms were n o t r e q u i r e d r e p o r t s . W adopt e t h e r e a s o n i n g o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t , and h o l d t h a t l a b r e p o r t s of blood a l c o h o l a n a l y s e s a r e n o t i n a d m i s s i b l e by r e a s o n o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n of t h e Uniform A c c i d e n t R e p o r t i n g Act. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t even i f t h e Uniform A c c i d e n t R e p o r t i n g Act d o e s n o t b a r i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e r e s u l t s of t h e blood a l c o h o l t e s t s , t h e r e s u l t s w e r e s t i l l i n a d m i s s i b l e because they lacked a proper foundation. Appellant claims t h a t t h e respondents: 1. f a i l e d t o show t h a t post-mortem blood c l o t t i n g d i d n o t r e s u l t i n a h i g h e r blood a l c o h o l r e a d i n g ; 2. f a i l e d t o show t h a t t h e p r o c u r i n g and t e s t i n g of t h e samples f o l l o w e d t h e p r o c e d u r e s s e t o u t i n t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Rules of Montana; 3 . f a i l e d t o show t h e blood t e s t e d came from t h e v i c t i m s ' b o d i e s ; and 4. f a i l e d t o produce t h e g a s chromatograph r e c o r d s used t o achieve the test r e s u l t s . A r e v i e w of t h e t e s t i m o n y w i l l a i d i n o u r r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s issue. M o r t i c i a n Ray F i s c h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he drew t h e Hofer sample. H e knew t h a t i t w a s Hofer b e c a u s e of what he was t o l d a t t h e h o s p i t a l and because he c a l l e d t h e H u t t e r i t e c o l o n y a t which Hofer had been r a i s e d f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o embalm. H e used t h e c a r o t i d a r t e r y and i n t e r n a l j u g u l a r v e i n and drew a sample from t h e r i g h t v e n t r i c l e of t h e heart. H e f i l l e d a 30 m i l l i l i t e r sample b o t t l e w i t h b l o o d . N o embalming had y e t been done. The sample was drawn w i t h a s t a i n l e s s s t e e l t u b e t h a t comes a p a r t f o r s t e r i l i z a t i o n . F i s c h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e sample was a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and uncontaminated sample, and t h a t t h e b l o o d serum had n o t s e p a r a t e d from t h e c e l l s . F i s c h e r gave t h e sample t o Highway Patrolman Richard Zaharko, who had w a i t e d i n t h e f u n e r a l home lobby w h i l e t h e sample was drawn. Zaharko completed t h e forms t h a t accompany t h e sample b o t t l e , p l a c e d t h e b o t t l e i n t h e m a i l i n g c o n t a i n e r , and s e a l e d and m a i l e d t h e c o n t a i n e r . M o r t i c i a n L e s l i e P a t z e r d i d n o t have a n i n d e p e n d e n t r e - c o l l e c t i o n of h a v i n g drawn t h e McAlpine blood sample. However, h e was t h e o n l y p e r s o n a t h i s f u n e r a l home who took blood samples. H e employed s t a n d a r d blood drawing p r o c e d u r e s e a c h t i m e he drew blood. He was f a i r l y c e r t a i n t h a t none of t h e d i s i n f e c t a n t used t o c l e a n h i s i n s t r u m e n t s would have c o n t a m i n a t e d t h e McAlpine sample. P a t z e r a l s o gave h i s sample t o p a t r o l m a n Zaharko . Patrolman Zaharko t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had p i c k e d up t h e samples from t h e m o r t i c i a n s , r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n from them n e c e s s a r y t o f i l l o u t t h e forms, s e a l e d t h e samples i n t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e m o r t i c i a n s , and m a i l e d them t o t h e l a b . Richard Paulsen i s a f i e l d h e a l t h o f f i c e r f o r t h e Montana Department of H e a l t h and i s a l s o a c e r t i f i e d o p e r a t o r - s u p e r v i s o r of g a s chromatography. Paulsen t e s t i f i e d g e n e r a l l y a s t o p r o c e d u r e s used i n a l c o h o l t e s t i n g . He stated that t h e g a s chromatography t e s t can d i s t i n g u i s h between d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f a l c o h o l and c a n a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h s u b s t a n c e s s u c h a s embalming f l u i d s . P a u l s e n s t a t e d t h a t t h e sample b o t t l e s c o n t a i n a n a n t i c o a g u l a n t which p r e v e n t s c l o t t i n g , b u t t h a t i f c l o t t i n g o c c u r r e d i t would be broken up b e f o r e t e s t i n g . P a u l s e n t e s t e d t h e Hofer and McAlpine samples and found t h e blood a l c o h o l c o n t e n t s t o be . 0 9 p e r c e n t and . 1 4 p e r c e n t respectively. I t was n o t u n t i l t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e s e f o u r w i t n e s s e s was p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e blood a l c o h o l t e s t r e s u l t s were admitted i n t o evidence. W e now t u r n t o o u r a n a l y s i s of what a p p e l l a n t u r g e s t o be t h e inadequacy of t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r the test r e s u l t s . F i r s t , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s d i d n o t show t h a t post-mortem blood c l o t t i n g d i d n o t s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t t h e t e s t results. A p p e l l a n t b r o u g h t no e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h i s contention. Appellant d i d n o t challenge respondents' witnesses by r e f e r e n c e t o t r e a t i s e s which s u p p o r t e d a p p e l l a n t ' s t h e o r y a s t o changes i n t h e blood a l c o h o l c o n t e n t . A t most, appellant l a i d t h e b a s i s f o r a s u g g e s t i o n t h a t a change i n t h e blood of t h e v i c t i m s o c c u r r e d between t h e t i m e of d e a t h and t h e t i m e t h e blood was drawn. Such a s u g g e s t i o n goes t o w e i g h t , not admissibility. The l a p s e of 9 t o 1 2 h o u r s between d e a t h and s a m p l i n g , w i t h o u t proof of i t s e f f e c t s , d i d n o t r e n d e r the test r e s u l t s inadmissible. A p p e l l a n t n e x t m a i n t a i n s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s d i d n o t show t h a t t h e r e was a d h e r e n c e t o t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o r blood t e s t i n g - o u t l i n e d i n s e c t i o n 16-2.26 (1) S2600, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Rules o f Montana (ARM), (now s e c t i o n 23.3.931, ARM) . The p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e s implement s e c t i o n 61-8-405(6), MCA. T h a t code s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a - t i o n of blood t e s t s of p e r s o n s a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e under t h e i n f l u e n c e of i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r . Under s e c t i o n 61-8-401, MCA, a presumption of b e i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l may a r i s e i f a d e f e n d a n t ' s blood a l c o h o l r e a c h e s a certain level. T h i s presumption may be used i n an e f f o r t t o c o n v i c t a p e r s o n of t h e c h a r g e of d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d . A criminal defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o the procedural safeguards p r o v i d e d by t h e ARM b e f o r e such a p r e s u m p t i o n i s a p p l i e d . I t d o e s n o t f o l l o w t h a t t h e same s a f e g u a r d s must be employed when blood t e s t r e s u l t s a r e used i n a c i v i l c a s e . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e where, a s i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s , t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption was n o t r e l i e d upon. I n Bach v . Penn C e n t r a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Co. (6th C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) , 502 F . 2d 1117, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption of t h e " d r i v i n g w h i l e under t h e i n f l u e n c e " law d i d n o t a p p l y i n c i v i l cases. T h a t c o u r t went on t o s a y t h a t where t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption i s n o t a p p l i e d , ". . . e v i d e n c e of blood a l c o h o l c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e s s h o u l d b e r e c e i v e d l i k e any o t h e r e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y . The t e s t p r o c e d u r e s need n o t n e c e s s a r i l y conform t o t h o s e d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s t a t u t e , b u t t h e y must a c c o r d w i t h good p r a c t i c e i n t h e f i e l d t o assure r e l i a b l e results." - Bach, 502 F.2d a t 1 1 - 2 1 . The t e s t i m o n y of r e s p o n d e n t s ' witnesses established t h a t the p r o c e d u r e s employed f o l l o w e d good p r a c t i c e i n t h e f i e l d . We h o l d t h a t i t was n o t e r r o r t o f a i l t o p r o v e compliance w i t h s e c t i o n 23.3.931, ARM. The a p p e l l a n t ' s t h i r d c o n t e n t i o n on f o u n d a t i o n , t h a t t h e r e was a f a i l u r e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e s a m p l e s came from t h e v i c t i m s , c o n s i s t s o f l i t t l e more t h a n a s e l e c t i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e t e s t i m o n y below. Both m o r t i c i a n s had no d o u b t t h a t t h e s a m p l e s w e r e from t h e v i c t i m s o f t h i s a c c i d e n t . We find no m e r i t i n t h i s argument. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t m a i n t a i n s t h a t s h e w a s harmed b e c a u s e t h e l a b o r a t o r y t e c h n i c i a n who t e s t e d t h e samples d i d n o t p r o d u c e t h e g r a p h s made by t h e g a s c h r o m a t o g r a p h when he testified a t trial. Appellant claims t h a t t h i s v i o l a t e s R u l e 1002, M.R.Evid.: "To p r o v e t h e c o n t e n t o f a w r i t i n g . . . the original writing . . . i s required . . . except a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by . . . t h e s e r u l e s . " The l a b test r e s u l t form was a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . I t was c o m p l e t e d by t h e l a b t e c h n i c i a n who f i r s t r a n t h e t e s t , a s c e r t a i n e d t h e g r a p h r e a d i n g s , and t h e n completed t h e form. Thus, t h e r e s u l t s a s w r i t t e n on t h e forms w e r e c o p i e s of e n t r i e s i n t h e r e g u l a r course of business. "A copy o f a n e n t r y i n t h e r e g u l a r course of b u s i n e s s c o n s i s t s of an e n t r y i n a w r i t i n g k e p t i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s c o p i e d from a n o t h e r s u c h w r i t i n g by manual o r m e c h a n i c a l means a t o r n e a r t h e t i m e of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . " Rule 1 0 0 1 ( 5 ) , M.R.Evid. The l a b t e s t r e s u l t forms were a d m i s s i b l e a s c o p i e s i n l i e u o f t h e g r a p h u n d e r R u l e 1003, M.R.Evid.: "A d u p l i c a t e , o r copy of a n e n t r y i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s a s d e f i n e d i n R u l e 1 0 0 1 ( 5 ) , i s a d m i s s i b l e t o t h e same e x t e n t a s a n o r i g i n a l . " R u l e 1003 c o n t a i n s t h r e e e x c e p t i o n s t o a d m i s s i o n of a c o p y , none o f which a p p l y h e r e . I t was n o t e r r o r t o a l l o w t h e l a b t e s t r e s u l t forms i n t o e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t t h e g r a p h . I n summary, w e h o l d t h a t none o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g improper f o u n d a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e e r r o r . W f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e e r r o r by s u b m i t t i n g i t s c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n t o the jury. The c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 33 r e a d a s f o l l o w s : "Under t h e law of t h e S t a t e of Montana, a p a s s e n g e r , o r one who i s r i d i n g i n a motor v e h i c l e d r i v e n by a n o t h e r may be g u i l t y of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i n r i d i n g i n a n a u t o m o b i l e which i s d r i v e n by a n i n d i v i d u a l under t h e i n f l u e n c e of i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r , i f you f i n d t h a t t h e d r i v e r ' s i n t o x i c a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d t o some d e g r e e a s a c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t . " The s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e d r i v e r ' s (Hofer ' s ) i n t o x i c a t i o n must have " c o n t r i b u t e d t o some d e g r e e a s a c a u s e of t h e accident" t o t a l l y f a i l s t o s t a t e t h e e s s e n t i a l proximate c a u s e e l e m e n t of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . B e f o r e Montana a d o p t e d t h e d o c t r i n e of c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e , t h i s C o u r t s e t down t h e r u l e t h a t f o r c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e t o be a v a i l a b l e a s a d e f e n s e , t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f must have been - p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y . a Wolf v . B a r r y O'Leary, I n c . , ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 132 Mont. 468, 318 P.2d 582; Dimich Company v. Northern P a c i f i c ~ a i l w a ~ / ( 1 9 5 9 136 Mont. 485, 503, 348 P.2d ), 786, 795; (Harrison, C.J. d i s s e n t i n g ) ; L e i c h n e r v. B a s i l e ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 1 4 1 , 394 P. 2d 742; S z t a b a v . G r e a t N o r t h e r n Railway Company ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 7 Mont. 185, 4 1 1 P.2d 379. "Con- t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e by d e f i n i t i o n i n Montana i n c l u d e s ' p r o x i m a t e c a u s e ' , and t h i s s t r i c t formula d o e s n o t t o l e r a t e any less o r remote ' c o n t r i b u t i o n ' by t h e p l a i n t i f f . Plaintiff's c o n d u c t must n o t o n l y ' c o n t r i b u t e ' t o t h e i n j u r y b u t must c o n t r i b u t e -s-a ' p r o x i m a t e cause."' a DeVerniero v . Eby ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 146, 152, 496 P.2d 290, 293. (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) "We have always a d h e r e d t o t h e s t r i c t formula of 'proximate cause'. No l e s s formula w i l l s u f f i c e t o g i v e t h e j u r y a c o r r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n on c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . " Wolf, 318 P. 2d a t 585. The m i s s t a t e m e n t o f p r o x i m a t e c a u s e m i s l e d t h e j u r y and t h e r e b y p r e j u d i c e d t h e p l a i n t i f f . The f a c t t h a t t h e j u r y was m i s l e d i s b r o u g h t o u t by a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 28. No. 28 s t a t e d t h a t : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t : " I f you f i n d t h a t Michael Hofer was n e g l i g e n t , b u t t h a t h i s n e g l i g e n c e , i f a n y , o c c u r r e d w i t h o u t awareness of t h e danger, adding t o e x i s t i n g p e r i l , h i s conduct i s s a i d t o concur w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' n e g l i g e n c e , i f any, i n proximately causing t h e l o s s . I f you f i n d t h a t Hofer saw o r s h o u l d have s e e n t h e danger and n e g l i g e n t l y f a i l e d t o avoid it, h i s conduct i s held an unforeseeable, intervening cause (superseding c a u s e ) c u t t i n g o f f l i a b i l i t y of t h e d e f e n d a n t s . " The j u r y foreman s u b m i t t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n t o t h e judge: "We have a q u e s t i o n on i n s t r u c t i o n no. 28. I f we a g r e e Hofer s h o u l d have s e e n t h e danger d o e s t h a t c u t o f f l i a b i l i t y of t h e d e f e n d a n t s e n t i r e l y ? " The judge r e p l i e d that " [ y l o u a r e n o t t o s i n g l e o u t any c e r t a i n s e n t e n c e o r any i n d i v i d u a l p o i n t o r i n s t r u c t i o n , and i g n o r e t h e o t h e r s , b u t you a r e t o c o n s i d e r a l l t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a s a whole, and t o r e g a r d e a c h i n t h e l i g h t of a l l t h e o t h e r s . " The f o r e m a n ' s q u e s t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e j u r y was concerned w i t h t h e c a u s a l l i n k of H o f e r ' s conduct. While w e do n o t c r i t i c i z e t h e d i s t r i c t judge's response t o t h e foreman's q u e s t i o n , r e f e r r i n g t h e j u r y t o t h e o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s would of c o u r s e l e a d them t o no. 33. That i n s t r u c t i o n allowed t h e jury t o f i n d t h e defendants n o t l i a b l e i f Hofer's conduct "contributed t o some d e g r e e a s a c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t . " The j u r y w a s a l l o w e d t o b a s e t h e i r v e r d i c t upon a s t a n d a r d o t h e r t h a n t h e t r u e s t a n d a r d of p r o x i m a t e c a u s e . Failure t o properly s t a t e t h i s e s s e n t i a l and w e l l - s e t t l e d e l e m e n t of t h e d e f e n s e of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e w a s p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and reversible error. W n o t e f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n e no. 28 s h o u l d n o t b e g i v e n i n a r e t r i a l of t h i s c a s e . It is b o t h c o n f u s i n g and a m i s s t a t e m e n t of t h e law. W e a r e unable t o d e t e r m i n e what t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s supposed t o mean. The second s e n t e n c e p u r p o r t s t o b e a s t a t e m e n t o f i n t e r v e n i n g c a u s e , b u t i t , l i k e no. 33, f a i l s t o s t a t e t h a t H o f e r ' s c o n d u c t must h a v e been a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f McAlpine's i n j u r i e s . P l a i n t i f f a r g u e d t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o s a n c t i o n s be- c a u s e o f a n i m p r o p e r c l o s i n g argument c o n c e r n i n g t h e amount of t h e s e t t l e m e n t w i t h Dahl. The argument was n o t p r o p e r . The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t c o n c e r n i t s e l f w i t h t h e s e t t l e m e n t a s t h e c o u r t would t a k e c a r e o f t h a t i f t h e j u r y found damages f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f . I n t h e c o u r s e of f i n a l argu- ment, c o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d t h a t Roger Dahl had p a i d f o r h i s s h a r e of t h e a c c i d e n t and t h a t s h o u l d end i t . Such a r g u m e n t went o u t s i d e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s and s h o u l d n o t b e p e r - mitted i n a r e t r i a l . The judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded f o r a new t r i a l . W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e 1 Justices Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B . Morrison, J r . , s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r s t o t h e majority opinion. I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . However, i n s t r u c t i o n no. 33 i s defective f o r reasons not r e f e r r e d t o i n the majority opinion. The s u b j e c t i n s t r u c t i o n a l l o w s t h e j u r y t o f i n d t h e p a s s e n g e r g u i l t y of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i f t h e d r i v e r ' s i n t o x i c a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t . T h i s i s n o t t h e law. A p a s s e n g e r can o n l y be d e f e a t e d i f t h e p a s s e n g e r , knew o r s h o u l d have known, t h a t t h e d r i v e r was i n t o x i c a t e d . The d r i v e r ' s i n t o x - i c a t i o n , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , c a n n o t d e f e a t r e c o v e r y on t h e p a r t of t h e passenger. The e r r o r i n t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n g o e s t o t h e h e a r t o f t h i s c a s e and i s h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l . The blood a l c o h o l r e a d i n g of t h e d r i v e r was found t o be . 0 9 . Such a r e a d i n g i s i n t h e " g r a y area". The d r i v e r may w e l l have been under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a n i n t o x i c a n t , b u t y e t n o t g i v e any i n d i c a t i o n of t h a t i n f l u e n c e t o the passenger. The d r i v e r ' s impairment must be o b s e r v a b l e t o a reasonably prudent person. I f a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n would n o t be a b l e t o d e t e c t t h e d r i v e r ' s i n t o x i c a t e d s t a t e , then t h a t p e r s o n c a n n o t be d e n i e d r e c o v e r y on t h e b a s i s of c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence. I t i s o b v i o u s from t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e t h a t t h e j u r y c o u l d have found t h e d r i v e r t o b e under t h e i n f l u e n c e and denied recovery t o t h e passenger without t h e r e q u i s i t e f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p a s s e n g e r was h i m s e l f g u i l t y of f a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e reasonable care. I n m o p i n i o n t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n c a n n o t b e c u r e d by changing y i t s d e f i n i t i o n of " p r o x i m a t e c a u s e " . I concur i n t h e s p e c i a l concurrence./ I join in the majority opinion, but also agree with Justice Morrison as to why it was error to give Instruc- tion No. 33.