McAlpine v. Midland Electric Co.

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.