Kiamas v. Mon-Kota, Inc.

No. 81-68
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PETER KIAMAS, JR., and
DONNA MAE KIAMAS, husband and wife,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
VS.

MON-KOTA, INC., a Montana corporation,
LARRY LEWIS, ERVIN BIEBER, DUANE BIEBER,
and JEFF REIDLE,
Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Richland
Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Thomas R. Halvorson, Sidney, Montana
Anderson, Edwards and Molloy, Billings, Montana
Richard W. Anderson argued, Billings, Montana
For Respondents:
Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole and Dietrich,
Billings, Montana
L. Randall Bishop argued, Billings, Montana

Submitted: October 20, 1981

Decided: January 28, 1982

8 Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.

P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of Mon-Kota

r e s u l t i n g i n a head i n j u r y t o p l a i n t i f f , Peter Kiamas, w i t h

s e v e r e p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l damage. Summary judgment was

e n t e r e d f o r d e f e n d a n t , Mon-Kota, i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of

R i c h l a n d County. W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court.

The c e n t r a l i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d summary judgment i n f a v o r of Mon-

Kota, i m p l i e d l y h o l d i n g t h a t t h e " r e s c u e d o c t r i n e " i s n o t

a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e .

P l a i n t i f f s a r e f a r m e r s i n R i c h l a n d County. I n June

of 1977, p l a i n t i f f , P e t e r Kiamas, Jr. ( K i a m a s ) , engaged Mon-

Kota t o f e r t i l i z e h i s s u g a r b e e t s by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t o p

dressing. Kiamas had been l e a s i n g t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n f o r

a p e r i o d of f o u r o r f i v e y e a r s . Mon-Kota s e n t two employees

t o a p p l y t h e t o p d r e s s i n g by t h e u s e of two Mon-Kota John

Deere t r a c t o r s . The two employees d i d n o t i n i t i a l l y r e a l i z e

t h a t t h e i r John Deere t r a c t o r wheels were s e t f o r 26 i n c h

rows r a t h e r t h a n 2 4 i n c h rows a s t h e b e e t s were p l a n t e d i n

t h e Kiamas f i e l d . Kiamas owned John Deere t r a c t o r s of t h e

same model a s t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s , and Kiamas had changed

t h e w i d t h a d j u s t m e n t on h i s own John Deere t r a c t o r s many

times. Kiamas d r o v e o u t t o h i s f i e l d s t o s e e what was g o i n g

on. He n o t i c e d t h a t t h e b e e t t o p s i n a number of rows were

ragged and t o r n i n a p p e a r a n c e . One Mon-Kota t r a c t o r was

stopped. Kiamas t a l k e d t o t h e d r i v e r of t h a t t r a c t o r , and
together they h a l t e d t h e o t h e r t r a c t o r . T h e r e w a s no d i f f i c u l t y

i n s t o p p i n g b o t h of t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s . Kiamas and t h e

Mon-Kota employees t a l k e d o v e r t h e problem which was c a u s i n g
damage t o t h e b e e t t o p s , and d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e Mon-Kota
t r a c t o r wheels were s e t f o r 2 6 i n c h rows i n s t e a d of t h e 2 4

i n c h rows o f t h e Kiamas f i e l d . As a result, they observed

t h e r e was damage t o t h e b e e t s b e c a u s e t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s

were d r i v i n g o v e r t h e t o p s o f some of t h e b e e t s . Kiamas

i n s t r u c t e d t h e d r i v e r s of t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s t o " s h u t t h e

t r a c t o r s down" and t h a t was done. The Mon-Kota d r i v e r s

a g r e e d t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t o change t h e s p a c i n g on t h e

t r a c t o r wheels b e f o r e g o i n g f u r t h e r .

The Mon-Kota d r i v e r s d i d n o t have t o o l s w i t h which t o

change t h e s p a c i n g , and asked Kiamas i f h e had a j a c k and

t o o l s which t h e y c o u l d u s e t o change t h e s p a c i n g on t h e

t r a c t o r wheels. Kiamas and t h e two d r i v e r s r o d e t o t h e

Kiamas farmhouse and p i c k e d up t h e j a c k , t o o l s and equipment

n e c e s s a r y t o perform t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t . When t h e y r e t u r n e d

t o t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s , Kiamas i n j u r e d h i s head w h i l e

a t t e m p t i n g t o h e l p w i t h t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t s . In his

d e p o s i t i o n , Kiamas d e s c r i b e d how h i s i n j u r y o c c u r r e d :

"A. W e l l , w e g o t back o u t t o t h e f i e l d t h e r e .
And -- w e l l , l i k e you s a y , t h e boys were p r e t t y
young, and I d i d n ' t know i f t h e y r e a l l y knew
what was g o i n g on o r n o t . So I ' v e -- I g u e s s
I v o l u n t e e r e d t o go a l o n g w i t h them. And t o
make s u r e t h e y were g o i n g -- g o i n g t o do i t
right. And s o we b r o u g h t e v e r y t h i n g up t o --
t h e b l o c k s , t h e j a c k , t h e t o o l s -- w e a l l
c a r r i e d something o v e r t o t h e t r a c t o r . And I
j u s t -- I grabbed a h o l d o f a wrench, and I
s t a r t e d l o o s e n i n g t h e wheel. And t h a t ' s when
i t s l i p p e d o f f -- s l i p p e d o f f t h e n u t , and I
c r a c k e d m head a g a i n s t t h e a x l e .
y That's
b a s i c a l l y what happened t h e n . "

The Mon-Kota d r i v e r s d i d n o t a s k Kiamas t o h e l p i n any way.

Kiamas d i d n o t a s k t h e Mon-Kota d r i v e r s i f t h e y knew how t o

change t h e wheel s p a c i n g . Kiamas e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e wrench

s l i p p e d o f f , and when asked what c a u s e d it t o s l i p , h e

stated:
 "A. I wish I knew. But i t -- t h e wrench was
i n good s h a p e . T h a t ' s a l l I g o t t o s a y . I
mean, t h e wrench f i t on t h e r e r e a l good. So
t h e o n l y t h i n g I c o u l d s a y i s t h e i r n u t s must
have been rounded o f f o r something. 'Cause
I ' v e done t h e same t h i n g f o r 1 5 y e a r s and
n e v e r had a n y t h i n g happen t o m e l i k e t h a t
before. "

I n s u b s t a n c e , Kiamas d i d n o t complain t h a t t h e t o o l s w e r e i n

any way d e f e c t i v e o r t h a t t h e t r a c t o r w a s i n any way d e f e c t i v e

o r t h a t t h e Mon-Kota d r i v e r s d i d n o t do t h e r i g h t t h i n g , b u t

simply t h a t t h e wheels w e r e n o t s e t r i g h t and i f Mon-Kota

had t h e wheels s e t r i g h t a l l t h i s would n o t have happened t o

him. Mon-Kota h a s conceded t h a t i t was Mon-Kota's fault

t h a t t h e t r a c t o r s had t h e i n c o r r e c t wheel s p a c i n g and t h a t

Mon-Kota, t h e r e f o r e , i s p r o p e r l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any r e s u l t i n g

damage t o t h e b e e t c r o p o r l a n d of t h e p l a i n t i f f s . However,

i n t h i s c a s e w e a r e concerned w i t h Kiamas' a l l e g e d i n j u r i e s

a s a r e s u l t of t h e blow on t h e head, which h e r e c e i v e d w h i l e

t r y i n g t o l o o s e n a w h e e l n u t on t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r .

The f a c t s d i s c l o s e , w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , t h a t t h e Mon-Kota

t r a c t o r s had i n c o r r e c t wheel s p a c i n g , b u t a l s o d i s c l o s e t h a t

upon d i s c o v e r y of t h e i n c o r r e c t s p a c i n g , t h e Mon-Kota

d r i v e r s s h u t down t h e t r a c t o r s s o t h e r e was no f u r t h e r r i s k

of i n j u r y t o t h e Kiamas l a n d o r c r o p s . The Mon-Kota d r i v e r s

a g r e e d w i t h Kiamas t h a t t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t had t o b e

changed b e f o r e any f u r t h e r work would be done on t h e Kiamas

l a n d by t h e Mon-Kota t r a c t o r s .

Our b a s i c q u e s t i o n i s whether o r n o t Kiamas c a n be

c l a s s e d a s b e i n g on a " r e s c u e " m i s s i o n a t t h e t i m e of h i s

personal injury. A s p o i n t e d o u t by t h e p l a i n t i f f s , the

t h e o r y of t h e r e s c u e d o c t r i n e was s t a t e d 6 0 y e a r s ago by

J u s t i c e Cardozo a s f o l l o w s :

"Danger i n v i t e s r e s c u e . The c r y of d i s t r e s s
i s t h e summons t o r e l i e f . The l a w d o e s n o t
i g n o r e t h e s e r e a c t i o n s of t h e mind i n t r a c -
i n g c o n d u c t t o i t s consequences. I t recognizes
 them a s normal. I t places t h e i r e f f e c t within
t h e r a n g e of t h e n a t u r a l and p r o b a b l e . The
wrong t h a t i m p e r i l s l i f e i s a wrong t o t h e
i m p e r i l e d v i c t i m ; i t i s a wrong a l s o t o h i s
rescuer. .. The r a i l r o a d company whose t r a i n
a p p r o a c h e s w i t h o u t s i g n a l i s a wrongdoer toward
t h e t r a v e l e r s u r p r i s e d between t h e r a i l s b u t a
wrongdoer a l s o t o t h e b y s t a n d e r who d r a g s him
from t h e p a t h . .. The r i s k of r e s c u e , i f o n l y
i t be n o t wanton, i s b o r n e of t h e o c c a s i o n .
The emergency b e g e t s t h e man. The wrongdoer
may n o t have f o r e s e e n t h e coming of a d e l i v e r e r .
H e i s a c c o u n t a b l e a s i f h e had." Wagner v . I n -
t e r n a t i o n a l Ry. Co. ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 232 N . Y . 176, 133
N.E. 437.

W i l l i a m L. P r o s s e r i n h i s Handbook of t h e Law of T o r t s ,

Section 44, describes the rescue doctrine a s follows:

"Upon t h e same b a s i s , under t h e ' r e s c u e d o c t r i n e , '
e f f o r t s t o p r o t e c t t h e p e r s o n a l s a f e t y of a n o t h e r
have been h e l d n o t t o s u p e r s e d e t h e l i a b i l i t y
f o r t h e o r i g i n a l n e g l i g e n c e which h a s endangered
i t . Whether o r n o t t h e r e s c u e r i s t o be r e g a r d -
ed a s ' f o r e s e e a b l e , ' i t h a s been r e c o g n i z e d s i n c e
t h e e a r l y c a s e of t h e crowd r u s h i n g t o a s s i s t
t h e descending b a l l o o n i s t t h a t he i s nothing
abnormal. 'The r i s k of r e s c u e , i f o n l y it b e
n o t wanton, i s b o r n e of t h e o c c a s i o n . The
emergency b e g e t s t h e man.' ...
"Although t h e r e h a s been some d i s a g r e e m e n t , t h e
g r e a t m a j o r i t y of t h e c o u r t s now a p p l y t h e same
r u l e t o one who t r i e s t o r e s c u e t h e p r o p e r t y of
a n o t h e r , even when he i s under no d u t y t o do s o ,
and even though t h e p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d i s t h a t
of t h e defendant. . ." P r o s s e r , Law of T o r t s
S 4 4 ( 4 t h ed. 1 9 7 1 ) .

I t may be n o t e d t h a t b o t h J u s t i c e Cardozo and P r o f e s s o r

P r o s s e r emphasize t h a t d a n g e r of i n j u r y o r damage t o p e r s o n

o r p r o p e r t y i s t h e e l e m e n t which i n v i t e s r e s c u e . "The

emergency b e g e t s t h e man."

P l a i n t i f f s s u g g e s t t h a t Ekwortzel v . P a r k e r ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 156

Mont. 477, 482 P.2d 559, i s a c a s e i n which t h i s C o u r t

applied t h e "rescue doctrine" without a c t u a l l y saying so.

That c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . The d e f e n d a n t t h e r e k e p t one

q u i t e o b s t r e p e r o u s mule which had e s c a p e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s

e n c l o s u r e and e n t e r e d upon t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s l a n d where t h e

mule had been f o r a number of d a y s , c a u s i n g s i g n i f i c a n t
problems w i t h l i v e s t o c k . While p l a i n t i f f w a s a t t e m p t i n g t o

round up t h e mule, h i s h o r s e f e l l , b r e a k i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s

leg. The d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two c a s e s i s t h e need f o r

a c t i o n , t h e "emergency" mentioned by Cardozo and P r o s s e r

previously. Ekwortzel a c t e d t o g e t t h e mule o u t of t h e way

s o t h a t h e c o u l d p r o p e r l y move h i s own l i v e s t o c k . Here,

Kiamas w a s n o t r e q u i r e d t o a c t e i t h e r t o meet an emergency o r

o t h e r w i s e , b e c a u s e t h e t r a c t o r s were s t o p p e d and t h e r e w a s

no f u r t h e r r i s k of damage t o h i s growing c r o p s and f i e l d s .

P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t swnmary judgment was n o t appro-

p r i a t e b e c a u s e t h e r e was an i s s u e which s h o u l d have been

s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y a s t o whether o r n o t t h e d e f e n d a n t s '

n e g l i g e n c e and b r e a c h of d u t y was t h e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y t o

Kiamas. With r e g a r d t o t h e e n t r y of summary judgment where

a p l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o e s t a b l i s h a proximate c a u s a l connection

o r o t h e r m a t e r i a l element i n t h e negligence a c t i o n , t h i s

C o u r t i n S c o t t v . Robson (19791, Mont. , 597 P.2d

1150, 1154, 36 St.Rep. 1273, 1278, q u o t e d from P i c k e t t v .

Kyger ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 87, 1 0 0 , 439 P.2d 5 7 , 63, a s f o l l o w s :

" ' I t i s hornbook law r e q u i r i n g no c i t a t i o n of
a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l elements t h a t t h e
p l a i n t i f f must p r o v e i n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l i n a
damage a c t i o n of t h i s k i n d a r e :

d u t y owing from d e f e n d a n t t o p l a i n t i f f ;

"' (2) A b r e a c h of t h a t d u t y by d e f e n d a n t ;

"'(3) C o n s t i t u t i n g proximate cause o f ;

"'(4) I n j u r i e s and damages t o p l a i n t i f f .

" ' P l a i n t i f f must i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e p r o v i n g
o r t e n d i n g t o p r o v e each of t h e s e m a t e r i a l
e l e m e n t s i n o r d e r t o b e e n t i t l e d t o have h i s
case submitted t o t h e jury. In the instant
c a s e p l a i n t i f f ' s e v i d e n c e , viewed most f a v o r -
ably t o p l a i n t i f f , tends t o e s t a b l i s h t h e duty,
b r e a c h , i n j u r y , and damages. But t h e r e i s a
t o t a l a b s e n c e of any e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o
e s t a b l i s h a p r o x i m a t e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n be-
tween t h e b r e a c h [ e d ] . . . d u t y and p l a i n -
t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s and damages. '
 " I n P i c k e t t t h i s C o u r t d i r e c t e d summary judg-
ment i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a s a r e s u l t
of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o e s t a b l i s h a p r o x i -
mate c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n . "

Mon-Kota c o n t e n d s t h a t p l a i n t i f f s have f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h

a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between t h e n e g l i g e n c e of Mon-Kota and

t h e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y t o Kiamas. Kiamas q u o t e s from R e s t a t e m e n t

(Second) of T o r t s , S e c t i o n 290 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , a s a b a s i s f o r a

c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s r e q u i r e d t o know t h a t

Kiamas c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o a c t i n t h i s manner. H e quotes

from Comment 1, which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s :

"1. Knowledge t h a t o t h e r s w i l l a c t t o p r e v e n t
harm. The a c t o r a s a r e a s o n a b l e man s h o u l d
r e a l i z e t h a t a n o t h e r whose p e r s o n o r goods he
intentionally o r negligently puts i n p e r i l , is
b o t h l i k e l y and p r i v i l e g e d t o a c t i n i t s d e f e n s e ,
and i s a l s o r e q u i r e d t o r e a l i z e t h a t i n s o do-
i n g t h e o t h e r may n o t a c t w i t h p e r f e c t p r o p r i e t y ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e p e r i l i s sudden and c r e a t e s
a n emergency i n which immediate a c t i o n i s re-
quired. .. So t o o , t h e a c t o r must r e c o g n i z e
t h e tendency of human b e i n g s t o expose them-
s e l v e s t o p e r i l t o p r o t e c t not only the l i f e
and limb b u t even t h e p r o p e r t y of t h i r d p e r s o n s
. . . 11

A s s t a t e d i n the f i r s t sentence, t h e key e l e m e n t i s t h a t t h e

d e f e n d a n t i s c h a r g e d w i t h "knowledge t h a t o t h e r s w i l l a c t t o

p r e v e n t harm." I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e was no a c t i o n of

any t y p e by Kiamas t o p r e v e n t harm. The p o s s i b i l i t y of harm

was e l i m i n a t e d by Mon-Kota s t o p p i n g i t s t r a c t o r s and t h e

d r i v e r s ' agreement t o change t h e wheel s p a c i n g s o t h e r e

would b e no f u r t h e r damage t o t h e Kiamas c r o p s o r l a n d s .

Not o n l y i s t h e r e a t o t a l a b s e n c e of an emergency d e s c r i b e d

above, t h e r e i s a t o t a l a b s e n c e of a need f o r a c t i o n t o

p r e v e n t harm.

Both p a r t i e s r e l y h e a v i l y i n t h e i r arguments on t h e

R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s ( 1 9 6 5 ) . With r e g a r d t o t h e

b a s i c e l e m e n t of n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t a s c a u s e of harm t o

a n o t h e r , S e c t i o n 431 states:
 "The a c t o r ' s n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t i s a l e g a l c a u s e
of harm t o a n o t h e r i f

" ( a ) H i s c o n d u c t -s-a s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r -
i in
b r i n g i n g a b o u t -- and
t h e harm,

" ( b ) T h e r e i s no r u l e of law r e l i e v i n g t h e
a c t o r from l i a b i l i t y b e c a u s e of t h e manner i n
which h i s n e g l i g e n c e h a s r e s u l t e d i n t h e harm."
(Underscoring added.)

I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of S e c t i o n 431, t h e

Comment emphasizes t h e f o l l o w i n g :

" I n o r d e r t o b e a l e g a l c a u s e of a n o t h e r ' s
harm, i t i s n o t enough t h a t t h e harm would
n o t have o c c u r r e d had t h e a c t o r n o t been
negligent. . . The n e g l i g e n c e must a l s o be
a s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r i n bringing about t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s harm. The word ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' i s
used t o denote t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
c o n d u c t h a s such a n a f f e c t i n p r o d u c i n g t h e
harm a s t o l e a d r e a s o n a b l e men t o r e g a r d i t
a s a c a u s e , u s i n g t h a t word i n t h e p o p u l a r
sense. . .I1

The Comment i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e .

I t i s n o t enough t h a t Kiamas would n o t have s u f f e r e d a head

i n j u r y had Mon-Kota n o t been n e g l i g e n t i n h a v i n g t h e wrong

s p a c i n g on i t s t r a c t o r s . I n a d d i t i o n , any n e g l i g e n c e of

Mon-Kota a l s o must have been " a s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r " i n

causing t h e i n j u r y . Mon-Kota had s t o p p e d i t s t r a c t o r s and

was i n t h e p r o c e s s of c o r r e c t i n g t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t s o

t h e r e would b e no f u r t h e r harm t o p l a i n t i f f s 1 l a n d , and no

need f o r any a c t i o n on t h e p a r t of Kiamas. This suggests

t h a t p l a i n t i f f s have f a i l e d t o show t h a t t h e c o n d u c t of Mon-

Kota was s u c h a s t o l e a d r e a s o n a b l e men t o r e g a r d it a s a

c a u s e of t h e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y .
R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s , S e c t i o n 445 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , i s

p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l i e d upon by t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e i r arguments.

W e f i n d t h a t a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of t h a t s e c t i o n i s d e c i s i v e .

S e c t i o n 445 s t a t e s :
 " I f t h e a c t o r ' s n e g l i g e n t conduct t h r e a t e n s
harm t o a n o t h e r ' s p e r s o n , l a n d , o r c h a t t e l s ,
t h e normal e f f o r t s of t h e o t h e r o r a t h i r d
p e r s o n t o a v e r t t h e t h r e a t e n e d harm a r e n o t
a s u p e r s e d i n g c a u s e of harm r e s u l t i n g from
such e f f o r t s . "

I f we reword t h e s e c t i o n t o a p p l y t o t h e p r e s e n t f a c t s i t u a t i o n ,

i t would r e a d s u b s t a n t i a l l y a s f o l l o w s :

I f Mon-Kota's n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t t h r e a t e n s harm
t o Kiamas l a n d , t h e normal e f f o r t s of Kiamas
t o a v e r t t h e t h r e a t e n e d harm a r e n o t a s u p e r -
seding cause.

The a c t i o n s o f Kiamas became a s u p e r s e d i n g c a u s e u n l e s s h e

proved t h a t h i s a c t i o n s w e r e a normal e f f o r t t o " a v e r t t h e

t h r e a t e n e d harm" t o h i s c r o p s and l a n d . When Mon-Kota

h a l t e d t h e t r a c t o r s and proceeded t o change t h e wheel a d j u s t m e n t ,

t h e r e was no l o n g e r any a c t i o n r e q u i r e d by Kiamas t o a v e r t a

t h r e a t e n e d harm. Our c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t t h e a c t i o n s of

Kiamas do n o t f a l l w i t h i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e r e s c u e

d o c t r i n e a s described i n Restatement Section 4 4 5 , with t h e

r e s u l t t h a t t h e Kiamas a c t i o n was a s u p e r s e d i n g c a u s e f o r

which Mon-Kota and t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s were n o t r e s p o n s i b l e .

W e a f f i r m t h e summary judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e defendants.

W e Concur:

~ A & +,PC,
Chief ~ u s t i c e '

Justices
Mr. J u s t i c e John C . Sheehy c o n c u r r i n g :

I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . The " r e s c u e d o c t r i n e , " though

r a i s e d by p l a i n t i f f , i s e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t t o h i s c l a i m .

H e a p p l i e d a wrench t o l o o s e n a n u t , t h e wrench s l i p p e d and

p l a i n t i f f was i n j u r e d . Beyond t h o s e f a c t s , w e have n o t h i n g

t o show a d u t y of d e f e n d a n t s toward p l a i n t i f f , n o r a b r e a c h

of t h a t d u t y and r e s u l t i n g harm t o p l a i n t i f f . On t h e b a s i s

simply t h a t p l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o s t a t e a claim i n t o r t , t h e

summary judgment i s p r o p e r .
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea c o n c u r r i n g :

I a g r e e t h a t summary judgment w a s p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d .

The n e g l i g e n c e of Mon-Kota s t o p p e d when t h e t r a c t o r s w e r e

s h u t down and w e r e no l o n g e r d o i n g damage t o t h e c r o p s and

land. Had t h e p l a i n t i f f been i n j u r e d w h i l e r u n n i n g i n t h e

f i e l d s a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t t h e Mon-Kota employees t o s h u t down

t h e t r a c t o r s , I have no d o u b t t h a t t h e r e s c u e d o c t r i n e would

a p p l y and a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n would remain f o r t h e j u r y . But

here t h e p l a i n t i f f seeks t o recover f o r i n j u r i e s sustained

a f t e r t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t s o f t h e Mon-Kota employees had come

t o a s t a n d s t i l l , and where t h e r e was a b s o l u t e l y no need f o r

t h e p l a i n t i f f t o do a n y t h i n g f u r t h e r . H e acted a s a volunteer

i n u n d e r t a k i n g t o change t h e wheel s p a c i n g on t h e Mon-Kota

t r a c t o r s , and h e h a s a l l e g e d no n e g l i g e n c e of t h e Mon-Kota

employees a f t e r t h e t r a c t o r s were s h u t down. Whatever i n j u r i e s

h e r e c e i v e d w e r e n o t p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d by t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f

Mon-Kota o r i t s employees.

I concur w i t h t h e foregoing.