KIRBY v KELLY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12235 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1972 MONA KIRBY, by Guardian ad 1 t e m , i GWAW KIRBY and GWAN KIRBY, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -V8 - MELINDA P. K E T X and LEONARD M. KELLY, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : A r t h u r I?. Acher a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana. Robert F. Swanberg a r g u e d , Helena, Montana. F o r Respondents: Robert Ta. Johnson a r g u e d , Lewistown, Montana. Submitted: October 1 9 , 1972 Decided : X 10 1972 C Filed:Ec: $fyt: $,$id M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y and p r o p e r t y damage a c t i o n by p l a i n t i f f s , t r i e d t o a j u r y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Lewis and Clark. After a verdict f o r defendants and d e n i a l of a motion f o r a new t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from t h e f i n a l judgment. O t h e morning of October 1 5 , 1969, on I n t e r s t a t e Highway n #15, an a c c i d e n t occurred about seven m i l e s n o r t h of Helena. A l l p a r t i e s involved i n t h e a c c i d e n t were t r a v e l i n g s o u t h toward Helena from t h e Lincoln road t o a t t e n d work o r school. A dense fog enshrouded t h e a r e a and t h e highway s u r f a c e was i c y . The f a c t s on some c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e s a r e i n d i s p u t e , b u t we w i l l r e l a t e them most f a v o r a b l y t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . P l a i n t i f f Mona Kirby and h e r mother Gertrude Kirby were t r a v e l i n g south on I n t e r s t a t e #15, which i s a f o u r l a n e highway d i v i d e d by a median w i t h two d r i v i n g l a n e s and a broad shoulder parking a r e a , both n o r t h and south. They were passed by de- fendant Leonard M, K e l l y , d r i v i n g a GMC pickup t r u c k . As the Kirby c a r continued i n t h e f o g , i t approached Leonard ~ e l l y ' s pickup which had stopped o f f t o t h e s i d e of t h e road t o c l e a n t h e i c e and f r o s t from t h e windshield. P l a i n t i f f s contend Leonard ~ e l l y ' spickup was n o t o f f t h e d r i v i n g l a n e . Gertrude Kirby stopped h e r a u ~ o m o b i l ei n t h e r i g h t hand o r o u t s i d e l a n e of t r a f f i c , A f t e r c l e a n i n g h i s windshield, Leonard Kelly continued toward Helena. Gertrude Kirby w a i t e d f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d of time a f t e r Leonard Kelly had departed and a s s h e was about t o move h e r c a r , i t was s t r u c k i n t h e r e a r by a c a r d r i v e n by codefendant, Melinda Kelly. Both v e h i c l e s came t o a s t o p on t h e highway. damage seemed minor. The While t h e d r i v e r s were surveying t h e damage t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e automobiles, and were o u t of t h e automobiles, a n o t h e r automobile d r i v e n by R u s s e l l Harvey came from behind and s t r u c k Melinda K e l l y ' s v e h i c l e . Harvey drove h e a v i l y i n t o t h e r e a r of Melinda K e l l y ' s automobile, r u p t u r i n g t h e g a s o l i n e tank. This caused a f i r e which i n j u r e d I e s . Knapp, who was r i d i n g w i t h Melinda Kelly, and Cheryl Kelly, daughter of t h e K e l l y s , was engulfed i n flaming g a s o l i n e . P l a i n t i f f Mona Kirby was a l s o i n j u r e d i n t h i s s e r i e s of She was t r e a t e d a t v a r i o u s times by a medical d o c t o r a f t e r the accident. ".+ accidents. P l a i n t i f f Gwan Kirby, f a t h e r of Mona, claimed damages f o r i n j u r i e s t o h i s daughter; and f o r damages t o h i s automobile. The j u r y found f o r defendants on b o t h counts. P l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n t s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r review which w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i n o r d e r of t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h e b r i e f . P l a i n t i f f s contend t h e r e was n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t f o r defendants and t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s f a i l u r e t o g r a n t a new t r i a l . I n reviewing t h i s i s s u e , t h i s Court w i l l follow t h e long e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e , which was a g a i n r e a f f i r m e d i n Davis v. Davis, 29 St.Rep. 65,69: Mon t . , 497 P.2d 315, 318, "'When such a q u e s t i o n i s b e f o r e t h i s Court we w i l l review t h e evidence t o d e c i d e i f t h e v e r d i c t i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. Breen v. I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board (Mont. 1968), [I50 14ont. 4631 436 P. 2d 701. The f a c t t h a t t h e r e were c o n f l i c t s i n t h e t e s t i mony does n o t mean t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . W must a c c e p t t h e evidence e b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y "unless t h a t evidence i s s o i n h e r e n t l y impossible o r improbable a s n o t t o b e e n t i t l e d Wallace v . Wallace 85 Mont. 492, t o b e l i e f ff 279 P.374, 377, 66 A.L.R. 587 (1929). t I' Even though t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence, t h e r e i s evidence, depending on which w i t n e s s t h e j u r y b e l i e v e d , t h a t defendant Leonard K e l l y drove h i s pickup w i t h due c a r e and was n o t on o r blocking t h e highway when Gertrude Kirby chose t o s t o p on t h e d r i v i n g l a n e , i n which c a s e Gertrude Kirby could n o t look t o defendant Leonard Kelly t o respond f o r h e r misfortune, There - i s f u r t h e r evidence t h a t Gertrude Kirby remained stopped on t h e highway some minutes a f t e r Leonard Kelly d e p a r t e d . There i s a l s o evidence t h a t t h e r e was no problem s e e i n g t h e t r a f f i c l a n e markers on t h e highway s u r f a c e . P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r contend t h a t Leonard Kelly was n e g l i g e n t p e r s e f o r n o t having d e f r o s t e r s under s e c t i o n 32-21-148, R.C.M. 1947, which r e q u i r e s : o "(a) N person sha.11 d r i v e any motor v e h i c l e w i t h any s i g n , p o s t e r , o r o t h e r n o n t r a n s p a r e n t m a t e r i a l upon t h e f r o n t windshield, s i d e wings, o r o t h e r s i d e o r r e a r windows of such v e h i c l e which o b s t r u c t s t h e d r i v e r ' s c l e a r view of t h e highvmy o r any i n t e r s e c t i n g highway. " (b) The windshield on every motor v e h i c l e s h a l l b e equipped w i t h a d e v i c e f o r c l e a r i n g r a i n , snow, o r o t h e r moisture from t h e windshield, which d e v i c e s h a l l b e s o c o n s t r u c t e d a s t o be c o n t r o l l e d o r operated by t h e d r i v e r of t h e v e h i c l e . " ( c ) Every windshield wiper upon a motor v e h i c l e s h a l l b e maintained i n good working o r d e r . I I T h i s s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e r e b e windshield wipers on t h e v e h i c l e , t h a t they b e i n good working o r d e r , and t h a t they a r e o p e r a t e d from t h e i n s i d e of t h e automobile. W f i n d no a u t h o r i t y e t o extend t h e mandate of t h i s s t a t u t e t o i n t e r i o r h e a t i n g devices, I n s o f a r a s Melinda K e l l y ' s a c t i o n s a r e concerned, t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t would allow a j u r y t o f i n d t h a t s h e was o p e r a t i n g h e r v e h i c l e under proper c o n t r o l and a t a reduced speed when she e n t e r e d t h e fog and came suddenly upon Gertrude K i r b y ' s automobile i n t h e d r i v i n g l a n e . The f o r c e of t h e d e s c r i b e d impact would r e i n f o r c e t h e evidence o f slow speed. P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r contend t h a t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n No. 7 , which i s s e c t i o n 32-2199, R.C.M, 1947, "Stopping, s t a n d i n g , o r parking o u t s i d e of b u s i n e s s o r r e s i d e n c e d i s t r i c t s , " 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 h e r e , due t o t h e poor v i s i b i l i t y . This statuteis c l e a r l y t h e law and we f i n d no e r r o r , P l a i n t i f f s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No, 5 d e a l s w i t h t h e code s e c t i o n on windshield wipers and we have p r e v i o u s l y commented on t h i s i s s u e of t h e c a s e . With no evidence i n t h e r e c o r d of d e f e c t i v e w i p e r s , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n w a s p r o p e r l y denied, P l a i n t i f f s contend t h e g i v i n g of c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n No. 18 was e r r o r . This i n s t r u c t i o n was given over p l a i n t i f f s ' o b j e c t i o n and r e a d s : "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 negligence on t h e p a r t of Gertrude L. Kirby was t h e s o l e proximate cause of damage t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s , o r e i t h e r of them, then your v e r d i c t s h a l l be f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s , Leonard Kelly and Melinda Kelly.'' The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s evidence, i f b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y , t h a t Gertrude Kirby was stopped on t h e d r i v i n g l a n e f o r some p e r i o d of time f o r no purpose, a s t h e r e were two d r i v i n g l a n e s a v a i l a b l e t o proceed. Leonard Kelly t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t appeared s h e was w a i t i n g t o f o l l o w h i s machine through t h e fog, I t was w i t h i n t h e province of t h e j u r y t o make t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n from t h e r e c o r d . T h e r e f o r e , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n would apply. The n e x t i s s u e f o r review concerns t h e v e r d i c t s submitted t o jury. The c o u r t gave a proposed v e r d i c t submitted by p l a i n t i f f s which r e q u i r e d t h e j u r y t o respond t o f o u r s e t s of questions. favor. The defendants submitted a g e n e r a l v e r d i c t i n t h e i r The c o u r t asked f o r o b j e c t i o n s , i f any, t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' v e r d i c t being submitted t o t h e j u r y , P l a i n t i f f s only responded t h a t t h e y thought i t t o be r e p e t i t i o u s and t h e c o u r t thereupon submitted both forms t o t h e j u r y . When t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d i t s v e r d i c t , i t used t h e v e r d i c t submitted by d e f e n d a n t s , t h e g e n e r a l v e r d i c t . P l a i n t i f f s now contend t h a t i t was e r r o r f o r t h e j u r y n o t t o have a l s o answered t h e q u e s t i o n s on t h e i r proposed v e r d i c t . Nowhere i n t h e r e c o r d i s i t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s moved under Rule 4 9 ( a ) , M,R, Civ.P., t h a t t h e j u r y be r e q u i r e d t o r e t u r n only a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t i n t h e form of s p e c i a l w r i t t e n f i n d i n g upon each i s s u e of f a c t . Under t h e s t a t e of t h e r e c o r d , we d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r e r r o r on t h e p a r t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by p l a i n t i f f s i s t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o s t r i k e defendants' c o s t b i l l . When t h i s c a s e came t o o r a l argument i n t h i s Court, counsel f o r defendants withdrew t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n t o t h i s argument and t h e r e f o r e p l a i n t i f f s w i l l p r e v a i l on t h a t p o i n t . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d , however t h e b i l l of c o s t s e n t e r e d by defendants w i l l n o t b e allowed. ' ~ s s o c i a t eJ u s t i c e Associate J u s t i c e s . I

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.