CALKINS v OXBOW RANCH INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12164 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1972 KATHLEEN A. HECK CALKINS, i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s Guardian Ad Litem o f DEBRA HECK, SALLY HECK, LAURA HECK and EDWARD HECK, Minors, Plaintiff and A p p e l l a n t , OXBO?? RANCH, INC., a Montana C o r p o r a t i o n , d / b / a GILLIS AVIATION, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C . B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellants : W a l t e r H. B i t h e l l a r g u e d , B o i s e , Idaho. Howard I, Manweiler a r g u e d , B o i s e , Idaho. J o n e s , Olsen and C h r i s t e n s e n , B i l l i n g s , Montana. Webb and Tway, B o i s e , Idaho. For Respondents : Anderson, Symmes, F o r b e s , P e e t e & Brown, B i l l i n g s , Montana, John L. H i l t s argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Submitted: Filed: AYFi iJ 1972 March 1 6 , 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from a summary judgment f o r defendant i n a wrongful d e a t h a c t i o n . The judgment was e n t e r e d upon t h e g r a n t i n g of a motion f o r summary judgment by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, Judge Charles B. Sande p r e s i d i n g . The a c t i o n was brought by Kathleen A . Heck Calkins a s t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse of Donald E. Heck, deceased, and t h e n a t u r a l mother and guardian ad l i t e m o f Debra, S a l l y , Laura and Edward Heck, who a r e minor c h i l d r e n of t h e marriage of Kathleen A . Heck Calkins and Donald E. Heck, deceased. P l a i n t i f f , i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s guardian ad l i t e m , i n s t i t u t e d a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendant a l l e g i n g t h a t defendant f u r n i s h e d t o Dow, Inc. a l i c e n s e d commercial p i l o t by t h e name of Andrew Deichel, *** "* * * an employee, s e r v a n t , and a g e n t of s a i d Defendant t o s a f e l y c a r r y t h e s a i d Donald E. Heck, a s a passenger from B i l l i n g s , Montana t o Eugene, Oregon." It was t h e conten- t i o n of p l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e p i l o t was a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e c o u r s e and scope o f h i s employment; t h a t he was a n agent of defendant a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t ; and t h a t he was n e g l i g e n t . Defendant i s Oxbow Ranch, I n c . , a Montana c o r p o r a t i o n , doing business a s G i l l i s Aviation. On A p r i l 4 , 1968, Donald E. Heck was k i l l e d w h i l e a passenger i n an a i r c r a f t owned by h i s employer, Dow, I n c . , a Wyoming corpora t i o n , w i t h c o r p o r a t e h e a d q u a r t e r s l o c a t e d a t B i l l i n g s , Montana. The c r a s h of t h e a i r p l a n e occurred i n Oregon, w h i l e M r . Heck was on a business t r i p originating i n B i l l i n g s e n r o u t e t o Eugene, Oregon. Also k i l l e d were t h e p i l o t , D e i c h e l , and Donald A . Dow, p r e s i d e n t of Dow, Inc. owner of t h e a i r p l a n e and on whose business t h e t r i p was taken. Defendant moved f o r summary judgment on t h e b a s i s of t h e d e p o s i t i o n s i n t h i s a c t i o n pursuant t o Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., on t h e grounds t h a t t h e p i l o t , D e i c h e l , was n e i t h e r a n a c t u a l nor a n o s t e n s i b l e a g e n t of t h e defendant and t h a t t h e r e was no r a t i f i c a t i o n of any of t h e a c t s of t h e p i l r t on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t , such t h a t t h e d q c t r i n e of respond&it s u p e r i o r d i d n o t apply a s t o t h e defendant and t h a t t h e r e f o r e no l i a b i l i t y could be p r e d i c a t e d upon any agency r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e defendant. The i s s u e i s whether t h e r e i s any evidence tending t o e s t a b l i s h an agency r e l a t i o n s h i p implied o r o s t e n s i b l e , upon t h e d o c t r i n e of respondea t s u p e r i o r . While t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f i n c l u d e s " a c t u a l r t agency i n i t s s t a t e m e n t of t h e i s s u e , i t i s conceded t h a t t h e r e i s no proof of a c t u a l agency. F i r s t , a p p e l l a n t urges t h a t where an a p p e a l i s taken from t h e g r a n t i n g of a summary judgment t h i s Court w i l l review t h e testimony i n t h e most f a v o r a b l e a s p e c t i t w i l l bear i n s u p p o r t of a p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m of t h e r i g h t t o p r e s e n t t h e m e r i t s of h i s c a s e t o t h e f a c t f i n d e r . Mally v. Asanovich, 149 Mont. 99, 423 P.2d 294; Knowlton v. Sandaker, 150 Mont. 438, 436 P.2d 98. I n d i s c u s s i n g a motion f o r summary judgment i n G a l l a t i n T r . & Sav. Bk. v. Henke, 154 Mont. 170, 1 7 2 , 461 P.2d 448, t h i s Court c i t i n g from Silloway v. Jorgenson, 146 Mont. 307, 406 P.2d 167, s a i d : ** "I* t h e p a r t y opposing motion [ f o r summary judgment] must p r e s e n t f a c t s i n proper form conclusions of law w i l l n o t s u f f i c e ; and t h e opposing p a r t y ' s f a c t s must be m a t e r i a l and of a substantive nature, not fanciful, frivolous, gauzy, nor merely s u s p i c i o n s . ' 6 ~ o o r Ies F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 2d, 5 5 6 . 1 5 [ 3 ] , pp. 2346,2347; Hager v. Tandy, 146 Mont. 531, 410 P.2d 447." --- I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e most of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a r r a n g e ment of t h e f l i g h t a r e dead. This p r e s e n t s t o t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse a d i f f i c u l t proof problem. But, proof of a n a c t u a l o r o s t e n s i b l e agency may be i n t h e form of c i r c u m s t a n t i a l proof a s w e l l a s d i r e c t proof. I n Freeman v. Withers, 1.04 Mont. 166, 172, 65 P.2d 601, t h i s Court s a i d : "It [agency] may be implied from conduct and from a l l t h e f a c t s and circumstances i n t h e c a s e and may be shown by c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence." *** Also, i n Hamilton v. Lion Head S k i L i f t , I n c . , 139 Mont. 335, 340, 363 P.2d 716, t h i s Court s a i d : "!* * * agency i s a m a t t e r , n o t t o be presumed, but t o be proven, and t h e burden of proving i t must be borne by t h e p a r t y who a s s e r t s i t . "' Before proceeding t o a n a n a l y s i s of t h e f a c t s , we s h a l l b r i e f l y s e t f o r t h p r o v i s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o agency. 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, and 2-124, R.C.M. o s t e n s i b l e agency. Sections 1947, d e f i n e a c t u a l and S e c t i o n 2-106 s t a t e s t h a t a n agency i s o s t e n s i b l e when t h e p r i n c i p a l i n t e n t i o n a l l y , o r by want of o r d i n a r y c a r e , causes o r a l l o w s a t h i r d person t o b e l i e v e ano t h e r t o be h i s a g e n t who i s n o t r e a l l y employed by him. The deceased pi l o t , Deichel, had worked f o r Herrod Aviat i o n from January 1968 u n t i l A p r i l 1968, when he q u i t because he wanted a few days o f f p r i o r t o t h e commencement o f new employment w i t h Northwest A i r l i n e s a s a p i l o t . Deichel had a n A i r l i n e Transport p i l o t ' s r a t i n g , t h e h i g h e s t a t t a i n a b l e . had never worked f o r G i l l i s A v i a t i o n . Deichel In February 1968, Dow, I n c . had begun n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h G i l l i s Aviation f o r t h e purchase of a n a i r p l a n e . 16, Dow made a d e p o s i t on t h e a i r c r a f t . O February n On March 30, Dow made a $1500 payment and f i n a n c i a l arrangements a t a bank t o ,pay t h e balance. G i l l i s Aviation i s s u e d a b i l l of s a l e . This i s t h e a i r c r a f t t h a t crashed on A p r i l 4 , 1968. The two main o f f i c e r s and owners of Dow, Inc. were Donald A . DOW, P r e s i d e n t , and Terry Lowell, Vice-President. They had purchased t h e a i r c r a f t . The de- They made a l l arrangements. ceased Heck was t h e i r employee. Both Dow and Lowell e i t h e r were t a k i n g f l y i n g l e s s o n s from G i l l i s Aviation o r were planning t o . The a i r c r a f t was t o be used i n Dow, Inc. t s b u s i n e s s . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e business d e a l i n g s between Dow, I n c . and G i l l i s Aviation on t h e purchase of t h e a i r c r a f t , Dow, I n c . had used c e r t a i n of t h e p i l o t s employed by G i l l i s A v i a t i o n t o p i l o t t h e company a i r c r a f t . I t i s c l e a r from t h e d e p o s i t i o n s t h a t t h e company r e l i e d on M r . G a l l a g h e r , manager of G i l l i s A v i a t i o n , f o r many t h i n g s such a s a d v i c e , p i l o t arrangements, f l i g h t t r a i n i n g and o t h e r s . However, t h e d e p o s i t i o n s r e v e a l t h a t r l i g h t s were made by Dow, Inc. personnel i n t h e a i r c r a f t involved w i t h one Barovich a s t h e p i l o t and Dow, Inc. paid only f o r h i s meals and h i s room, but n o t f o r h i s s e r v i c e s a s a p i l o t . No charge was ever made by G i l l i s A v i a t i o n f o r any of t h e f l i g h t s of Barovich. The only charges r e c e i v e d by G i l l i s were f o r t h e p i l o t who was t e a c h i n g Dow how t o f l y and f o r log books, r a t h e r than f o r any c h a r t e r flights. I n a t t e m p t i n g t o make arrangements for, t h e f l i g h t from B i l l i n g s t o Eugene, which proved t o be t h e f a t a l f l i g h t , Dow, I n c . r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c o n t a c t e d v a r i o u s p i l o t s who had p r e v i o u s l y flown them. They were a d v i s e d t h a t none of them could p i l o t t h e a i r - craft. One o f t h e s e p i l o t s , Barovich, was a c o l l e g e s t u d e n t , h o l d e r o f a p r i v a t e l i c e n s e , who had worked a s a f l i g h t l i n e employee of G i l l i s A v i a t i o n . D w r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were t o l d t h a t o Barovich could n o t f l y them a s a f r e e - l a n c e o p e r a t o r , and they would have t o go through G i l l i s Aviation t o g e t a p i l o t . Dow, t h e p r e s i d e n t of Dow, I n c . , d i d u l t i m a t e l y c o n t a c t Gallagher and requested t h a t he, G a l l a g h e r , s e c u r e a p i l o t . Gallagher f i n a l l y c o n t a c t e d Deichel. P i l o t Deichel was introduced by Gallagher t o t h e Dow, Inc. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a s a q u a l i f i e d p i l o t who, w h i l e a w a i t i n g a c a l l t o employment by Northwest A i r l i n e s , would t a k e t h e t r i p t o Eugene t o e a r n some e x t r a money. P i l o t Deichel made i t c l e a r t o a l l t h a t immediately upon Northwest's c a l l , Dow, Inc. would be r e q u i r e d t o r e t u r n him t o B i l l i n g s . There was never any d i s c u s s i o n w i t h G i l l i s A v i a t i o n by any member of Dow, Inc. concerning any charges f o r t h e f l i g h t by Deichel. The only testimony concerning any arrangements f o r charges by Deichel came from Gallagher who s t a t e d t h a t he i n t r o duced Deichel t o Lowell and Dow and s a i d , "You fellows make your own arrangements w i t h Andy Deichel." Lowell simply d i d n o t know what arrangements were made w i t h p i l o t Deichel. Diane Dow, w i f e of t h e deceased p r e s i d e n t o f Dow, I n c . and i t s then bookkeeper, d i d n o t know what arrangements were made w i t h Deichel, but s h e d i d know t h a t on a previous occasion o r o c c a s i o n s , Dow, I n c . had paid f o r p i l o t s through G i l l i s Aviation. The deceased, Heck, was an employee of Dow, I n c . accompanying h i s boss, Don Dow, and a p p a r e n t l y never knew what a r r a n g e ments had been made. P l a i n t i f f , a p p e l l a n t h e r e , recognizes t h a t t h e r e i s no d i r e c t testimony of a n agency, but i n s i s t s t h a t a l l i n f e r e n c e s from f a c t s of p r i o r business t r a n s a c t i o n s between Dow, I n c . and G i l l i s A v i a t i o n concerning a i r c r a f t , f l i g h t i n s t r u c t i o n , and procurement o f p i l o t s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e foregoing summary of how p i l o t Deichel was procured, supply c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o withstand a motion f o r summary judgment. Plaint i f f would go even f u r t h e r i n s e t t i n g f o r t h f a c t s by r e f e r r i n g t o G l l a g h e r ' s a c t i v i t i e s i n checking weather information f o r t h e a t r i p ; making arrangements f o r an a i r s e a r c h i n Oregon after h e a r i n g t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t was missing; v o l u n t e e r i n g f r e e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of t h e bodies back from Oregon; and a s t a t e m e n t by Gallagher t o a M r . Peterson a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t - - - " ~ r . P e t e r s o n , d o n ' t be concerned about l i a b i l i t y . That i s covered. " A l l of t h e s e m a t t e r s , mostly a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , p l a i n t i f f reasons a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h an o s t e n s i b l e agency and a r e , i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o h e r , f a c t s proving a g o s t e n s i b l e agency. However h e r e t o f o r e , we s e t o u t a b r i e f summary of prov i s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o agency. There we noted t h a t where t h e p r i n c i p a l , i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r by want of o r d i n a r y c a r e , causes o r allows a t h i r d person t o b e l i e v e a n o t h e r t o be h i s a g e n t who i s n o t r e a l l y employed by him r a i s e s a q u e s t i o n of agency. is not a party. Dow, Inc. Everyone knew Dow, Inc. owned t h e a i r c r a f t . The deceased, Heck, has n o t been shown, i n any manner, t o have r e l i e d on p i l o t ~ e i c h e' l supposed agency from G i l l i s A v i a t i o n . s Heck h e r e i s t h e t h i r d person. There simply i s no evidence t o show whether o r n o t he r e l i e d on, i n any manner, a n agency of Deichel. As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , t h e burden of proving agency must be borne by t h e p a r t y who a s s e r t s i t . Hamilton v. Lion Head S k i L i f t , I n c . , 139 Mont. 335, 363 P.2d 716. P r i o r t o t h e d e p a r t u r e o r t h e f l i g h t t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t G a l l a g h e r , r e p r e s e n t i n g G i l l i s A v i a t i o n , d i d anything t o c r e a t e a b e l i e f i n t h e mind of Heck t h a t p i l o t Deichel was G i l l i s g via ti on's a g e n t f o r t h a t k l i g h t . A s t a r a s t h i s record i s concerned, t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e r u l e s o t o s t e n s i b l e agency. O s t e n s i b l e agency n e c e s s a r i l y would be p r e d i c a t e d upon an e s t o p p e l . The e s t o p p e l would a r i s e a g a i n s t t h e p r i n c i p a l f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e p a r t i e s who have d e a l t with t h e p r i n c i p a l p r i o r t o changing t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n r e l i a n c e upon t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s by t h e p r i n c i p a l . As s t a t e d h e r e t o f o r e , t h e r e simply i s no evidence of any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Statements and a c t i o n s by Gallagher a f t e r d e p a r t u r e of t h e f l i g h t do n o t supply t h e evidence of o s t e n s i b l e agency. W a r e n o t concerned h e r e e w i t h " r a t i f i c a t i o n " because t h e r e was no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by t h e p r i n c i p a l nor any evidence ok r e l i a n c e by t h e t h i r d p a r t y , Heck. See S e a r l e v. Great Northern Railway Company, 189 F.Supp. 423, f o r requirement of r e p r e s e n a t i o n o r "holding out" by t h e a l l e g e d principal. Also s e e : H a r t t v. Jahn, 59 Mont. 173, 182, 196 P. 153; Elkins v. Husky O i l Co., 153 Mont. 159, 455 P.2d 329. To t h e foregoing d i s c u s s i o n we add t h a t t o f u r t h e r develop f a c t u a l testimony only amounts t o a n a t t e m p t t o prove t h e n e g a t i v e . There was no a c t u a l agency r e l a t i o n s h i p shown. There was no implied agency shown because t h e r e i s no proof t h a t p i l o t Deichel believed he had such agency a u t h o r i t y . o s t e n s i b l e agency. There i s no proof of Thus, t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h e summary judgment was p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d under Rule 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ. P. Accordingly, t h e judgment i s a ffirmed. ~ s s o c i a t Justice d I I- Chief ~ u s c i c e ci Associate J u s t i c e s .

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.