GILLEARD v DRAINE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No 11922 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA WILLIAM T GILLEARD, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs- M K DRAINE, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k L Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : Harold L Garnaas, a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana. F o r Respondent: L a r r y E R i l e y , a r g u e d , Missoula Submitted: Decided: Filed: PiPR 2 1 1972 , Montana. Maoch 15, 1972 APR 2 1 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. I n a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g a c o l l i s i o n between p l a i n t i f f ' s pickup and d e f e n d a n t ' s parked t r u c k on a n unopened s e c t i o n o f I n t e r s t a t e highway, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Missoula County, t h e Hon. J a c k L. Green, d i s t r i c t judge, g r a n t e d summary judgment t o d e f e n d a n t . P l a i n t i f f now a p p e a l s from t h i s summary judgment e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him. The m a t e r i a l f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e a r e undisputed. The a c c i - d e n t o c c u r r e d a b o u t 4:45 p.m. on November 1 8 , 1966, on a n unopened s e c t i o n of I n t e r s t a t e Highway 90 a b o u t e i g h t m i l e s west of Missoula, Montana. P l a i n t i f f was d r i v i n g h i s pickup, w i t h i t s h e a d l i g h t s on i n a dense fog, i n a n e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n i n what would become t h e eastbound a r e a of t h e roadway a t a speed o f 10-15 m i l e s a n hour. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k , which was towing a house behind i t , was parked f a c i n g west i n t h e same f u t u r e eastbound a r e a o f t h e roadway; i t was s t a n d i n g t h e r e unoccupied and u n a t t e n d e d , w i t h o u t f l a r e s o r warning d e v i c e s . P l a i n t i f f ' s pickup s t r u c k d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k headon, r e s u l t i n g i n e x t e n s i v e d i s a b l i n g i n j u r i e s t o plaintiff. P l a i n t i f f i s William T. G i l l e a r d , a n ironworker employed i n c o n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e W l d o r f -Hoerner p l a n t west o f Missoula a . On t h e day of t h e a c c i d e n t h e had l e f t t h e Waldorf-Hoerner p l a n t a f t e r completing h i s d a y ' s work and was r e t u r n i n g t o h i s home i n C l i n t o n , s e v e r a l m i l e s e a s t of Missoula. He e n t e r e d t h e unopened s e c t i o n o f I n t e r s t a t e 90 by d r i v i n g p a s t t h r e e s i g n s marked II C o n s t r u c t i o n Aheadr', spaced a t 500 f o o t i n t e r v a l s commencing a t a p o i n t 1500 f e e t b e f o r e r e a c h i n g t h e d e t o u r o f f t h e I n t e r s t a t e highway; and then by d r i v i n g through o r around 5 o r 7 t e n - f o o t wide black and w h i t e "zebra boardq' b a r r i c a d e s spaced d i a g o n a l l y a c r o s s t h e width of t h e I n t e r s t a t e highway t o r o u t e t r a f f i c o f f t h e unopened s e c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e and onto t h e d e t o u r . P l a i n t i f f knew t h a t t h a t s e c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e where t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , was under c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h a t i t had n o t been opened t o p u b l i c t r a v e l . However, he had used t h e unopened s e c t i o n some 30 o r 40 times i n t h e t h r e e month period preceding t h e a c c i d e n t . O some of t h e s e occasions he had observed n s t a t e highway p a t r o l c a r s , c i t y p o l i c e c a r s and s h e r i f f ' s department c a r s t r a v e l i n g on t h e unopened s e c t i o n ; he had a l s o seen c o n s t r u c t i o n crews working t h e r e . P l a i n t i i t had never been stopped o r t o l d by anyone t o s t a y o f f t h e unopened s e c t i o n , s o he " f i g u r e d i t was a l l r i g h t a s long a s you drove i n a c a r e f u l and prudent manner on it1'and " f i g u r e d i t was l e g a l " . Plaintiff i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had d r i v e n enough "on cons t r u c t i o n roads where you d o n ' t t l y down them, you d r i v e easy, because you never know what you a r e going t o f i n d . " A t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t t h e unopened s e c t i o n o i t h e roadway had been s u r f a c e d and s e a l e d but i t had n o t been s t r i p e d . G u a r d r a i l s were s t i l l being i n s t a l l e d . The record does n o t d i s c l o s e whether t h e unopened s e c t i o n was signed o r n o t , n o r does i t d i s c l o s e what o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n work, i f any, remained uncompleted. About a month a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e new highway was opened t o p u b l i c t r a v e l . Defendant i s M. K . Draine who had purchased a house from t h e s t a t e of Montana a t p u b l i c a u c t i o n ; t h e s t a t e had p r e v i o u s l y a c q u i r e d t h i s house by condemnation o r purchase i n connection w i t h c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e highway. Defendant, w i t h t h e permission and consent o t both t h e s t a t e and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r , was using t h e unopened s e c t i o n of I n t e r s e c t i o n 90 t o h a u l t h e house away. He had d r i v e n h i s t r u c k , w i t h t h e house a t t a c h e d behind, west along t h e unopened s e c t i o n of t h e roadway and had a p p a r e n t l y l e f t i t parked f o r t h e n i g h t on t h e f u t u r e eastbound a r e a of t h e roadway f a c i n g west. The i n s t a n t p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n was f i l e d on November 14, 1969. P l a i n t i f f seeks recovery o t $233,500 damages a l l e g e d l y r e s u l t i n g from d e f e n d a n t ' s negligence i n l e a v i n g h i s v e h i c l e on t h e highway "without p u t t i n g o u t any f l a r e s , f l a g s , o r o t h e r warning devices whatsoever". ~ e f e n d a n t ' sanswer c o n t a i n s f i v e d e f e n s e s : (1) f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m , (2) a g e n e r a l d e n i a l , ( 3 ) c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e , (4) assumption of r i s k , and (5) t r e s p a s s by p l a i n t i f f . Three d e p o s i t i o n s were taken and f i l e d i n t h e a c t i o n : t h e f i r s t from p l a i n t i f f ; t h e second from Robert L. Harper, c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t f o r P e t e r Kiewit Sons ' Company, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r on t h e s e c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e highway i n q u e s t i o n ; and t h e t h i r d from Martin J . Briggeman, p r o p e r t y manager f o r t h e Montana Highway Department. O t h i s s t a t e of t h e r e c o r d , defendant moved f o r summary n judgment. A f t e r h e a r i n g t h e r e o n , Judge Green g r a n t e d defendant 's motion and e n t e r e d summary judgment i n favor of d e f e n d a n t , d i s missing p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m wich p r e j u d i c e . from t h i s summary judgment. P l a i n t i f f appeals There i s but a s i n g l e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e upon appeal: Was p l a i n t i f f c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law precluding recovery on h i s claim? ' Rule 56 (c) , M.R.Civ. P. , provides t h a t summary judgment "sha 1 be rendered f o r t h w i t h i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , 1 answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e show t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r of law." The burden of proof i s on t h e p a r t y seeking summary judgment t o show t h e absence of any genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. Anaconda Company, - t. Mon P.2d 2 Roope v . The , 29 S t . Rep. 170; Byrne v. P l a n t e , 154 Mont. 6 , 459 P.2d 266 and c a s e s c i t e d therein. I n t h i s c a s e t h e negligence of defendant i s conceded i n s o f a r a s summary judgment i s concerned. This e n t i r e c o n t r o v e r s y concerns whether p l a i n t i f f , under t h e undisputed f a c t s h e r e , was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law. Contributory n e g l i g e n c e , by d e f i n i t i o n , involves t h e d u a l elements of (1) p l a i n t i f f ' s negligence and (2) proximate cause. DeVerniero v. Eby, 273 Mont . 9 P.2d M J I G #11.00; , 29 St.Rep. . P l a i n t i f f contends t h a t he was n o t c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law because he was n o t a t r e s p a s s e r on t h e unopened highway a g a i n s t d e i e n d a n t ; t h a t h i s u s e of t h e unopened highway i n i t s e l f does n o t c o n s t i t u t e negligence a s a m a t t e r of law; t h a t he was n o t n e g l i g e n t i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of h i s pickup a s a m a t t e r of law; and t h a t , i n any e v e n t , any a c t s o r omissions on h i s p a r t were n o t , a s a m a t t e r of law, a proximate cause of t h e a c c i d e n t . Upon o r a l argument p l a i n t i f f i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n h i s view, t h e following m a t e r i a l f a c t s were i n c o n t r o v e r s y precluding summary judgment f o r defendant: (1) Was t h e roadway where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred a n uncompleted road? (2) Must a v e h i c l e t r a v e l on t h e shoulder of t h e highway t o g e t around t h e "zebra boardtt b a r r i c a d e s and o n t o t h e unopened s e c t i o n of t h e roadway where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred? (3) \?hat was t h e s t a t u s of p l a i n t i f f on t h e unopened highway where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred? (4) Was p l a i n t i r f using t h e unopened highway w i t h implied c o n s e n t ? ( 5 ) was p l a i n t i f f ' s n e g l i g e n c e , i f any, a proximate cause of t h e accident? D i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n i n i t i a l l y t o p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e r e a r e genuine issues of m a t e r i a l f a c t precluding summary judgment. W f i n d none. e Whether t h e roadway where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred was i n f a c t uncompleted i s i r r e l e v a n t . The undisputed f a c t s show t h a t i t was signed w i t h t h r e e d e t o u r s i g n s , b a r r i c a d e d w i t h 5 o r 7 "zebra boards", and t h a t i t was n o t open t o t r a v e l by t h e p u b l i c . P l a i n t i f f admitted i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he knew t h a t t h e roadway was under c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h a t he drove through o r around t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s t o g e t onto t h e roadway. The d e p o s i t i o n of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n - d i c a t e s t h a t t h e roadway was u n s t r i p e d , and t h a t t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of g u a r d r a i l s was i n p r o g r e s s and uncompleted on t h e day o f t h e accident. Under such circumstances whether t h e roadway was completed o r n o t i s a n immaterial f a c t unnecessary t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f any i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e . Nor i s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether a v e h i c l e must t r a v e l on t h e s h o u l d e r of t h e highway t o g e t around t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s and o n t o t h e unopened s e c t i o n o f t h e roadway a m a t e r i a l f a c t i n issue here. P l a i n t i f f a d m i t s t h a t h e knew t h e roadway was under c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h a t he d r o v e t h r o u g h o r around t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s , and t h a t i n d r i v i n g on t h e unopened roadway he was d r i v i n g i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n zone. The d e p o s i t i o n o f H a r p e r , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , shows t h a t t h e "zebra boards" were l o c a t e d a t t h e e n t r a n c e t o t h e d e t o u r a n d " s e t a t a diagonal angle across the i n t e r s t a t e o r t h e portion of r o a d t h a t ' s c l o s e d t o t r a f f i c " and were i n s p e c t e d and i n p l a c e o n l y a few minutes p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , a l l of which i s u n r e f u t e d . Whether p l a i n t i f f had t o t r a v e l on t h e s h o u l d e r of t h e highway t o g e t around t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s h a s no m a t e r i a l i t y o r r e l e v a n c e t o any i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e . The s t a t u s o f p l a i n t i f f on t h e unopened s e c t i o n o f t h e highway i s n o t a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t b u t a q u e s t i o n o f law under t h e circumstances of t h i s case. Here t h e m a t e r i a l f a c t s c o n c e r n i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s e n t r y upon and u s e of t h e unopened roadway a r e undisputed. Under s u c h c o n d i t i o n s , p l a i n t i f f ' s s t a t u s t h e r e o n i s p u r e l y a q u e s t i o n o f law. Nor i s t h e u s e of t h e roadway by p l a i n t i f f w i t h " i m p l i e d consent", a s he contends, a m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t h e r e . Section 32-2136 ( a ) , R . C . M . 1947, r e q u i r e s t h e d r i v e r o f a motor v e h i c l e t o obey t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s of any o f f i c i a l t r a f f i c c o n t r o l d e v i c e . S e c t i o n 32-2119, R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n e s o f f i c i a l t r a f f i c c o n t r o l d e v i c e s a s " A l l s i g n s , s i g n a l s , markings, and d e v i c e s *** p l a c e d o r e r e c t e d by a u t h o r i t y of a p u b l i c body o r o f f i c i a l *** f o r t h e purpose of r e g u l a t i n g , w r n ing , o r guiding t r a f f i c . " a The d e p o s i t i o n of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t was signed according t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of t h e Montana Highway Department. Thus t h e d e t o u r s i g n s and "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s were o f f i c i a l t r a f f i c cont r o l d e v i c e s e r e c t e d by p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y i n conformity w i t h t h e foregoing p ~ o v i s i o n sof t h e highway code. Disobedience t o any of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e highway code i s punishable a s a misdemeanor under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 32-21-157, R.C .M. '.'Implied consent" i s n o t an i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e a s our 1947. d e c i s i o n i s n o t grounded on p l a i n t i f f ' s s t a t u s on t h e highway. Accordingly, no i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t i s presented. F i n a l l y , p l a i n t i f f argues t h a t a m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t e x i s t s concerning proxima t e cause. W disagree. e Plaintiff i n a dense fog maneuvered around o r through t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s t o e n t e r a highway unopened f o r p u b l i c t r a v e l , committing a misdemeanor i n t h e process. He knew he was i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n zone and t h a t "you never know what you a r e going t o find" there. Although h i s h e a d l i g h t s were on and he was only d r i v i n g 10-15 m i l e s a n hour, he was d r i v i n g beyond t h e range of h i s h e a d l i g h t s and v i s i o n . H i s deposition indicates t h a t he never saw d e f e n d a n t ' s parked t r u c k w i t h t h e house a t tached behind and consequently h i t i t headon without ever applying h i s brakes : Did you have any o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e e t h i s t r u c k and house b e f o r e you a c t u a l l y h i t i t ; an o p p o r t u n i t y t o brake your c a r , o r d i d you h i t i t without braking? O r do you r e c a l l ? "Q. I never seen i t . I d i d n ' t even know what I h i t , u n t i l I woke up. I seen I was pinned. The brake pedal had m f o o t pinned down. y "A. . Your f o o t was under t h e brake p e d a l ? "A. Was under t h e brake p e d a l . So--- "Q. To t h e b e s t o f your r e c o l l e c t i o n - - - - - So I n e v e r touched t h e b r a k e s . I n f a c t P d i d n ' t even know what I h i t u n t i l a c a r came a long. I I "A. Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , p l a i n t i f f ' s own n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t e d a s a proximate c a u s e t o t h e c o l l i s i o n and h i s r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s a s a m a t t e r o t law. This i s t h e o n l y con- c l u s i o n p o s s i b l e under t h e undisputed f a c t s , . Under s u c h circum- s t a n c e s t h e i s s u e o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e becomes a m a t t e r o f law t o be determined by t h e c o u r t . 0 ' ~ r i e nv . G r e a t N o r t h e r n Ry. Co., 148 Mont. 429, 421 P.2d 710. Although no c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a c t i o n s f o r damages by one i n o t o r i s t a g a i n s t a n o t h e r f o r o b s t r u c t i n g a n unopened highway have been brought t o o u r a t t e n t i o n by c o u n s e l and we have d i s covered none, s e v e r a l c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a c t i o n s by m o t o r i s t s a g a i n s t c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s a r i s i n g from o b s t r u c t i o n s c r e a ted o r maintained on unopened highways have been c i t e d which i n v o l v e t h e same p r i n c i p l e a s t h e i n s t a n t c a s e w i t h l i k e r e s u l t s . See Fenske v . Kramp Const. Co., 207 W i s . 397, 241 N.W. 349; Hanson v . B a i l e y , 249 Minn. 495, 83 N.W.2d 252; Trantham v. G i l l i o z , (Mo.1961), 348 S.W.2d 737. Cases r e l i e d on by p l a i n t i k t t h a t reached a c o n t r a r y r e s u l t a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e f o l Pittman v . S a t h e r , 68 Idaho 29, 188 P.2d 600 lowing grounds: (no b a r r i c a d e s o r warnings a t m o t o r i s t ' s p o i n t o f e n t r y ) ; G a i t h e r v . Richardson Co., 152 Mont. 504, 452 P.2d 428 (absence of b a r r i c a d e s ) ; Ulmen v . Schwieger, 92 Mont. 331, 12 P.2d 856 (no b a r r i c a d e s ) . W f i n d i t u n n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r o r d e c i d e whether e p l a i n t i i f was a t r e s p a s s e r o r n o t , a s p l a i n t i f f c a n n o t p r e v a i l whatever h i s s t a t u s may have been. F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we h o l d t h a t p l a i n t i f f was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law p r e c l u d i n g r e c o v e r y by him on h i s c l a i m . The summary judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is affirmed. Associate J u s t i c e
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.
