KELLEHER v STATE MONT AERONAUTI

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12206 I N THE SUPRENE COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1972 HUGH R. KELLEHER, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - STATE O MONTANA & M N A A AERONAUTICS COMMISSION, F OTN Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . 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 V i c t o r H. F a l l , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Anderson, Symmes, F o r b e s , P e e t e and Brown, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Weymouth D. Symmes a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. Geoffrey L. B r a z i e r , Helena, Montana. F o r Respondent: Small, C u m i n s and Hatch, Helena, Montana. Floyd 0. Small a r g u e d , Helena, Montana. Submitted: J u n e 1 6 , 1972 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 Co~xrt, This i s a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n brought by t h e manager of t h e Helena City-County A i r p o r t a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e of Montana and t h e Montana Aeronautics Commission f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d i n an a i r p l a n e c r a s h , A jury i n the 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 C l a r k , r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f i n t h e amount of $245,000. Judgment was e n t e r e d thereon, A f t e r d e n i a l of t h e i r motion f o r a new t r i a l , defendants a p p e a l t h e f t n a l judgment, P l a i n t i f f was r e t u r n i n g from a meeting a t Lewistown, Montana, which involved him i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s c i t y - c o u n t y a i r p o r t manager, when a Cessna 185 s i n g l e engine a i r c r a f t owned by t h e Montana Aeronautics Commission and p i l o t e d by Charles Lynch, Executive S e c r e t a r y of t h e Montana Aeronautics Commission, c r a s h e d , P l a i n t i f f along w i t h Henry Loble, g e n e r a l counsel f o r t h e Commission, was a passenger a t t h e i n v i t a t i o n of Lynch because t h e p l a n e i n which p l a i n t i f f had flown t o Lewistown was n o t r e t u r n i n g t o Helena. A l l t h r e e men had been i n a t t e n d a n c e a t a meeting of t h e Northern P l a i n s A i r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Council i n Lewistown. For t h e purposes of t h i s a p p e a l , defendants have assumed, i n l i g h t of t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , t h a t t h e p i l o t Lynch was n e g l i gent i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e a i r c r a f t . I t i s a l s o agreed t h a t p l a i n t i f f was covered by and r e c e i v e d maximum workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s , a s h e r e i n a f t e r s e t f o r t h i n our d i s c u s s i o n of i s s u e N o . 1, Defendants r e l y on t h r e e i s s u e s i n support of t h e i r a p p e a l : 1, That t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n s t r i k i n g from d e f e n d a n t s ' amended answer i t s d e f e n s e t h a t p l a i n t i f f was an employee of t h e s t a t e of Montana, t o - w i t , manager of t h e c i t y - c o u n t y a i r p o r t i n Lewis and Clark County. The c i t y - c o u n t y a i r p o r t c a r r i e d workmen's compensation i n s u r a n c e and p l a i n t i f f was paid and accepted i t , This was s t i p u l a t e d a t t r i a l and should have r e s u l t e d i n d i s m i s s a l of t h e a c t i o n . 2. The v e r d i c t was s o e x c e s s i v e s o a s t o shock t h e con- s c i e n c e of an o r d i n a r i l y prudent person. 3, Numerous minor e r r o r s were committed d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e t r i a l which i n themselves would n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r , b u t , when combined, would be sufficient t o constitute prejudicial error. Defendants' i s s u e No, 1 concerns t h e i r primary defense which t h e y contend b a r s t h i s a c t i o n under t h e ~ o r k m e n ' sCompens a t i o n Act. They r e l y s p e c i f i c a l l y on s e c t i o n 92-204, R.C.M, 1947, of t h a t Act which provides i n p e r t i e n e n t p a r t : "Where both t h e employer and employee have e l e c t e d t o come under t h i s a c t , t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a c t s h a l l be e x c l u s i v e , and such e l e c t i o n s h a l l be h e l d t o be a s u r r e n d e r by such employer and t h e s e r v a n t s , and employees of such employer and such employee, a s among themselves, of t h e i r r i g h t t o any o t h e r method, form o r kind of compensation, o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f , o r t o any o t h e r compensation, o r kind of d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f , o r cause of a c t i o n , a c t i o n a t law, s u i t i n e q u i t y , o r s t a t u t o r y o r common-law r i g h t o r remedy, o r proceeding whatever, f o r o r on account of any p e r s o n a l i n j u r y t o o r d e a t h ' o f such employee, except a s such r i g h t s may be Provided, t h a t h e r e i n a f t e r s p e c i f i c a l l y granted 9~ whenever such employee s h a l l r e c e i v e an i n j u r y w h i l e performing t h e d u t i e s of h i s employment and such i n j u r y o r i n j u r i e s , s o r e c e i v e d by such employee, a r e caused by t h e a c t o r omission of some persons o r c o r p o r a t i o n s o t h e r than h i s employer, o r t h e s e r v a n t s o r employees of h i s employer, t h e n ' s u c h employee, o r i n c a s e of h i s death h i s h e i r s o r personal representatives, s h a l l , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r i g h t t o r e c e i v e compensation under t h e Workmen's Compensation Act, have a r i g h t t o p r o s e c u t e any cause of a c t i o n he may have f o r damages a g a i n s t such *,I' p e r s o n s o r c o r p o r a t i o n s , causing such i n j u r y , " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) * *. 8, I n a d d i t i o n t o p r e s e r v i n g t h e common-law r i g h t t o t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n t o employees, t h i s s e c t i o n a l s o g i v e s t o t h e employer o r i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r paying t h e compensation t h e r i g h t of l i m i t e d subrogation and t h e a d d i t i o n a l r i g h t t o b r i n g t h e t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n i f t h e employee f a i l s t o do so w i t h i n s i x months of h i s injury. W f i n d no n e c e s s i t y t o c i t e c a s e s t h a t i n t e r p r e t t h e e intended meaning of t h e terms II employer" and "employee" a s used and d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n s 92-410 and 92-411, R,C.M, ~ o r k m e n ' sCompensation Act. 1947, of t h e It i s s u f f i c i e n t t o point out t h a t t h e g e n e r a l accepted d e f i n i t i o n of t h e term 11 employed'is a person i n s e r v i c e under any appointment o r c o n t r a c t of h i r e , e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d , o r a l o r w r i t t e n , and c o n s i d e r e d a s " a c t u a l " employment. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l c l a s s of employer and employee contemplated o r i g i n a l l y by t h e Workmen's Compensation Act, a s noted above, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s of t h e v a r i o u s s t a t e s , i n c l u d i n g Montana, have by s t a t u t e extended coverage under workmen's compensation t o c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c c l a s s e s of employees who a r e n o t II a c t u a l employees" w i t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n d i s c u s s e d above, t h a t i s , they have no d i r e c t c o n t r a c t of employment, However, t h i s coverage i s u s u a l l y extended t o p r o t e c t t h e employees of i r r e s p o n s i b l e and uninsured s u b c o n t r a c t o r s o r independent contractors. An e q u a l b a s i c purpose of t h e Act i s t o make t h e remedies provided e x c l u s i v e under t h e Act and t o i n s u l a t e t h e emp l o y e r , l i a b l e f o r compensation payment, immune from t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n s by t h e employee, Montana h a s done t h i s i n c a s e s o f s t a t u t o r y employers, some s t a t e s have n o t , S e c t i o n s 92-438, 92-604, R.C.M. 1947. arson's workmen's Compensation Law, V. l A , Ch. 9 , 9 49.11, p p , 855-858, e x p l a i n s t h e r a t i o n a l e of t h i s s t a t u t o r y e x t e n s i o n o f coverage: I1 The purpose of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n was t o p r o t e c t employees of i r r e s p o n s i b l e and uninsured subcont r a c t o r s by imposing u l t i m a t e l i a b i l i t y on t h e presumable r e s p o n s i b l e p r i n c i p a l c o n t r a c t o r , who h a s i t w i t h i n h i s power, i n choosing s u b c o n t r a c t o r s , t o p a s s upon t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and i n s i s t upon a p p r o p r i a t e compensation p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e i r workers. This b e i n g t h e r a t i o n a l e of t h e r u l e , i n t h e i n c r e a s i n g l y common s i t u a t i o n d i s p l a y i n g a h i e r a r c h y of p r i n c i p a l c o n t r a c t o r s upon subcont r a c t o r s upon s u b - s u b c o n t r a c t o r s , i f any employee of t h e lowest s u b c o n t r a c t o r on t h e totem p o l e i s i n j u r e d , t h e r e i-s no p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n f o r r e z c h i n g up t h e h i e r a r c h y any f u r t h e r than t h e f i r s t i n s u r e d contractor. *** he s t a t u t e a l s o aims t o f o r e s t a l l evasion of t h e a c t by t h o s e who might be tempted t o s u b d i v i d e t h e i r r e g u l a r o p e r a t i o n s among s u b c o n t r a c t o r s , t h u s e s c a p i n g d i r e c t employment r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e workers and r e l e g a t i n g them f o r compensation p r o t e c t i o n t o small c o n t r a c t o r s who f a i l t o c a r r y (and, i f small enough, may n o t even be r e q u i r e d t o c a r r y ) compens a t i o n insurance. l1 (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . I t i s important i n t h e a n a l y s i s of t h i s problem t o recognize t h a t t h e r a t i o n a l e of t h e s t a t u t o r y employer-employee e x t e n s i o n by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e employee and t h a t such a b e n e f i t c o n f e r r i n g a l i a b i l i t y on t h e employer i s coe x i s t e n t w i t h immunity from common-law l i a b i l i t y . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i t i s c l e a r t h a t Charles Lynch, t h e n e g l i g e n t p i l o t , was an a c t u a l employee of t h e s t a t e of Montana and i t s a e r o n a u t i c s commission under t h e accepted d e f i n i t i o n heretofore discussed. It i s e q u a l l y c l e a r t h a t p l a i n t i f f under a c o n t r a c t of employment w i t h t h e c i t y - c o u n t y a i r p o r t i s n o t an " a c t u a l " employee of t h e s t a t e of Montana under t h e accepted d e f i n i t i o n s . I t does n o t appear t h a t defendants contend p l a i n t i f f i s an " a c t u a l " employee t h e same a s t h e p i l o t ; b u t , i n a r a t h e r unusual multipronged approach, seem t o contend t h a t p l a i n t i f f f a l l s II i n t o the position s f a s t a t u t o r y employee1; of t h e s t a t e of Montana o r t h e s t a t e i s a " s t a t u t o r y e m p l o y e r ' b f p l a i n t i f f , although defendants never q u i t e g e t t o t h e terminology of s t a t u t o r y employer o r employee, Defendants seem t o contend " t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f , a s manager of t h e c i t y - c o u n t y a i r p o r t l o c a t e d n e a r Helena, was a s e r v a n t of an agency c r e a t e d by t h e S t a t e of Montana c a r r y i n g out i t s governmental f u n c t i o n . II (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) , I n a n o t h e r s t a t e m e n t defendants contend t h a t "the Cj-tyCounty A i r p o r t Commission was a s u b - d i v i s i o n of t h e S t a t e of Montane, and a s such, t h e S t a t e of Montana and i t s Montana Aeron a u t i c s Commission were t h e a c t u a l employers of t h e p l a i n t i f f ** ;. ? " (Emphasi-s s u p p l i e d ) , Even w i t h t h e one i s o l a t e d r e f e r e n c e t o "actual" employment, t h e t o t a l i t y of d e f e n d a n t s ' language does n o t seem t o urge 11 a c t u a l employment" a s used i n t h e Act. There i s no law i-n t h i s s t a t e nor i s any c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t s from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , t h a t c r e a t e s s t a t u t o r y employment by *n a c t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e s t a b l i s h i n g an agency o r commission, such a s an a i r p o r t commission, nor do t h e s t a t u t e s c i t e d g i v i n g t h e S t a t e Aeronautics Commission r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l over a i r p o r t operation, c r e a t e t h i s legal. f i c t i o n , As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , t h e s e c r e a t i o n s must be found w i t h i n t h e Act and t h e e x t i n g u i s h i n g of t h e common-law r i g h t s should be s t r i c t l y construed. Madison v . P i e r c e , 156 Mont, 209, 217, 478 P.2d 860. In f a c t , s e c t i o n 92-410, R . C . M . and which d e f i n e s It 1947, c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t s employer", s p e c i f i - c a l l y p e r m i t s t h c " s t a t e and each county, c i t y and county, c i t y s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t , a l l o t h e r d i s t r i c t s e s t a b l i s h e d by law and a l l p u b l i c c o r p o r a t i o n s and q u a s i - p u b l i c c o r p o r a t i o n s and p u b l i c agencies t h e r e i n ** *I1 t o be s e p a r a t e employers under t h e Act, Lacking s t a t u t o r y o r c a s e a u t h o r i t y t o e s t a b l i s h an employeeemployer r e l a t i o n s h i p , d e f e n d a n t $ p o s i t i o n cannot be s u s t a i n e d . Defendants' i s s u e No. 2 q u e s t i o n s t h e amount of t h e v e r d i c t contending t h a t such v e r d i c t was e x c e s s i v e and should be s e t a s i d e , a new t r i a l g r a n t e d , o r a t t h e v e r y l e a s t , t h e v e r d i c t should be s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced. Defendants m a i n t a i n p l a i n t i f f had p r e e x i s t i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s which "prevented him from doing manual l a b o r long b e f o r e t h e a i r c r a f t a c c i d e n t w i t h which we a r e concerned i n t h i s c a s e " . They a l s o a r g u e p l a i n t i f f "has recovered from a l l t h e i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d by him e x c e p t c o n t i n u i n g d i s c o m f o r t of h i s back on occasions. 11 On r e a d i n g t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g t h e testimony of lcwo d o c f o r s , p l . a i n t i f f l s coemployees, and p l a i n t i f f , we f i n d : P l a i n t i f f a t time of t r i a l was 44 y e a r s of a g e , married w i t h t h r e e c h i l d r e n aged 22, 15 and 11. He had a h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n and a l i f e expectancy of 28.67 y e a r s . More t h a n 25 v e a r s ago, a t approximately age 16, p l a i n t i f f f e l l down an - l e v a t o r s h a f t and i n j u r e d h i s r i g h t l e g , From t h a t a c c i d e n t , he developed o s t e o m y e l i t i s i n t h e l e g , had s e v e r a l s u r g i c a l o p e r a t i o n s and was l e f t w i t h "a f a i r amount of r e s i d u a l s i n the leg." The n e t e f f e c t of t h a t a c c i d e n t was a s t i f f knee, h i s r i g h t l e g was shortened approximately one i n c h , and h e walked w i t h a limp. However, p r i o r t o t r i a l a f t h i s a c t i o n p l a i n t i f f had been f r e e of any symptoms of o s t e o m y e l i t i s for a p e r i o d of more than 13 y e a r s and had no compl.aints concerning h i s l e g throughout t h a t time. P l a i n t i f f ' s employment record r e v e a l s h e s t a r t e d working f o r t h e c i t y of Helena a f t e r graduation from h i g h school a s a g e n e r a l l a b o r e r a t v a r i o u s jobs i n c l u d i n g t h e water department, l i g h t i n g department, and s t r e e t department. Such work c o n s i s t e d of p i c k and shovel work, l a y i n g c a b l e , and h a n d l i n g heavy equipment, He worked e i g h t hours per day, s i x days p e r week and had no d i f f i c u l t y doing t h e work, Idhen p l a i n t i f f went t o work f o r t h e c i t y - c o u n t y a i r p o r t , he worked a s g e n e r a l maintenance man plowing runways, mowing weeds,and o t h e r t h i n g s connected w i t h t h e g e n e r a l maintenance, He was promoted t o t h e p o s i t i o n of manager of t h e c i t y - c o u n t y a i r p o r t which work was p r i m a r i l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and management, although a t times b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t involved h e r e he a s s i s t e d with maintenance work i n heavy r u s h p e r i o d s . Following t h e a c c i d e n t , p l a i n t i f f was t r e a t e d i n t h e hosp i t a l by D r , B o s s l e r who had been p l a i n t i f f ' s family d o c t o r f o r t h i r t e e n years. included: p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s a s l i s t e d by D r . B o s s l e r m u l t i p l e b r u i s e s throughout h i s body; l a c e r a t i o n over one eye; i n j u r y t o h i s r i g h t s h o u l d e r ; some r i b f r a c t u r e s ; s o r e l e f t a n k l e ; i n j u r y t o h i s r i g h t knee; compression f r a c t u r e of t h e t r a n s v e r s e process of L4 and a f r a c t u r e of t h e spinous process of L4; b l e e d i n g from a c u t on h i s head; f r a c t u r e of t h e bones about t h e f a c e and l e f t zygomatic a r c h ; and an i n j u r e d finger. As a r e s u l t of t h e i n j u r i e s , p l a i n t i f f was placed i n a back b r a c e whi-ch he c o n t i n u e s t o wear most of t h e time; he h a s per- manent r e s i d u a l s of t h e back i n j u r y , f i n g e r i n j u r y , both l e g s ; numbness t o t h e l e f t s i d e of h i s head r e s u l t i n g from nerve i n j u r y t o t h e s i d e of h i s head; and headaches. P l a i n t i f f regu- l a r l y r e c e i v e s treatment i n t h e form of p a i n k i l l e r s . H i s condi- t i o n i s permanent and i s compounded by emotional trauma caused by t h e i n j u r i e s and t h e need f o r continued t r e a t m e n t t o a l l e v i a t e pain. D r . Trobough of Anaconda, t h e o t h e r examining p h y s i c i a n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e compression f r a c t u r e i s a d i s a b l i n g i n j u r y which cannot be r e l i e v e d o r r e c t i f i e d by surgery. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d p l a i n t i f f had a permanent r e s i d u a l i n t h e form of weakness i n h i s s h o u l d e r s , t i r e d n e s s i n h i s arms, accompanied by a t i n g l i n g and numbness which i s the shoulders. I1 j u s t a s t r a i n p a t t e r n of I t h i n k i t was j u s t a s t r a i n p a t t e r n and t h e shoulders were s t r a i n e d . " D r . Trobough gave t h e following testimony a s t o t h e compression f r a c t u r e : It I t h i n k compression f r a c t u r e of a v e r t e b r a causes c o n s i d e r a b l e muscle spasm and ligamentous i n j u r y of t h e t i s s u e s around t h i s v e r t e b r a , p l u s t h e r e i s narrowing of t h e i n t e r v e r t e b r a l space and t h e r e could be some evidence of compression i n j u r i e s t o t h e n e r v e s , p l u s g e n e r a l l y a l o t of muscle spasm. L i m i t a t i o n of motton of t h e back i s a r e s u l t of t h e s e compression f r a c t u r e s , It D r . Trobough a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e o l d i n j u r y t o p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t l e g had been d e f i n i t e l y aggravated by t h e plane a c c i d e n t and w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e e x t e n t of p l a i n t i f f ' s d i s a b i l i t y he testified : "MY d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g w i l l be based mainly on t h e f r a c t u r e of h i s back. Anyway, I s a i d now two y e a r s and t h r e e months a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t t h e p a t i e n t i s s t i l l having s u b j e c t i v e complaints a s a r e s u l t of h i s y i n j u r i e s on September 23, 1969, They a r e , i n m o p i n i o n , of a permanent n a t u r e and he w i l l c o n t i n u e t o r e q u i r e medical a t t e n t i o n , c a r e and medication. Any work t h a t i n v o l v e s t h e use of t h e back, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e l a b o r f i e l d o r anything t h a t causes even average manual l a b o r , I f e e l h e i s 100 p e r c e n t t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d . OR t h e b a s i s of t h e above d i a g n o s i s , i n m opinion, he y h a s a 55 p e r c e n t permanent d i s a b i l i t y , 1 1 P l a i n t i f f ' s coemployees, M r . Richard McCord and M r s . Dorothy Moe, t e s t i f i e d t h a t upon r e t u r n i n g t o h i s job a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t of September 23, 1969, p l a i n t i f f was n o t a b l e t o perform any p h y s i c a l l a b o r ; t h a t he i s q u i t e nervous and appears t o be s u f f e r i n g most of t h e time; he cannot s i t f o r v e r y long; t h a t he i s short-tempered and f r e q u e n t l y h r e a k s o u t i n a r a s h on h i s arms when he i s nervous; and, t h a t h e r e a r e r e p e a t e d t n s t a n c e s of h i s being i n p a i n , Defendants have r a i s e d t h e i s s u e of p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n d i t i o n w i t h emphasis on h i s p r e e x i s t i n g i n a b i l i t y t o engage i n manual l a b o r p r i o r t o t h i s a c c i d e n t a t t r i b u t e d t o h i s f a l l 25 y e a r s ago, Yet, defendants o f f e r e d no evidence t o c o n t r o v e r t p l a i n t i f f ' s evidence of y e a r s of manual l a b o r following t h e f i . r s t i n j u r y nor d i d they o f f e r evidence t o c o n t r o v e r t h i s p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n . Defendants had p l a i n t i f f examined by an orthopedic surgeon, D r , H a r r i s Hanson of Helena, b u t f a i l e d t o submit t h e r e s u l t s of t h a t examination of p l a i n t i f f t o t h e j u r y , As a r e s u l t , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s some claimed i n c o n s i - s t e n c i e s e l i c t e d on medical cross-examination of p l a i n t i f f ' s medical w i t n e s s e s b u t such i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s do n o t overcome p l a i n t i f f ' s evidence t o a degree t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t have b e f o r e i t s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i dence upon which i t could r e n d e r i t s v e r d i c t , I n a d d i t i o n t o p r e e x i s t i n g d i s a b i l i t y , defendants b a s e t h e i r argument o f e x c e s s i v e damages p r i m a r i l y on t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a review of a1.l of t h e c a s e s decided by t h i s Court does n o t r e v e a l a jury v e r d i c t of t h i s s i z e . They argue t h a t t h i s Court over t h e y e a r s h a s been confronted w i t h hundreds of p e r s o n a l i n j u r y c a s e s w i t h i n j u r i e s sllbs tanti-a l l y more s e v e r e than t h o s e s u f f e r e d by p l a i n t i f f h e r e , b u t t h e r e have been no v e r d i c t s t h i s large, Defendants c i t e t o t h i s Court f o r comparison of damage awards, Sheehan v. DeWitt, 150 Mont, 8 6 , 430 P , 2 d 652, which held a county a t t o r n e y s t r u c k i n t h e f a c e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o $1,500 because no treatment was r e q u i r e d and i t was n o t a s e r i o u s i n j u r y ; - and Jewett v. Gleason, 104 Mont. 63, 65 P,2d 3, a 1937 c a s e where a $12,000 v e r d i c t on a back i n j u r y c a s e was reduced by These arguments f a i l t o recognize t h e c r i t e r i a which governs t h e examination of damage awards by t h i s Court, This Court and t h e F e d e r a l Courts i n applying Montana law r e c e n t l y have spoken i n unison i n t h i s a r e a w i t h c l e a r and concise language, Smith v , Kenosha Auto T r a n s p o r t , 226 F,Supp, 771, 774, (D,C.Mcznt, 1964); Strong v , Williams, 154 Mont, 65, 71, 460 P. 2d 90; S a l - v a i l v. Great Northern Ry,, 156 Mont. 12, 31, 473 P,2d 549, I n Smith, i n t h e c o n t e s t of an $180,000 award, t h e F e d e r a l Court s t a t e d : 1I The medical evidence i n t h i s r e s p e c t i s l a r g e l y unc o n t r a d i c t e d , t h e only q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by defendants being whether t h e c o n d i t i o n was caused by t h e a c c i d e n t o r p r e - e x i s t e d t h e a c c i d e n t i n view of t h e d i a g n o s i s of a convulsive d i s o r d e r i n t h e p l a i n t i f f a y e a r preceding t h e a c c i d e n t . The f a c t remains t h a t a f t e r t h e previous d i a g n o s i s , t h e p l a i n t i f f recovered and performed w e l l a s both a worker, and a husband and f a t h e r u n t i l h i s i n j u r y i n t h e a c c i d e n t , I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e was p o s i t i v e medical testimony t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s condit i o n a t t h e time of t r i a l r e s u l t e d from t h e i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d i.n t h e a c c i d e n t and/or t h e aggravation of a previous c o n d i t i o n , which i n i t s e l f was n o t d i s a b l i n g i n t h e l e a s t . There was a l s o medical testimony t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n d i t i o n i s permanent and p r o g r e s s i v e . I I The Court i n answer t o t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e award was exc e s s i v e , went on t o say: "The foregoing a l s o a p p l i e s t o d e f e n d a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e v e r d i c t i s s o e x c e s s i v e t h a t i t must have r e s u l t e d from passion and p r e j u d i c e . I t i s only when t h e amount of t h e v e r d i c t i s such a s t o shock t h e conscience of t h e c o u r t o r t o cause t h e c o u r t t o bel i e v e i t was t h e r e s u l t of sympathy, p a s s i o n o r prej u d i c e , o r t h a t t h e j u r y , i n f i x i n g t h e amount of damages, was motivated by f a c t o r s t h a t should n o t have been taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h a t t h e c o u r t may s e t a s i d e a v e r d i c t . [ C i t i n g c a s e s ] This r u l e announced s o o f t e n i n f e d e r a l c o u r t s i s a l s o t h e r u l e followed by t h e Montana Supreme Court. S u l l i v a n v. C i t y of B u t t e , 117 Mont, 215, 157 P.2d 479; Brown v. Columbia Amusement Co,, 91 Mont, 174, 6 P,2d 874; McCartan v , Park B u t t e Theater Co., 103 Mont. 342, 62 P,2d 338; Thompson v. Yellowstone Livestock Commission, 133 Mont, L03, 324 P.2d 412, From t h e summary of t h e evidence and what h a s been s a i d above, i t i s apparent t h a t t h e amount of t h e v e r d i c t does n o t shock t h e conscience of t h e c o u r t , and t h e c o u r t does n o t b e l i e v e t h e amount of t h e v e r d i c t was i n f l u e n c e d by passion o r p r e j u d i c e , sympathy, o r any o t h e r improper considerations. Il I n Strong, t h i s Court s t a t e d : II I n p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n s t h e r e i s no f i x e d measuring s t i c k by which t o determine t h e amount of damages, o t h e r t h a n t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e of t h e j u r y ; t h a t t h e j u r y i s allowed a wide l a t i t u d e and u n l e s s i t appears t h e amount awarded i s g r o s s l y o u t of p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i n j u r y a s t o shock t h e conscience, t h i s Court w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y , e s p e c i a l l y where, a s h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s approved t h e v e r d i c t by denying t h e (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) , motion f o r a new t r i a l , " I n S a l v a i l , t h e Court e n t e r e d t h i s r e s t a t e m e n t : "It i s i d l e t o c i t e c a s e s from t h i s o r o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s on awards by j u r i e s f o r c e r t a i n i n j u r i e s a s no two c a s e s a r e a l i k e and each c a s e t u r n s on i t s own f a c t s . I n 1 A.L.R,3d t h e r e a r e 713 pages of c a s e s f o r compari1 son. "The amount t o be awarded a s damages i s p r o p e r l y l e f t t o t h e j u r y and t h i s Court rill n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s Judgment f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y p a r t i c u l a r l y where, a s h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s approved t h e v e r d i c t b ot 65 , 460 denying a new t r i a l . Strong v. Williams, 154 M :. s P.2d 90. It i s only where t h e amount awarded i s s o gr-0s l y o u t of p r o p o r t i o n t b t h e i n j u r y a s t o shock t h e conscience t h a t t h i s Court w i l l i n t e r v e n e . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e v e r d i c t of $125,000 i s n o t s o g r o s s l y out of p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i n j u r y a s t o shock our conscience nor induce a b e l i e f t h a t i t was t h e product of p a s s i o n o r p r e j u d i c e , Thprn i c n n t h i n ~ : whatanbver i n t -h-e - r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e ..---------- --- - - a s s i o n o r p r e j u d i c e ; on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e i s a substan!Fa1 - e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s j u s t i f y i n g t h e amount of t h e award." - .. (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . A*.-&- A" Here, t h e j u r y h a s made i t s award f o r p h y s i c a l damages caused t o a 44 y e a r o l d p l a i n t i f f w i t h a l i f e expectancy of 28,67 y e a r s , He must endure t h o s e i n j u r i e s f o r t h a t time, t r i a l c o u r t h a s r e f u s e d t o g r a n t a new t r i a l . The W find nothing i n e t h e r e c o r d t o i n d i c a . t e the j u r y was motivated by f a c t o r s which should n o t have been taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , such a s p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e o r sympathy, I n l i g h t of t h e times and t h e growing awareness w i t h i n t h e l e g a l processes t h a t h a s attempted t o conform damage awards t o t h e e x t e n t of t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d , t h e amount of t h e v e r d i c t does n o t shock t h e conscience of t h e Court and we f i n d no e r r o r , Defendants1 i s s u e No. 3 r e q u i r e s no extended d i s c u s s i o n . They contend t h a t a s e r i e s of e r r o r s occurred d u r i n g t h e t r i a l none of which, s t a n d i n g a l o n e , would be s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l J* 7" t o a u t h o r i z e a new t r i a l , b u t t h e t o t a l i t y of which c o n s i t u t e d m a n i f e s t p r e j u d i c e t o defendants, r e q u i r i n g a new t r i a l . The e r r o r s t o which defendants d i r e c t our a t t e n t i o n a r e : (1) Alleged s p e c u l a t i v e opinion evidence by e x p e r t w i t n e s s Hamer t h a t t h e moist c o n d i t i o n of t h e s p a r k plugs found i n t h e wreckage of t h e a i r c r a f t s e v e r a l hours a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t might have been caused by f l o o d i n g r e s u l t i n g from a prolonged power-off g l i d e t o a lower a l t i t u d e and a subsequent a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e t h r o t t l e , (2) Testimony of e x p e r t w i t n e s s Leaphart t h a t t h e r e were a l o t of p l a c e s i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e c r a s h s i t e where "you could touch down an a i r p l a n e i n t h a t a r e a and come o u t of i t reasonably unscathed." (3) Undue concern by t h e t r i a l judge f o r p l a i n t i f f ' s p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and comfort w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g , Items (1) and (2) a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o t h i s a p p e a l i n any event, They r e f e r only t o t h e i s s u e of t h e p i l o t ' s n e g l i g e n c e , Defendants concede t h i s i s s u e on a p p e a l . by t h e following statement i n t h e i r b r i e f : This i s demonstrated 11 However, i n t h e l i g h t of t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , we s h a l l assume f o r t h e purposes of t h i s b r i e f on appeal only t h a t [ t h e p i l o t ] was n e g l i g e n t i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e a i r c r a f t , 1 I Item (3) l i k e w i s e i s without m e r i t , The t r i a l judge simply advised p l a i n t i f f t h a t i f he wanted t o s t a n d up a t any time while t e s t i f y i n g t o do s o , and t h a t i f he needed a r e c e s s t o s a y so. Defendants' a t t o r n e y was s i m i l a r l y s o l i c i t o u s of p l a i n t i f f ' s p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n i n l i k e manner, and r a i s e d no o b j e c t i o n a t t h e t r i a l t o t h e j u d g e ' s remarks, Under such circumstances t h e c l a i m of p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r upon appeal i s without substance. The judgment of t h e Mr. Justice Wesley Castles dissenting: I dissent. I shall not dwell at length on the matter but will observe that the Workmen's Compensation Act, in my v i m , forecloses an action by an employee of one state agency against another state agency. Both agencies involved here 8 r creatures of the Legislature, both financed by public ~ tax monies. Additionally, on issue No. 2, I c~ouldgrant a new trial Here we have an because the damages awarded are excessive. employee in a managerial position who has in fact returned to work and hns had a salary increase since his return. In his position he is fully able to do the job and a quarter of a million dollar judgment shocks my conscience. I would grant a new trial. ~ssoci63 Justice. \

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.