BUSH v WARDELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12639 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1974 STEPHEN T. BUSH, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, ALBERT D. WARDELL CONTRACTOR, I N C . , A CORPORATION, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f 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 of Record: For Appellant : C l a y t o n R . Herron a r g u e d , Helena, Montana F o r Respondent : R o b e r t F. Swanberg a r g u e d and A r t h u r P. Acher a r g u e d , Helena, Montana - - Submitted : Decided : F i l e d : \JQV A 3 '974 : September 17, 1974 NOV 1 3 1574 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 of t h e Court. This appeal a r i s e s from a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n wherein p l a i n t i f f Stephen T. Bush was awarded a $50,000 judgment a g a i n s t defendant A l b e r t D. Wardell C o n t r a c t o r , I n c . Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e judgment and t h e d e n i a l of i t s motions f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t , and new t r i a l . The c a s e r e s u l t s from an a c c i d e n t which occurred on J u l y 9, 1970, a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e of t h e C o l o n i a l H i l t o n Conv e n t i o n Center i n Helena, Montana. P l a i n t i f f was an employee of Lowe Construction Company, t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r of t h e project. Defendant was t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r engaged by Lowe Construc- t i o n Company t o do t h e masonry work. The p l a n s c a l l e d f o r t h e complex t o be b u i l t a s t h r e e s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g s - - t h e convention c e n t e r and two wings which would house t h e s l e e p i n g accomodations. The two wings were t o be s e p a r a t e d from t h e c e n t e r by one i n c h of f r e e space, a measure designed t o reduce damage i n t h e event of an earthquake. I t was a t t h e p o i n t where t h e c e n t e r was t o p a r a l l e l one of t h e wings t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t occurred. The wings had been c o n s t r u c t e d f i r s t , and c o n s t r u c t i o n had begun on t h e b u i l d i n g t h a t was t o be t h e convention c e n t e r . A t t h e p o i n t where t h e i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , t h e r e were t o be t h r e e w a l l s r a i s e d i n p o s i t i o n s roughly r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e following diagram: 4 / - sleeping quarters 8" block w a l l 4"masonry w a l l which f e l l 6" s t u d w a l l c convention c e n t e r - d d The e i g h t inch block w a l l had a l r e a d y been completed and formed t h e end w a l l of one of t h e wings. During c o n s t r u c t i o n , metal t i e s had been i n s e r t e d i n t h e e i g h t i n c h block w a l l w i t h t h e i n t e n t t h a t they would be j o i n e d t o t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l when i t was b u i l t a s a means of s t a b i l i z i n g t h e l a t t e r w a l l . However, t h e a r c h i t e c t ' s p l a n s r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e r e be no t i e s between t h e two w a l l s . Defendant and t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r were concerned about t h i s requirement, s i n c e t h e w a l l would b e u n s t a b l e u n l e s s supported by some means. A f t e r much d i s c u s s i o n , t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r t o l d defendant t o b u i l d t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l u s i n g t h e s t a b l i z i n g t i e s , although t h e number of t i e s t o b e used was n o t s p e c i f i e d . Defendant then c o n s t r u c t e d t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l t o a h e i g h t of e i g h t e e n f e e t , u s i n g some of t h e t i e s which were p r o t r u d i n g from t h e e i g h t i n c h w a l l , b u t bending a m a j o r i t y of them over r a t h e r than a t t a c h i n g them. Although t h e plans c a l l e d f o r t h e w a l l t o u l t i m a t e l y r e a c h a h e i g h t of twenty-six f e e t and no d i r e c t i o n had been given a s t o whether i t should be b u i l t i n e n t i r e t y o r i n s t a g e s , d e f e n d a n t ' s crew l e f t t h e s i t e a f t e r r a i s i n g t h e w a l l t o e i g h t e e n f e e t . The f o u r i n c h w a l l then stood f o r approximately a week b e f o r e t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t ~'rs crews m s t r u c t e d and e r e c t e d s e v e r a l p a n e l s of t h e s i x inch stud wall next t o it. The s t u d w a l l p a n e l s were c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e ground and then r a i s e d t o t h e i r f i n a l p o s i t i o n w i t h i n one-half inch of t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l . On t h e a f t e r n o o n of t h e a c c i d e n t , two of t h e p a n e l s had been r a i s e d and p o s i t i o n e d s e v e r a l hours b e f o r e p l a i n t i f f began hand t i g h t e n i n g n u t s on t h e b o l t s which anchored t h e p a n e l s t o t h e floor. A s he w a s doing t h i s t h e p o r t i o n of t h e f o u r i n c h w a l l which extended above t h e s t u d w a l l c o l l a p s e d , showering p l a i n t i f f w i t h b r i c k s and mortar. The i n j u r i e s he s u s t a i n e d a r e t h o s e f o r which compensation was sought and g r a n t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Defendant a p p e a l s t h e v e r d i c t and judgment h e r e , r a i s i n g nineteen issues i n i t s appellate b r i e f . For purposes o f t h i s opinion, t h e questions r a i s e d i n those nineteen i s s u e s w i l l be considered a s they r e l a t e t o t h e f o u r g e n e r a l i s s u e s : 1. Was t h e defendant n e g l i g e n t ? 2. Was t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n c e , i f any, t h e proximate cause o f p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s ? 3. Were t h e damages which t h e j u r y awarded supported by a d m i s s i b l e evidence? 4. Should t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t have g r a n t e d a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , a judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t , o r a new t r i a l ? p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint a l l e g e d f o u r s e p a r a t e grounds of negligence: (1) F a i l u r e t o a t t a c h t h e s t a b i l i z i n g t i e s ; (2) F a i l u r e t o b r a c e t h e w a l l by some e x t e r n a l means; (3) Erecting t h e w a l l t o a h e i g h t of e i g h t e e n f e e t i n s t e a d o f doing i t i n s t a g e s a s t h e i n t e r i o r c o n s t r u c t i o n progressed; and (4) Failure t o warn p l a i n t i f f o r t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r of t h e dangerous i n s t a b i l i t y of t h e w a l l . Defendant d e n i e s t h a t any of t h e s e counts c o n s t i t u t e negligence. Defendant a r g u e s t h a t some of t h e t i e s were used, even though t h e a r c h i t e c t ' s p l a n s r e q u i r e d t h a t none be i n s t a l l e d . It c i t e s 1 3 AmOJur.2d, Building and Construction C o n t r a c t s , 5 140, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s f o l l o w i n g of t h e p l a n s r e lieved i t of a l l l i a b i l i t y . The p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n o f t h a t section reads: 'I* ** a contractor followine ~ l a n s and ( ~ m ~ h a s added). is - However, c a s e s f o o t n o t e d i n support of t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e subcontractor i s s t i l l l i a b l e unless a c o n t r a c t o r of average s k i l l and o r d i n a r y prudence would have followed t h o s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , N.Y. 43, 145 N.E. 388, 356 P.2d 46. 321, 4 1 A.L.R. Ryan v. Feeney & S.Bldg. Co., 239 1; Tipton v. Clower, 67 N.M. Since a l l t h e persons involved i n t h i s i n c i d e n t agreed t h a t an unsupported, f o u r i n c h w a l l of t h i s h e i g h t would b e dangerously u n s t a b l e , t h e evidence a t l e a s t c r e a t e d a j u r y q u e s t i o n a s t o whether a reasonably prudent and s k i l l f u l cont r a c t o r would have a c t e d a s defendant d i d . The same c o n s i d e r a t i o n s would apply t o d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o e x t e r n a l l y b r a c e t h e w a l l , and t o d e f e n d a n t ' s one-step cons t r u c t i o n t o a h e i g h t of e i g h t e e n f e e t . I t i s t r u e t h a t no one t o l d defendant t o use b r a c e s o r t o proceed i n s t e p s , b u t t h e j u r y p r o p e r l y could determine whether a r e a s o n a b l e man w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s knowledge of t h e w a l l ' s i n s t a b i l i t y would have taken such p r e cautions. Defendant a l s o contends t h e r e was no duty t o warn s i n c e t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c o r was on t h e s i t e throughout t h e time t h e w a l l was under c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t i s suggested t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r knew, o r should have known, t h a t t h e t i e s were n o t used. However, t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r ' s foreman t e s t i f i e d he thought t h e t i e s had been used, and a r e a s o n a b l e i n s p e c t i o n would n o t have proved otherwise. Again, t h e r e was evidence on which a j u r y might reasonably conclude t h a t defendant should have warned o t h e r s , b u t f a i l e d t o do so. Since i t appears from t h e r e c o r d t h a t a j u r y could reasonably conclude t h a t defendant was n e g l i g e n t i n some o r a l l of t h e a l l e g e d a c t s o r omissions, we then must e x p l o r e t h e c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t t h e r e were i n t e r v e n i n g causes which r e l i e v e d .defendant of l i a b i l i t y f o r i t s negligence. The f i r s t suggestion i s t h a t t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r accepted t h e completed w a l l w i t h knowledge o f i t s u n s t a b l e c o n d i t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e t h e n e g l i g e n c e which proximately caused p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r y was t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r ' s f a i l u r e t o provide f o r h i s employees' s a f e t y . I f t h o s e were t h e f a c t s h e r e , d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n would have some m e r i t . A s suggested by defendant, t h e c a s e o f Sumner v. Lambert, 96 Ohio App. 53, 121 N.E.2d c l o s e t o t h i s c a s e on i t s f a c t s . 189, 198, would then be However, a s p r e v i o u s l y d i s - cussed, t h e r e was evidence t h e u n s t a b l e c o n d i t i o n of t h e w a l l was unknown t o anyone b u t defendant. T h i s i n i t s e l f would make Sumner i n a p p l i c a b l e , f o r t h a t opinion c l e a r l y s t a t e s : "In t h e c a s e a t b a r , i t i s n o t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e were any hidden d e f e c t s i n t h e excavation, known t o t h e defendants and unknown t o [decedent]". *** Furthermore, t h e r e a r e f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e as t o whether t h e w a l l was completed (even defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was n o t ) t h e wall. o r a s t o whether t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r accepted There c l e a r l y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o warrant a r e v e r s a l on t h i s p o i n t . The o t h e r i n t e r v e n i n g cause suggested by defendant i s t h a t t h e s t u d w a l l a l l e g e d l y s t r u c k t h e masonry w a l l d u r i n g t h e process of r a i s i n g t h e former t o i t s p o s i t i o n . P l a i n t i f f produced w i t n e s s e s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e r a i s i n g of t h e w a l l who t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t u d w a l l d i d n o t s t r i k e t h e masonry w a l l . Defendant e l i c i t e d testimony from a f t e r - t h e - f a c t w i t n e s s e s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e p h y s i c a l evidence c l e a r l y showed t h a t t h e s t u d w a l l s t r u c k t h e masonry w a l l . Defendant would have u s p r e f e r t h e o p i n i o n s based on t h e p h y s i c i a l evidence over t h e testimony of eyewitnesses. While i t i s t r u e t h a t undisputed p h y s i c a l f a c t s c o n t r o l over testimony (Hayward v. Richardson Const. Co., 136 Mont. 241, 347 P.2d 475, 77 ALR2d 1144), t h a t c o n t r o l i s e f f e c t i v e o n l y when t h e p h y s i c a l f a c t s admit o f only one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The p h y s i c a l f a c t involved h e r e i s t h a t t h e masonry w a l l f r a c t u r e d and f e l l a t approximately t h e l e v e l o f t h e t o p o f t h e s t u d w a l l . However, t h e evidence a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e masonry w a l l stood f o r s e v e r a l hours a f t e r t h e s t u d w a l l was r a i s e d . Furthermore, t h e evidence might be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t t h e s t u d w a l l prevented t h e masonry w a l l from c o l l a p s i n g a t a lower l e v e l by a c t i n g a s a b r a c e a g a i n s t t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e w a l l . Again, i t was a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y t o determine. Having determined t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support a j u r y f i n d i n g of l i a b i l i t y , we look t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e evidence which t h e j u r y used t o a r r i v e a t a damage f i g u r e . De- f e n d a n t ' s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e damages i s t h a t t h e c o u r t a l l e g e d l y a d m i t t e d a d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n which was b a s e d , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s s u b j e c t i v e c o m p l a i n t s . It i s t r u e t h a t t h e testimony o b j e c t e d t o was t h a t of a d o c t o r who t r e a t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t and then d i d n o t s e e him a g a i n u n t i l s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l . However, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n of t h e degree and permanency of p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s was given i n r e s p o n s e t o a q u e s t i o n a s k i n g him t o d i s r e g a r d t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s s u b j e c t i v e complaints. The d o c t o r ' s i n i t i a l t r e a t m e n t of t h e p l a i n t i f f , h i s subsequent examination, and h i s r e a d i n g of t h e r e p o r t s of o t h e r t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n s s u r e l y q u a l i f i e d him t o g i v e such an o p i n i o n w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s u b j e c t i v e complaints. Also t h e j u r y was c a u t i o n e d n o t t o c o n s i d e r any testimony a s t o t h e s e s u b j e c t i v e complaints. W f i n d no e r r o r h e r e . e Defendant a l s o a r g u e s t h a t evidence and i n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o m o r t a l i t y and a n n u i t y t a b l e s should n o t have been g i v e n t o t h e jury. The o b j e c t i o n i s t h a t even a t t h e time of t r i a l plaintiff was making more money t h a n he was a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t and t h e r e f o r e h i s e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y had n o t been impaired by h i s injuries. While t h e u s e of such t a b l e s c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e j u r y c o n s i d e r e d p l a i n t i f f ' s l o s s of f u t u r e e a r n i n g s , we f i n d t h a t such c o n s i d e r a t i o n was warranted by t h e evidence. job which p l a i n t i f f h e l d when The c o n s t r u c t i o n he was i n j u r e d was o n l y summer employment t o h e l p f i n a n c e h t s c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n . By t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l he had completed t h e n e c e s s a r y e d u c a t i o n t o become a t e a c h e r and was employed i n t h a t c a p a c i t y . His e a r n i n g s a s a t e a c h e r were h i g h e r than h i s e a r n i n g s on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n job. Were t h i s t h e o n l y evidence, t h e r e might be some m e r i t t o defendant's contention. However t h e j u r y was a l s o aware t h a t t e a c h e r s r o u t i n e l y seek o t h e r employment d u r i n g t h e summer when school i s not i n session. I t a l s o heard testimony t h a t p l a i n - t i f f would n o t be a b l e t o coach any a t h l e t i c teams, an a c t i v i t y which produces income i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a r t e a c h i n g s a l a r y . These f a c t o r s , combined w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n s on lai in tiff's enjoyment of h i s p r e v i o u s l y a t h l e t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d l i f e i n d i c a t e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e t a b l e s was c l e a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e . Bracy v. Great Northern Railway Company, 136 Mont. 65, 69, 343 P.2d 848. The f i n a l q u e s t i o n then i s whether t h e c o u r t should have d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t , g r a n t e d a judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t , o r g r a n t e d a new t r i a l . A s d i s c u s s e d h e r e t o f o r e , we have found no e r r o r i n t h e l e g a l t h e o r i e s involved h e r e . Those t h e o r i e s were r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s given t o t h e j u r y , and we f i n d t h o s e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o be a p p r o p r i a t e . Therefore, f i n d i n g no e r r o r of law, and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i dence s u p p o r t i n g t h e v e r d i c t , we a f f i r m t h e judgment. Justice W Concur: 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.
