BERDINE v SANDERS COUNTY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12487 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1974 LESLIE BERDINE and KENNETH H . HAGEN, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vs - SANDERS C U T e t a 1. , O NY Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honor3ble E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : T i p p and Hoven, M i s s o u l a , Montana Raymond Tipp a r g u e d , Missoula , Montana F o r Respondents : G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn and Robinson, Missoula , Montana W i l l i a m Evan J o n e s a p p e a r e d and Gary Graham a r g u e d , Missoula , Montana Submitted : Decided Filed: APR - 4 IT4 F e b r u a r y 27, 1974 - :APR 4 1974 Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s an a p p e a l by t h e p l a i n t i f f s from a v e r d i c t and judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S a n d e r s County, s i t t i n g w i t h a j u r y , i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s and from t h e d e n i a l by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r new t r i a l . T h i s c a u s e was commenced by p l a i n t i f f s , Kenneth N. Hagen and L e s l i e B e r d i n e , t o r e c o v e r damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s from S a n d e r s County, t h e S a n d e r s County Board of Commissioners, t h e Commissioners and P a u l Douglas Albano, a n employee of S a n d e r s County. E s s e n t i a l l y t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i s a s follows: On November 28, 1970, d e f e n d a n t P a u l Douglas Albano was plowing snow on t h e Lower Heron Road, a g r a v e l e d r o a d , i n S a n d e r s County. There were f o u r t o s i x i n c h e s o f snow c o v e r i n g t h e r o a d . Albano was d r i v i n g a 1969 Ford t r u c k on which was mounted a snowplow w i t h a n a n g l e b l a d e 12 f e e t i n w i d t h which b e c a u s e of i t s a n g l e plowed an 8 f o o t w i d t h . The p o r t i o n o f t h e b l a d e on d r i v e r A l b a n o ' s l e f t was f l u s h w i t h t h e edge of t h e t r u c k and t h e p o r t i o n on h i s r i g h t extended 2 f e e t and 9 i n c h e s beyond t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e truck. Albano s t a r t e d plowing t h e r o a d g o i n g w e s t w i t h t h e l e f t p o r t i o n o f t h e b l a d e i n t h e c e n t e r of t h e r o a d t h r o w i n g t h e snow toward t h e o u t s i d e o r n o r t h s i d e of t h e r o a d . He t h e n proceeded e a s t a l o n g t h e road a g a i n w i t h t h e l e f t p o r t i o n of t h e plow a t t h e c e n t e r o f r o a d t o make s u r e t h a t he c l e a n e d t h e c e n t e r . Albano n e x t proceeded west a l o n g t h e r o a d and a t t h e extreme r i g h t s h o u l d e r of t h e r o a d i n o r d e r t o c o m p l e t e l y c l e a n t h e r i g h t hand p o r t i o n of t h e r o a d . The snowplow, which was owned by S a n d e r s County, had a y e l l o w c a u t i o n l i g h t on t o p which was o p e r a t i n g . P l a i n t i f f s were r e t u r n i n g from a d e e r h u n t i n g t r i p i n a n a u t o m o b i l e o p e r a t e d by p l a i n t i f f Kenneth Hagen. Plaintiff Leslie Berdine w a s a passenger i n t h e f r o n t s e a t of t h e automobile. Michael B e r d i n e was a p a s s e n g e r i n t h e back s e a t . Plaintiffs were t r a v e l i n g e a s t . I t was on h i s t h i r d p a s s t h a t d e f e n d a n t Albano met p l a i n - t i f f s ' automobile. Snow of t h e d e p t h o f a b o u t 8 i n c h e s s t i l l c o v e r e d a p o r t i o n of p l a i n t i f f s ' h a l f of t h e roadway on t h e r i g h t shoulder. A s Albano was meeting p l a i n t i f f s ' automobile, he h i t a s o f t s p o t on t h e roadway, t r i e d t o p u l l t h e plow up, b u t found t h a t i t would n o t r a i s e . shift. H e p u t on h i s b r a k e s and s t a r t e d t o The b l a d e on t h e snowplow t o come t o a h a l t . dug i n c a u s i n g t h e snowplow The snowplow s t o p p e d a b o u t 2 f e e t from where i t had dug i n t o t h e roadway. Albano c o l l i d e d w i t h t h e s i d e of p l a i n t i f f s ' c a r which went i n t o t h e borrow p i t on p l a i n t i f f s ' s i d e o f t h e r o a d . A t the t i m e t h e two v e h i c l e s met and t h e snowplow c a u g h t i n t h e s h o u l d e r o f t h e r o a d , t h e back wheels of t h e snowplow s l i d t o w a r d s t h e borrow p i t c a u s i n g t h e b l a d e of t h e snowplow t o s l i d e t o w a r d s t h e c e n t e r of t h e r o a d . The r e a r wheels of t h e snowplow t r u c k w e r e b a r e l y o f f t h e r i g h t s h o u l d e r of t h e r o a d , and t h e f r o n t wheels were on t h e roadway. A s a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t p l a i n t i f f s i n c u r r e d h o s p i t a l b i l l s , d o c t o r b i l l s and o t h e r m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s and damages. Plain- t i f f s i n s t i t u t e d t h i s cause e s s e n t i a l l y a l l e g i n g t h a t defendant Albano was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o keep t h e snowplow i n i t s own t r a f f i c l a n e and i n f a i l i n g t o o p e r a t e t h e snowplow i n s u c h a manner a s t o a v o i d e n d a n g e r i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s and t h e c o l l i s i o n . T r i a l was h e l d . Judgment on t h e v e r d i c t was e n t e r e d f o r t h e de- f e n d a n t s and p l a i n t i f f s moved f o r a new t r i a l , which was d e n i e d . P l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n t f o u r i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w which c a n be summarized and s t a t e d a s f o l l o w s : (1) Whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n - t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y ; (2) whether t e s t i m o n y of U n d e r s h e r i f f W i l l i a m s , S a n d e r s County, was i m p r o p e r , and ( 3 ) whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t p l a i n t i f f s 1 motion f o r a new t r i a l . With r e s p e c t t o p l a i n t i f f s 1 f i r s t i s s u e , t h i s C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t t h e f i n d e r of f a c t , t h e j u r y i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y preponderates a g a i n s t t h e findings. Quitmeyer v . Theroux, 1 4 4 Mont. 302, 307, 395 P.2d 965; C l o s e v. E s t a t e of Ruegsegger, 143 Mont. 32, 4 1 , 386 P.2d 739; Marker v . Z e i l e r , 1 4 0 Mont. 4 4 , 5 5 , 367 P.2d 311. A s we s t a t e d i n Bernhard v . L i n c o l n County, 150 Mont. 557, "When such a q u e s t i o n i s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t w e w i l l only review t h e evidence t o decide i f t h e v e r d i c t i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Breen v . I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board (Mont. 1 9 6 8 ) , 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 m o n y d o e s 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 e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . W must a c c e p t t h e e v i d e n c e e b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y ' u n l e s s t h a t e v i d e n c e i s s o i n h e r e n t l y i m p o s s i b l e o r improbable a s n o t t o be e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e f * * * . I Wallace v . Wallace, 85 Mont. 492, 279 P . 374, 377, 66 A.L.R. 587 ( 1 9 2 9 ) . " A f t e r r e v i e w i n g and c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e i n s t a n t case, we f i n d t h a t t h e r e i s 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 f o r t h e defendants. P l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h a t r e a s o n a b l e men must c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e snowplow c r o s s e d t h e r o a d i n t o p l a i n t i f f s 1 l a n e of t r a f f i c , which argument i s p l a i n t i f f s 1 b a s i c t h e o r y f o r a l l e g i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t Albano was n e g l i g e n t . A t t h e t r i a l p l a i n t i f f Hagen t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was i n h i s p r o p e r l a n e of t r a f f i c a s he was a p p r o a c h i n g t h e snowplow and t h a t t h e snowplow came a c r o s s t h e r o a d and s t r u c k h i s v e h i c l e . He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t h i s s i d e of t h e r o a d had been c o m p l e t e l y plowed b u t n o t h i n g had been plowed on t h e s i d e t h a t t h e snowplow w a s working on. Defendant Albano, who was c a l l e d a s a n a d v e r s e w i t n e s s by p l a i n t i f f s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was plowing on t h e e x t r e m e o u t e r p o r t i o n of h i s r i g h t l a n e a f t e r plowing t h e c e n t e r of b o t h s i d e s . P l a i n t i f f B e r d i n e s t a t e d t h a t a s t h e y were d r i v i n g down t h e r o a d t h a t he looked up and saw t h e snowplow coming a c r o s s t h e r o a d towards t h e i r v e h i c l e . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t t h e snow plow b l a d e e x t e n d e d halfway a c r o s s t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 l a n e of t r a f f i c b u t d i d n o t know how f a r t h e snowplow b l a d e went t o t h e l e f t o f where it was o r i g i n a l l y t r a v e l i n g when it h i t t h e s o f t s p o t . P l a i n t i f f s 1 e x p e r t w i t n e s s , J a c o b Hoover, t e s t i f i e d t h a t when a snowplow d i g s i n t h a t it would t e n d t o go a c r o s s t h e r o a d , and he a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e snowplow would n o t go a c r o s s towards t h e c e n t e r l i n e i f i t s r e a r wheels were down i n t h e borrow p i t s on t h e r i g h t hand s i d e of t h e r o a d . The f o l l o w i n g w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d on b e h a l f o f d e f e n d a n t s : U n d e r s h e r i f f Williams who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e a c c i d e n t t o o k measurements a t t h e t i m e . He found t h a t t h e r o a d a t t h e p o i n t o f c o l l i s i o n w a s 23 f e e t from s h o u l d e r t o s h o u l d e r . centerline. The snowplow b l a d e was 12 f e e t l o n g . There was no Two f e e t and 9 i n c h e s of t h e b l a d e e x t e n d e d beyond t h e r i g h t hand s h o u l d e r of t h e road. From t h e extreme l e f t p o r t i o n of t h e b l a d e t o t h e r i g h t s h o u l d e r was 9 f e e t . Douglas Smith, a snowplow o p e r a t o r and s u p e r v i s o r of d e f e n d a n t Albano, t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he a r r i v e d a t t h e s c e n e of t h e a c c i d e n t t h a t he was a b l e t o d r i v e h i s f u l l snowplow by t h e a c c i d e n t snowplow on t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 s i d e of t h e r o a d w i t h o u t any problem i n s o f a r a s s p a c e was c o n c e r n e d . Smith a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f t e r t h e snowplow s t o p p e d from i t s impact w i t h t h e s o f t ground, i t c o u l d n o t have moved u n l e s s someone had p u l l e d i t . M r . Lee, a S a n d e r s County Commissioner, went t o t h e a c c i - d e n t s c e n e and observed t h a t t h e snowplow b l a d e was on i t s s i d e of the centerline. He also stated that he had plenty of room to drive by the snowplow on plaintiffs' side of the road. As the testimony reveals, there was substantial evidence that the snowplow did not cross the road into plaintiffs' lane of traffic, and the jury obviously believed that it did not. The only physical evidence introduced at the trial was the measurements made by Undersheriff Williams. Williams' testimony together with that of Douglas Smith and Lee supports the jury's verdict that defendant Albano was not negligent. Plaintiffs next contend that certain testimony of Undersheriff Williams was improper. Plaintiffs argue that testimony as to conclusions and opinions of Williams was improperly received by the court and, in addition, that such testimony also constituted evidence of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff Hagen. It is plaintiffs' position that since contributory negligence was not an issue in the case that the verdict is contrary to the law of the case. At the scene of the accident Williams prepared an investigator's accident report, and at the trial he testified as to his findings. Plaintiffs attack the testimony of Williams with respect to his opinions concerning the accident arguing that his opinions were without foundation and invaded the province of the jury. Plaintiffs objected at trial as fcllows: "Q. And did you prepare this in the ordinary course of your investigating business based upon the conversations at the acene with the people who were there? A. Yes sir. "MR. BRAULT: W o b j e c t t o any q u e s t i o n c a l l i n g e for a conclusion of this witness, no foundation having been laid, and it invades the province of the jury. "THE COURT: Overruled." The portion of Williams' testimony complained of by plaintiffs deals with the conclusions and opinions testimony. This t e s t i m o n y was o f f e r e d a f t e r a d d i t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n had been p r e s e n t e d a s t o W i l l i a m s ' q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and i s a s f o l l o w s : "Q. Based upon t h o s e y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e and t h e many a c c i d e n t s t h a t you i n v e s t i g a t e d , M r . W i l l i a m s , d i d you t h e n come t o a s e c t i o n of your r e p o r t wherei n you were asked t o s t a t e your o p i n i o n a s t o what happened? A. Yes s i r . "Q. And i n t h a t p a r a g r a p h on your r e p o r t , what d i d you s e t f o r t h i n t h e o f f i c i a l r e p o r t , M r . Williams? A. I have under ' O p i n i o n s and C o n c l u s i o n s ' t h a t veh i c l e number one s h o u l d have slowed down. "Q. Which i s v e h i c l e number one now? vehicle. The Hagen The v e h i c l e number one s h o u l d have slowed down and w a i t e d f o r t h e plow t o p a s s . The y e l l o w l i g h t on t h e snowplow i s f o r c a u t i o n . I f v e h i c l e number one would have been o v e r on t h e s i d e o f t h e r o a d t h e plow would have missed him completely." "Q. A l l r i g h t , go ahead. A. A. A f t e r t h e a d d i t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n had been p r e s e n t e d and when Williams was e v e n t u a l l y asked a s t o h i s o p i n i o n s and conc l u s i o n s r e c o r d e d i n h i s f i n d i n g s , no o b j e c t i o n was made by plaintiffs. I t i s a w e l l a c c e p t e d r u l e of law t h a t a n o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l i s n o t t i m e l y . Close, a t p. 38, Boehler v. S a n d e r s , 146 Mont. 1 5 8 , 1 6 3 , 4 0 4 P.2d 885. P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r c o n t e n d t h a t t h e above-quoted t e s t i mony of Williams c o n s t i t u t e d e v i d e n c 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 . P l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o make any o b j e c t i o n t o t h i s t e s t i m o n y on t h a t ground d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , and f o r t h i s r e a s o n a l o n e p l a i n t i f f s ' i s s u e i s without merit. I n any e v e n t t h e e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e of p r o x i m a t e c a u s e which was t h e i s s u e . F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r new t r i a l was p r o p e r l y d e n i e d and t h e v e r d i c t and judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e hereby a f f i r m e d . Chief J u s t i c e We concur: '< . - **
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.
