CECH v STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14216 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 RICHARD CECH, as Administrator of the Estate of Kelly Cech, Deceased, and ARLENE CECH, Deceased, and as Guardian of the Estate of Bruce Cech and Kerry Cech, Minor Children, Plaintiffs and Respondents, THE STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana Dolphy 0 Pohlman argued, Butte, Montana . For Respondents: Berger, Anderson, Sinclair & Murphy, Billings, Montana Richard Anderson argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: September 14, 1979 Decided: BEC 1 2 1974 J u s t i c e John Conway 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. P l a i n t i f f R i c h a r d Cech, a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e s of h i s w i f e , A r l e n e Cech, and h i s c h i l d , K e l l y Cech, and a s g u a r d i a n o f t h e e s t a t e s o f h i s c h i l d r e n Bruce and Kerry Cech, s u e d t h e S t a t e o f Montana under p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Montana T o r t C l a i m s A c t f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t on I n t e r s t a t e 90, a p p r o x i m a t e l y e l e v e n m i l e s e a s t o f W h i t e h a l l , Montana. The j u r y t r i a l began November 1 4 , 1977, i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t h J u d i - c i a l D i s t r i c t , P a r k County. The j u r y r e t u r n e d f o u r s e p a r a t e v e r d i c t s f o r p l a i n t i f f as f o l l o w s : For t h e e s t a t e of A r l e n e Cech (deceased) $15,000 F o r t h e e s t a t e of K e l l y Cech (deceased) $35,000 F o r t h e g u a r d i a n o f Bruce Cech (minor c h i l d ) $25,000 F o r t h e g u a r d i a n o f Kerry Cech (minor c h i l d ) $25,000 From t h e e n t r y o f judgment on t h e v e r d i c t s , t h e S t a t e appeals. 1, 1979. The o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n i n t h i s case w a s i s s u e d August A p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g w a s f i l e d August 1 4 , 1979, and t h i s C o u r t o r d e r e d a r e h e a r i n g on August 22, 1979. The c a s e w a s s e t o n t h e September c a l e n d a r , r e b r i e f e d and reargued t o t h e Court. The S t a t e raises t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r o u r review: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by denying t h e S t a t e ' s motions f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t made a t t h e c l o s e of p l a i n t i f f ' s case-in-chief and a t t h e c l o s e of a l l t h e e v i - dence? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e o f s u b s e q u e n t r e m e d i a l measures? 3. 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 jury v e r d i c t i n favor of p l a i n t i f f ? The s i n g l e - v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t s u b j e c t of t h i s a c t i o n o c c u r r e d on t h e a f t e r n o o n o f November 29, 1974, on I n t e r s t a t e 901 on a p o r t i o n o f t h a t r o a d known a s Cottonwood Hill. R i c h a r d Cech w a s d r i v i n g t h e f a m i l y c a r , a 1967 Rambler, w e s t on t h e freeway. H i s p a s s e n g e r s were h i s w i f e , A r l e n e , and t h r e e o f t h e i r seven c h i l d r e n . The w e a t h e r on t h e day of t h e a c c i d e n t was d e s c r i b e d by Cech a s " s u n s h i n y , " " ~ 0 0 1 , " " c l e a r and f a i r l y n i c e . " H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e road was " f a i r l y d r y " and " i n good shape" from L i v i n g s t o n , t h e town from which t h e y were t r a v e l i n g , t o Bozeman. From Bozeman westward t h e c o n d i t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t ; t h e l e f t l a n e was snow-packed, b u t t h e r i g h t l a n e , i n which he w a s d r i v i n g , w a s " d r y " a c c o r d i n g t o Cech. He testified that n e a r t h e h i l l o n which t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d b o t h l a n e s had s t a r t e d t o c l e a r up and t h e r e was l e s s snow on t h e r o a d . Cech f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was d r i v i n g around 55 m i l e s p e r hour and had m a i n t a i n e d t h a t speed a l m o s t a l l t h e way. H i s c a r d i d n o t have snow t i r e s . H e s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l s e e i n g t h e r o a d s i d e s i g n warning o f ice on t h e n e x t t h r e e m i l e s o f highway, w i t h i n which s p a c e t h e a c c i d e n t occurred. The a u t o m o b i l e , a t an e s t i m a t e d speed o f 55 t o 60 m i l e s p e r h o u r , p a s s e d from a d r y s e c t i o n o f t h e highway o n t o a n i c y s e c t i o n on a shaded c u r v e . The a u t o m o b i l e went i n t o a s k i d , and Cech l o s t c o n t r o l . Cech s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d n o t b r a k e w h i l e on t h e highway o r o n c e t h e c a r l e f t t h e pavement. However, once t h e c a r was on t h e " f i e l d o r p a s t u r e " a s h e d e s c r i b e d i t ( t h e S t a t e c a l l s i t t h e " r e c o v e r y a r e a " ) , h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e must have been b r a k i n g b e c a u s e " t h e c a r w a s coming t o a s l o w e r motion." The car d i d n o t s t o p w i t h i n t h i s r e c o v e r y area b u t went o v e r t h e e d g e i n t o a r a v i n e . Cech's wife w a s k i l l e d i n t h e accident. One s o n , K e l l y , d i e d i n a G r e a t F a l l s h o s p i t a l a b o u t a week l a t e r . Cech and t h e o t h e r two boys s u s t a i n e d r e l a t i v e l y minor i n j u r i e s from which t h e y r e c o v e r e d . A t t h e t i m e of the accident, guardrails protected t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c u r v e e x c e p t f o r a p o r t i o n of t h e c u r v e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 600 f e e t i n l e n g t h . Through t h i s g a p o f g u a r d r a i l , t h e Cech a u t o m o b i l e t r a v e l e d i n t o t h e r e c o v e r y a r e a . Evi- d e n c e showed t h a t t h e a u t o m o b i l e s k i d d e d 84 f e e t 2 i n c h e s on t h e o i l m a t of t h e highway, 378 f e e t 1 i n c h on t h e r e c o v e r y area, and t h e n o v e r t h e edge of t h e r e c o v e r y area i n t o t h e r a v i n e where presumably t h e i n j u r i e s o c c u r r e d . This s e c t i o n of t h e i n t e r s t a t e w a s designed during t h e mid-1960's by t h e S t a t e Highway Department. The c o n s t r u c - t i o n c o n t r a c t w a s l e t i n 1968, and t h e f o u r - l a n e i n t e r s t a t e w a s opened t o t h e t r a v e l i n g p u b l i c i n t h e f a l l of 1970. The S t a t e contended t h r o u g h o u t t h e t r i a l t h a t t h e d e s i g n o f t h e highway and g u a r d r a i l s , o r l a c k of g u a r d r a i l s , was p r o p e r . I t contended t h e r e w a s a " r e c o v e r y a r e a " a t t h e p l a c e o f t h e gap i n t h e g u a r d r a i l ; t h a t t h i s r e c o v e r y area was s a f e r t h a n a g u a r d r a i l ; and, t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of a g u a r d r a i l where t h e gap e x i s t e d would n o t have p r e v e n t e d t h e accident. P l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t e n t i o n was, and h i s e v i d e n c e t e n d e d t o p r o v e , t h a t a f t e r t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e i n t e r s t a t e had been completed, t h e S t a t e n o t i c e d t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n o f t h e roadway was d a n g e r o u s when i c y ; t h a t i c e always accumul a t e d d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r months; t h a t t h e l a c k of g u a r d r a i l p e r m i t t e d v e h i c l e s t o s t r a y o u t upon t h e g r a s s y s l o p e d e s i g - n a t e d a s t h e " r e c o v e r y a r e a ; " and t h a t v e h i c l e s going o u t upon t h e r e c o v e r y a r e a would be unable t o s t o p on t h e s l o p e and would go i n t o t h e deep r a v i n e . Further, p l a i n t i f f contended t h a t w h i l e a g u a r d r a i l would n o t have prevented t h e a c c i d e n t , i t would have prevented t h e i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d . The S t a t e a l s o contended t h a t a s an economic c h o i c e i n t h e o r i g i n a l d e s i g n of t h e highway, and l a t e r i n m a i n t a i n i n g i t , t h e c o s t of g u a r d r a i l s a s compared t o t h e c o s t of prov i d i n g a recovery a r e a was a f a c t o r i n i t s d e c i s i o n . A look a t t h e testimony w i l l demonstrate t h e kind of evidence t h a t was adduced by t h e S t a t e i n s u p p o r t of i t s theory. David S. Johnson was c a l l e d by t h e S t a t e . He i s a p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r f o r t h e Department of Highways. t h e time of t r i a l he was s u p e r v i s o r of e n g i n e e r i n g spec i a l i t i e s f o r t h e Department. Johnson t e s t i f i e d : "Q. N w w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e second page of Defeno d a n t ' s E x h i b i t I , would you look a t t h a t page of t h e document and t e l l me i f you i n your review of t h e d e s i g n of t h i s highway, and p o s s i b i l y [ s i c ] o t h e r s , f o r t h e S t a t e of Montana, would f o l l o w t h e i n f o r m a t i o n provided on t h a t document? A. Yes, we would u s e t h i s . "Q. G e n e r a l l y what does t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e t o ? A. I t r e l a t e s t o t h e p r o v i d i n g of c l e a r r e c o v e r y a r e a s wherever you can on a highway. "Q. Does i t make a d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h a t document w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e median a s opposed t o t h e Well, s h o u l d e r of t h e road recovery a r e a s ? A. I d o n ' t s e e a r e f e r e n c e t o median i n h e r e , j u s t o f fhand. "Q. So it would be s a f e t o s a y t h a t t h a t app l i e s t o r e c o v e r y a r e a s along t h e s h o u l d e r s of Yes, I t h i n k so. i n t e r s t a t e highways? A. "Q. A s a d e s i g n e r , and based upon your educat i o n and your e x p e r i e n c e i n t h a t f i e l d , i s t h e r e a p r e f e r e n c e t h a t you f o l l o w w i t h r e g a r d t o s h o u l d e r of t h e road a r e a s , a p r e f e r e n c e t h a t you t a k e of r e c o v e r y a r e a o v e r g u a r d r a i l ? A. W e l l , i t ' s always b e t t e r -o have a c l e a r space t -- At where a v e h i c l e c a n r e c o v e r a s opposed t o h a v i n g a - g u a r a r a i l , which i s something t h a t a v e h i c l e can run i n t o . "Q. Do you c o n s i d e r , a s a d e s i g n e r , t h a t guardr a i l i s a h a z a r d ? A. Oh, d e f i n i t e l y . "Q. I n your d e s i g n of i n t e r s t a t e highways would you p r e f e r t o have a r e c o v e r y area b u i l t o r a g u a r d r a i l b u i l t ? A. W e l l , a s a d e s i g n e r , and a s a d r i v e r , I would r a t h e r have t h e r e c o v e r y area. "Q. A l l right. On t h i s a r e a of Cottonwood H i l l i s t h e r e i n t h e d e s i g n o f t h e i n t e r s t a t e highway a d e s i g n o f r e c o v e r y a r e a ? A. Y e s , there i s . " (Emphasis added.) Ronald J . Hensen, a c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r from Boulder, Colorado, a l s o t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e S t a t e : "Q. Do you have a term t h a t you u s e i n d e s c r i b i n g s u c h a n area on t h e s h o u l d e r of t h e r o a d ? A. Where t h e y have been d r e s s e d down, s u c h a s i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a r e a , t h e y are r e f e r r e d t o as a secondary recovery area. Is t h u e area "Q. - -e-s-o f g s e c o n d a r y r e c o v e r y - -a n accepted p r a c t i c e i n protecting a vehicle - a s it l e a v e s t h e travelerway? A. - - -. y e s , it i s "Q. And i s t h a t method, t h e u s e of a r e c o v e r y a r e a , a primary o r secondary s a f e t y f e a t u r e w i t h r e q a r d t o p r o t e c t i o n on t h e s h o u l d e r s ? weli, -- p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e -- it's the i n roadA. way d e s i g n t o p r o v i d e a r e c o v e r y a r e a wherever p o s s i b l e , s u c h t h a t a v e h i c l e which i n a d v e r t e n t l y leaves t h e road has an opportunity t o g e t i t s e l f back under c o n t r o l w i t h o u t i m p a c t i n g e i t h e r another vehicle o r a fixed object. "Q. Is g u a r d r a i l used f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n a t t h e s h o u l d e r s o f t h e r o a d when a v e h i c l e l e a v e s t h e G u a r d r a i l - - -i n d e s i g n i s used t r a v e l e d way? A. a s-a s e c o n d a r y s o l u t i o n where - p h y s i c a l s p a c e the c a n n o t be p r o v i d e d . T h a t i s , where t h e t o p o g r a phy i s s u c h t h a t t o p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l s p a c e o u t t h e r e would b e p r o h i b i t i v e i n t e r m s o f t o t a l cost. "Q. NOW, a r e you s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e r e are economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t h e u s e of r e c o v e r y a r e a s , as opposed t o g u a r d r a i l ? A. W e l l , there a r e economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t h e d e s i g n of roadways. And t h e b a s i c economics o f t h i s , t h e r e h a s t o be some t r a d e o f f between how many m i l e s o f roadway c a n be improved v e r s u s how s a f e t h e y c a n be made. The u l t i m a t e end o f it i s on o n e end you merely p r o v i d e s p a c e f o r a v e h i c l e t o move, and on t h e o p p o s i t e end you make it c r a s h p r o o f such t h a t no m a t t e r what a d r i v e r would d o he would be p r o t e c t e d from h i m s e l f . " (Emphasis added. ) The f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e p o s t u r e o f t h e State--that r e c o v e r y a r e a s were s a f e r t h a n g u a r d r a i l s , more economical, and w i t h i n t h e s t a n d a r d s . In contrast t o that e v i d e n c e , p l a i n t i f f produced an i n t e r o f f i c e memorandum d a t e d December 1 0 , 1974, i n which t h e manager o f t h e t r a f f i c u n i t o f t h e Department of Highways r e p o r t e d t o t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e Department i n p a r t a s f o l l o w s : ". . . W have made a n a c c i d e n t a n a l y s i s r u n e from t h e H.I.S. System and a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d , t h e r e have been f i v e a c c i d e n t s ( p l u s t h e s e two) which have happened i n t h i s a r e a i n t h e t i m e p e r i o d o f J a n u a r y 1, 1972 t o November 11, 1974. The e x a c t l o c a t i o n of t h e s e a c c i d e n t s i s i n t h e westbound l a n e , m i l e p o s t 259.9. " T h i s a r e a h a s a shaded s p o t which g e t s v e r y s l i p p e r y a t t i m e s i n t h e w i n t e r . When v e h i c l e s l o s e c o n t r o l and go i n t o t h e d i t c h t h e y a r e i n t r o u b l e b e c a u s e t h e y c a n s l i d e behind t h e s h o u l d e r g u a r d r a i l and i n t o a h o l e which i s a t l e a s t 100 f e e t deep. This s i t u a t i o n could very e a s i l y be f i x e d by a d d i n g a b o u t 600 f e e t o f g u a r d r a i l which would c o n n e c t t o t h e g u a r d r a i l on b o t h e n d s . T h e r e i s now a s a f e t y p r o j e c t which i s under c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s a r e a and g u a r d r a i l i s b i d a t $2.75 a f o o t . T h e r e f o r e , w e f e e l t h a t t h i s g u a r d r a i l s h o u l d be added t o t h e p r o j e c t . " The e v i d e n c e a l s o showed t h a t e v e n t u a l l y t h e 6 0 0 f e e t o f g u a r d r a i l was i n s t a l l e d by t h e Department, a f t e r t h e Cech a c c i d e n t , a t a c o s t t o t h e s t a t e of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $145, disregarding the federal contribution. The S t a t e c h a l l e n g e s t h e l e g a l p r o p r i e t y of t h e v e r d i c t s . I t d i r e c t s t h e C o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n t o e v i d e n c e supp o r t i n g i t s d e f e n s e s t h a t t h e d e s i g n and c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e i n t e r s t a t e w e r e p r o p e r and i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a c c e p t e d s t a n d a r d s , conforming t o t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t a t the t i m e . A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , a f t e r submission of p l a i n t i f f ' s pretrial memorandum and his counsel's statements of clarification made during trial, the only issue was whether the State was negligent in not placing guardrails at the edge of the interstate where the accident occurred after the initial construction and before the accident involving the Cech family. Plaintiff's counsel stated, "[tlhis case is limited strictly to the subject of guardrails. And we aren't con- tending there is any engineering defect other than that." During cross-examination, plaintiff's counsel made it clear that he was not alleging or contending that the State failed to warn of icy road conditions or that plaintiff's visibility was in any way interfered with or obstructed at the time of the accident. At the close of plaintiff's case, the State made a motion for a directed verdict which reads in part: "MR. POHLMAN: Comes now the Defendant, and pursuant to Rule 50 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for a directed verdict in favor of the Defendant, upon the grounds and for the reasons that Plaintiff has not by a preponderance of the evidence proved a prime [sic] facie case, in that the Defendant negligently designed the highway in question in its initial design. And further, that the Defendant negligently failed to provide adequate guardrails at the scene in accordance with its initial design of guardrails. And further, that the Plaintiff has not proved a prime [sic] facie case that the Defendant negligently constructed the highway in question in accordance or not in accordance with the design as to the highway, including guardrail and other factors or elements of design and construction. Further, that we want to note to the Court that in Plaintiff's Pre-Trial memorandum Plaintiff has abandoned and withdrawn all initial contentions that the Defendant negligently failed to give warning of hazards, and that Defendant negligently maintained the highway, and in the terms of the Plaintiff's Pre-Trial memorandum, as maintenance pertaining to the usual procedures of sanding, etcetera. The Motion is based upon the record and the testimonial evidence and the exhibits in the Plaintiff's case in chief. Further, that there has been no testimony or other evidence presented by Plaintiff whatsoever showing or proving that there was n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e d e s i g n of t h e highway on beh a l f of t h e S t a t e of Montana. T h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e whatsoever by e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y o r o t h e r w i s e t h a t t h e r e was a d u t y o r s t a n d a r d o f care f o r t h e d e s i g n o f t h e highway a s t o a l i g n ment, s l o p e , g r a d e , g u a r d r a i l p l a c e m e n t , r e c o v e r y a r e a , s i g n i n g o r any o t h e r c o n c e p t s o f d e s i g n . And f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by P l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e r e w a s any s u c h b r e a c h o f t h e s a i d d u t y o r s t a n d a r d of c a r e by t h e Defendant. " F u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e h a s been no t e s t i m o n y o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by P l a i n t i f f p r o v i n g t h e Defendant w a s n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o prov i d e g u a r d r a i l s s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e o r i g i n a l des i g n and c o n s t r u c t i o n b u t p r i o r t o t h e Cech a c c i d e n t o f 11-29-74. And f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e h a s been no e v i d e n c e o f a d u t y o r a s t a n d a r d of c a r e f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n and e r e c t i o n o f g u a r d r a i l s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e i n i t i a l d e s i g n and c o n s t r u c t i o n , b u t p r i o r t o t h e Cech a c c i d e n t o f 11-2974, and no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d o f a b r e a c h of any s u c h d u t y by t h e Defendant. And f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e h a s been no e v i d e n c e o f a s t a n d a r d of care o r d u t y on b e h a l f o f t h e Defendant w i t h r e g a r d t o accident frequency r a t i o a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s highway i n q u e s t i o n . And f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e r e h a s been no e v i d e n c e showing any b r e a c h of d u t y o r s t a n d a r d o f care f o r t h e c o m p i l a t i o n and rep o r t i n g of a c c i d e n t s and a c c i d e n t d a t a f o r t h i s i n t e r s t a t e 90 highway." W e note t h a t t h e f i r s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r i s d i r e c t e d a t t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o d i r e c t a v e r d i c t on t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e S t a t e ' s negligence t o place a g u a r d r a i l a t t h e scene o f t h e a c c i d e n t a t t h e t i m e t h e freeway w a s f i r s t d e s i g n e d and b u i l t . The motion d i d n o t go t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether t h e S t a t e was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o p u t a g u a r d r a i l t h e r e a f t e r t h e r e had been a c c i d e n t s i n t h e area. With t h e uncon- t r o v e r t e d e x p e r t testimony before it a t t h e t i m e , the court m i g h t w e l l have d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t on t h i s v e r y narrow issue. However, t h e c o u r t was n o t r e q u e s t e d t o d i r e c t a verdict for failing t o put a guardrail i n a f t e r the i n i t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and d e s i g n , s o i t w a s n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o d i r e c t o r r e f u s e t o d i r e c t a v e r d i c t on t h i s p o i n t . f o r e , w e f i n d no e r r o r . There- The second issue concerns the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by the State after the accident. The investigating officer of the Cech accident requested an emergency study of the area which went to the Spot Safety Unit of the Department of Highways. Approxi- mately a month after the accident, after an investigation, a recommendation was made which resulted in the placement of a guardrail across the entrance of the recovery area. This construction was done subsequent to the Cech accident and was completed in 1975. Over the State's objection, the court allowed evidence of this "subsequent request for an emergency study" to be admitted into evidence. The objection was based on Rule "When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment." Plaintiff argues that the admission of other incidents is both relevant and material under the case law of Montana, citing Leonard v. City of Butte (1901), 25 Mont. 410, 65 P. 425, and Robinson v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (1927), 80 Mont. In view of the foregoing testimony, we find no error in the trial court's ruling allowing the offered testimony. In Raybell v. State (1972), 6 Wash.App. 795, 496 P.2d 559, the Washington court found the duty applying to a municipality to maintain adequate protective barriers where such barriers are shown to be practical and feasible. The court commented that the feasibility of such a guardrail was shown by the fact that the State later installed one in the very location of the accident. The interdepartmental memorandum quoted above stated that the dangerous situation "could very easily be fixed" by adding about 600 feet of guardrail. This is further proof of feasibility. Under Rule 407, Mont.R.Evid., the subsequent installa- tion was also admissible for impeachment. The State con- tended that the so-called recovery area was preferable to guardrail and its experts contended that the absence of a guardrail conformed in every way with acceptable standards so as to refute negligence. They also indicated that eco- nomically the recovery areas were preferable to guardrails. In Lawlor v. County of Flathead (1978), Mont. , 582 P.2d 751, 35 St.Rep. 884, we found that repair of a chuckhole by the county two days after an accident occurred was admissible to establish feasibility of repair, and to impeach the testimony given by a county road foreman. The point on which this decision turns should be governed by the appellate rule that the question of admissibility of evidence must in every case be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review only in case of manifest abuse. Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589. Affirmed. Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 We concur: &Afi@?Lh4Qf Chief Justice \3dkq y Justices

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.