BUTCHER v PETRANEK

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14450 I N THE S P E E CWKF O THE STATE: O M3NTANA UR M F F 1979 P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, CISIFUS PEzwNEK and (3M3AGE A. P ; R N K ET A E , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal f m : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W. ThoaMs, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Bradley B. Parrish, mistawn, Montana For Respondent: Morrow, Sedivy and Olson, Bozeman, Ibntana SutrPTlitted on briefs: Decided: Filed: HR 2 4 1979 P February 23, 1979 APR 2 4 1979 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . D e f e n d a n t s C h a r l e s and George P e t r a n e k a p p e a l from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F e r g u s County, d e n y i n g t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . T h i s case i n v o l v e s a d i s p u t e o v e r a f o u r t e e n m i l e roadway a c r o s s p l a i n t i f f Edward B u t c h e r ' s l a n d which P e t r a n e k s , owners o f a n e i g h b o r i n g t r a c t , had used f o r some years with Butcher's permission. T h i s same roadway was t h e s u b j e c t of a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n p r e v i o u s l y b e f o r e t h i s Court. Taylor v. Petranek (1977), 1 2 0 , 34 St.Rep. 905. Mont. , 568 P. 2d I n t h a t case, t h i s Court held t h a t P e t r a n e k s d i d n o t have a n e a s e m e n t i n t h e r o a d . A t t h e t i m e t h e q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n w a s pending i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , B u t c h e r had p l a n t e d t h e r o a d o v e r w i t h wheat. A l t h o u g h P e t r a n e k s w e r e f u l l y aware t h a t t h e m a t t e r was i n l i t i g a t i o n , o n May 24, 1976, t h e y t r e s p a s s e d on B u t c h e r ' s l a n d w i t h a r o a d g r a d e r and plowed a s w a t h t h r o u g h t h e w h e a t f i e l d , a p p r o x i m a t e l y where t h e r o a d had o n c e b e e n , b e f o r e t h e y w e r e r u n o f f by B u t c h e r . P e t r a n e k s w a s a b o u t one-half The s w a t h plowed by m i l e l o n g , twelve f e e t wide, and some f o u r t o s i x i n c h e s d e e p , t h u s s t r i p p i n g t h e t o p s o i l On May 28, 1976, B u t c h e r f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r a y i n g f o r $1000 i n a c t u a l damages t o t h e l a n d , $50,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages f o r i n j u r y t o t h e l a n d , $150 i n a c t u a l damages f o r l o s s o f t h e w h e a t c r o p damaged by t h e g r a d e r , and $50,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages f o r m a l i c i o u s d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e crops. Butcher a l s o sought i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , which was g r a n t e d and i s n o t a n i s s u e on a p p e a l . E v i d e n c e adduced a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t when B u t c h e r e v i c t e d P e t r a n e k s from h i s l a n d , a somewhat v i o l e n t a l t e r c a t i o n took place. B u t c h e r c l a i m e d t h a t George P e t r a n e k , who w a s d r i v i n g a p i c k u p behind t h e r o a d g r a d e r d r i v e n by C h a r l e s P e t r a n e k , rammed t h e h o r s e B u t c h e r w a s r i d i n g w i t h t h e pickup. Butcher a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t b o t h P e t r a n e k s and t h e i r h i r e d hand, who was r i d i n g i n t h e p i c k u p , advanced t h r e a t e n i n g l y toward him, w i t h C h a r l e s P e t r a n e k g r a b b i n g f o r B u t c h e r ' s l e g s a s h e s a t on h i s h o r s e . Butcher t e s t i f i e d he had t o t h r e a t e n P e t r a n e k s w i t h a . 2 2 c a l i b e r p i s t o l b e f o r e t h e y would l e a v e . O t h e r e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t P e t r a n e k s had s e v e r a l t i m e s i n t h e p a s t c u t B u t c h e r ' s f e n c e s and t r e s p a s s e d a c r o s s h i s land. I t w a s a l s o shown t h a t P e t r a n e k s a r e q u i t e w e a l t h y , h a v i n g h o l d i n g s ( c o n s i s t i n g c h i e f l y o f r a n c h and f a r m l a n d s and r e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s i n Lewistown) t o t a l i n g more t h a n $1,500,000. On May 5 , 1978, a f t e r a j u r y t r i a l w i t h t h e Honorable Bernard W. Thomas p r e s i d i n g , a v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d i n f a v o r of Butcher. The j u r y awarded $825 a c t u a l damages w i t h $10,000 p u n i t i v e damages f o r damage t o t h e l a n d , and $100 a c t u a l damages w i t h $10,000 p u n i t i v e damages f o r d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e crops. P e t r a n e k s s u b s e q u e n t l y moved f o r a new t r i a l on t h e ground t h a t t h e award of p u n i t i v e damages w a s e x c e s s i v e and g i v e n under t h e i n f l u e n c e of p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion, and P e t r a n e k s a p p e a l . The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s simply: Were t h e p u n i t i v e damages awarded t o B u t c h e r by t h e j u r y e x c e s s i v e ? Petraneks a r g u e t h e y w e r e and t h e r e f o r e t h i s C o u r t must e i t h e r r e d u c e them o r o r d e r a new t r i a l . I n approaching t h i s i s s u e , w e note t h a t Petraneks are n o t c h a l l e n g i n g t h e award o r amount of a c t u a l damages, t o t a l i n g $925. N e i t h e r a r e t h e y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e award of p u n i t i v e damages i t s e l f ; t h e y a p p a r e n t l y concede t h a t some award of p u n i t i v e o r exemplary damages i s p r o p e r . What P e t r a n e k s a r e c h a l l e n g i n g i s t h e amount of t h e p u n i t i v e damages awarded. T h e i r argument e s s e n t i a l l y i s t h a t t h e amount o f p u n i t i v e damages awarded h e r e ( $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) i s " p a t e n t l y e x c e s s i v e " t o t h e p o i n t t h a t " t h e r e c a n b e no o t h e r c o n c l u s i o n t h a n t h a t t h e j u r y was i n f l u e n c e d by pass i o n , p r e j u d i c e , o r from improper m o t i v e . " The law g o v e r n i n g p u n i t i v e o r exemplary damages i s w e l l developed i n Montana and h a s been f o l l o w e d w i t h u n e r r i n g c o n s i s t e n c y by t h i s C o u r t . s e c t i o n 17-208, R.C.M. S i n c e f i r s t e n a c t e d i n 1895, 1947, now s e c t i o n 27-1-221 MCA, h a s read: " I n any a c t i o n f o r a b r e a c h of a n o b l i g a t i o n n o t a r i s i n g from c o n t r a c t , where t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s been g u i l t y of o p p r e s s i o n , f r a u d , o r m a l i c e , act u a l o r presumed, t h e j u r y , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a c t u a l damages, may g i v e damages f o r t h e s a k e of example, and by way of p u n i s h i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t . " From t h e numerous c a s e s c o n s t r u i n g t h i s s e c t i o n , g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s f o r i t s a p p l i c a t i o n may b e d e r i v e d . An e a r l y , y e t r e l a t i v e l y complete, statement of t h e s e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s i s found i n De C e l l e s v . Casey ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 48 Mont. 568, 576, "The amount t o b e awarded i n t h i s c l a s s of c a s e s i s lodged i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e j u r y ; b u t t h i s d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t unlimited o r t o be exercised arbitrarily. I t w i l l n o t do t o s a y t h a t t h e j u r y a r e f r e e t o make t h e measure of punishment whate v e r t h e y c h o o s e , w i t h o u t any j u s t o r r e a s o n a b l e r e l a t i o n t o t h e wrong done. N d e f i n i t e r u l e c a n o be d e c l a r e d a s t o when t h e c o u r t s h o u l d i n t e r f e r e and when i t s h o u l d n o t ; y e t s i n c e a new t r i a l may b e o r d e r e d when i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e j u r y have a c t e d under t h e i n f l u e n c e of p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e (Rev. Codes, s e c . 6 7 9 4 ) , i t f o l l o w s t h a t when t h e award i s s o l a r g e t h a t i t c a n n o t b e acc o u n t e d for on any o t h e r t h e o r y and i s wholly o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e wrong done and t h e c a u s e of i t , t h e c o n c l u s i o n i s i r r e s i s t i b l e t h a t it was measured by t h e p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e of t h e j u r y , r a t h e r t h a n by a n e s t i m a t e made i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n , and i t becomes t h e d u t y of t h e c o u r t t o set it aside." Accord, Cornner v. Hamilton ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 62 Mont. 239, 245, 204 I n d e s c r i b i n g t h e n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t s t o j u s t i f y such a n award, t h i s C o u r t a few y e a r s l a t e r s t a t e d : "A g u i l t y i n t e n t on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t s i s a n e s s e n t i a l t o c h a r g e them w i t h exemplary 'While e v e r y l e g a l wrong e n t i t l e s damages t h e p a r t y i n j u r e d t o r e c o v e r damages s u f f i c i e n t t o compensate f o r t h e i n j u r y i n f l i c t e d , n o t e v e r y l e g a l wrong e n t i t l e s t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y t o r e c o v e r exemplary damages. To w a r r a n t t h e r e c o v e r y o f s u c h damages t h e a c t complained of must n o t o n l y b e u n l a w f u l , b u t must a l s o p a r t a k e somewhat of a c r i m i n a l o r wanton n a t u r e . And s o it i s an almost u n i v e r s a l l y recognized r u l e t h a t s u c h damages may b e r e c o v e r e d i n cases, and o n l y i n s u c h c a s e s , where t h e w r o n g f u l a c t complained o f i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by some s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s of a g g r a v a t i o n a s w i l l f u l n e s s , wantonness, m a l i c e , oppression, b r u t a l i t y , i n s u l t , recklessness, gross n e g l i g e n c e , o r g r o s s f r a u d on t h e p a r t of t h e def e n d a n t . ' ( 8 R.C.L. 585, 5 8 6 . ) " L u t h e r v . Lee ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 62 Mont. 174, 179, 2 0 4 P. 365, 367. ... The j u r y may a l s o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t whether t h e a c t s complained o f a r e "of s u c h a c h a r a c t e r a s t o i n d i c a t e a r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d of t h e r i g h t s of t h e p l a i n t i f f " i n awardi n g a " r e a s o n a b l e amount" of p u n i t i v e damages. Smith B r o t h e r s Sheep Co. Mosback v . ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 65 Mont. 4 2 , 46-47, 210 P. E l a b o r a t i n g f u r t h e r on t h e c o n c e p t of m a l i c e , w e s t a t e d i n 1927 t h a t : " ' M a l i c e , a s a b a s i s f o r exemplary damages, may b e proved d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y ; t h a t i s t o s a y , by d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f t h e e v i l m o t i v e and i n t e n t o r by l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t o b e drawn from o t h e r f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n e v i d e n c e . ' ( K l i n d v . V a l l e y County Bank, 69 Mont. 386, 222 Pac. 439.) 'The t e r m " m a l i c e , " as a p p l i e d t o t o r t s , d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean that which must p r o c e e d from a s p i t e f u l , m a l i g n a n t o r r e v e n g e f u l d i s p o s i t i o n b u t a conduct i n j u r i o u s t o another, though p r o c e e d i n g from an i l l - r e g u l a t e d mind, n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y cautious before it occasions an i n j u r y t o another. I f t h e c o n d u c t of t h e d e f e n d a n t was u n j u s t i f i a b l e and a c t u a l l y c a u s e d t h e i n j u r y complained o f by p l a i n t i f f , which was a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y , m a l i c e i n l a w would b e 1 11 Ramsbacher v . i m p l i e d from s u c h c o n d u c t Hohman ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 80 Mont. 480, 487-88, 261 P . 273, 276. ... " I m p l i e d m a l i c e may be shown by proof t h a t d e f e n d a n t engaged i n a c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t knowing i t t o b e h a r m f u l and unlawful." Ferguson v . Town Pump, I n c . (1978), - Mont. I I n Ramsbacher, w e went on t o d i s c u s s t h e f a c t o r s prope r l y c o n s i d e r e d by a j u r y i n s e t t i n g t h e amount of damages and o u r f u n c t i o n i n r e v i e w i n g t h e award: "Having concluded t h e j u r y was w i t h i n i t s r i g h t s i n a l l o w i n g exemplary damages, a r i s e s t h e quest i o n , i s t h e amount a l l o w e d on e i t h e r c a u s e of a c t i o n e x c e s s i v e ? The amount w a s l a r g e l y i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e j u r y . 'The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a n award o f exemplary damages by a j u r y w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d as e x c e s s i v e , u n l e s s i t s amount, c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f a c t s , i s i n d i c a t i v e of p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e o r c o r r u p t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e j u r y . * * * The j u r y should - a k e i n t o consideration - a t t e n d a n t t. the he - -c i r c u m s t a n c e c .r s l i r h a s t---- ma1 ice - - - - Y -- or wantonness t h e mot ve f o o f -e-c t , t h e i n j u r y i n t e n d e d , --i- -r th a t h e - - manner i n which i t was comrni t t e d act, the and t h e - - d e t e r r e n t e f f e c t u p - o t:hers. * * * Ac- on is c o r d i n g - -e g e n e r a l r u l e , i t - p r o p e r f o r t o th n t h e 3 u r y - c o n s i d e r d e f e n d a n F s, w e a l t h a - d to p e c u n i a r y a b i l i t y i n f i x i n g t- 'amount o? damhe aaes.' (17 C . J . 994, 995.) There i s evidence A on a l l t h o s e p o i n t s and i t i s presumed t h e j u r y i n t h e r e s t r ai n t c o n s i d e r e d i t . 'The p u b l i c go* from wrongd o f -h e r*sot . -a- s t h e p u n i s h i s t o b e. ment o f t- h-e o f f e n d e r . - - - -con. s i d e r e d i n - -es t i m a t i exemplary damages. ' (War d v . ward, 4 1 Iowa. 61 6 - .. . 8. B a s e d on t h o s e d e t e r m i n a t i v e f a c t o r s and g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , i n t h i s s t a t e t h e r u l e i s t h a t t h e amount o f exemplary damages must b e reasonable. 'Where t h e a c t s complained of a r e shown t o b e wanton, m a l i c i o u s o r o p p r e s s i v e and o f such a c h a r a c t e r a s t o i n d i c a t e a r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e r i g h t s of t h e p l a i n t i f f , t h e j u r y , i n t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n , may award a r e a s o n a b l e amount as t h e p u n i t i v e damages, i n a d d i t i o n t o compensatory damages.' (Mosback v . Smith B r o t h e r s Sheep Co., 65 Mont. 42, 210 Pac. 910.) What was reasonable w a s f o r t h e jury t o say, s u b j e c t t o t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , upon motion f o r new t r i a l , and t h e judgment of t h i s c o u r t , upon a p p e a l . Being a m a t t e r f o r t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e j u r y , w e d o n o t see t h a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n w a s abused. W e w i l l n o t s a y t h e award is e x c e s s i v e --prejudice n o r- - - i s i n d i c a t i v e of p a s s i o n t h a t it n o r t h a t , under a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s - -nand i view --n t i f f ' s _ r s i o n of _h e c-a s e ( a c c e p t e d & - plai of ve _ t 80 Mont. the jury), it - i s even u n r e a s o n a b l e . " a t 489-90, 261 P. a t 277. (Emphasis a d d e d . ) ----I ---- - -- or - P e t r a n e k s a r g u e t h a t t h e amount o f p u n i t i v e damages p e se awarded h e r e i s -r- e x c e s s i v e b e c a u s e t h e y a r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y twenty-two t i m e s t h e amount of t h e a c t u a l damages awarded. W e r e j e c t e d any such " m a t h e m a t i c a l r a t i o " a p p r o a c h t o c a l c u l a t i n g p u n i t i v e damages i n Johnson v . Horn ( 1 9 2 9 ) , 86 Mont. 314, 318-19, 283 P. 427, 429: ". . . The c o u r t s have n o t e s t a b l i s h e d a d e f i n i t e formula t o b e f o l l o w e d i n a s c e r t a i n i n g whether a n award f o r exemplary damages i s e x c e s s i v e . A s a consequence many c o u r t s h o l d t h a t b e c a u s e a n award of p u n i t i v e damages i s t e n t i m e s t h e amount o f a c t u a l damages awarded, a s h e r e , d o e s n o t of i t s e l f d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e award i s e x c e s s i v e . "An award o f $1,000 exemplary damages m i g h t b e e x c e s s i v e under c e r t a i n f a c t s and as a g a i n s t o n e o f impoverished c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and y e t r e a s o n a b l e under d i f f e r e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s and a s a g a i n s t o n e of more f a v o r a b l e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n . " F u r t h e r , p u n i t i v e damages may b e awarded i n c a s e s where o n l y nominal a c t u a l damages a r e awarded o r even where no monetary v a l u e i s p l a c e d on t h e a c t u a l damages s u f f e r e d . Fox ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1367, 1371. Mont. , Miller v. 571 P.2d 804, 808, 34 St.Rep. I t i s t h e r e f o r e i n c o n s i s t e n t t o e s t a b l i s h some m a t h e m a t i c a l formula o r r a t i o f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f s u c h p u n i t i v e damages. W e have q u o t e d e x t e n s i v e l y from t h e s e o l d e r d e c i s i o n s (and t h e r e a r e many o t h e r s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e ) t o i l l u s t r a t e t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g t h i s a p p e a l are v e r y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d and have been c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d . Applying t h e s e time-honored p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e f a c t s a t hand, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e award o f $20,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages a g a i n s t P e t r a n e k s i s r e a s o n a b l e and s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . U n d i s p u t e d l y , P e t r a n e k s , w i t h f u l l knowledge of r e l e v a n t pending l i t i g a t i o n and g r o s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e r i g h t s and p r o p e r t y of B u t c h e r , d r o v e a r o a d g r a d e r o n t o t h e l a t t e r ' s p r o p e r t y and d e l i b e r a t e l y plowed a h a l f - m i l e l o n g , t w e l v e f o o t wide s w a t h t h r o u g h h i s growing w h e a t c r o p . The j u r y a l s o h e a r d B u t c h e r t e s t i f y t h a t , when h e r o d e up t o c o n f r o n t t h e P e t r a n e k s , George P e t r a n e k rammed h i s p i c k u p t r u c k i n t o B u t c h e r ' s h o r s e and C h a r l e s P e t r a n e k g r a b b e d a t B u t c h e r ' s l e g s a s i f t o p u l l him o f f h i s h o r s e . From t h i s s e t o f f a c t s , t h e jury w a s f u l l y e n t i t l e d t o conclude t h a t t h e Petraneks acted extremely maliciously. E n t e r i n g i n t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f damages a t t h i s p o i n t i s t h e wealth of t h e Petraneks. The j u r y w a s informed as t o t h e l a r g e h o l d i n g s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o t a l i n g more t h a n $1.5 million. I n d e t e r m i n i n g what would b e a s u i t a b l e p u n i s h m e n t ( a l e g i t i m a t e s t a t u t o r y purpose) f o r t h e a c t s of t h e P e t r a n e k s , t h e j u r y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e t h a t a n y smaller award would n o t b e s u f f i c i e n t . Such a c o n c l u s i o n was f o r t h e j u r y t o make, a f t e r l i s t e n i n g t o t h e t e s t i m o n y and w e i g h i n g t h e evidence. On a p p e a l , w e w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h a t c o n c l u s i o n . F i n a l l y , P e t r a n e k s ' a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e award of p u n i t i v e damages w a s t h e r e s u l t o f p a s s i o n o r p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e j u r y i s u n s u p p o r t e d by a n y r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r e c o r d , t o i m p r o v i d e n t r e m a r k s by c o u n s e l o r w i t n e s s e s f o r Butcher, t o i n c o r r e c t o r objectionable jury i n s t r u c t i o n s , o r t o any o t h e r source. Petraneks accept t h a t t h e jury acted r e a s o n a b l y i n a s s e s s i n g t h e t o t a l a c t u a l damages s u f f e r e d by B u t c h e r a t $925 o u t o f a p r a y e r f o r $1150. I n t h e absence o f any showing o f t h e p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f p a s s i o n o r p r e j u d i c e , i t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t t o assume t h a t a j u r y , a c t i n g r e a s o n a b l y i n a s s e s s i n g a c t u a l damages s o p r e c i s e l y , sudd e n l y was overcome by p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e i n a s s e s s i n g p u n i t i v e damages. W e concur: % J u s4 u Chief di c e% @ t J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea, deeming h i m s e l f d i s q u a l i f i e d , did not participate i n t h i s decision. Mr.

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.