BERGH v ROGERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12951 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN 1975 BEATRICE ANN BERGH, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - J O H N C. ROGERS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C . 33. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : McNamer and Thompson, B i l l i n g s , Montana Charles R. Cashmorc argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Keefer and Roybal, B i l l i n g s , Montana N e i l S. Keefer argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: May 7, 1975 Decided: j1j& 1 9 lc~qs Filed : &tJ!i L G ,37L, 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 negligence a c t i o n f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, i n November 1972. Plaintiff B e a t r i c e Ann Bergh a l l e g e d damage t o h e r v e h i c l e r e s u l t i n g from an i n t e r s e c t i o n c o l l i s i o n proximately caused by defendant John C. ~ o g e r s n e g l i g e n t o p e r a t i o n of h i s automobile. ' Defendant ans- wered and counterclaimed, a l l e g i n g t h e a c c i d e n t was proximately caused by p l a i n t i f f ' s own negligence. p l a i n t i f f ' s i n s u r e r Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s Mountain West, paid f o r t h e r e p a i r of a l l damage t o h e r v e h i c l e , o t h e r than a $25 d e d u c t i b l e . Although Mountain West thereby became subrogated t o a major p o r t i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s claim, i t was n o t named a s a party p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s action. A t t h e p r e t r i a l conference defendant f i l e d a " ~ o t i o nt o P r o h i b i t t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n of Evidence by P l a i n t i f f " based on f a i l u r e t o comply with t h e " r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t " requirement of Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. That motion was granted and p l a i n t i f f ' s subsequent motion f o r l e a v e t o amend t h e complaint by j o i n i n g Mountain West a s a p l a i n t i f f was denied. granted d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r d i s m i s s a l . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t then That d i s m i s s a l o p e r a t e s a s a b a r t o f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n s i n c e t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s has run on t h i s claim. This a p p e a l , taken from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g s and i t s f i n a l judgment i n favor of defendant, c e n t e r s on a s i n g l e i s s u e : Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n denying p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r leave t o j o i n an a d d i t i o n a l p a r t y p l a i n t i f f ? Consideration of t h a t i s s u e n e c e s s a r i l y involves Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., which provides: "Every a c t i o n s h a l l b e prosecuted i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . N o a c t i o n s h a l l b e dismissed on t h e ground t h a t i t i s n o t prosecuted i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t u n t i l a r e a s o n a b l e time has been allowed a f t e r o b j e c t i o n f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of commencement of t h e a c t i o n by, o r j o i n d e r o r substitution of, the r e a l party i n interest; and such r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , o r s u b s t i t u t i o n s h a l l have t h e same e f f e c t a s i f t h e a c t i o n had been commenced i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . 1I *** The p a r t i e s h e r e a g r e e t h a t Mountain West was a r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t and t h i s C o u r t ' s r e c e n t d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e ex r e l . Mon t Slovak v. D i s t r i c t Court, Rep. 420, compels t h a t conclusion. . , 534 P.2d 850, 32 S t . Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., is therefore c l e a r l y applicable. The Advisory Committee's n o t e s accompanying Rule 17(a) a r e h e l p f u l i n determining t h e proper c o n s t r u c t i o n t o be given t h e language contained t h e r e i n . The Advisory Committee's n o t e t o t h e September 29, 1967, amendment t o Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., states: "The p r o v i s i o n t h a t no a c t i o n s h a l l be dismissed on t h e ground t h a t i t i s n o t prosecuted i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t u n t i l a r e a s o n a b l e time has been allowed a f t e r t h e o b j e c t i o n has been r a i s e d f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n , e t c . , keeps pace w i t h modem d e c i s i o n s which, i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e , a r e i n c l i n e d t o be l e n i e n t when an honest mistake has been made i n choosing t h e p a r t y i n whose name t h e a c t i o n i s f i l e d . " That language c l e a r l y draws on t h e comments t o t h e comparable f e d e r a l r u l e which noted t h a t t h e amendment was an a t t e m p t " t o c o d i f y i n broad t e r m s t h e s a l u t a r y p r i n c i p l e of Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U.S. 648 (1953), and Link A v i a t i o n , I n c . v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613 (D.C.Cir.1963)." Amendment t o Fed.R.Civ.P., Advisory Committee Notes t o 1966 Rule 1 7 ( a ) , 12 Wright & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and Procedure, p. 398. Our review of t h e language o f t h e r u l e , t h e a d v i s o r y committee n o t e s t o both t h e f e d e r a l and Montana r u l e s , and t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n l e a d u s t o conclude t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e r e e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w j o i n d e r of a r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t - t h e subrogated i n s u r a n c e company, Mountain West. The f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n h e r e i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t i n Link Aviation Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613, 615, when i t considered t h e amendment t o Rule 1 7 ( a ) and a p p l i e d i t t o t h o s e f a c t s by holding: "* * * though brought i n t h e name of t h e i n s u r e d s , t h i s s u i t was n o t a n u l l i t y , s i n c e , a s we h o l d , i t was brought f o r t h e u s e of t h e r e a l p a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t , It was t h u s n o t so l a c k i n g i n v a l i d i t y a s t o f u r n i s h no s u p p o r t f o r a motion t o b r i n g i t i n t o compliance w i t h Rule 1 7 ( a ) . Any o t h e r r u l e would b e h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l without meaningful purpose. The complaint a l l e g e d i n j u r y a t t h e hands of defendants. The s u i t was t o r e c o v e r t h e r e f o r , That t h e r e c o v e r y , i f made, would i n u r e n o t t o t h e b e n e f i t of t h e nominal p l a i n t i f f s , b u t t o t h a t of t h e i n s u r e r s because t h e y had made t h e p l a i n t i f f s whole, d i d n o t d e p r i v e t h e s u i t of a s t a t u s which enabled t h e i n s u r e r s t o s u b s t i t u t e themselves a s p l a i n t i f f s and c o n t i n u e t h e s u i t i n t h e i r own names i n compldilnce w i t h Rule 1 7 ( a ) . For u s ' T O hold otherwise would b e n o t h i n g l e s s than a narrow and i l l - g r o u n d e d c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e r u l e s of c i v i l procedure n o t i n harmony w i t h t h e i r i n t e n t and purpose. ' [ C i t i n g c a s e s 1" The c o u r t reached t h a t h o l d i n g even though t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s had run on p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m , s i m i l a r t o t h e s i t u a t i o n here. p l a i n t i f f ' s motion h e r e should have been g r a n t e d by t h e d i s t r i c t court. Since t h e judgment e n t e r e d h e r e i n was p r e d i c a t e d , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , on t h e absence of a r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , we r e v e r s e and remand f o r f u r t h e r proceedings consistent with t h i s opinion. Justice W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e (xJJ' JUS tices . - - hF
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.
