HOLBROOK v FORSMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12728 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 RANDY H L R O , OBO K -VS P l a i n t i f f and Cross-Def endant and Respondent, - CLAIRE FORSMAN, Defendant and C r o s s - P l a i n t i f f and Appellant. CLAIRE FORSMAN, -vs P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, - RANDY HOLBROOK , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Knight, Dahood, MacKay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade J. Dahood argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Burgess, Joyce, Prothero, Whelan and ~ ' ~ e a r y , Butte, Montana John Whelan argued, Butte, Montana Allen McKenzie appeared, Butte, Montana Submitted: A p r i l 11, 1975 Decided : JUN 6 - 1975 Hon. W. W. L e s s l e y , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r 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 o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s from t h e d e n i a l of la in tiff's motion f o r 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 by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , The j u r y found b o t h p a r t i e s n e g l i g e n t and d e n i e d Deer Lodge County. relief. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h e judgment. The f a c t s a r e n o t complex. October 3 , 1968, a t a b o u t 9:10 a.m., I n Anaconda, Montana, on p l a i n t i f f C l a i r e Forsman was t r a v e l i n g on T h i r d S t r e e t from west t o e a s t ; d e f e n d a n t Randy Holbrook was t r a v e l i n g on Hickory S t r e e t from s o u t h t o n o r t h ; a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f Hickory S t r e e t w i t h T h i r d S t r e e t t h e vehicles collided. The f r o n t o f vehicle. Both s t r e e t s were d r y and t h e w e a t h e r c l e a r . la in tiff's c a r s t r u c k t h e l e f t s i d e of d e f e n d a n t ' s A f t e r impact d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r c o n t i n u e d on t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , o v e r t h e s t r e e t c u r b and s i d e w a l k , t h r o u g h a f e n c e , and s t r u c k a house. p l a i n t i f f ' s c a r spun c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e and ended f a c i n g west i n t h e westbound l a n e . A r e l e v a n t f a c t o f t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n c o l l i s i o n was t h e m i s s i n g s t o p s i g n f o r t r a f f i c a p p r o a c h i n g from t h e s o u t h ; t h e s i g n was n o r m a l l y t h e r e . F u r t h e r , i t was a d m i t t e d t h a t Anaconda h a s a s p e e d l i m i t o r d i n a n c e of 15 m.p.h. m.p.h. a t i n t e r s e c t i o n s and 25 on a l l c i t y s t r e e t s . P l a i n t i f f Forsman c o n t e n d s d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y i s t o t a l l y absurd; t h i s i s s o , she s a y s , because h i s testimony i n d i c a t e s h e would have t r a v e l e d o n l y 10 f e e t , w h i l e s h e w a s t r a v e l i n g 80 t o 90 f e e t a t t h e same t i m e . Forsman f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h r e e e y e w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t was g o i n g between 35 and 50 m.p.h.; m.p.h."; one e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d p l a i n t i f f was d o i n g "about 15 t h a t s h e e n t e r e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n a t 15 m.p.h., looked t o t h e r i g h t and d i d n o t s e e any v e h i c l e a p p r o a c h i n g w i t h i n a distance t h a t would be t r a v e r s e d by a v e h i c l e d r i v e n a t a speed p e r m i t t e d by law. She a l s o contends defendant cannot r e l y on s e c t i o n 32-2170, R.C.M. 1947, g r a n t i n g a p r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d r i v e r on t h e r i g h t , s i n c e b o t h v e h i c l e s d i d n o t approach t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n a t approximately t h e same time. Forsman f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h e j u r y not could/disregard her u n c o n t r a d i c t e d testimony when t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o r e f l e c t unfavorably on h e r c r e d i b i l i t y ; and t h a t t h e evidence e s t a b l i s h e s a wanton and r e c k l e s s e n t r y i n t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n by d e f e n d a n t . F i n a l l y Forsman a r g u e s t h a t even i f s h e was exceeding t h e speed l i m i t t h e e x c e s s speed of t h e defendant was t h e s o l e proximate c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t ; t h a t she was on a through s t r e e t and t h a t where a s t o p s i g n h a s been removed o r obscured, t h e m o t o r i s t on t h e through s t r e e t i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on a favored s t a t u s . Defendant Holbrook contends t h a t p l a i n t i f f was i n c l e a r v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 32-2170, R.C.M. 1947, s i n c e d e f e n d a n t , b e i n g t h e o p e r a t o r of t h e v e h i c l e on t h e r i g h t , h a d t h e r i g h t of way and i t was p l a i n t i f f ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o y i e l d . He i n s i s t s , under t h e f a c t s , t h a t p l a i n t i f f i s g u i l t y of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e a s a m a t t e r of law. He f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u r y had s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o f i n d p l a i n t i f f g u i l t y of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i n f a i l i n g t o keep a proper lookout f o r t r a f f i c approaching t h e intersection. Defendant m a i n t a i n s p l a i n t i f f ' s t h e o r y t h a t she was on a through s t r e e t and t h e r e f o r e enjoyed a favored s t a t u s i s a new t h e o r y never advanced i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and cannot be argued on a p p e a l . D e f e n d a n t ' s concluding argument was t h a t where t h e evidence i s c o n f l i c t i n g t h i s Court must a c c e p t t h e evidence i n t h e r e c o r d 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 ; and, f u r t h e r , t h a t h i s testimony was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h p l a i n t i f f ' s contributory negligence. The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s of t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n c o l l i s i o n were n e g l i g e n t . The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t l e f t them where t h e y were a t t h e s t a r t of t h i s double law s u i t . W f i n d c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence. e I n such c a s e s t h i s Court may o n l y review t h e evidence f o r t h e purpose of d e t e r m i n i n g i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . Strong v. Williams, 154 Mont. 65, 460 P.2d 90. The r e c o r d shows s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o f i n d Forsman c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t f o r h e r f a i l u r e t o keep a proper lookout f o r t r a f f i c approaching t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n . s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h i s m a t t e r i n c o u r t ' s The t r i a l c o u r t i n i n s t r u c t i o n No. 24, o f f e r e d by p l a i n t i f f a s h e r proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 16. Our p o s i t i o n i s even s t r o n g e r , where, a s h e r e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n i t s o r d e r denying 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 i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h e motion f o r new t r i a l , found s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . W do n o t c o n s i d e r E'orsman's e favored s t a t u s t h e o r y , i n t h a t i t i s p r e s e n t e d h e r e on a p p e a l f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t l e f t b o t h p a r t i e s i n t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n . W a g r e e and l e a v e them where t h e j u r y d i d - - - i n e the intersection. W affirm. e ;7 . i - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - Hon. W.W.Lessley, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. W Concur: e I Justices. I
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.
