HALSEY v UITHOF

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12376 I N THE SUPRLWE COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN DORIS HALSN, A d m i n i s t r a t r i x of t h e E s t a t e of Richard Halsey, Deceased, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, ALBERT H. UITHOF, d / b / a GOLDEN STATE TRANSPORT, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : J a r d i n e , Stephenson, Blewett and Weaver, Great F a l l s , Montana J a c k L. Lewis and John H. Weaver argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For ~ e s p o n d e n t s : Hoyt and Bottomly, Great F a l l s , Montana Richard V . Bottomly appeared and John C. Hoyt argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: November 15, 1974 Decided: FE$ r 4 i d -4 + ;:,Ts 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 O p i n i o n o f t h e Court Mr. . I n t h i s a c t i o n defendant A l b e r t H. Uithof secured a j u r y v e r d i c t i n h i s f a v o r a f t e r a n i n e day t r i a l a r i s i n g from a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t which o c c u r r e d i n G l a c i e r County. Sub- s e q u e n t l y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f G l a c i e r County g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f s a new t r i a l . From t h i s o r d e r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t appeals. S u i t was i n i t i a t e d by R i c h a r d H a l s e y , a g a i n s t o n e David McWhirk, d r i v e r o f t h e t r u c k t h a t h i t H a l s e y ' s t r u c k , a n d A l b e r t N. U i t h o f , owner o f a t r u c k s t a l l e d on t h e highway, t o r e c o v e r damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f a b i z a r r e s e r i e s of motor v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t s . P r i o r t o t r i a l , Halsey d i e d of h i s i n j u r i e s ; h i s widow was s u b s t i t u t e d a s p l a i n t i f f . During t h e t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f s e t t l e d w i t h McWhirk f o r $100,000. the H e r e , d u e t o / c o m p l e x i t y and t h e volumes o f f a c t s p r e s e n t e d , i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o l i s t t h e p e o p l e i n v o l v e d and t h e i r p o s i t i o n . : Anderson-------- Montana Highway P a t r o l m a n . Bryant---------- P a s s e n g e r i n McWhirk t r u c k . Byington-------- Driver of d i s a b l e d Uithof t r u c k . Halsey---------- P l a i n t i f f a n d d r i v e r o f s e c o n d westbound truck t o pass the disabled truck. Harris---------- Truck d r i v e r who came upon d i s a b l e d t r u c k e a r l y i n t h e morning. Hermance-------- D r i v e r o f f i r s t westbound t r u c k t o p a s s disabled truck, j u s t before t h e accident. McWhirk--------- D r i v e r of e a s t b o u n d t r u c k i n v o l v e d i n a c c i d e n t w i t h Halsey. Uithof---------- D e f e n d a n t and owner of d i s a b l e d t r u c k . Uphams---------- Man a n d w i f e who were i n e a s t b o u n d c a r r e a r ended by Walker v e h i c l e . r&alkers--------- Man a n d w i f e a n d c h i l d i n v e h i c l e which h i t t h e Upham v e h i c l e . E a r l y i n t h e morning December 22, 1 9 7 0 , a l o a d e d t a n k t r u c k owned by U i t h o f a n d d r i v e n by B y i n g t o n , s t a l l e d some 804 f e e t east a n d d o w n h i l l from t h e t o p of Whiskey J o h n h i l l l o c a t e d w e s t o f Browning, Montana. The w e a t h e r was below z e r o , snow was b l o w i n g o v e r t h e r o a d i n t o t h e d i t c h e s , t h e r e were some i c e s p o t s on t h e s t r e t c h o f r o a d b u t f o r t h e most p a r t t h e r o a d was hare. A f t e r t h e t r u c k s t a l l e d , B y i n g t o n c h e c k e d a s t o why i t s t a l l e d a n d found a b r o k e n c l u t c h . c l u t c h without success. H e attempted t o r e p a i r t h e A t a b o u t 3:15 a.m. a fellow trucker, H a r r i s , stopped and t r i e d u n s u c c e s s f u l l y t o r e p a i r t h e Uithof truck. H a r r i s o f f e r e d t o t a k e Byington i n t o E a s t G l a c i e r , Montana, t h e n e x t town w e s t , b u t B y i n g t o n s t a y e d w i t h t h e t r u c k continuing t o t r y t o r e p a i r it. a.m., Two h o u r s l a t e r , a t a b o u t 5:00 he c a u g h t a r i d e i n t o E a s t G l a c i e r w i t h t h e f i r s t v e h i c l e going e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n a f t e r t h e H a r r i s t r u c k departed. G l a c i e r h e c a l l e d a mechanic. A t East When h i s t r u c k s t a l l e d , B y i n g t o n s e t o u t t h r e e r e f l e c t o r s t o warn oncoming t r a f f i c . One r e f l e c t o r was p l a c e d some 250 f e e t w e s t and i n f r o n t o f t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . H e d i d n o t p u t o u t r e d f l a g s which h e had i n a k i t i n t h e t r u c k . The t r u c k had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n r e p a i r e d a t C u t Bank, Montanra, s o t h e mechanic h e c a l l e d was a t C u t Bank, some 40 m i l e s e a s t of t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . T h a t mechanic s u g g e s t e d h e c o n t a c t a mechanic i n E a s t G l a c i e r f i r s t and t h i s c o n t a c t was made between t h e h o u r s o f 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. A t a b o u t 8:00 a.m. Eyington and t h e mechanic went o u t and a t t e m p t e d t o r e p a i r t h e t r u c k w i t h o u t success. B y i n g t o n t h e n r e t u r n e d t o E a s t G l a c i e r where h e a g a i n c a l l e d t h e mechanic i n Cut Bank a t a b o u t 9:45 a.m., t h a t h e come o u t t o s e r v i c e t h e t r u c k . Bank a t 1 0 : O O a.m. requesting The mechanic l e f t C u t and a r r i v e d i n E a s t G l a c i e r an hour l a t e r where h e p i c k e d up B y i n g t o n and t o o k him b a c k t o t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . A f t e r t r y i n g u n s u c c e s s f u l l y t o r e p a i r t h e t r u c k , t h e y s e n t word i n t o Browning, t h e n e a r e s t town, t o c a l l t h e highway p a t r o l o r the sheriff for assistance. By t h i s t i m e o f d a y , between 1 1 : O O a.m. and 1 2 : O O noon, t h e e a s t - w e s t t r a f f i c on t h e highway had begun t o i n c r e a s e . A t a b o u t 11:30 a.m. Eyington and t h e mechanic went i n t o Browning where Byington c o n t a c t e d t h e c i t y p o l i c e and had them c a l l Highway Patrolman Anderson, and a t a b o u t t h e same t i m e he a g a i n c a l l e d Cut Bank t o g e t a wrecker from t h e G e t t e r T r u c k i n g Co., t o come and remove t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . H e remained i n Brown- i n g u n t i l t h e wrecker from Cut Bank a r r i v e d a t a b o u t 1 : 3 0 p.m.; he t h e n went back t o t h e t r u c k o n l y t o f i n d t h a t a series of a c c i d e n t s had o c c u r r e d . Highway Patrolman Anderson who was s t a t i o n e d i n E a s t G l a c i e r , r e c e i v e d a c a l l n o t i f y i n g him o f t h e d i s a b l e d t r u c k a t a b o u t 11:45 a . m . p.m. H e a r r i v e d a t t h e t r u c k l o c a t i o n a b o u t 12:15 and t r i e d t o d i r e c t t r a f f i c f o r t e n o r f i f t e e n m i n u t e s w i t h o u t t o o much s u c c e s s . Before l e a v i n g t h e s c e n e he moved t h e r e f l e c t o r p l a c e d by Byington w e s t of t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k , t o a p o i n t on t h e h i l l c r e s t where he f e l t it would warn e a s t b o u n d traffic. N e i t h e r Byington o r Anderson p u t o u t any f l a g s , a l t h o u g h b o t h t h e t r u c k and t h e p a t r o l c a r were equipped w i t h them. A t a b o u t 12:30 p.m. Anderson went i n t o Browning, some t h r e e t o f o u r m i l e s e a s t of t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k , t o g e t a s s i s t a n c e t o f l a g t r a f f i c u n t i l t h e wrecker c o u l d a r r i v e . During t h e n e x t f i f t e e n t o twenty m i n u t e s t h e s c e n e on t h e e a s t s l o p e o f Whiskey John h i l l changed. F i r s t , on t h e s c e n e coming o v e r t h e h i l l c r e s t from t h e w e s t came t h e Upham c a r cont a i n i n g M r . and M r s . Donald Upham. Rambler. They w e r e d r i v i n g a 1968 They had s t a r t e d from E a s t G l a c i e r and p r i o r t o l e a v i n g had been informed by a son t h a t t h e r e was a s t a l l e d t r u c k on t h e r o a d between t h e r e and Browning. They d e s c r i b e d t h e r o a d c o n d i - t i o n s a s good, c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t i t was w i n t e r t i m e , and t h e y d r o v e a t a speed of from 55 t o 6 0 m i l e s p e r h o u r , b e f o r e coming t o t h e L o c a t i o n of t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . Upon coming o v e r t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l t h e y saw t h e r e f l e c t o r p l a c e d by Anderson and slowed down t o a b o u t 2 5 m i l e s p e r h o u r . When t h e y g o t some 100 f e e t down from t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l , t h e y saw a westbound t r u c k d r i v e n by Hermance g o i n g a r o u n d t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k f u r t h e r down t h e h i l l , s o they stopped i n t h e i r l a n e , t h e eastbound l a n e , t o l e t t h e Hermance t r u c k p a s s t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k . Just a t that t i m e , t h e Walker c a r came o v e r t h e h i l l t r a v e l i n g e a s t and r a n i n t o t h e r e a r end o f t h e s t o p p e d Upham c a r . The Uphams saw t h e Walker c a r , knew i t w a s g o i n g t o h i t thern, s o t h e y were a b l e t o b r a c e t h e m s e l v e s and t h e r e b y a v o i d e d serious injury. Walker was r e t u r n i n g f r o m t h e w e s t t o Browning w i t h h i s w i f e and s o n . H e t e s t i f i e d h e had been d r i v i n g a b o u t 6 0 m i l e s p e r hour b u t t h a t a t t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l h e saw t h e r e f l e c t o r a n d slowed down. A t a b o u t t h e t i m e of t h e r e a r end a c c i d e n t between t h e Upham c a r and t h e Walker c a r , t h e Hermance t r u c k was a b r e a s t o f t h e two c a r s a n d i n i t s p r o p e r l a n e . It went t o t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l , s t o p p e d a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d r i v e r Hermance, h e t u r n e d o n h i s l i g h t s a n d b l i n k e r s and t h e n t r i e d t o s t o p a t r u c k d r i v e n by McWhirk which was coming o v e r t h e c r e s t of t h e h i l l e a s t b o u n d a t from 4 5 t o 60 m i l e s p e r h o u r . McWhirt d e n i e d t h a t Hermance's w a r n i n g l i g h t s w e r e o n , b u t acknowl e d g e s t h a t Hermance d i d wave a t him. McWhirt's father-in-law p a s s e n g e r i n McWhirt's t r u c k . B r y a n t , a l s o a t r u c k e r , was a They saw t h e r e f l e c t o r a s t h e y p a s s e d o v e r t h e c r e s t o f t h e h i l l b u t s a i d i t was l y i n g down on t h e highway. They o b s e r v e d b o t h l a n e s o f t h e highway b l o c k e d so McWhirt a t t e m p t e d t o go t o t h e n o r t h s i d e o f t h e highway and u s e t h e borrow p i t , b u t i n d o i n g s o h i s t r a i l e r s k i d d e d i n t o a t h i r d westbound t r u c k d r i v e n by H a l s e y , which was t h e immediate a a u s e of H a l s e y ' s i n j u r i e s and r e s u l t i n g d e a t h . One o t h e r eastbound v e h i c l e , r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e p i c k u p w i t h two young men i n i t , a r r i v e d e i t h e r j u s t b e f o r e t h e McWhirtHalsey a c c i d e n t o r j u s t a f t e r , b u t e x c e p t f o r h e l p i n g o u t a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t t h e y were n o t i n v o l v e d . The i s s u e s a s s i g n e d f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e s e v e r a l , b u t t h e p r i m a r y i s s u e i s whether o r n o t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . Other i s s u e s are: 1. May a d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r t a i n and g r a n t a motion f o r new t r i a l when t h e motion f a i l s t o s t a t e " w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e grounds t h e r e f o r " a s r e q u i r e d by Rule 7 ( b ) ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P.? 2. Should t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t have been g r a n t e d ? 3. I f any e r r o r o r d e f e c t o c c u r r e d a t t r i a l , was s u c h e r r o r o r d e f e c t o f a n a t u r e which a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of p l a i n t i f f s o t h a t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t was i n c o n s i s t e n t with s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e ? d i s t r i c t court , i n granting I n o t h e r words, d i d t h e new t r i a l , f a i l adhere the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 6 1 , M.R.Civ.P.? F o r t h e p a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s t h i s C o u r t h a s been c a l l i n g t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e bench and b a r t o i t s c o n c e r n w i t h t h e f a i l u r e of t r i a l c o u r t s t o s t a t e r e a s o n s f o r t h e g r a n t i n g of new trials. Beebe v . Johnson, Mont . , 526 P.2d 1 2 8 , 3 1 St.Rep. 702; Haynes v . County of M i s s o u l a , 163 Mont. 270, 517 P.2d 370, 30 St.Rep. 1083; Campeau v . Lewis, 1 4 4 Mont. 543, 398 P.2d 960. Here, p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l was m e r e l y s e t f o r t h i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n a r y language of s e c t i o n 93-5603, 1947. T h a t motion s t a t e d : " I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e p l a i n t i f f moves t h e c o u r t f o r a n o r d e r v a c a t i n g and s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y and g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f a new t r i a l i n t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d c a u s e upon t h e following grounds, t o w i t : R.C.M. " ( 1 ) I r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s of t h e c o u r t , o r d e r s of t h e c o u r t and a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e c o u r t by which p l a i n t i f f s were p r e v e n t e d from having a f a i r t r i a l . " ( 2 ) I n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e v e r d i c t o r o t h e r d e c i s i o n , o r t h a t it i s a g a i n s t t h e law. " ( 3 ) E r r o r i n law o c c u r r i n g a t t h e t r i a l and e x c e p t e d t o by t h e p l a i n t i f f . ' ' T h i s wording i s a l m o s t an e x a c t r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e wording of s u b s e c t i o n s 1, 6 and 7 , s e c t i o n 93-5603, R.C.M. 1947, which d e t a i l s t h e c a u s e s f o r which a new t r i a l may be g r a n t e d . 7 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. Rule p r o v i d e s t h a t such m o t i o n s s h a l l " s t a t e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e grounds t h e r e f o r * * *." p r o v i d e s f o r t h e g r a n t i n g of such a motion. Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., Hereafter a statement of t h e grounds i n t h e language of t h e s t a t u t e w i l l be i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f a new t r i a l . While motions s u b s t a n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h i s motion have been p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t and t h e c o n t e n t s have n o t been c h a l l e n g e d o r found i n s u f f i c i e n t , i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., i s i n t h e p r o c e s s of b e i n g changed t o r e q u i r e t r i a l c o u r t s t o s t a t e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e grounds f o r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , t h e t i m e h a s come t o r e q u i r e a s i m i l a r r e q u i r e m e n t be p l a c e d on t h e moving p a r t y . Rule 7 ( b ) (1), M.R.Civ.P., requires t h a t t h e grounds f o r any motion, i n c l u d i n g a motion f o r new t r i a l , be s t a t e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y : "(1) An a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e c o u r t f o r a n o r d e r s h a l l be by motion which, u n l e s s made d u r i n g a h e a r i n q o r t r i a l , s h a l l be made i n w r i t i n g , s h a l l s t a t e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e qrounds t h e r e f o r , and s h a l l s e t f o r t h t h e r e l i e f o r o r d e r s o u g h t . The r e q u i r e m e n t of w r i t i n g i s f u l f i l l e d i f t h e motion i s s t a t e d i n a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g of t h e motion." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) T h i s Court i n M a r t e l l o v. Darlow and Lovely, 1 5 1 Mont. 232, 235, 4 4 1 P.2d 175, s p e a k i n g of s e c t i o n 93-5603, said : R.C.M. 1947, "To a u t h o r i z e g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , t h e e r r o r complained o f m u s t b e a n e r r o r ' m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t i n g t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of [ t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y ] ' ( s e c t i o n 93-5603, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) and t h e e r r o r must b e o f s u c h c h a r a c t e r t h a t r e f u s a l t o g r a n t a new t r i a l ' a p p e a r s t o t h e Court i n c o n s i s t e n t with s u b s t a n t i a l justice.' ( R u l e 6 1 , I4.R.Civ.P.) In other words, i f t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y a r e n o t prejudiced, only 'harmless e r r o r ' i s i n v o l v e d n o t a u t h o r i z i n g a new t r i a l t o be g r a n t e d . Within t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n t o q r a n t a new t r i a l a n d w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d e x c e p t f o r a b u s e t h e r e o f . [Citing cases] " H e r e , w e f i n d t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l was i n a d e q u a t e and d e f e c t i v e i n i t s e s s e n t i a l r e s p e c t s i n t h a t it f a i l e d t o m e e t t h e recognized s t a t u t o r y requirements. A p p e l l a n t ' s i s s u e two q u e s t i o n s w h e t h e r o r n o t a p p e l l a n t was e n t i t l e d t o a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t b e c a u s e o f i n d e p e n d e n t i n t e r vening causes. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t even i f B y i n g t o n o r U i t h o f w e r e n e g l i g e n t , t h a t s u c h n e g l i g e n c e , i f a n y , was n o t t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e McWhirk-Halsey a c c i d e n t i n t h a t i t was s u p e r c e d e d by t h e i n t e r v e n i n g n e g l i g e n c e o f Walker a n d McWhirk; t h a t t h e s t a l l e d t r u c k d i d n o t h i n g more t h a n f u r n i s h a c o n d i t i o n by which t h e i n j u r y occurred a s t h e r e s u l t o f a subsequent independent act of a t h i r d p e r s o n ; and t h e f a c t t h a t B y i n g t o n f a i l e d t o s e t f l a g s 1 0 0 f e e t i n f r o n t o f h i s s t a l l e d v e h i c l e was a t most a r e m o t e c a u s e , f o r t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d more t h a n 100 f e e t i n f r o n t of t h e s t a l l e d truck. A p p e l l a n t f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t Walker and McWhirk w e r e negligent i n t h a t they w e r e driving too f a s t t o stop within t h e i r c l e a r r a n g e o f v i s i o n which, a l l e g e d l y , was 6 4 5 f e e t f r o m t h e stalled truck. Further, t h a t Byington's f a i l u r e t o a n t i c i p a t e Waiker and McWhirk's n e g l i g e n c e i s n o t n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t o f Byington. The q u e s t i o n t h e n i s : Was t h e r e a n i n d e p e n d e n t i n - tervening act? Respondent a r g u e s t h a t any i n t e r v e n i n g a c t must h e t h e wrongful a c t of a n o t h e r , and t h a t no n e g l i g e n c e w a s shown by McWhirk; f u r t h e r , t h a t Byington d i d n o t have t o f o r e s e e t h e e x a c t consequences of t h e a c c i d e n t , b u t t h a t some i n j u r y would o c c u r from t h e s t a l l e d v e h i c l e , and t h a t t h e r e c a n be more t h a n o n e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of a n i n j u r y and i f t h e i n t e r v e n i n g a c t s a r e f o r s e e a b l e t o a r e a s o n a b l e man, t h e n it i s n o t a n independe n t intervening cause. W a g r e e w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t where o n e h a s n e g l i e g e n t l y c a u s e d a c o n d i t i o n of d a n g e r , h e i s n o t r e l i e v e d of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r damage c a u s e d t o a n o t h e r m e r e l y because t h e i n j u r y a l s o i n v o l v e d t h e l a t e r misconduct of someone e l s e . But, t h i s i s t r u e only i f both negligent a c t s a r e i n f a c t concurring proxi- mate c a u s e s of t h e i n j u r y ; and it i s n o t t r u e i f t h e l a t e r negl i g e n c e i s a n i n d e p e n d e n t , i n t e r v e n i n g s o l e c a u s e of t h e i n c i dent. Boepple v . Mohalt, 1 0 1 Mont. 417, 54 P.2d 857. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e n e g l i g e n c e i n c r e a t i n g a h a z a r d ( t h e t r u c k s t a l l e d on t h e highway) was a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e a c c i d e n t , t h i s t e s t i s t o be a p p l i e d : Did t h e wrongful a c t , i n a n a t u r a l c o n t i n u o u s sequence of e v e n t s , which m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d t o f o l l o w , produce t h e i n j u r y ? I f s o , it i s a c o n c u r r i n g p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y even though t h e l a t e r n e g l i g e n t a c t of a n o t h e r [Walker and McWhirk] c o o p e r a t e d t o cause it. On t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e l a t t e r ' s a c t of n e g l i g e n c e i n c a u s i n g t h e a c c i d e n t was of such a c h a r a c t e r a s n o t r e a s o n a b l y t o be e x p e c t e d t o happen i n t h e n a t u r a l sequence of e v e n t s , t h e n s u c h l a t e r a c t of n e g l i g e n c e i s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t , i n t e r v e n i n g c a u s e and t h e r e f o r e t h e s o l e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r y . i s o n v . United S t a t e s , 267 F.Supp. Mont. 544, 437 P.2d 630; Jim- 674; Sumner v . Amacher, 150 DeVerniero v . Eby, 159 Mont. 146, 496 P.2d 290; Ford v. Rupple, 1 6 1 Mont. 56, 504 P.2d 686; Brandenburger v . Toyota Motor S a l e s , , Mont - ,- 513 P.2d 268; 3 0 . S t . R e p . 808. Applying the foregoing test to the instant situation, it was reasonable to foresee that the eastbound drivers [Walker and McWhirk] would see the truck parked on the highway. Considering Montana's case law and the federal court views on our law, this Court again finds that abstract foreseeability is not sufficient to meet the requirements of proximate cause. Applying Jimison here, appellant was not obliged to foresee or anticipate that either Walker or McWhirk would come over the hill at such speeds that they could not stop within the assured clear distance ahead of them. Neither was appellant obliged to foresee that Walker would continue over the hill without braking after seeing the reflector at the top and should have realized there might be trouble on the other side. All of this leads to the conviction that the district court should have granted appellant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of respondent's case-in-chief. We have reviewed the various other issues raised by appellant but confine our decision to issues one and two as controlling. Accordingly, the order of the court granting respond- ent a new trial is vacated and set aside. The jury verdict in favor of appellant and the judgment are affirmed. Justic We copcur: * C I , br--L .,- . < .

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.