OLTZ v TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U S A
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12667 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA OR F F 1974 TAFFORD E. OLTZ , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , T Y T M T R SALES, U.S.A., O O A OO Inc., and T Y T M T R COMPANY, LTD. , O O A OO Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : F o r Appellant : Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana Lyman H. Bennett, Jr., argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Berg, Angel, Andriolo and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Charles F. Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: November 20, 1974 Decided : %B 1 8 1975 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a summary judgment and o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County. This a c t i o n i s a s e q u e l t o Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor S a l e s , U.S.A., Court on August 7 , 1973, and r e p o r t e d i n I n c . , decided by t h i s Mon - t. 9 513 P.2d 268, 30 St.Rep. 808. I n h i s complaint p l a i n t i f f Tafford O l t z sought damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s and p r o p e r t y damage s u f f e r e d i n t h e same a c c i d e n t involved i n Brandenburger. Recovery was p r e d i c a t e d on an a l l e g e d breach of implied w a r r a n t i e s of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y and f i t n e s s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r purpose, n e g l i g e n c e , and s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t . The a c t i o n was submitted t o t h e c o u r t on t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e Brandenburger c a s e and t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n t h a t c a s e . Both p a r t i e s r e q u e s t e d summary judgment, and t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d defendants' motion. Defendants Toyota argue t h a t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n Brandenburger f i n d i n g O l t z g u i l t y of g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e which c o n t r i b u t e d t o rand en burger's d e a t h i s r e s j u d i c a t a on t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether O l t z was g u i l t y of any n e g l i g e n t a c t which c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e a c c i d e n t . It i s p l a i n t i f f ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t a judgment i n f a v o r of a p l a i n t i f f i n an a c t i o n a g a i n s t two o r more defendants i s n o t r e s j u d i c a t a o r c o n c l u s i v e a s t o t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e d e f e n d a n t s among themselves i n a subsequent a c t i o n between them, u n l e s s t h o s e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s were e x p r e s s l y put i n i s s u e i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n by a c r o s s c l a i m o r o t h e r a d v e r s a r y pleading o r such i s s u e s were t r i e d by consent and determined by judgment i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n . The d i f f i c u l t y i n p l a i n t i f f ' s p o s i t i o n on appeal i s t h a t he chose t o p u t h i s c a s e t o d e c i s i o n by a r e q u e s t f o r a summary judgment i n h i s f a v o r based on Brandenburger. The v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y and t h e d e c i s i o n of t h i s Court i n Brandenburger certain controlling facts. a r e r e s j u d i c a t a on The f a c t s e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h a t c a s e a r e : That O l t z was found g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of h i s v e h i c l e and t h a t such n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t e d t o rande en burger's d e a t h . The e f f e c t of t h i s d e c i s i o n i s t h a t i t i s r e s j u d i c a t a t o a l l p a r t i e s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i n t h a t O l t z was g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t and c o n t r i b u t e d of t o t h e d e a t h l ~ r a n d e n b u r g e rand Toyota was e i t h e r g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e manufacture and d e s i g n o r t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was i n a d e f e c t i v e and unreasonably u n s a f e c o n d i t i o n , e i t h e r of which c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e d e a t h of Brandenburger. W have no way o f knowing upon which e t h e o r y t h e j u r y found a g a i n s t Toyota i n Brandenburger. A s between t h e p a r t i e s h e r e , t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Branden- burger made no d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t s were s t r i c t l y l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f f o r any i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d by him. b e f o r e t h e Court. That i s s u e was n o t The d e c i s i o n of t h i s Court found t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t was a p p l i c a b l e i n Montana; t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s given on t h e i s s u e were c o r r e c t ; t h a t t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o show t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was i n a d e f e c t i v e and unreasonably dangerous c o n d i t i o n ; and, t h a t such c o n d i t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d a s a proximate c a u s e of b rand en burger's d e a t h . Having found t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e was a proximate c a u s e of rande en burger's d e a t h , t h e r e i s no way we can l o g i c a l l y f i n d t h a t such g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e was n o t a proximate and c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e of h i s own p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s . Montana i s t h e "but f o r " t e s t . P.2d 686. The t e s t f o r proximate c a u s e i n Ford v. Rupple, 161 Mont. 56, 504 It i s obvious t h e j u r y i n Brandenburger determined t h a t b u t f o r " p l a i n t i f f 0 l t z ' s g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e i n o p e r a t i n g t h e Toyota, 11 i t would n o t have l e f t t h e highway. T h e r e f o r e , such g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e i s n o t o n l y a proximate c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e of Brandenburger's d e a t h , b u t a l s o a proximate c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e of h i s own i n j u r i e s . W e have c a r e f u l l y examined t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d by b o t h p a r t i e s and hold t h a t where, a s h e r e , i n a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y c a s e i n v o l v i n g an a l l e g e d manufacturing d e f e c t t h a t was unknown t o t h e o p e r a t o r and which a p p a r e n t l y had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h c a u s i n g t h e a c c i d e n t i n q u e s t i o n b u t merely c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e o p e r a t o r ' s i n j u r i e s , h i s own c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e s o a s t o c a u s e i t t o l e a v e t h e highway i s a proper defense. Motor Co., 103 111.App.2d 356, 243 N.E.2d Corporation v. Walden,(CCA 10th C i r . Adams v . Ford 843; General Motors 1969), 406 F.2d 606. The summary judgment g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e Concur: / -'+--------------.!------------------- Chief J u s t i c e .................................... Justices. M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, s p e c i a l l y concurring: I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . However, i n m view, t h e r u l e y of c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l r a t h e r than r e s j u d i c a t a i s involved here. See: G e s s e l l v. J o n e s , 149 Mont. 418, 427 P.2d 295, for the distinction. Justice
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.
