BOS v DOLAJAK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12787 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 19 75 GARY BOS and STEVEN BOS, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, MIKE DOLAJAK and DOLAJAK MANUFACTURING OK and IRON W R S COMPANY, I N C . , a corporation, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : B o l i n g e r and Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana Page Wellcome a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana F o r Respondents: Berg, Angel, A n d r i o l o and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Richard J. A n d r i o l o a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: F i l e d $f3mf -w lf@$ . 4i March 5 , 1975 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 Opinion o f t h e Court Mr. . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d f o l l o w i n g a j u r y v e r d i c t r e n d e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of G a l l a t i n County. From t h e r e c o r d i t a p p e a r s t h a t p l a i n t i f f s Gary Bos and S t e v e n Bos, c o n t r a c t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t s , Mike D o l a j a k and D o l a j a k Manufacturing C o . , I n c . , r e s i d e n t s of North Dakota, f o r t h e con- s t r u c t i o n of a m e t a l s i l o on p l a i n t i f f s ' d a i r y farm n e a r Bozeman. P l a i n t i f f s purchased t h e s i l o secondhand from t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r , who had r e p o s s e s s e d i t i n C a l i f o r n i a s h o r t l y a f t e r it had been installed there. The s i l o was d i s m a n t l e d and s h i p p e d t o Montana where d e f e n d a n t s a g r e e d t o e r e c t it f o r t h e sum of $6,500 f o r l a b o r , a l l m a t e r i a l s t o be f u r n i s h e d by p l a i n t i f f s . Defendants c o n s t r u c t e d a c o n c r e t e b a s e and on J u n e 1 2 , 1972, Mike D o l a j a k a r r i v e d a t t h e Bos r a n c h t o p e r s o n a l l y s u p e r v i s e t h e e r e c t i o n of t h e main p o r t i o n o f t h e s i l o by h i s c o r p o r ation. The g e n e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e d u r e c o n s i s t e d of p l a c i n g t h e t o p o f t h e s i l o and two r i n g s on t h e b a s e r i n g and t h e n j a c k i n g t h i s p o r t i o n up and a d d i n g a d d i t i o n a l r i n g s u n t i l t h e s i l o w a s completed. I n t h i s c a s e Dolajak u t i l i z e d e i g h t i n s i d e j a c k s a l t h o u g h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n manual s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e d t h e u s e of t w e l v e j a c k s d u r i n g t h e e r e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e i n a 36 f o o t d i a m e t e r silo. The s i l o was suspended i n t h e a i r on c a b l e s hanging down from e a c h j a c k and due t o i t s u n s t a b l e n a t u r e was r e q u i r e d t o be lowered and b o l t e d t o t h e b a s e r i n g i n t h e e v e n t o f bad w e a t h e r and a t n i g h t . During t h e e r e c t i o n of t h e s i l o one of t h e j a c k s b r o k e l e a v i n g seven j a c k s r e m a i n i n g t o h o l d t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20,000 pound w e i g h t o f t h e s i l o . D o l a j a k ' s men had a l s o a l l o w e d t h e s i l o t o t w i s t s o t h a t it c o u l d n o t be r e a d i l y lowered and a f f i x e d t o t h e base r i n g . D o l a j a k a t no t i m e made any e f f o r t t o s t a b i l i z e t h e s i l o by use of guy wires o r any o t h e r d e v i c e . An e x p e r t w i t n e s s f o r p l a i n t i f f s s t a t e d guy wires w e r e always u t i l i z e d a s a s t a n d a r d c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e d u r e and t h a t he would n o t a l l o w h i s men t o work on a j o b w i t h o u t guy w i r e s . Also, standard c o n s t r u c t i o n procedures r e q u i r e d t h a t one i n s u r e t h e s t i f f e n e r s were a t a l l t i m e s i n a l i n e ; t h a t a l l j a c k s were working; a n d , t h a t w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s be c l o s e l y m o n i t o r e d . O t h e a f t e r n o o n of J u n e 1 6 , 1972, when t h e s i l o was n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 60 f e e t i n t h e a i r and w i t h i n a few h o u r s o f comp l e t i o n , a windstorm developed t h r o w i n g t h e s i l o o f f i t s foundat i o n and v i r t u a l l y d e s t r o y i n g i t . A f t e r t h e s i l o was blown down, D o l a j a k r e t u r n e d t o North Dakota and made no a t t e m p t o r o f f e r t o a s s i s t i n removal of t h e s i l o o r t o make s p e c i f i c a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r t h e e r e c t i o n of a second silo. A s a r e s u l t , t h e e n t i r e d e c i s i o n a s t o t h e a c t i o n t o be t a k e n was t h r u s t upon t h e s h o u l d e r s of t h e Bos b r o t h e r s , b o t h a s t o removal of t h e o l d s i l o and any s a l v a g e , a s w e l l a s r e - e r e c t i o n of t h e s i l o . With t h e i r l i m i t e d knowledge of c o n s t r u c t i o n pro- c e d u r e s , p l a i n t i f f s undertook t o remove t h e damaged s i l o and t o s a l v a g e whatever i t e m s t h e y c o u l d . They e s t i m a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 2 0 0 man h o u r s were r e q u i r e d t o complete t h e s a l v a g e and removal operation. P l a i n t i f f s were t h e n r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e what a d d i - t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s would be r e q u i r e d f o r e r e c t i o n of t h e s i l o and t o secure t h e s e items. N o t h e r used s i l o s were a v a i l a b l e a t t h e o t i m e and t o p u r c h a s e a new s i l o , e x c l u s i v e of t h e c o s t o f e r e c t i o n , would have c o s t $40,000. P l a i n t i f f s purchased t h e m a t e r i a l s n e c e s s a r y f o r r e p a i r s and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e s i l o . damages i n t h e s e amounts: $15,342.61; They p r e s e n t e d proof of a l l e g e d C o s t s of r e p l a c i n g t h e downed s i l o l o s s e s r e s u l t i n g from i n a b i l i t y t o u s e t h e s i l o $9,932; a t o t a l of $25,274.61. - - A g a i n s t t h e s e a l l e g e d damages w a s a n o f f s e t of $2,900, a l l e g e d t o be t h e v a l u e of t h e c o n c r e t e base which was not damaged. Plaintiffs claim the evidence clearly shows damages of $22,374.61. Defendants admit to damages in the maximum total of $8.695.60, arrived at by taking the value of the silo before it was damaged, and subtracting the salvage value. The jury awarded $17,626.75. Defendantst motion for new trial was denied and defendants appeal. Defendants contend the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the general measure of damages in tort and contract actions; that the damages awarded are excessive under the law and the court's instructions; and that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. Defendants claim that in order to find damages in the amount set by the jury it had to make an award for consequential damages, such as the loss of milk production, corn spoilage, baling hay and rolling feed, and the jury did this because of the court's instructions allowing it to consider general damages as a result of negligence and also breach of contract. They in- sist the court should have instructed the jury solely on the appropriate measure of damages for damage to, or destruction of, personal property. The court gave these instructions, over defendants1 objection: "You are instructed that for the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for a11 the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom." This instruction follows Montana's statute, section 17-301, R . C . M . 1947. "Every person who suffers detriment from the negligent act or omission of another person may recover from him a compensation therefor in money which is called damages. In this case detriment i s t h e l o s s o r harm s u f f e r e d . The measure of damages i s t h e amount which w i l l compensate f o r a l l t h e detriment proximately caused t h e r e b y h e r e i n b e f o r e d e f i n e d , whether i t c o u l d have been a n t i c i p a t e d o r n o t . " T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n f o l l o w s Montana's s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 174 0 1 , R.C.M. 1947. Defendants o f f e r e d two i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e measure of damages, one where t h e p r o p e r t y c o u l d n o t be r e p a i r e d and t h e o t h e r where i t c o u l d . These were r e f u s e d , b u t t h e c o u r t d i d g i v e a n a b b r e v i a t e d v e r s i o n o f one of t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , which read : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e owner i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o have p r o p e r t y p u t back i n t o b e t t e r c o n d i t i o n t h a n b e f o r e t h e damage. Nor i s t h e owner e n t i t l e d t o be compensated f o r l o s s of u s e beyond t h e t i m e r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e d t o complete t h e necessary r e p a i r s . "The amount awarded, i f a n y , may n o t exceed t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y j u s t b e f o r e i t was damaged. " While i t i s d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i n Ralph M . P a r s o n s Co., Spdckman v . 147 Mont. 500, 506, 509, 510, 4 1 4 P.2d 918, t h i s C o u r t c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e d t h e p r o p e r measure o f damages f o r damage t o p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t h i s q u o t a t i o n i s a p t h e r e : " A s f o r t h e i s s u e of compensatory damages, t h e q u e s t i o n i s always a d i f f i c u l t one. I n t o r t a c t i o n s , t h e wrongdoer i s l i a b l e , i n g e n e r a l , f o r any i n j u r y which i s t h e n a t u r a l and p r o b a b l e consequence of t h e wrong. These may i n c l u d e b o t h t h e d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t , b u t r e a s o n a b l y p r o b a b l e , r e s u l t s of t h e wrong. Where damage t o p r o p e r t y i s c o n c e r n e d , t h e p u r p o s e of awarding damages i s t o r e t u r n t h e p a r t y i n j u r e d t o t h e same, o r a s n e a r l y p o s s i b l e t h e same, c o n d i t i o n a s he enjoyed b e f o r e t h e i n j u r y t o h i s p r o p e r t y . The i n j u r e d p a r t y i s t o be made a s n e a r l y whole a s p o s s i b l e - - b u t n o t t o r e a l i z e a p r o f i t . Compensatory damages a r e des i g n e d t o compensate t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y f o r a c t u a l l o s s o r i n j u r y - - n o more, no l e s s . " The t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s based upon s e c t i o n s 17-301 and 17-401, R.C.M. 1947, i l l u s t r a t e t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a - t u r e t o i n s u r e t h a t one who i s i n j u r e d by t h e wrongful a c t of a r l u ~ h e r , w l l e t k r LI; be 3 a e g l i g e l - i t a c t o r a b r e a c h 02 c o n t r a c t , baa a r i g h t t o r e c o v e r s u c h damages a s w i l l make him whole a g a i n . 'This b a s i c o b j e c t i v e o f making t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y whole must now be a p p l i e d t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e . A t t h e o u t s e t , t h i s c a s e involves a unique f a c t u a l s i t - uation. The t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Bos b r o t h e r s w e r e d a i r y f a r m e r s and t h e i n h e r e n t n a t u r e o f t h e i r o p e r a t i o n r e q u i r e s a n i n t e g r a t e d program o f c r o p p r o d u c t i o n , s t o r a g e , a n d f e e d i n g which must be d e c i d e d upon p r i o r t o t h e s p r i n g growing s e a s o n a n d implemented a t t h e t i n e of s p r i n g p l a n t i n g . I n a n t i c i p a t i o n of t n e s c h e d u l e d c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e s i l o p l a i n t i f f s had programmed t h e i r d a i r y f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n t o g a i n maximum c r o p p r o d u c t i o n aild maximum u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e s t o r a g e f a c i l i t i e s . T h i s program, o n c e u n d e r way, c o u l d n o t be t u r n e d on and o f f l i k e a w a t e r t a p a n d s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s a r o s e when d e f e n d a n t s ' w r o n g f u l a c t i o n s saused t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e s i l o . The s i l o which d e f e n d a n t s were t o e r e c t was a n i t e m o f property with special c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t could n o t be r e p l a c e d the n e x t d a y a t t h e l o c a l hardware s t o r e o r a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r s h i p . T h i s was t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t t h e d i s m a n t l i n g and r e - e r e c t i o n o f a s i l o of t h i s t y p e had been a t t e m p t e d , and p l a i n t i f f s were a b l e t o acquire t h e s i l o a t a considerable savings. Due t o t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e o p e r a t i o n t h e m a r k e t v a l u e a t t h e t i m e of i t s d e s t r u c t i o n f a r exceeded t h e a c t u a l c o s t investment. No o t h e r u s e d s i l o s were a v a i l a b l e and t h e p r i c e r e q u i r e d f o r p u r c h a s e of a new s i l o was $40,000. Due t o p l a i n t i f f s ' e f f o r t s a n a r r a n g e m e n t was made where- by t h e y c o u l d a c q u i r e t h e m a t e r i a l s n e e d e d i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e s a l v a g e d from t h e downed s i l o a t a f o r t y p e r c e n t d i s c o u n t . A n o t h e r f a c t o r i s t h e need f o r removal o f t h e downed s i l o . This was r e q u i r e d s o t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n c o u l d be u t i l i z e d f o r t h e r e - e r e c t i o n o f t h e s i l o and s o t h a t a s many p a r t s a s p o s s i b l e c o u l d be s a l v a g e d t o minimize t h e c o s t of r e - e r e c t i n g t h e s i l o . I n view of t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e downed s i l o and t h e u n u s u a l stresses p l a c e d upon t h e m a t e r i a l , t h e d i s m a n t l i n g of i t was a n e x t r e m e l y hazardous o p e r a t i o n . F i n a l l y , d e f e n d a n t s would n o t r e t u r n t o r e - e r e c t t h e s i l o and no o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e d b u i l d e r s c o u l d be found w i t h a v a i l a b l e t i m e t o do t h e r e - e r e c t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s determined t h a t i n o r d e r t o minimize t h e i r damages t h e y had no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o u n d e r t a k e t h e j o b of e r e c t i n g t h e s i l o on t h e i r own w i t h t h e h e l p of n e i g h b o r s . P l a i n t i f f s b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g damages from def e n d a n t s on t h e b a s i s of b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t and n e g l i g e n c e . A s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d i n t o f o r t h e e r e c t i o n of t h e s i l o i n a good and workmanlike manner. The performance of t h e work r e - q u i r e d under t h i s c o n t r a c t was n e v e r completed. F u r t h e r , defend- a n t s were n e g l i g e n t i n t h e manner i n which t h e y u n d e r t o o k t o p e r form t h e e r e c t i o n c o n t r a c t , which n e g l i g e n c e was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e d e s t r u c t i o n and l o s s of t h e s i l o . Under t h i s f a c t s i t u a t i o n p l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o go t o t h e j u r y w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s on damages r e l a t i n g b o t h t o b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t and t o negligence. Gunderson v . B r e w s t e r , 154 Mont. 405, 4 6 6 P.2d 589. The c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e measure of damages i n a c o n t r a c t a c t i o n i s i n t h e words of s e c t i o n 17-301, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n f o r damages i n a n o n c o n t r a c t a c t i o n i s i n t h e words o f s e c t i o n 17-401, R.C.M. 1947, and Montana J u r y I n s t r u c - t i o n Guide I n s t r u c t i o n No. 30 e x c e p t t h a t t h e word " u n l a w f u l " h a s been changed t o t h e word " n e g l i g e n t " . C i t i n g Spackman d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d the p r o p e r t y damage i n s t r u c t i o n i s t h e same whether we a r e t a l k i n g about a t o r t o r c o n t r a c t case--i.e.--the value of t h e p r o p e r t y immediately b e f o r e , less t h e s a l v a g e v a l u e , o r t h e v a l u e t h a t it would t a k e t o r e p a i r i t , p l u s t h e l o s s of u s e , n o t t o exceed t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e damage. T h i s r u l e i s c o r r e c t under a f a c t s i t u a t i o n s u c h a s e x i s t e d i n Spackman, when d e a l i n g w i t h r e a d i l y r e p l a c e a b l e i t e m s w i t h a n e s t a b l i s h e d market v a l u e . Such a r u l e i s c l e a r l y n o t a p p l i c a b l e when d e a l i n g w i t h a f i x t u r e , a s t h e s i l o i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , which i s n o t r e a d i l y r e p l a c e a b l e and which h a s no e s t a b l i s h e d market v a l u e and i s programmed a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of a t o t a l d a i r y farming o p e r a t i o n . Defendant D o l a j a k was w e l l aware of t h i s and of t h e damages which would r e s u l t from l o s s of u s e of t h e s i l o a s he a l s o owns and o p e r a t e s a d a i r y farm i n North Dakota. I n Spackman t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n d e a l i n g w i t h f o r m u l a s f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of damages: "While such methods s e r v e a s u s e f u l g u i d e s , t h e f i n a l answer r e s t s i n good s e n s e r a t h e r t h a n mechanical a p p l i c a t i o n of s u c h f o r m u l a s . " I n Spackman t h i s C o u r t f u r t h e r r e c o g n i z e d d i f f e r e n t r u l e s f o r p r o p e r t y which h a s no market v a l u e when i t s t a t e d : "One f u r t h e r n o t e i n t h e a r e a of compensatory damages r e l a t e s t o p r o p e r t y which, because of i t s p e c u l i a r n a t u r e , h a s no market v a l u e . I n s u c h c a s e s , r e f e r e n c e c a n be made t o t h e v a l u e p l a c e d on such a n i t e m by i t s owner, s o l o n g a s s u c h v a l u a t i o n i s n o t f a n c i f u l o r u n r e a s o n a b l e . Prope r t y w i t h i n t h i s c a t e g o r y , f o r example, would be c l o t h i n g , luggage, heirlooms o r p o r t r a i t s . " See a l s o 2 2 Am J u r 2d, Damages S 1 4 9 . I n Reynolds v. Bank of America N a t i o n a l T r u s t and S a v i n g s A s s l n , 53 Cal.2d 49, 345 P.2d 9 2 6 , 927, 73 ALR2d 716, c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a h l v . Farmers Union O i l Co., 145 Mont. 1 0 6 , 1 1 4 , 399 P.2d 763, t h e s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h e C o u r t was whether t h e owner of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y which was w r o n g f u l l y d e s t r o y e d i s l i m i t e d i n damages t o t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h e t i m e of d e s t r u c t i o n o r may he a l s o r e c o v e r f o r t h e l o s s of u s e d u r i n g t h e period reasonably r e q u i r e d f o r replacement. The C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t h e l d s u c h l o s s of u s e r e c o v e r a b l e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e v a l u e of t h e property destroyed s t a t i n g : "There a p p e a r s t o be no l o g i c a l o r p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n why a d i s t i n c t i o n s h o u l d be d r a m between c a s e s i n which t h e p r o p e r t y i s t o t a l l y d e s t r o y e d and t h o s e i n which i t h a s been i n j u r e d b u t i s r e p a i r a b l e , and w e have concluded t h a t when t h e owner of a n e g l i g e n t l y d e s t r o y e d commercial v e h i c l e h a s s u f f e r e d i n j u r y by b e i n g d e p r i v e d of t h e u s e of t h e v e h i c l e d u r i n g t h e period required f o r replacement, he i s e n t i t l e d , upon p r o p e r p l e a d i n g and p r o o f , t o r e c o v e r f o r l o s s of u s e i n o r d e r t o 'compensate f o r a l l t h e d e t r i m e n t p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d ' by t h e wrongful destruction." Here, by u s e of e i t h e r t e s t t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y i s r e a s o n a b l e and c o r r e c t . The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had a c q u i r e d a secondhand s i l o which was e q u i v a l e n t t o a new s i l o a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e s a v i n g s . Thus, t h e j u r y c o u l d q u i t e p r o p e r l y f i n d t h a t t h e "market v a l u e ' ' ( a c t u a l v a l u e ) of t h e s i l o a t t h e t i m e of t h e l o s s was between $30,000 and $40,000. 2 2 Am J u r 2d, Damages 5142. The j u r y t h e n awarded p l a i n - t i f f s t h e r e p l a c e m e n t c o s t of t h e s i l o , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e damages which t h e y had i n c u r r e d f o r t h e l o s s of u s e t h e r e o f l e s s a n o f f s e t of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,900 t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e foundation. The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was e m i n e n t l y f a i r and reasonable. The c a s e s of S e a t o n Ranch Co. v . Montana V e g e t a b l e O i l & Feed Co., 1 2 6 Mont. 415, 252 P.2d 1 0 4 0 , and McGuire v . Nelson, 1 6 2 Mont. 3 7 , 508 P.2d 558, c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t s a r e c l e a r l y n o t applicable t o the present f a c t situation. This is not a case i n v o l v i n g any b r e a c h of a n e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y . I t i s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t t h e damages awarded by t h e j u r y were r e a s o n a b l e under t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e c o u r t and t h e l a w applicable. W e come now t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e r e i s sub- s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t and judgment. Kirby v . K e l l y , 1 6 1 Mont. 6 6 , 504 P.2d 683. I n making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e e v i d e n c e i s t o be reviewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , b e i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s cause. Rogers v . H i l g e r C h e v r o l e t Co., 155 Mont. 1, 465 P.2d 834; ~ o l e n s t e i n . Rndrews, v Mont - . ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 530 P.2d 476, 32 St.Rep, 4 1 . W e do f i n d t h e v e r d i c t i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d - i b l e e v i d e n c e and t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: /-
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.
