SLAGSVOLD v JOHNSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13023 I N T E SUPREME C U T OF THE STATE O M N A A H OR F OTN 197 5 MARY SLAGSVOLD, Executrix of t h e E s t a t e of E s t h e r C h r i s t i n a Johnston, Deceased, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - C. ALLAN JOHNSON, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of 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 Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Mcnonough, Cox and Simonton, Glendive, Montana Dale Cox argued and Richard A. Simonton argued, Glendive, Montana For Respondent : Anderson, Symmes , Forbes, P e e t e and Brown, B i l l i n g s , Montana Richard F. Cebull argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted : September 25, 1975 -- Decided : 9 0 1975 YK. Jus c i c e !desley 3 a s i l e s d e l l v e r e i l t h e pinion o f t h e C o u r t . O November 21, 1974, t h e Hon. Robert H. Wilson, p r e s i d i n g n o v e r a jury t r i a l i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, g r a n t e d a J i r e c t e d v e r d i c t t o d e f e n d a n t C. A l l a n Johnson i n t h e w r o n g f u l d e a t h and s u r v i v a l a c t i o n b r o u g h t by Mary S l a g s v o l d , e x e c u t r i x o f the e s t a t e of Esther C h r i s t i n a Johnston. p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t E s t h e r C h r i s t i n a J o h n s t o n was a v a s s e n g e r i n a n a u t o m o b i l e d r i v e n by Carl Dohlman, whose v e h i c l e was i n v o l v e d i n a c o l l i s i o n w i t h one d r i v e n by C . A l l a n Johnson a i t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f U. S . Highway 87 and t h e n o r t h f r o n t a g e r o a d n e a r B i l l i n g s on October 2 2 , 1971. The c o l l i s i o n t o o k p l a c e a f t e r Dohlman s t o p p e d a t t h e s t o p j i g n where t h e f r o n t a g e r o a d c r o s s e s Highway 87. Dohlman t h e n proceeded t o c r o s s t h e highway, headed i n a s o u t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n . Defendant meanwhile was t r a v e l i n g i n t h e southernmost e a s t b o u n d Lane of Highway 87 a t a speed o f 35-40 m i l e s p e r h o u r , which was w i t h i n t h e 45 m i l e s p e r hour speed l i m i t . Dohlman s u c c e s s f u l l y n a v i g a t e d a c r o s s t h e westbound l a n e s of t h e highway t o a t r a f f i c i s l a n d i n t h e middle o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , where he a g a i n s t o p p e d . But Dohlman t h e n a t t e m p t e d t o t r a v e r s e t h e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s i n a Less t h a n d i r e c t f a s h i o n . The f a c t s a r e i n d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x a c t manner o f t h i s c r o s s i n g , b u t t h e t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e s ; h a t t h e Dohlman v e h i c l e was a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y t u r n e d i n t o t h e northern eastbound l a n e , then turned s h a r p l y t o t h e r i g h t (south) and f i n a l l y proceeded a c r o s s t h e s o u t h e r n e a s t b o u n d l a n e toward gas s t a t i o n l o c a t e d d i r e c t l y s o u t h o f Highway 87. a Defendant's v e h i c l e remained i n t h e s o u t h e r n e a s t b o u n d l a n e and c o l l i d e d w i t h t h e Dohlman v e h i c l e a s i t c r o s s e d t h a t southernmost l a n e i n f r o n t o f t h e g a s 3cation. P l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t was i n j u r e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t and d i e d t h e n e x t day. I.'his a c t i o r ~ was Sroilgni a g a i n ~ t3ohLrnan and defendant bur s e t t l e m e n t was reached w i t h Dohlman p r i o r t o t r i a l . A t trial a f t e r p l a i n t i f f had put on h e r c a s e , defendant moved f o r a d i r e c t e d verdict. That motion was g r a n t e d and i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s a p p e a l . P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s f o r review, which can be corrlbined i n t o a s i n g l e i s s u e by determining whether t h e r e was evidence of d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n c e , r e q u i r i n g submission of t h e c a s e ro the jury. The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h e law of Montana on d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s i s s t a t e d i n Autio v. M i l l e r , 92 Mont. 150, 167, 1 P.2d 1039: 1 "* * * a s a g e n e r a l r u l e t h e i s s u e s of n e g l i g e n c e and c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e must be decided by t h e jury under a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s and t h e s e t t l e d r u l e i s t h a t a c a s e should n o t be taken from t h e j u r y u n l e s s i t f o l l o w s a s a m a t t e r of law t h a t p l a i n t i f f cannot r e c o v e r upon any view of t h e evidence i n c l u d i n g t h e l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn from i t ; e v e r y f a c t wI i l l be deemed proved which t h e evidence cends t o prove. I *** L i s a l s o s t a t e d i n Lamb v. Page, 153 Mont. 171, 178, t L79, A55 V. 2d 337, which c i t e d t h i s passage from " 2 ~ Barron and Y o l t z o f f , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and Procedure, $1075, p. 387 * +< ;k 11 1 Thus a v e r d i c t may be d i r e c t e d i f t h e r e i s no evidence o r a t most a mere s c i n t i l l a on which t o b a s e a v e r d i c t f o r t h e p a r t y having t h e burden of p r o o f . The q u e s t i o n f o r t h e c o u r t i s n o t whether chere i s l i t e r a l l y no e v i d e n c e , b u t whether t h e r e i s any upon which t h e j u r y could p r o p e r l y proceed t o f i n d a v e r d i c t . A d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i s proper o n l y where t h e r e i s no c o n t r o v e r t e d m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t f o r I f viewing t h e evidence i n l i g h t most f a v o r the jury. a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f , t h e r e should be no s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t f o r him, t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s niotion should be g r a n t e d . $1I I n viewing t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e motion i s made must be given t h e b e n e f i t of e v e r y Legitimate i n f e r e n c e which can be drawn from t h e e v i dence; even i f t h e f a c t s a r e u n d i s p u t e d , t h e c a s e must 30 t o t h e j u r y iI f c o n f l i c t i n g i n f e r e n c e s may be drawn from t h e f a c t s . 11 While p l a i n t i f f u r g e s t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r a j u r y t o f i n d d e f e n d a n t n e g l i g e n t , we hold a s a m a t t e r of law on t h e b a s i s of t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d t h a t defendant a c t e d w i t h i n t h e s t a n d a r d of conduct r e q u i r e d of automobile d r i v e r s i n such .5ituatioris. L n ~ n i s n s t a n c e , l e i e n d a i ? ~was che i a v u l ed d r i v e r i under s e c t i o n 32-2172, K.C.M. 1947, which m o d i f i e s t h e g e n e r a l r i g h t o f way r u l e s of s e c t i o n 32-2170, R.C.M. 1947. The d r i v e r o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e i n which p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t was a p a s s e n g e r was under t h e d u t y o f s e c t i o n 32-2172, which p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t part : " ( a ) The d r i v e r o f a v e h i c l e s h a l l s t o p a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 32-2195 a t t h e e n t r a n c e t o a t h r o u g h highway and s h a l l y i e l d t h e r i g h t o f way t o o t h e r v e h i c l e s which have e n t e r e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n from s a i d t h r o u g h highway o r which a r e a p p r o a c h i n g s o c l o s e l y on s a i d t h r o u g h highway a s t o c o n s t i t u t e an immediate h a z a r d f:." ( E m ~ h a s i ss u p p l i e d ) . - ** Kacher t h a n y i e l d t h e r i g h t o f way t o d e f e n d a n t a s r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e , Dohlman, a c c o r d i n g t o h i s own t e s t i m o n y , attempted t o s i g n a l t o d e f e n d a n t a s a f e way around h i s c a r a s h e proceeded t o c r o s s Highway 87 i n f r o n t o f d e f e n d a n t . This maneuver by t h e Dohlman v e h i c l e a s i t a t t e m p t e d t o c r o s s t h e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s of Highway 87 i s n o t a r e c o g n i z e d o r a c c e p t e d Hence d e f e n d a n t was under no l e g a l d u t y s i g n a l between d r i v e r s . t~ l o o k o u t f o r o r r e a c t t o such a "jog" o r 11 squirm." o f a v e h i c l e e r t e r i n g t h e highway i n f r o n t of him. ~ Defendant c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e i~ohlrnanv e h i c l e was making a l e f t t u r n i n t o t h e n o r t h e r n e a s t Sound l a n e r a t h e r t h a n p r o c e e d i n g a c r o s s t h e s o u t h e r n e a s t b o u n d Lane i n f r o n t of him. No b a s i s e x i s t s f o r f i n d i n g d e f e n d a n t n e g l i g e n t i n such a c a s e . Faced w i t h such e v i d e n c e and t h e s t a t u t o r y d u t y o f s e c t i o n 32-2172, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d 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 and p r o p e r l y d e n i e d p l a i n t i f f ' s motion d s i d e t k d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and g r a n t a new t r i a l . Judgment i s a f f i r m e d . to set We Concur: /,-J f Justices.

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.