WILLIAMS v MONT NAT BANK BOZEM

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12770 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA OR F F 1975 D. M. WILLIAMS, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - MONTANA NATIONAL BANK O BOZEMAN, MONTANA, F Defendant and Appellant. 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. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana 1 Lyman H. Bennett, Jr argued and Lyman Bennett, 1 1 argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Bolinger and Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana Page Wellcome argued, Boe eman, Montana Submitted: January 9, 1975 Decided : rflP,\' .= 'f 1, 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 of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f e n t e r e d i n 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, f o l l o w i n g a j u r y v e r d i c t , i n t h e sum of $ 6 , 8 4 0 , and d e n i a l of a motion f o r new t r i a l . M r s . Rosa J . W i l l i a m s , w i f e of p l a i n t i f f D . M . W i l l i a m s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t on J u l y 1 9 , 1973, s h e w a s a t t h e i r r u r a l home when s h e saw a man coming up t h e walk. who d i d n o t g e t o u t . There was a n o t h e r man i n a c a r The man t o l d M r s . W i l l i a m s t h a t he h e a r d t h e y had been having some bad e l e c t r i c a l s t o r m s and t h a t he was w i t h a l i g h t e n i n g r o d company; t h a t he h e a r d s h e had been h a v i n g a l i t t l e t r o u b l e w i t h t h e l i g h t e n i n g r o d and wanted t o t a l k t o him. H e a d v i s e d h e r t h a t s h e needed a new clamp on t h e l i g h t e n - i n g r o d and s h e a u t h o r i z e d him t o p u t i t on. M r s . Williams f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h e man t a l k e d f a s t and moved f a s t , moved h i s f e e t a l i t t l e , and k e p t e d g i n g o f f a s s h e t a l k e d t o him, which s h e c o n s i d e r e d u n u s u a l . The man a d v i s e d h e r t h e clamp would be $1.26 and t h a t he had t o have a check s o he c o u l d m a i l it i n t o t h e company. a pen. She s e c u r e d h e r check book and The man s a i d he would f i l l i n t h e check f o r h e r and s h e gave him t h e check book. H e f i l l e d it i n by w r i t i n g $1.26 i n f i g - u r e s and i n longhand, p u t t i n g a d a t e on i t . H e advised her t h a t h e would stamp t h e check w i t h t h e company stamp. She looked t h e check o v e r and i t looked a l r i g h t t o h e r , a l t h o u g h it was n o t a s s h e would have w r i t t e n i t . The check was w r i t t e n s o t h a t t h e f i g u r e s were s o f a r t o t h e r i g h t hand s i d e t h a t t h e r e was ample s p a c e t o w r i t e t h e a d d i t i o n a l f i g u r e s 6 8 4 t o t h e l e f t w i t h o u t any a p p e a r a n c e of change. The words were w r i t t e n on t h e lower l i n e s o c l o s e t o t h e word " D o l l a r s " t h a t t h e r e was ample s p a c e t o w r i t e " S i x thousand e i g h t hundred f o r t y " ahead of i t w i t h o u t any appearance of a l t e r a t i o n . On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , M r s . W i l l i a m s t e s t i f i e d t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i d not introduce himself; d i d not give her a business card o r a n y t h i n g t o i d e n t i f y him; s h e d i d n o t c h e c k t h e work b e f o r e p a y i n g ; s h e gave t h e man h e r e n t i r e check book; a n d , h e f i l l e d o u t t h e check w h i l e i t was i n t h e check book. The t e l l e r who c a s h e d t h e check a t d e f e n d a n t Montana N a t i o n a l Bank, where p l a i n t i f f had a n a c c o u n t , and w i t h i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s i n c e a b o u t 1918 o r 1919, t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e went t o t h e j o u r n a l and checked t h e f u n d s t o s e e i f t h e r e was enough money i n t h e a c c o u n t . She a l s o checked t h e p e r s o n ' s s i g n a t u r e t o see i f t h e s i g n a t u r e on t h e check and on t h e s i g n a t u r e c a r d a t t h e bank were t h e same; t h e y were, s o s h e c a s h e d t h e c h e c k . Other w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e u s u a l and r e a s o n a b l e comm e r c i a l s t a n d a r d s e x i s t i n g i n t h e d e f e n d a n t bank and o t h e r banks i n Bozeman. James J o r d a n , a d e p u t y s h e r i f f , t e s t i f i e d and i d e n t i f i e d a p h o t o g r a p h i c copy of o n e s h e e t of a n A p r i l 1 9 , 1973, bank protection bulletin. T h i s w i t n e s s f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d M r . Bruce E l l i s , p r e s i d e n t of t h e bank, had informed t h e c i t y - c o u n t y de- t e c t i v e team t h a t t h e method of o p e r a t i o n used h e r e was d e s c r i b e d i n t h e A p r i l 1973, bank p r o t e c t i o n b u l l e t i n . He f u r t h e r t e s t i - f i e d t h a t E l l i s d i d n o t have a copy of t h e b u l l e t i n i n q u e s t i o n and s u g g e s t e d c h e c k i n g w i t h o t h e r banks. Although t h i s w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l b u l l e t i n from which t h e copy was made was n o t c i r c u l a t e d i n t h e Montana N a t i o n a l Bank t o h i s knowledge, o v e r d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n t h e c o u r t a d m i t t e d t h e e x h i b i t i n t o evidence. O cross-examination Jordan t e s t i f i e d n t h a t i t was one of h i s d e t e c t i v e p a r t n e r s , who f i r s t b r o u g h t up t h e b u l l e t i n matter t o M r . E l l i s . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e , d e f e n d a n t moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and d i s m i s s a l of t h e c a s e which was d e n i e d . Bruce E l l i s t e s t i f i e d i n d e f e n d a n t t s c a s e t h a t he knew o f f i c e r Ron Green and h e had m e t a n o t h e r o f f i c e r , whom he presumed w a s J o r d a n . These o f f i c e r s were c o n d u c t i n g a n i n - v e s t i g a t i o n and t h e y mentioned t o E l l i s t h a t t h e y found t h e r e were o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s s i m i l a r t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n which had developed i n t h e s t a t e and t h e y w e r e informed t h e r e was some k i n d of a n o t i c e on t h i s i n d i v i d u a l i n a b a n k e r s ' b u l l e t i n . E l l i s s t a t e d t h e o f f i c e r s wanted t h e A p r i l 1973 bank. p r o t e c t i o n b u l l e t i n , b u t he was u n a b l e t o f i n d i t i n t h e bank and s o advised the officers. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d h e had no r e c o l l e c t i o n of e v e r s e e i n g t h a t p a r t i c u l a r b u l l e t i n and t h a t i f a b u l l e t i n of t h a t t y p e comes t o t h e bank, i t i s d e p o s i t e d on h i s d e s k , he r e v i e w s i t , and p a s s e s it on t o t h e o t h e r o f f i c e r s and it g o e s on from t h e r e . Upon t h i s a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t s t h e s e i s s u e s : (1) Was t h e p l a i n t i f f n e g l i g e n t i n t h e manner i n which t h e check was e x e c u t e d ? (2) Did s u c h n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t e a s a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e t o t h e i n j u r y a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f ? (3) Was t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t t h e v e r d i c t ? (4) W a s i t e r r o r t o admit i n e v i d e n c e t h e p h o t o s t a t i c copy of t h e b u l l e t i n o v e r d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n ? (5) Was i t e r r o r t o deny d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r - ected verdict? (6) Was i t e r r o r t o r e f u s e t o submit t h e i s s u e of assump- t i o n of r i s k t o t h e j u r y ? (7) Was i t e r r o r t o r e f u s e t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Uniform Commercial Code? (8) Did t h e c o u r t err i n d e n y i n g t h e motion f o r a new trial? A s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s n e g l i g e n c e , h i s w i f e and a g e n t knew how t o w r i t e a check and s i g n e d t h e check i n q u e s t i o n c o n t r a r y t o t h e manner i n which s h e u s u a l l y made o u t a c h e c k , a c c o r d i n g t o h e r own t e s t i m o n y . She knew t h e r e was p l e n t y of s p a c e f o r i n s e r t i o n of l a r g e r amounts ahead of t h e f i g u r e s and words of amount i n t h e check and was a l s o n e g l i g e n t i n n o t r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e p a y e e ' s name be i n s e r t e d i n t h e check and i n making d e l i v e r y of t h e check u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t e v e r y p e r s o n i s r e sponsible f o r i n j u r y t o t h e person o r property of a n o t h e r , c a u s e d by want o f o r d i n a r y c a r e o r s k i l l , ( s u b j e c t t o t h e d e f e n s e of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e ) . When used i n t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , n e g l i g e n c e means want of such o r d i n a r y c a r e o r s k i l l . Such want of o r d i n a r y c a r e o r s k i l l e x i s t s when t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e t o do t h a t which a r e a s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t p e r s o n would o r d i n a r i l y have done under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e s i t u a t i o n , o r d o i n g what such p e r s o n under t h e e x i s t i n g c i r cumstances would n o t have done." T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n conforms t h e 1969 d e c i s i o n i n F l a n s b e r g Montana Power Company, 154 Mont. 53, 460 P.2d 263, 257, where t h e Court s a i d : " F u r t h e r , n e g l i g e n c e i m p o r t s s u c h a want o f a t t e n t i o n t o t h e n a t u r e o r p r o b a b l e consequences of t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n a s a p r u d e n t man o r d i n a r i l y bestows i n a c t i n g i n h i s own c o n c e r n s . " S e c t i o n 19-103 ( 1 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : "The words * * * ' n e g l i g e n c e , ' * * * and ' n e g l i g e n t l y ' i m p o r t a want of such a t t e n t i o n t o t h e n a t u r e o r p r o b a b l e consequences of t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n a s a p r u d e n t man o r d i n a r i l y bestows i n a c t i n g i n h i s own concerns." S e c t i o n 1 9 - 1 0 3 ( 1 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947, was r e l i e d upon i n Mang v . E l i a s s o n , 153 Mont. 431, 435, 436, 458 P.2d 777, where t h e language of t h e q u o t e d s e c t i o n was f o l l o w e d w i t h t h i s language t h e Court : " I n o t h e r words, n e g l i g e n c e i s d e s c r i b e d a s cond u c t which f a l l s below t h e s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d by law f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of o t h e r s a g a i n s t unr e a s o n a b l e r i s k and n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s t h e c o n c e p t s of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s and f o r e s e e a b i l i t y . " I n Mang, t h i s C o u r t used t h i s l a n g u a g e : " I n t h e same v e i n , we q u o t e w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e f o l l o w i n g language from Harper and James, The Law of T o r t s , Volume 2 , a t page 9 2 9 : "' * * * Negligence i s c o n d u c t i n v o l v i n g a n u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k of harm, and t h e t e s t f o r det e r m i n i n g whether a r i s k i s u n r e a s o n a b l e i s s u p p l i e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a . The amount of c a u t i o n "demanded of a p e r s o n by a n o c c a s i o n i s t h e r e s u l t a n t of t h r e e f a c t o r s : t h e l i k e l i hood t h a t h i s conduct w i l l i n j u r e o t h e r s , t a k e n w i t h t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of t h e i n j u r y i f i t happens, and b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t t h e i n t e r e s t which he must s a c r i f i c e t o avoid t h e r i s k . " " ' I n s t r i k i n g t h i s b a l a n c e - - t h a t i s , i n weighing t h e l i k e l i h o o d of harm, t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of t h e i n j u r y and t h e v a l u e of t h e i n t e r e s t t o be s a c r i f i c e d - - t h e law j u d g e s t h e a c t o r ' s c o n d u c t i n t h e l i g h t of t h e s i t u a t i o n a s it would have a p p e a r e d t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e man i n h i s s h o e s a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n complained o f . Not what a c t u a l l y happened, b u t what t h e r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n would t h e n have f o r e s e e n a s l i k e l y t o happen, i s t h e key t o t h e q u e s t i o n of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s * * * . ' I r Under t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s of n e g l i g e n c e t h e j u r y c o u l d f i n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f was n e g l i g e n t s i n c e he knew t h a t h i s w i f e had i n t h e p a s t s i g n e d c h e c k s p r e p a r e d by o t h e r s and t h e r e b y a u t h o r i z e d h e r t o do s o , s i n c e he had done n o t h i n g t o s t o p h e r from t h i s p r o cedure. H i s w i f e s h o u l d have f o r e s e e n t h a t t h e r e was a l i k e l i - hood of r a i s i n g t h e check when s h e l e f t i t t h e way i t had been w r i t t e n , p e r m i t t i n g t h e p l a c i n g of t h e f i g u r e s and t h e words s o f a r t o t h e r i g h t s o a s t o p e r m i t what o c c u r r e d . I f t h e j u r y s h o u l d f i n d p l a i n t i f f n e g l i g e n t , t h e n it must d e t e r m i n e whether such n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t e d a s a p r o x i m a t e cause. The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of a n i n j u r y i s t h a t which i n a n a t u r a l and cont i n u o u s s e q u e n c e , unbroken by any new and i n d e p e n d e n t c a u s e , p r o d u c e s t h e i n j u r y , and w i t h o u t which i t would n o t have o c c u r r e d . " R e c e n t l y i n Brandenburger v . Toyota Motor S a l e s , U.S.A., Inc., 1 6 2 Mont, 506, 512, 513 P.2d 268, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The t e s t most g e n e r a l l y employed i n d e t e r m i n i n g c a u s a t i o n i s t h e ' b u t f o r ' t e s t . Montana h a s a d o p t e d t h i s t e s t i n numerous c a s e s . " The j u r y under t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n h e r e c o u l d t h e n d e t e r mine t h e r e would have been no l o s s " b u t f o r " t h e n e g l i g e n c e of M r s . W i l l i a m s , w i f e - a g e n t of p l a i n t i f f , a s h e r e i n b e f o r e r e l a t e d . W t u r n now t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e p h o t o s t a t o f t h e e bank b u l l e t i n . P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h e reason f o r i t s introduc- t i o n was t o show a warning t o t h e d e f e n d a n t bank r e g a r d i n g t h e modus o p e r a n d i of t h e man who o b t a i n e d and c a s h e d t h e check. In o u r view, t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r i t s a d m i s s i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t and t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n admitting it i n t o evidence, p a r t i c u l a r l y h e r e , where t h e r e i s a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n a s t o whether o r n o t t h e f a c e o f t h e check was such a s t o c a u s e t h e bank t o q u e s t i o n i t s validity. The t e l l e r who c a s h e d t h e check c o u l d not r e c a l l hav- i n g s e e n t h e b u l l e t i n and upon b e i n g shown t h e p h o t o s t a t , s h e could not i d e n t i f y t h e individual depicted. W do n o t d i s a p p r o v e e custom and i n f e r e n c e s a s contended by p l a i n t i f f b u t i n t h i s c a u s e t h e i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e f o u n d a t i o n d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e i n f e r e n c e s a t t e m p t e d t o be drawn t h e r e f r o m . A s regards t h e contentions w i t h r e s p e c t t o assumption of r i s k , i n our opinion t h a t doctrine i s not applicable t o t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n here. A s t o t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e c o u r t t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Uniform Commercial Code, p l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t c o u l d have i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Code, b u t it endeavored t o s i m p l i f y t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s and send t h e c a s e t o t h e j u r y on a s t r a i g h t n e g l i g e n c e , c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e , and p r o x i m a t e c a u s e s e t of i n s t r u c t i o n s . While t h i s may have a p p e a l e d t o t h e c o u r t a s a s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n , it d i d d e p r i v e d e f e n d a n t of p o s s i b l e d e f e n s e s based upon t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Uniform Commercial Code. A p a r t y has a r i g h t t o have i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n which a r e a d a p t a b l e t o h i s t h e o r y of t h e c a s e . Wollan v. Lord, 1 4 2 Mont. 4 9 8 , 385 P.2d 1 0 2 . Here p l a i n t i f f c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t was n e g l i g e n t i n c a s h - i n g t h e check i n t h a t t h e bank breached i t s g e n e r a l o b l i g a t i o n t o h a n d l e p l a i n t i f f ' s a c c o u n t by a c t i n g c o n t r a r y t o r e a s o n a b l e commercial s t a n d a r d s . S u r e l y t h e n t h e bank should be a l l o w e d t o have t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t e d a s t o what r e a s o n a b l e commercial s t a n d a r d s a r e , a s set f o r t h i n t h e Uniform Commercial Code. The judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded f o r new trial. --,---,,,----*---,-A,------ Chief J u s t i c e W concur: e ............................. i Justices t

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.