BALLANTYNE v THE ANACONDA CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13768 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 GEORGE GRANT BALLANTVNE, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, -vsTHE ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Williams and Holland, Butte, Montana D. L. Holland argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana James H. Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: ~ecided : Filed: iEB 3- January 20, 1978 FEB 3 - 1978 M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court: Defendant The Anaconda Company appeals from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, J e f f e r s o n County, g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l t o p l a i n t i f f s George Grant Ballantyne, George W. Ballantyne, and Evelyn Christensen Peterson, d/b/a Cloverdale Apiaries. For reasons h e r e i n a f t e r s e t f o r t h we remand t h i s cause t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r consideration. P l a i n t i f f s brought t h i s a c t i o n seeking compensatory and exemplary damages from The Anaconda Company f o r l o s s e s s u f f e r e d a t p l a i n t i f f s ' commercial honeybee operation located near Whitehall, Montana. P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d t h e i r bees were poisoned a s a r e s u l t of gas and p a r t i c u l a t e emissions from t h e company's Anaconda, Montana copper smelting operation. The s u i t was based on p r i v a t e nuisance, s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y and negligence t h e o r i e s . The cause was t r i e d before a j u r y on September 21, 1976. The j u r y returned a v e r d i c t i n favor of t h e company on September 30, 1976. Judgment was entered on October 5 and on October 15 p l a i n t i f f s moved f o r a new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s urged t h r e e grounds i n support of t h e i r motion: 1 ) I n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t , 2) l e g a l e r r o r s including t h e admission i n t o evidence of a l e t t e r a l l e g e d t o be a settlement o f f e r and t h e s t r i k i n g of p l a i n t i f f s ' claim a s t o one of t h e i r bee yards, and 3) p r e j u d i c i a l suprise a t the t r i a l . By o r d e r dated December 16, 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a new t r i a l . sentence. The o r d e r comprises a s i n g l e There i s no i n d i c a t i o n of t h e grounds upon which t h e new t r i a l was granted and no explanation of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s decision. A s presented, t h e i s s u e f o r review i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . Due t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court's f a i l u r e t o s p e c i f y any grounds f o r i t s r u l i n g , however, t h a t c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n w i l l n o t be reviewed a t t h i s time. Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ,P., provides: "Any o r d e r of t h e c o u r t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , s h a l l s p e c i f y t h e grounds t h e r e f o r with s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i t y a s t o a p p r i s e t h e p a r t i e s and t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e r a t i o n a l e underlying t h e r u l i n g , and t h i s may be done i n t h e body of t h e o r d e r , o r i n an a t t a c h e d opinion. 1 1 This r u l e was adopted pursuant t o Supreme Court p r d e r and has been i n e f f e c t s i n c e March 1, 1976. I n i t s note t o t h e amendment which added t h i s requirement t o ~ o n t a n a ' sprocedural r u l e s , t h e Advisory Committee s t a t e d : *** "[This] amendment i s f o r t h e express purpose of narrowing t h e i s s u e s on appeal and obviating t h e need t o read t h e e n t i r e record on appeal t o f i n d t h e r a t i o n a l e underlying t h e t r i a l court' s ruling. * * *" By n o t complying with t h i s requirement t h e D i s t r i c t Court has placed t h i s Court i n t h e p r e c i s e p o s i t i o n Rule 5 9 ( f ) seeks t o avoid. Not only t h i s Court, b u t t h e l i t i g a n t s a s w e l l a r e compelled t o consider t h e record with r e s p e c t t o every ground i n i t i a l l y urged by p l a i n t i f f s i n support of t h e i r motion, a s though t h e D i s t r i c t Court had found equal merit i n each. Where, a s h e r e , t h e t r i a l involved complex m a t t e r s and included extens i v e testimony and s e v e r a l independent grounds have been a s s e r t e d f o r a new t r i a l , e l a b o r a t i o n by the c o u r t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l i s e s p e c i a l l y important. I n t h i s context requirements of s p e c i f i c i t y a r e imposed a t each s t a g e of the j u d i c i a l process. Under Rule 5 9 ( a ) , M.R.Civ,P., a p a r t y moving f o r a new t r i a l must " s t a t e with p a r t i c u l a r i t y " t h e grounds f o r t h a t motion. The motion properly may be denied when t h e movant f a i l s t o comply with t h a t requirement. Uithof, (1975), 166 Mont. 319, 326, 532 P.2d 686. R.Civ.P., Halsey v. Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M. mandates s p e c i f i c i t y on t h e p a r t of a D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t i n g such a motion. W n o t e t h i s Court i s s i m i l a r l y constrained. e Section 93-212, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "In t h e determination of causes, a l l d e c i s i o n s of t h e supreme c o u r t must be given i n w r i t i n g , and t h e grounds of t h e d e c i s i o n must be s t a t e d , and each j u s t i c e agreeing o r concurring with t h e d e c i s i o n must s o i n d i c a t e by signing t h e d e c i s i o n . Any j u s t i c e disagreeing with a d e c i s i o n must s o i n d i c a t e by a written dissent .I1 I t i s manifestly f a i r f o r a l l concerned t o r e q u i r e a t r i a l l e v e l c o u r t t o s e t out i t s reasons f o r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . The purpose and f u n c t i o n of such a w r i t t e n "opinion" may vary from case t o c a s e , but g e n e r a l l y t h e following c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , a s expressed i n The S t a t e T r i a l Judge's Book, published under t h e sponsorship of t h e National Conference of S t a t e T r i a l Judges and t h e J o i n t Committee f o r t h e E f f e c t i v e Administration of J u s t i c e , West Publishing Co., S t . Paul, Minn., 1965, pp. 166-167, I1 When t h e time comes t o prepare a w r i t t e n exposit i o n of t h e b a s i s f o r a d e c i s i o n , t h e judge has a heavy t a s k on h i s hands. He f e e l s t h e need t o do h i s p a r t w e l l , i n j u s t i c e t o t h e p a r t i e s , t o himself and t o t h e p o s i t i o n he occupies. The judge w i l l w r i t e b e t t e r opinions i f he considers some of t h e important purposes they a r e intended t o serve. A well-considered opinion can be of value t o t h e judge himself, t o counsel and t h e p a r t i e s . It i s invaluable t o t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , i f t h e case goes up on appeal. "The function of an opinion i s t o s t a t e t h e reason which l e d t h e c o u r t t o decide t h e case t h e way i t d i d . Moreover, s i n c e i n t h e process of preparing an opinion t h e judge must d i s c i p l i n e h i s t h i n k i n g , he i s more a p t t o reach a j u s t d e c i s i o n i n a complex c a s e i f he reduces h i s reasoning t o w r i t i n g . Referring t o t h e f r u i t f u l e f f e c t of the process, Chief J u s t i c e Hughes once commented, 'The importance of w r i t t e n opinions a s a p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t j u d i c i a l c a r e l e s s n e s s i s very great. I "Opinions may be of s e r v i c e t o t h e l i t i g a n t s and counsel i n determining what t h e i r f u t u r e caurse should be. The opinion may p o i n t t h e way t o an appeal, o r i t may e l i m i n a t e one. I n e i t h e r event t h e p r a c t i c a l value t o those most concerned i s g r e a t . "A w e l l - s t a t e d opinion i s of g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a s a c h a r t of t h e reasoning followed by t h e t r i a l judge i n reaching a d e c i s i o n . Not everyone would agree with t h e c y n i c a l o l d judge who i s c r e d i t e d with saying, 1 A s f a r a s t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s concerned, maybe they can t h i n k up a good reason t o support m y I d o n ' t want t o give them a bad one.'" judgment. Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., makes i t c l e a r t h e t i m e i s p a s t when a D i s t r i c t Court can summarily g r a n t a new t r i a l and r e l y on t h i s Court t o provide a l e g a l l y adequate reason f o r i t s o r d e r . The cause i s remanded and t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r reasons f o r i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f s a new t r i a l , i n accord with Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P. W Concur: e /
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.
