MORRISON v HIGBEE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 83-31 IN THE SUPRE:ME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 PETER A. MORRISON, et al., Plaintiffs, E V I J P. IIIGBEE, et a1 . , DJ? Defendants. ......................................... JAMES E. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsLETJIS HUGHES and MILDRED HUGHES, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of l,ladison, The Honorable Joseph Gary, Judge presising. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Moore, Rice, 0'Connell Bozeman, Montana & Refling, David C. Moon, For Respondents: filorrow, Sedivy Montana & Olson; J. I I . Morrow, Rozenan, Submitted on Briefs: March 31, 1983 Decided: June 30, 1983 J M 3 0 1983 U Filed: P Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Court. John Sheehy C. delivered the Opinion of the Robertson brought an actiorl i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of the F i f t h J u d i c i a l District, injunction against the Madison C o u n t y , defendants Hughes t o obtain an to prevent from f u r t h e r u t i l i z i n g a p o r t i o n of R o b e r t s o n ' s ditch to damages, convey water. The Hughes b o t h a c t u a l and p u n i t i v e , them irrigation counterclaimed for a l l e g i n g t h a t Robertson n e g l i g e n t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h e d i t c h , which c a u s e d e r o s i o n , a n d maliciously refused t o take corrective action t o prevent the erosion. of the The c a s e was t o be t r i e d by j u r y , b u t a t t h e c l o s e evidence, f a v o r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i r e c t e d verdicts in t h e Hughes r e g a r d i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n a n d R o b e r t s o n regarding the counterclaim. Both p a r t i e s a p p e a l . S i n c e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 9 4 9 , L e w i s Hughes and R o b e r t s o n h a v e been r a n c h i n g i n Madison C o u n t y . and h i s w i f e gave t h e Hughes I n 1953, Robertson o r a l permission to use the d i t c h i n c o n t r o v e r s y ( t h e Robertson d i t c h ) t o i r r i g a t e t h e i r r a n c h . P r i o r t o t h a t t i m e , h o w e v e r , t h e Hughes' p r e d e c e s s o r s a l s o used t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. t i m e d u r i n g which t h e Hughes' The l e n g t h o f p r e d e c e s s o r s used the ditch was n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y d i s c l o s e d a t t r i a l . On O c t o b e r 8 , the Hughes revoking 1959, t h e Robertsons s e n t a l e t t e r t o their permission to use the ditch. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , L e w i s Hughes a s k e d t h e R o b e r t s o n s i f h e could continue t o use t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. agreement was then drafted by the Robertsons ' An attorney, which g r a n t e d t o t h e Hughes a l i c e n s e t o u s e t h e d i t c h . The a g r e e m e n t a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e l i c e n s e was s u b j e c t t o t e r m i n a t i o n a t any t i m e by t h e R o b e r t s o n s and t h a t t h e Hughes pay f o r one-half of t h e maintenance c o s t s of t h e d i t c h . L e w l s Hughes s i g n e d t h e a g r e e m e n t i n the Robertsons' a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e and t h e n t o o k t h e a g r e e m e n t home f o r h i s wife t o sign. L e w i s Hughes t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t c a r e He also f u l l y r e a d t h e a g r e e m e n t and d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d i t . t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e R o b e r t s o n s ' a t t o r n e y t o l d him t h e a g r e e ment was d r a f t e d t o g i v e him a r i g h t i n t h e R o b e r t s o n d i t c h forever. M i l d r e d Hughes t e s t i f i e d t h a t when s h e s i g n e d t h e agreement, s h e was r e l y i n g upon what h e r t h e agreement s a i d . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d read t h e agreement very c a r e f u l l y . Hughes' possession husband t o l d h e r for at least t h a t she did not The a g r e e m e n t was i n t h e two days before it was t o use the returned t o the attorney's office. Both R o b e r t s o n and ditch for that time, tained the t h e Hughes i r r i g a t i o n purposes continued f r o m 1 9 5 9 t o 1980. t h e Hughes and R o b e r t s o n o r his During l e s s e e s main- t h e d i t c h by a n n u a l l y removing b r u s h which impeded fl o w of Robertson's water through lessees also the ditch. helped the various At Hughes times, maintain the d i t c h by removing t h e t r e e s and b u i l d i n g up t h e d i t c h b a n k s . During t h a t period, move fence located a however, on the Hughes w e r e the south s i d e of required to t h e Robertson d i t c h b e c a u s e of w a s h i n g and e r o s i o n which t h e Hughes a l l e g e occurred in the ditch. Lewis Hughes also testified that R o b e r t s o n a l l o w e d a h e a d g a t e on t h e d i t c h t o wash o u t , which ruined eight however, acres of his land. On cross-examination, Hughes a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e wash-out occurred before R o b e r t s o n had a c q u i r e d a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i t c h . On March 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 , R o b e r t s o n ' s a t t o r n e y s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e Hughes r e v o k i n g t h e l i c e n s e . The Hughes, however, continued t o use t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. Robert- s o n t h e n f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g t o e n j o i n t h e Hughes f r o m using the ditch. The Hughes b r o u g h t a c o u n t e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g t h a t Robertson's n e g l i g e n t maintenance of e r o s i o n which damaged t h e i r p r o p e r t y . t h e d i t c h caused The Hughes a l s o a s k e d f o r p u n i t i v e damages b e c a u s e of R o b e r t s o n ' s a l l e g e d o p p r e s sive and m a l i c i o u s refusal t o do anything t o prevent the erosion. trial, At erosion had t h e Hughes p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t occurred i n t h e R o b e r t s o n d i t c h and e r o s i o n damaged t h e i r p r o p e r t y . testimony, however, to prove that the The Hughes d i d n o t p r e s e n t when the erosion occurred. L o u i e Day ( H u g h e s ' e x p e r t w i t n e s s ) t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t know when t h e e r o s i o n o c c u r r e d , b u t t h a t i t c o u l d h a v e happened f i f t y o r o n e hundred y e a r s ago. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e e r o s i o n h a s c o n t i n u e d s i n c e t h e d i t c h was f i r s t p u t i n . At t h e c l o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , b o t h R o b e r t s o n and t h e Hughes moved f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s , a n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d b o t h m o t i o n s . R o b e r t s o n now a p p e a l s f r o m t h e p o r t i o n of t h e v e r d i c t w h e r e i n t h e Hughes w e r e a d j u d g e d t o h a v e a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement i n t h e Robertson d i t c h . a l s o appeal, arguing that the i s s u e of The Hughes whether Robertson n e g l i g e n t l y maintained t h e d i t c h should have been p r e s e n t e d t o the jury. B a s i c a l l y , two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r o u r r e v i e w : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t f o r t h e Hughes by f i n d i n g t h a t t h e October 1 9 , 1 9 5 9 , a g r e e ment d i d n o t d i v e s t t h e Hughes o f a n y d i t c h r i g h t s ? 11. for Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t R o b e r t s o n by t h a t Robertson's finding that a c t i o n caused t h e Hughes f a i l e d t h e Hughes' t o prove damages, which removed t h a t i s s u e f r o m t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n ? I. DIRECTED VERDICT FOR THE HUGHES Pursuant t o t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge, t h e j u r y found a s f o l l o w s : "On t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson's claim a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes f o r a n i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughest continued use of t h e 'Robertson' c a n a l o r d i t c h , f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes h a v e a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t by u s e o f u n i n terrupted, continuous use of t h i s d i t c h f o r a p e r i o d of t i m e i n e x c e s s of t e n y e a r s p r i o r t o October 1 9 , 1959, a d v e r s e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson and h i s p r e d e cessors in interest, a n d by r e a s o n t h e r e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t of O c t o b e r 1 9 , 1 9 5 9 being without consideration, did not d i v e s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes of a n y r i g h t s i n t h e d i t c h and d i d n o t c r e a t e a mere l i c e n s e i n t h e u s e of s a i d d i t c h a n d by r e a s o n t h e r e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson is n o t e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t f o r a n injunction prohibiting the defendants Hughes f r o m u s i n g s a i d d i t c h . " R o b e r t s o n p r e s e n t s many a r g u m e n t s f o r h i s c o n t e n t i o n that the District Court erred by refusing to grant the i n j u n c t i o n , b u t t h e argument we f i n d most compelling is t h a t no p r e s c r i p t i v e easement existed. In Montana, a party c l a i m i n g t o h a v e a c q u i r e d a n e a s e m e n t by p r e s c r i p t i o n m u s t show o p e n , notorious, uninterrupted use s t a t u t o r y period. , Mont. of exclusive, the Madison 6 6 1 P.2d 1266, b e g i n s as a p e r m i s s i v e u s e , adverse, easement County 40 continuous, claimed v. St.Rep. Elford 457. for the and full (1983), If the use it c a n n o t r i p e n i n t o a p r e s c r i p - t i v e r i g h t , no matter how l o n g i t may c o n t i n u e , u n l e s s t h e r e is a d i s t i n c t and p o s i t i v e a s s e r t i o n o f t h e owner. a right hostile t o Drew v . B u r g g r a f ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 405, 387 P.2d In t h i s case, t h e Hughes' own a c t i o n s indicate that t h e i r u s e o f t h e d i t c h was p e r m i s s i v e r a t h e r t h a n h o s t i l e . For e x a m p l e , i n 1 9 5 3 , Lewis Hughes a s k e d t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e Robertsons t o use t h e d i t c h t o i r r i g a t e h i s ranch. 1959 when Hughes the signed Robertsons a In their permission, the agreement license revoked which stated the that K o b e r t s o n s c o u l d r e v o k e t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n a t any t i m e . Hughes a r g u e t h a t b e c a u s e they did not read The t h e agreement c a r e f u l l y and d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d i t , t h e y s h o u l d n o t be h e l d accountable to the terms of the agreement. However, "a p a r t y t o a c o n t r a c t c a n n o t a v o i d t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t h e made a mistake where there has been no m i s r e p r e - s e n t a t i o n , no a m b i g u i t y i n t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e o t h e r p a r t y h a s no n o t i c e o f s u c h m i s t a k e and a c t s i n good S i l v a v. faith.'' P.2d McGuinness 8 7 9 , 37 S t . R e p . The Hughes (1980), , Mont. 615 1401. also argue that t h e y had a prescriptive easement i n t h e d i t c h p r i o r t o s i g n i n g t h e l i c e n s e agreement because of testimony their predecessors' regarding predecessors ditch had came been the from used use of Lewis for u s e of the Hughes fifty the ditch. ditch who years by the stated and The o n l y that Hughes' that the the "old t i m e r s " p u t t h e i r w a t e r t o g e t h e r i n t o o n e d i t c h i n times o f d r o u g h t s o t h a t t h e w a t e r would r e a c h t h e end o f where the r a n c h e s were located. This testimony the ditch does not i n d i c a t e h o s t i l e u s e , b u t on t h e c o n t r a r y i n d i c a t e s f r i e n d l y c o o p e r a t i o n between n e i g h b o r s . mony c o u l d be construed to Even i f Lewis Hughes' t e s t i - indicate t h a t h i s predecessors o b t a i n e d a p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t , Hughes' s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n s of asking permission license agreement are to use the ditch incompatible and o f with the signing the nature of a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement. stated As i n s e c t i o n 70-17-111(3), "A s e r v i t u d e is e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f a n y MCA: a c t upon e i t h e r t e n e m e n t by with his assent exercise. its nature o r 'I obtain merely the servitude or is i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h which The a c t i o n s o f not t h e owner o f an t h e Hughes d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t interest acquired a in they d i d t h e d i t c h by p r e s c r i p t i o n , license use to the ditch. The but term " l i c e n s e " has been d e f i n e d a s t h e p e r m i s s i o n o r a u t h o r i t y t o do a particular act or series of acts upon the no p o s s e s s o r y may be presumed, 992. interest exists in the licensee, revoked at "The will. a s a matter of law, licensee is of Renfro e t a n o t h e r w i t h o u t p o s s e s s i n g an i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n . a l . v . D e t t w i l e r ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 95 Mont. 3 9 1 , 26 P.2d land Because the license conclusively t o know t h a t t h e l i c e n s e i s r e v o c a b l e a t t h e p l e a s u r e o f t h e l i c e n s o r , and i f h e e x p e n d s money in connection with his entry l a t t e r he does s o a t h i s p e r i l . render most licenses upon the land of the Any o t h e r d o c t r i n e would i r r e v o c a b l e a n d make them o p e r a t e a s conveyances of i n t e r e s t s i n land." R e n f r o , 9 3 Mont. a t 3 9 8 , 26 P.2d a t 994. W reverse the District Court's e scriptive easement existed in the finding Hughes that and a pre- order the Dlstrict Court t o i s s u e an i n j u n c t i o n preventing f u r t h e r use by t h e Hughes of t h e R o b e r t s o n d i t c h . I . DIRECTED VERDICT FOR ROBERTSON P u r s u a n t t o t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge, t h e j u r y found a s f o l l o w s : "On t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m o f t h e Hughes a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f defendants Robertson, w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was a f a i l u r e o f p r o o f t o show t h a t a n y a c t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f R o b e r t s o n c a u s e d damages t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes inasmuch a s t h e ' R o b e r t s o n ' d i t c h i n q u e s t i o n had b e e n l o c a t e d a n d e s t a b l i s h e d a t l e a s t 20 y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e a c q u i r i n g of i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d s i n q u e s t i o n by e i t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s , and t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t a n y a c t i o n of t h e p l a i n t i f f c a u s e d t h e e r o s i o n o r i g i n a l l y and t h a t t h e subs e q u e n t , g r a d u a l e r o s i o n is no d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h a t of any o t h e r i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h i n e x i s t e n c e and is n o t p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d by a n y a c t i o n o r i n a c t i o n o f t h e plaintiff Robertson, and by r e a s o n thereof, the defendants a r e not e n t i t l e d t o any c l a i m of damages a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson." The r u l e f o r determining whether a directed verdict s h o u l d be g r a n t e d i n n e g l i g e n c e a c t i o n s h a s b e e n s t a t e d i n Lawlor v . C o u n t y o f F l a t h e a d ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 5 0 8 , 582 P.2d 751, a s f o l l o w s : ". . . a s a g e n e r a l r u l e , t h e i s s u e s of negligence and c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e m u s t b e d e c i d e d by t h e j u r y u n d e r a p p r o priate instructions and t h e s e t t l e d r u l e is t h a t a c a s e s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n from t h e j u r y u n l e s s it 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 c a n n o t r e c o v e r upon a n y v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e , 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 f r o m i t ; e v e r y f a c t w i l l be deemed proved which t h e e v i d e n c e t e n d s t o Q u o t e d f r o m A u t i o v . Miller prove. " ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 92 Mont. 1 5 0 , 1 6 7 , 1 P.2d 1 0 3 9 , 1 1044. ... The Hughes c o n t e n d t h a t t h i s r u l e s h o u l d h a v e p r e c l u d e d t h e District Court from issuing a directed verdict because i n f e r e n c e s c o u l d h a v e b e e n drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t R o b e r t s o n was n e g l i g e n t i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e d i t c h and t h a t h i s negligence caused t h e erosion. We disagree. I n t h i s c a s e , no e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o p r o v e t h a t R o b e r t s o n b r e a c h e d a n y d u t y which p l a i n e d of by t h e Hughes. c a u s e d t h e damages com- " [ A ] b r e a c h o f d u t y r e l i e d upon must have been t h e proximate c a u s e of the injury, and t h e f a c t s p l e a d e d must d i s c l o s e the causal connection between t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n t a c t and t h e i n j u r y c o m p l a i n e d o f . " Fusselinan v. 254, 1 6 3 P. Yellowstone Valley e t c . 473. Co. (1917), 5 3 Mont. The m o s t w h i c h c a n b e d e d u c e d f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e i s t h a t a n y damages which d i d i n f a c t o c c u r t o t h e Hughes' property occurred before Robertson acquired his i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i t c h . F o r e x a m p l e , L o u i e Day t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e e r o s i o n had c o n t i n u e d s i n c e t h e d i t c h was o r i g i n a l l y p u t in. ( T h e e v i d e n c e r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e d i t c h was " p u t i n " l o n g b e f o r e t h e Hughes and R o b e r t s o n owned t h e i r r a n c h e s . ) L e w i s Hughes a d m i t t e d t h a t Mrs. Robertson, Even who was R o b e r t - s o n ' s p r e d e c e s s o r , was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a n y damages c a u s e d b y t h e d i t c h . C l e a r l y , such evidence is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support a n award of damages. The p r e s e n t c a s e d i f f e r s f r o m t h e r e c e n t c a s e o f M a r t a v. 28, Smith ( 1 9 8 1 ) , wherein which Mont . , t h i s Court upheld a w a r d e d damages for 622 P.2d a District 1 0 1 1 , 38 S t . R e p . Court's judgment e r o s i o n c a u s e d by t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t s of t h e defendant. I n Marta, t h i s Court quoted p a r t i a l l y f r o m C a l v e r t v. ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 7 3 Mont. Anderson w h i c h w e now q u o t e i n t o t o a s f o l l o w s : t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e owner of insurer his thereof, willful maintaining, and acts, 551, 236 P. 847, " I t is t h e r u l e i n an i r r i g a t i n g d i t c h is n o t a n i s l i a b l e o n l y f o r damages c a u s e d by or by his negligence or using h i s ditch." in constructing, The f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e , u n l i k e t h o s e i n M a r t a , d o n o t show t h a t R o b e r t s o n w i l l f u l l y or negligently constructed, We therefore directing hold that the District a v e r d i c t which e n t i t l e d t o damages. maintained, found that or used C o u r t was the the ditch. correct Hughes in were n o t Reversed i n p a r t and a f f i r m e d in part. N costs to o e i t h e r party. i " ' L \I ,Y$ / Justice W e concur: t LGkl,

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.