WILHELM v CITY OF GREAT FALLS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 83-477 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984 PAUL AND BERNICE M. WILHEIM, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, CITY OF GREAT FALLS, STATE OF MONTANA, et al. Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable John McCarvel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: James, Gray & McCafferty; Dennis McCafferty argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Cannon and Sheehy; Edmond Sheehy argued, Helena, Montana - - Submitted: Decided: Filed: 4ej;e , June 8, 1984 Aagust 6, 1984 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This case arises as an appeal from an order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, granting respondents' motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in a nuisance action. The jury returned a verdict finding respondents ninety percent comparatively negligent for damages and appellants ten percent negligent. The court determined that insufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict and that it was contrary to law. We affirm. The facts giving rise to this case are set forth as follows: the City of Great Falls has operated a city dump continuously in the same location since the 1950's. Before 1969, appellants openly burned garbage at the dump site. In 1973, respondents purchased property located on the Missouri River about one mile east of the dump site. Respondents then spent about $125,000 to build a home on the property. They visited the property a few times prior to the purchase. Respondents acknowledged, at the time of the purchase, that they were aware the City operated the dump about one mile from their property. At the time of the purchase the City operated a garbage shredder that apparently reduced blowing litter problems. Respondents testified prior to 1977 they neither noticed nor suffered any problems caused by the dump. Only once, prior to 1977, did they observe any Litter blown onto their property. In 1977 the City employees operating the dump went on strike. During the strike, someone set fire to the dump. This fire burned a considerable portion of the dump and created great amounts of smoke and stench. The fire t r i g g e r e d many s u b t e r r a n e a n f i r e s t h a t c o n t i n u e d t o b u r n f o r the following two years. Respondents' home, located downwind f r o m t h e dump, s u f f e r e d damages d u e t o t h e smoke. Following the garbage shredder. property. strike, the City L i t t e r began quit operating the t o blow o n t o r e s p o n d e n t s ' For t h e two y e a r s t h e s u b t e r r a n e a n f i r e s b u r n e d , t h e C i t y t r i e d many m e t h o d s t o c o n t r o l t h e f i r e s . The C i t y f i n a l l y e x t i n g u i s h e d t h e f i r e s by d i g g i n g up t h e d e b r i s a n d h o s i n g i t down. T h i s p r o c e s s a l s o c a u s e d smoke t o t r a v e l over respondents' property. Respondents p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t i n 1981 t h e i r w e l l w a t e r became c o n t a m i n a t e d . runoff They c o n t e n d e d i n t h e s p r i n g t h e o f w a t e r f r o m t h e dump c a u s e d c o n t a m i n a t i o n t o t h e g r o u n d w a t e r on t h e i r p r o p e r t y . never occurred prior to They c o n t e n d e d t h i s p r o b l e m that time. Appellants submitted e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e w e l l w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n c o u l d have been c a u s e d by r e s p o n d e n t s ' s e p t i c s y s t e m . Respondents deposited also sewage complained of presented sludge times at when the evidence dump City the that site. the City Respondents failed to cover the sludge, thereby creating a stench. In a p r e t r i a l order, motion in limine to preclude instructions t o the jury. could only decide basis. the the court granted any assumption respondents' of the risk The c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t t h e j u r y the matter on a comparative negligence The c o u r t p e r m i t t e d a p p e l l a n t t o a r g u e a s s u m p t i o n of risk as a basis for respondents' portion of the n e g l i g e n c e t h a t c a u s e d t h e damages. The that jury found returned respondents a verdict ninety on the percent nuisance action negligent and appellants $30,000 ten in percent negligent damages. The and jury awarded also respondents returned a verdict f i n d i n g no i n v e r s e c o n d e m n a t i o n by t h e a p p e l l a n t . The c o u r t then the ordered a new trial, for a finding that facts f a i l e d t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t a n d t h a t i t was c o n t r a r y t o law. A p p e l l a n t s r a i s e two i s s u e s o n a p p e a l : Did (1) the District err Court in granting r e s p o n d e n t s t m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l ? ( 2 ) S h o u l d t h e c a s e b e remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e taxing of costs? Appellants f i r s t argue t h a t t h e f a c t s c l e a r l y provide a basis for the jury's d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t respondents were ninety percent contributorily negligent. the jury simply found that Appellants claim a p p e l l a n t s were negligent by b u i l d i n g t h e i r h o u s e n e a r t h e c i t y dump and c o u l d e x p e c t t h e problems t h a t occurred. W disagree. e In the instant case, we b e l i e v e t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y o r d e r e d a new t r i a l . no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of We find t h e t r i a l judge in o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l . This Court w i l l regarding showing motions of Virginia not for an a b u s e o f City (1976), a disturb a new trial trial in ruling 352, the absence Brothers discretion. 1 7 1 Mont. court's v. 558 P.2d of a Town o f 464. "A D i s t r i c t Court h a s broad a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t o r deny motions f o r a new t r i a l . " 589 P.2d 1000; Lyndes v. S c o f i e l d ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 1 7 7 , Brothers, supra. If there exists s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , then it must be s u s t a i n e d . Lyndes, s u p r a ; B r o t h e r s , s u p r a . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e w e hold t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l . The e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t which f o u n d t h e respondents ninety percent a p p e l l a n t s were negligent. t h e proximate cause of i n c l u d e d s t e n c h from u n c o v e r e d s e w a g e , The jury found t h e n u i s a n c e which smoke f r o m f i r e s a t t h e dump, u n c o n f i n e d l i t t e r and g r o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n . Appellants argue t h a t respondents acted negligently i n l o c a t i n g t h e i r h o u s e o n e m i l e f r o m t h e dump. parties failed to raise the i s s u e on a p p e a l , Because t h e we w i l l not c o n s i d e r t h e t h e o r i e s of a s s u m p t i o n of r i s k o r coming t o t h e nuisance. W need n o t d e a l w i t h a p p e l l a n t s ' second i s s u e b e c a u s e e it was c o n t i n g e n t upon r e v e r s a l o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W e a f f i r m t h e order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W concur: e Chief J u s t i c e - (&c/l/l%~%-Honorable Robert M. H o l t e r , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C . Sheehy.

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.