THELEN v CITY OF BILLINGS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 8 9 - 0 9 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1989 RODNEY and DEBRA THELEN, RICHARD and DANA BUECHER, SUSAN GRASSO, LARRY and NANCY PINNOW, and GEORGE W. CLEVELAND, JR., Plaintiffs/Appellants, CITY OF BILLINGS, HEIGHTS SEWER BOARD, BLACK and VEATCH, COP CONSTRUCTION CO., SANDERSON, STEWART, GASTON ENGINEERING, INC., and CHRISTIAN, SPRING, SEILBACH & ASSOCIATES, jointly and severally, Defendants/Cross-Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Russel K. Fillner, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Jerrold L. Nye, Nye & Meyer; Billings, MT For Respondent: Mark S. Werner, McNamer & Thompson; ~illings, MT Ronald R. Lodders, Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole and Dietrich; Billings, MT W. Anderson Forsythe, Moulton, Bellingham, Longo and Mather; Billings, MT . . Dwaine Roybal, Keefer, Roybal, Hanson & Stacey; J P_Billings, MT. i~c) C'3 / 1 Submitted on Briefs: May 25, 1 9 8 9 -" i~ 3 Decided: July 5, 1 9 8 9 Mr. Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal concerns alleged negligence and inverse condemnation on the part of a city government, a contractor and an engineering firm in designing and constructing a sewer system. Plaintiffs Rodney and Debra Thelen, et al. (Plaintiffs) appeal from the Amended Judgment of the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants City of Billings, Black & Veatch and COP Construction Co. We affirm. Plaintiffs present a single issue on appeal: Whether the Amended Judgment of November 16, 1988, granting summary judgment to Defendants by the Montana District Court and dismissing Plaintiffs' case was proper. In 1984, construction began on a sewer system project undertaken by the City of Billings in the Billings Heights area. The City hired engineering firms and a contractor to design, supervise and build the project. Preliminary studies showed that the soil in the area where Plaintiffs' homes are located contained ground water in quantities that might interfere with the excavation of trenches where sewer lines would be buried. The plans therefore called for the contractor, COP Construction Co., to take steps to "dewater" the trenches through the use of "dewatering wells". Construction of the project began in a neighborhood some distance from Plaintiffs' homes. Dewatering wells were employed to keep water out of the trenches. The water that collected in the wells was pumped into an existing irrigation ditch that ran through the area, passing near Plaintiffs' homes. At the time in question, the ditch was alleged to have been The i n use use of f o r i r r i g a t i o n of the ditch for f i e l d s n e a r t h e homes. disposal of water from the d e w a t e r i n g w e l l s was a l l e g e d t o have i n c r e a s e d t h e amount o f w a t e r i n t h e d i t c h beyond normal l e v e l s used f o r i r r i g a t i o n . The first neighborhood alley. construction consisted of activity COP d i g g i n g a in Plaintiffs' " t e s t hole" i n an The workers d i g g i n g t h e h o l e e n c o u n t e r e d a h i g h w a t e r t a b l e t h a t p r e v e n t e d c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e h o l e and any f u r t h e r excavation. While t h e h o l e was b e i n g dug, a w a t e r main was COP t u r n e d o f f t h e t h e w a t e r and r e p a i r e d t h e main, broken. b u t i t b r o k e a g a i n t h e n e x t day. The main was a g a i n t u r n e d o f f and remained o f f u n t i l more permanent r e p a i r s were made some time later. suspended work COP in then refilled Plaintiffs' the vicinity, test moving hole and t o another area of t h e project. While t h e e x a c t t i m e frame i s d i s p u t e d i n t h e r e c o r d , sometime after COP'S departure basements began t o f l o o d . t h e water causing rose Plaintiffs and to carpet, other the area Plaintiffst Some t e s t i f i e d i n d e p o s i t i o n t h a t a s much a s damage from two feet wall residents i n t o t h e i r basements, coverings of the and concrete. area held a public m e e t i n g a t t e n d e d by COP, t h e C i t y and p r o j e c t e n g i n e e r s , a t which i t was a g r e e d t h a t COP would i n s t a l l d e w a t e r i n g w e l l s The w e l l s were i n s t a l l e d , and t h e t o a l l e v i a t e the flooding. water receded further from problems Plaintiffs ' with flooding basements. for the There were duration of no the c o n s t r u c t i o n work, and t h e p r o j e c t was completed. P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h i s l a w s u i t i n August o f 1 9 8 5 , naming a number o f p e r s o n s and e n t i t i e s i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e p r o j e c t a s defendants. to P l a i n t i f f s alleged t h a t the defendants' f a i l u r e anticipate and control the ground w a t e r they "knew o r s h o u l d have known" t o be p r e s e n t amounted t o n e g l i g e n c e , and a l s o worked a wrongful taking of Plaintiff's property by inverse condemnation. After several summary judgment, field of the motions parties for being partial sued was e v e n t u a l l y reduced t o t h e C i t y o f B i l l i n g s , t h e e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m Black and Veatch, and COP C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., here a s Defendants. summary Defendants judgment. District In a referred t o e a c h moved s e p a r a t e l y for s i n g l e Memorandum and O r d e r , the Court granted t h e motions, holding (1) Defendants b r e a c h e d no d u t y r u n n i n g from t h e m s e l v e s toward P l a i n t i f f s , and Plaintiffs (2) property t h a t was were unable to show damage to their p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d by D e f e n d a n t s . This appeal followed. On appeal, Plaintiffs first argue that the District C o u r t m i s a p p l i e d t h e summary judgment s t a n d a r d u s e d i n t h i s state. Plaintiffs' misunderstanding of argument, Montana i s based on a P l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t however, law. Defendants were r e q u i r e d t o show " t h a t t h e f l o o d i n g was n o t c a u s e d by o r d i d n o t o c c u r a s a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f t h e sewer e x c a v a t i o n and work." While Defendants were r e q u i r e d t o show t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law, t h a t burden did not r e q u i r e Defendants t o p r o v e t h e r e v e r s e of P l a i n t i f f s ' case. Defendants had t o p r o v e a s a m a t t e r o f law t h a t P l a i n t i f f s w e r e not e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f . appear to c o n f u s e t h e burden of proof P l a i n t i f f s thus imposed on a party moving f o r summary judgment w i t h t h a t imposed on a p l a i n t i f f in every civil suit. This fundamental misunderstanding t a i n t s P l a i n t i f f s ' arguments t o t h i s C o u r t . I n o r d e r f o r summary judgment t o i s s u e p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., the movant must show t h a t there i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any f a c t deemed m a t e r i a l i n l i g h t o f t h e s u b s t a n t i v e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s e n t i t l i n g t h e movant t o judgment a s a matter of law. A l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s t h a t can be drawn from o f f e r e d p r o o f w i l l be drawn i n f a v o r o f t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion. Cereck v . A l b e r t s o n ' s , Inc. (1981), 195 I f t h e movant meets t h i s b u r d e n , it Mont. 409, 637 P.2d 509. t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e non-moving p a r t y t o demonstrate a genuine issue of material f a c t . "Mere d e n i a l o r s p e c u l a t i o n w i l l n o t suffice, t h e non-moving p a r t y must show f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o raise genuine a issue." Gamble Properties ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 2 1 2 Mont. These standards same apply Robinson 305, to 312, this Co. v. 688 P.2d Court's Carousel 283, 287. review of the Kronen v . R i c h t e r ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 2 1 1 Mont. 208, 683 d e c i s i o n below. P.2d 1315. Most deals of with entitle the a District single Defendants Court's substantive to judgment memorandum i n legal as a this principle matter of case held law: to the Proximate c a u s e i s an element p r i n c i p l e of proximate cause. o f t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r n e g l i g e n c e , and must be proven i n o r d e r f o r a p l a i n t i f f t o r e c o v e r damages. County (Mont. 1988), 757 P.2d 772, Young v . F l a t h e a d 45 St.Rep. 1047. Proximate c a u s e i s a l s o a r e q u i r e d e l e m e n t o f t h e c a u s e o f Rauser v . Toston I r r i g a t i o n a c t i o n f o r i n v e r s e condemnation. (1977) , 172 Mont. District burden was therefore 530, on 565 P . 2d 632. Plaintiffs to The i n i t i a l come forth with s u f f i c i e n t proof t o r a i s e i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t concerning each element Absent a claims would of showing their of fail, case, proximate and including cause, Defendants proximate both would of be cause. Plaintiffs' entitled to judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law. A s t h i s Court n o t e d i n Young, 757 P.2d a t 777, proximate c a u s e h a s n o t been d e f i n e d c l e a r l y i n Montana law: L i a b i l i t y , i n any c a u s e o f a c t i o n , a t t a c h e s i f t h e p l a i n t i f f can p r o v e f i r s t t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i s a c a u s e i n f a c t o f i n j u r y and t h e n t h a t t h e i n j u r y i s t h e d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t r e s u l t , p r o x i m a t e l y caused by t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t . C a u s a t i o n i n f a c t h a s been d e t e r m i n e d by t h e u s e o f t h e " b u t f o r " t e s t ... ... I n Montana, p r o x i m a t e c a u s e i s one which i n a n a t u r a l and c o n t i n u o u s s e q u e n c e , unbroken by a n y new, independent cause, produces injury, and w i t h o u t which t h e i n j u r y would n o t h a v e o c c u r r e d . [citations] This d e f i n i t i o n o f proximate cause i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e " b u t f o r " d e f i n i t i o n i n t h e words o f t h e l a s t c l a u s e " [ a ] nd w i t h o u t which t h e i n j u r y would n o t have o c c u r r e d . " I t i s from t h i s wording t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between c a u s e i n f a c t and p r o x i m a t e , o r l e g a l , c a u s e h a s become c l o u d e d . The Young o p i n i o n t h e r e f o r e went on t o f o c u s on t h e " n a t u r a l and continuous cause," sequence, which must be unbroken by a n y new, independent shown t o e s t a b l i s h p r o x i m a t e cause. B e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , P l a i n t i f f s r e l i e d l a r g e l y on their own deposition testimony and a "Preliminary I n v e s t i g a t i o n R e p o r t " p r e p a r e d by a h y d r o g e o l o g i s t h i r e d by Plaintiffs. Defendants argued i n b r i e f s f i l e d i n support of t h e i r m o t i o n s f o r summary judgment t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e a l l e g e d insufficient f a c t s on which t o b a s e a showing o f p r o x i m a t e c a u s e , r e l y i n g i n s t e a d on mere s p e c u l a t i o n . I n o t h e r words, on t h e b a s i s o f t h e p l e a d i n g s and p r o o f i n t h e r e c o r d , i t was impossible f o r P l a i n t i f f s t o show t h a t D e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n s , through natural new, a and c o n t i n u o u s independent cause, s e q u e n c e unbroken produced P l a i n t i f f s ' by any injuries. The D i s t r i c t Court agreed. Montana ' s Plaintiffs ' summary judgment standard, t h e i r a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l s u f f e r from flaw Because the of same misunderstanding addressed by the of District Court. P l a i n t i f f s argue t o t h i s Court t h a t "undisputed f a c t s " i n t h e record summary raise sufficient issues of (1) P l a i n t i f f s judgment: material had no fact problems basement f l o o d i n g p r i o r t o t h e e v e n t s a t i s s u e ; tests performed prior to construction to avoid with (2) the soil indicated that d e w a t e r i n g w e l l s would b e n e c e s s a r y t o c o n t r o l g r o u n d w a t e r in excavations; (3) COP Construction began excavating in Plaintiffs' v i c i n i t y b e f o r e i n s t a l l i n g d e w a t e r i n g w e l l s and encountered ground water; (4) Plaintiffs' basements began f l o o d i n g " w i t h i n a d a y o r two" a f t e r COP began e x c a v a t i o n ; (5) once subsided; dewatering and were wells installed, P l a i n t i f f s h a v e had (6) problems i n t h e i r basements. no the flooding further flooding Plaintiffs state in their brief t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e e s s e n c e o f t h e i r argument i s t h u s " b u t f o r " Defendants' a c t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with excavating t h e test hole, Plaintiffs' basements would not have flooded. P l a i n t i f f s c i t e t h e Young o p i n i o n f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e "but for" test is appropriate i n t h i s case. The Young o p i n i o n q u o t e d a b o v e s t a t e s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between cause in fact and proximate cause. Plaintiffs c o r r e c t l y c i t e Young f o r t h e " b u t f o r " t e s t , b u t t h e y a p p l y the test incorrectly. "But f o r " i s a t e s t o f c a u s e i n f a c t , n o t proximate cause. S t a t e d a n o t h e r way, t h e " b u t f o r " t e s t establishes that the place, injury the argument, however, if would can be act not complained have of had taken This resulted. not same a p p l i e d t o any c a u s e t h a t m i g h t have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e flooding; e.g., t h e presence of water i n t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h , t h e composition of t h e s o i l , o r t h e w a t e r from s e p t i c t a n k d r a i n f i e l d s i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d . By t a k i n g t h e argument t o i t s l o g i c a l e x t r e m e , it c o u l d b e s a i d t h a t i f P l a i n t i f f s had n o t b u i l t t h e i r h o u s e s w i t h b a s e m e n t s , t h e y would h a v e had no f l o o d i n g p r o b l e m s the neighborhood had no basements and ( s e v e r a l homes i n thus no flooding). T h i s i s why t h e law r e q u i r e s a n a c t t o b e t h e p r o x i m a t e cause of i n j u r y before l i a b i l i t y w i l l a t t a c h . Which o n e o r more o f t h e c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e s i d e n t i f i e d by t h e " b u t f o r " t e s t , t h r o u g h a n a t u r a l and c o n t i n u o u s s e q u e n c e unbroken by any new, intervening Certainly Plaintiffs' cause, produced Plaintiffs' injury? c h o i c e made y e a r s a g o t o b u i l d homes w i t h b a s e m e n t s would a p p e a r s o l o g i c a l l y r e m o t e t h a t i t c o u l d not be the proximate cause of the flooding. However, by r e s t i n g t h e i r c a s e on " u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s " a s s e r t e d t o m e e t t h e " b u t f o r " t e s t , P l a i n t i f f s i g n o r e t h e r e q u i r e d showing t h a t Defendants' a c t i o n s w e r e t h e proximate cause o f t h e flooding. The f a c t s r e c i t e d by P l a i n t i f f s d o n o t g o t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether there was a natural, s e q u e n c e between D e f e n d a n t s ' continuous, uninterrupted a c t i o n s and t h e f l o o d i n g . They simply a l l e g e " b u t f o r " . The h y d r o g e o l o g i s t ' s p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t r e l i e d upon by P l a i n t i f f s below d o e s n o t remedy t h e f l a w i n t h e i r a r g u m e n t . The r e p o r t drew two main (1) i n c r e a s e d w a t e r conclusions: flow i n t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h could have caused t h e f l o o d i n g , and ( 2 ) e x c a v a t i o n o f a s e w e r t r e n c h between t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h a n d P l a i n t i f f s ' homes c o u l d have c a u s e d o r c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e flooding. The r e p o r t a l s o s t a t e s , " O t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t would a f f e c t w a t e r climate, storms, fluctuation] This table l e v e l a t t h e basements i r r i g a t i o n o f c r o p s a n d normal w a t e r t a b l e w e r e examined i n a b r i e f report, is as preliminary. evident is from based on p r e l i m i n a r y manner." its the very title, was application of t h e o r y t o a number o f p o s s i b l e c a u s e s , and It hydrogeological [including i t s c o n c l u s i o n s e x p r e s s no c e r t a i n t y o f a n y k i n d a s t o t h e natural theories. o r continuous sequence o f e v e n t s under I t i s c u r s o r y and s p e c u l a t i v e . Plaintiffs' W e have h e l d t h a t s p e c u l a t i v e statements a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e a material. issue of fact. B.M. by B e r g e r v . State ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 215 Mont. 1 7 5 , 1 7 9 , 698 P.2d 399, 401. Keeping i n mind t h e r u l e from t h e Cereck c a s e t h a t a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s drawn from t h e r e p o r t must b e drawn i n favor of Plaintiffs, treatment of "other proximate cause. i t must be noted that the report's f a c t o r s " could address t h e question of Examination o f o t h e r p o s s i b l e c a u s e s could show w h e t h e r t h e " s e q u e n c e " between t h e D e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n s and the Plaintiffs' independent cause". was However, "unbroken the by report's is equally speculative, "other factors'' such injury any new, treatment of drawing c o n c l u s i o n s ... " [rlandom i n s p e c t i o n o f w a t e r t a b l e r e c o r d s as, suggests that such occurrences may be rare." The only p o r t i o n o f P l a i n t i f f s ' o f f e r e d proof t h a t reasonably could be construed a s addressing proximate cause t h u s f a i l s t o r a i s e an i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t under t h e r u l e i n Berger. The p r o o f o f f e r e d by P l a i n t i f f s below f a i l e d t o r a i s e a material issue of D e f e n d a n t s moved flaw in f a c t on t h e q u e s t i o n o f p r o x i m a t e c a u s e . for and p o i n t e d o u t t h e case. Plaintiffs' summary judgment, a This pointing out t h a t P l a i n t i f f s ' had dual effect. By had f a i l e d t o r a i s e a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t a s t o p r o x i m a t e c a u s e and s u p p o r t i n g that assertion Defendants at with the summary judgment. sufficient briefs, time same exhibits showed and their affidavits, entitlement to P l a i n t i f f s t h e n had t h e d u t y t o p r e s e n t proof to show mere that an denial or issue of material speculation actually existed; suffice. fact would not Gamble Robinson, 683 P.2d a t 287. P l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o come f o r t h w i t h s u f f i c i e n t p r o o f i n t h e District Court. Instead, allegations which judgment of by fact their hydrogeologist's they assert force, own report they merely r e i t e r a t e d t h e i r and which speculates a s t o the possible shown above, t h e proof thus in a pointed preliminary causes of the summary to the fashion flooding. f a r advanced by P l a i n t i f f s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o a v o i d summary judgment. was D e f e n d a n t s ' preclude As is By a r g u i n g t h a t i t burden t o - rove t h e i r t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e , disp P l a i n t i f f s s e e k t o r e v e r s e t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f u n d e r Montana law. T h i s would l e a v e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f having t o guess a t whether P l a i n t i f f s could p r e s e n t a v i a b l e case, o r would simply waste the court's time in a futile trial. This Court has s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f u s e d t o r e q u i r e such a g u e s s i n g game. .. . the t r i a l court, i n considering a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment, h a s no d u t y t o a n t i c i p a t e p o s s i b l e proof t h a t might b e o f f e r e d u n d e r t h e p l e a d i n g s and t h a t asking for such foresight demands " c l a i r v o y a n c e " n o t p o s s e s s e d by even a t r i a l judge. Larry C. Iverson, Inc. v. Bouma ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 195 Mont. 6 3 9 P.2d 4 7 , 5 9 . W e a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . 351, 374,
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.
