Benson v. Heritage Inn, Inc.

• Citation: 971 P.2d 1227,292 Mont. 268,1998 MT 330
• Decision Date: 30 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98-154,I-X,98-154
• Parties: , 1998 MT 330 Christell BENSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HERITAGE INN, INC., a corporation; and John Doesefendants and Appellants. Heritage Inn, Inc., a Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. James Talcott Construction, Inc., a Montana Corporation, Third-Party Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

Page 1227

971 P.2d 1227

292 Mont. 268, 1998 MT 330

Christell BENSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HERITAGE INN, INC., a corporation; and John Does

I-XX,Defendants and Appellants.

Heritage Inn, Inc., a Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. James Talcott Construction, Inc., a Montana Corporation,

Third-Party Defendant and Respondent.

No. 98-154.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Sept. 17, 1998.

Decided Dec. 30, 1998.

L.D. Nybo; Conklin, Nybo, LeVeque & Lanning, P.C.; Great Falls, Montana For Appellant.

Channing J. Hartelius; Hartelius, Ferguson, Baker & Kazda; Great Falls, Montana; and Paul R. Haffeman; Davis, Hatley, Haffeman & Tighe, P.C.; Great Falls, Montana (for Benson); J. Dirk Beccari; Quane, Smith, Howard & Hull; Missoula, Montana (for Talcott Construction) For Respondents.

Justice JIM REGNIER delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1 On January 5, 1996, Christell Benson brought this case in the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, for injuries she sustained from a slip and fall accident on the sidewalk ramp of the Heritage Inn Motel in Great Falls. On October 16, 1996, Heritage Inn filed a third-party claim against Talcott Construction, Inc., the Heritage Inn building contractor, for indemnification. On December 12, 1997, a jury found that neither the building code violations nor improper maintenance of the sidewalk ramp were the cause of Benson's injury. On December 31, 1997, Benson moved for a new trial, which the District Court granted. Heritage Inn appeals from that order. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

¶2 The issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it granted Benson a new trial.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶3 The Heritage Inn Motel in Great Falls is surrounded by a parking lot. During a remodeling project, Talcott Construction, Inc. constructed a sidewalk ramp to provide handicap and general access to the Heritage Inn casino, restaurant, and the main lobby entrance. The sidewalk ramp abuts the parking lot.

¶4 On January 19, 1993, Christell Benson parked her car in the Heritage Inn parking lot and walked across the parking lot and over to the sidewalk ramp in order to attend ¶5 At trial, Benson offered expert testimony that her fall could have been caused by snow, ice, or moisture on the sidewalk ramp which caused her to slip, or design defects in the ramp itself. Photographs taken after the accident showed blood drops near the end of the ramp closest to the parking lot. Based upon the location of the blood drops, Heritage Inn maintained that the fall could have occurred in a manner other than that described by Benson's experts. Specifically, Heritage Inn maintained that Benson could have slipped or tripped in the parking lot and fallen and hit her head on the end of the ramp where the blood drops were located.

a meeting inside the Heritage Inn. While either on the sidewalk ramp, or on the parking lot pavement which abuts the sidewalk ramp, Benson slipped, fell, and sustained injuries.

¶6 Benson retained two engineering firms to determine whether defects in the design and construction of the sidewalk ramp caused or contributed to her fall. One engineering report stated that the ramp's flared side slopes were built too steeply to comply with the Uniform Building Code, and should therefore have had a handrail. The second engineering report concurred with the first, and further concluded that the ramp violated other Uniform Building Code, American National Standards Institute, and Americans With Disabilities Act standards. Following discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment to Benson and against Heritage Inn and found that the ramp was defective due to numerous Uniform Building Code violations, and that Heritage Inn was negligent as a matter of law. The issues of negligent maintenance and causation of injuries were left for trial.

¶7 In a pretrial order, the parties expressly agreed to certain facts, one of which was that "[o]n January 19, 1993 at approximately 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff Christell Benson fell on the sidewalk on the north side of the Heritage Inn," and that the Uniform Building Code "applies to the sidewalk on which Christell Benson fell." (Emphasis added.) Just prior to closing argument, Benson filed a written motion in limine to prevent Heritage Inn from arguing contrary to these agreed facts in its closing remarks. The District Court granted that motion but allowed Heritage Inn to argue that Benson slipped elsewhere.

¶8 Despite the District Court's order, Heritage Inn repeatedly asserted in its closing remarks that Benson's fall occurred in the parking lot, not on the sidewalk ramp, and that the location of the fall essentially mandated a defense verdict according to Heritage Inn's jury instruction regarding a land owner's duty regarding the natural accumulation of snow and ice. That instruction reads:

A premises owner cannot be charged with negligence by reason of a purely natural accumulation of ice and snow where the condition is as well known to the plaintiff as to the defendant.

Purely natural conditions, such as obvious snow and ice do not create such an unreasonable dangerous condition as to require the landowner to take certain precautions.

However, a property owner may be liable for falls on accumulations of ice and snow where the hazard created by the natural accumulation is increased or a new hazard is created by an affirmative act of the property owner or its agents. Even where the condition is actually known or obvious, a property owner may be liable if it should have anticipated that injuries would result from the dangerous condition.

¶9 Heritage Inn characterized this instruction as "the most important instruction in this case" and then suggested that because the fall occurred in the parking lot, Heritage Inn could not be held liable pursuant to the "natural accumulation of snow and ice" doctrine in Montana law. Specifically, Heritage Inn argued that:

"[T]here's evidence, pretty strong evidence, that she fell in the parking lot."

"I can argue to you that there's evidence that looks like she fell in the parking lot."

"She clearly could have fallen in the parking lot...."

"If she didn't fall in the parking lot, then we have to decide, well, sure she didn't fall "You think she fell in the parking lot, you might have to say, oh, oh, no liability here, that's natural accumulation."

in the parking lot then she slipped or tripped on the ramp."

"If you think she fell on the sidewalk...."

"There's some question about where Mrs. Benson fell, serious question."

"The horse that pulls the cart in the lawsuit is liable whether the people that got sued are responsible, just like if you think that the fall occurred in the parking lot, there's no responsibility here because that's Montana law."

"Also there's the horse pulling it and there are problems with liability for the plaintiffs in this case and we just talked about them. Parking lot, blood drops all those kinds of things."

"If you think that the fall occurred in the parking lot, no matter how sympathetic you are, you have to let it go."

¶10 All but one of these remarks were made after the District Court sustained Benson's objection that such remarks were contrary to the agreed facts in the pretrial order. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict for Heritage Inn.

¶11 Less than two weeks later, this Court issued our decision in Richardson v. Corvallis Public School District No.1 (1997), 286 Mont. 309, 950 P.2d 748, in which we rejected the line of authority upon which Heritage Inn's instruction regarding landowner liability for natural accumulation of snow and ice was based, and made clear that to give such an instruction on the law would be reversible error. The District Court thereafter determined that a new trial was necessary to correct the error of giving that instruction, and because it concluded that Heritage Inn's argument that Benson's slip and fall occurred in the parking lot was in violation of the pretrial order, the order in limine, and a binding judicial admission as to the location of the fall. In response to Heritage Inn's appeal of the District Court's grant of a new trial, Benson has moved for costs and sanctions to be imposed against Heritage Inn.

DISCUSSION

¶12 The issue raised by Heritage Inn on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it granted Benson a new trial.

¶13 The standard of review of a district court order granting a new trial pursuant to § 25-11-102(1) and (7), MCA, is manifest abuse of discretion. See Baxter v. Archie Cochrane Motors, Inc. (1995), 271 Mont. 286, 287-88, 895 P.2d 631, 632 (holding that "[t]he decision to grant or deny a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion."). See also Rasmussen v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund (1995), 270 Mont. 492, 496, 893 P.2d 337, 339; Jim's Excavating Serv., Inc. v. HKM Assoc. (1994), 265 Mont. 494, 512, 878 P.2d 248, 259

¶14 Heritage Inn and Talcott Construction claim that Benson was not prejudiced by Heritage Inn's closing argument about the location of Benson's slip and fall because the jury already understood that, due to the location of the blood drops on the ramp, there was a question about how and where Benson fell. With regard to the Richardson decision, Heritage Inn and Talcott Construction claim that it has no application to this case because it was decided after the trial and because Benson suffered no prejudice from its nonapplication.

Heritage Inn's closing remarks about the location of Benson's fall

¶15 With regard to assertions such as that made by Heritage Inn and Talcott Construction about the understanding of the jury, we have stated that "[a]ny allegations regarding the inner workings of the jury deliberations are inadmissible. We will not approve future attempts to combine allegations of fact...