Chambers v. City of Helena

• Decision Date: 21 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00-695.,00-695.
• Citation: 49 P.3d 587,310 Mont. 241,2002 MT 142
• Parties: Clifford B. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, v. The CITY OF HELENA, Montana, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

49 P.3d 587

2002 MT 142

310 Mont. 241

Clifford B. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, v. The CITY OF HELENA, Montana, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 00-695.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs April 19, 2001.

Decided June 21, 2002.

Leo S. Ward, G. Andy Adamek, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, Helena, Montana, For Appellant.

Thomas F. Dowling, John Bobinski, Dowling Law Firm, Helena, Montana, For Respondent.

Justice JAMES C. NELSON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Appellant City of Helena (City) appeals two rulings of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, holding the City negligent per se and granting Respondent Clifford Chambers' (Chambers) motion for a new trial. Chambers cross appeals an order of the District Court denying his motion to amend his complaint to include a claim for strict liability. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

¶ 2 We address the following issues on appeal in the same order as originally presented to the District Court:

¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err in holding that the operation of the transfer station was not an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability?

¶ 4 2. Did the District Court err in holding the City negligent per se regarding its application of the Uniform Building Code (UBC)?

¶ 5 3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in granting Chambers a new trial on the issue of causation?

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 6 On or about November 5, 1996, Chambers was injured at the City's garbage transfer station. This transfer station has a concrete collection pit, approximately 8.5 feet deep, into which users of the transfer station deposit their garbage. At the time of the events that gave rise to this action, the pit did not have guardrails, but had curbs lining the edge. When Chambers came to unload his garbage, he parked a few feet away from the edge of the pit. With his back to the pit, he began pulling a screen door out of the back of his truck to unload the garbage. When the part of the door he was pulling on broke off, Chambers fell backward toward the pit, stumbled on a curb at the edge of the pit and fell into the pit. Rita Therriault (Therriault) was with Chambers and witnessed the accident. The fall injured his ankles, one knee, and back among other things. Chambers then brought a negligence action against the City for damages.

¶ 7 Before trial, Chambers made a motion to amend his complaint to include the theory of strict liability as a cause of action. Chambers asserted that the design of the transfer station resulted in a use that was an abnormally dangerous activity warranting strict liability because users of the station were required to throw garbage into the 8.5 feet deep, concrete pit which was not protected with railings or any devices to prevent falls into the pit. The City opposed the motion asserting that the motion was untimely and would result in undue prejudice. The City also argued that use of the pit design did not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity. The District Court ruled that while it would normally grant the motion, it would not do so in this case because use of the pit did not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity as a matter of law. The court did note that the facts of the case might fit a negligence per se cause of action.

¶ 8 After the close of evidence at trial, the court addressed the issue of negligence per se. The court interpreted a UBC provision adopted by the City as an ordinance. This ordinance requires guardrails whenever an open floor or roof is more than 30 inches above the grade of the floor below. Although the City asserted that the "loading dock" exception to the UBC ordinance properly applied to the pit and therefore guardrails were not required, the District Court disagreed and held the City negligent per se for its failure to install guardrails around the pit.

¶ 9 After closing arguments, the court submitted the issues of causation and damages to the jury. The jury returned a verdict, finding that the City's negligence was not the cause of Chambers' accident. Chambers then made a motion for a new trial, arguing the jury's verdict was not based on substantial evidence. The City opposed the motion, asserting that the jury's verdict was proper. The District Court agreed with Chambers and granted the motion for a new trial.

¶ 10 The City now appeals both the holding that the City was negligent per se and the order granting Chambers a new trial. Chambers cross appeals the holding that the City's transfer station does not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity as a matter of law. We address the issues in the order presented to the trial court.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 11 Because the parties disagree regarding whether the first two questions on appeal are issues of law versus issues of fact, we discuss the standard of review in detail under each issue below.

III. DISCUSSION

¶ 12 1. Did the District Court err in holding that the operation of the transfer station was not an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability?

¶ 13 In this case, Chambers made a motion to amend his complaint to add the theory of strict liability. The District Court denied his motion. Normally, we review a trial court's decision regarding a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Lindey's, Inc. v. Professional Consultants, Inc. (1990), 244 Mont. 238, 242, 797 P.2d 920, 923. However, in its order denying Chambers' motion to amend, the District Court stated:

Because leave to amend is to be freely given, the Court normally would allow the amendment and would then address the issue of whether the facts support the claim on a motion for summary judgment. However, the Court believes that it has all the facts and law necessary to make that determination at this time.

This statement indicates that despite the City's arguments regarding undue delay and prejudice, the District Court would have allowed Chambers to amend his complaint. Further, this statement indicates the District Court treated Chambers' motion as one for summary judgment when it determined as a matter of law that the "operation of the transfer station does not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity as defined by the Restatement or as applied by any court." Therefore, because the District Court made a determination of law and treated the motion as if it were one for summary judgment, we review the court's determination de novo. Enger v. City of Missoula, 2001 MT 142, ¶ 10, 306 Mont. 28, ¶ 10, 29 P.3d 514, ¶ 10.

¶ 14 Chambers asserts that the District Court erred in denying his motion to amend his complaint to add the theory of strict liability because the transfer station meets the majority of factors used to determine whether an activity is abnormally dangerous. He also contends the District Court erred in failing to submit his proposed strict liability instructions to the jury after presentation of the evidence because he asserts that whether or not an activity is abnormally dangerous is a question for the jury.

¶ 15 The City asserts that the District Court was correct when it denied Chambers' motion to add a claim of strict liability to his complaint because the District Court properly found that the operation of the transfer station was not an abnormally dangerous activity as a matter of law. The City therefore asserts that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because its decision rendered Chambers' motion to amend futile.

¶ 16 In Matkovic v. Shell Oil Co. (1985), 218 Mont. 156, 159, 707 P.2d 2, 3-4, we adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519 & 520 (1976), to determine whether an activity is abnormally dangerous. Section 519 reads:

(1) One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.

(2) This strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous.

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 519 (1976). Section 520 lists the factors used to determine whether an activity is abnormally dangerous as follows:

(a) existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;

(b) likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;

(c) inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;

(d) extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;

(e) inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and

(f) extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 520 (1976). Since adopting these factors, we have not directly addressed whether any specific activity is abnormally dangerous.

¶ 17 However, before we discuss whether the District Court was correct on the ultimate issue of whether the City's operation is an abnormally dangerous activity, we must first address whether the question is one of law or fact. In Matkovic, we did not address the merits of the case because it was before this Court as a certified question from Montana Federal District Court. However, regarding whether the determination of an activity as abnormally dangerous is a question of law or a question of fact, we stated in dicta that § 519 and § 520 should be given together as instruction, presumably meaning jury instructions. Matkovic, 218 Mont. at 160,707 P.2d at 4. Further, in dicta in Dvorak v. Matador Serv. (1986), 223 Mont. 98, 106, 727 P.2d 1306, 1311, this Court again stated that the determination of whether an activity is abnormally dangerous raises a question of fact for the jury. In contrast, in Beckman v. Butte-Silver Bow County, 2000 MT 112, ¶ 24, 299 Mont. 389, ¶ 24, 1 P.3d 348, ¶ 24, we addressed the question of whether...