Goodnough v. State

• Decision Date: 01 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-195,81-195
• Citation: 199 Mont. 9,647 P.2d 364,39 St.Rep. 1170
• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Parties: Gregory K. GOODNOUGH and Corey McMillan, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE of Montana, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 364

647 P.2d 364

199 Mont. 9

Gregory K. GOODNOUGH and Corey McMillan, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE of Montana, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 81-195.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted Feb. 23, 1982.

Decided July 1, 1982.

William A. Rossbach argued, Missoula, Hoyt & Trieweiler, Whitefish, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn & Phillips, I. James Heckathorn argued, Kalispell, for defendant and respondent.

DALY, Justice.

This is an appeal of an action in negligence against the State of Montana, arising out of a car accident in which plaintiffs' car was struck by a passing vehicle while making a left turn. Plaintiffs brought this action against the driver of the passing vehicle, Rodney Kludash, and the State of Montana. The plaintiffs settled with Kludash but proceeded to trial against the State. The jury returned a verdict for the State, and a judgment based on this verdict was issued by the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County. The plaintiffs appeal.

On November 9, 1976, at about 4:30 p. m., the appellants, two high school boys, were driving south on Highway 93 from Whitefish, Montana, to a rural subdivision called Happy Valley. As appellant McMillan was turning left off the highway into the subdivision, his car was struck by a passing vehicle driven by Rodney Kludash. Both appellants incurred substantial injuries. Goodnough had a badly broken femur which required nearly a full body cast. McMillan was in a semi-comatose state for several weeks, had a crushed pelvis, and incurred many problems with his trachea when a tracheostomy was performed in the hospital.

Happy Valley subdivision is about six miles south of Whitefish. The intersection between the road leading to Happy Valley and Highway 93 is 1,051 feet from the crest of a hill. The road is straight, and on the day of the accident it was clear and dry. Double yellow, no passing stripes go up the hill preceding the intersection and continue past the intersection. Seven hundred feet before the intersection there is a traffic sign warning of a pedestrian crossing.

The plaintiffs contend that the State was negligent by using only double yellow, no passing stripes to warn drivers of passing. They claim the State had notice of the hazardous nature of the Happy Valley intersection and, therefore, was under a duty to put up a no passing sign, an intersection sign, or a turn bay for left-turning cars. An expert for the plaintiffs testified that because the State was aware of the high number of accidents reported at this intersection, it should have known that the yellow, no passing stripes commanded little respect and were not effective. The plaintiffs claim that the State created a "trap" for unwary drivers.

The State emphasizes the facts surrounding the accident itself, claiming that any liability of the State, if any, was cut off by the superseding cause of the passing vehicle. The State presented evidence that the driver of the passing vehicle, Kludash, was traveling between 75 and 100 miles per hour and that Kludash had a blood alcohol level of .08 percent at the time of the accident. The District Court allowed into evidence testimony that Kludash's car was seen parked alongside the road outside of Whitefish, and several of the car's occupants were outside relieving themselves.

At the trial, the District Court gave the following instruction on superseding, intervening cause:

"The law recognizes what is called a superseding cause. A superseding cause is an intervening cause not reasonably foreseeable that cuts off the causal connection between the alleged original negligence and the injury complained of and thereby prevents the alleged original negligence from being a proximate cause thereof. As applied to this case, the law provides that if you should find that the State of Montana was negligent and the State's negligence was a contributing factor to the plaintiffs' injuries, but that the negligence of Rodney Kludash was a superseding cause, then such superseding cause prevents any negligence of the State of Montana from being a proximate cause of claimants' injuries." Jury Instruction No. 14.

After beginning deliberation, the jury evidently became confused as to the meaning of "superseding" and wrote the trial judge this note: "We do not understand superseding in Instruction No. 14." The judge refused to give the jurors a dictionary and advised the jurors to examine and consider all of the other instructions along with No. 14 and, in doing so, apply their judgment to the facts.

After deliberation, which included an overnight recess, the jury sent down a verdict for the State.

The appellants present basically four issues on review:

1. Whether the jury was so confused by the instructions on proximate cause that a verdict for appellants was impossible.

2. Whether the District Court erred by admitting evidence that occupants of the Kludash car were seen relieving themselves.

3. Whether a highway patrolman was competent to estimate the speed of the Kludash vehicle.

4. Whether the District Court erred in prohibiting counsel for appellants to question prospective jurors about their beliefs, as taxpayers, concerning their financial interest in the outcome of the case.

Appellants' major contention of error is that the jury was so confused by the instructions that a verdict for them was made impossible. Specifically, appellants contend that Instruction No. 14 was incomplete, in that superseding cause was not properly defined, and caused prejudicial confusion in the jury.

Appellants contend that the confusion of this incomplete definition was compounded by the giving of Instruction No. 12 which provides:

"A plaintiff who is injured as a proximate result of some negligent conduct on the part of a defendant is entitled to recover compensation for such injury from that defendant.

"Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict in this case if you find, in accordance with my instructions:

"1. That Defendant was negligent, and

"2. That such negligence was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiffs, and

"3. That such negligence was not superseded by the negligence of others as defined in these instructions."

Appellants claim that this confusion could have been alleviated by the giving of their proposed instruction no. 12:

"If you find that the Defendant State of Montana was negligent and that its negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about an injury to the Plaintiffs but that the immediate cause of the injury was the negligent conduct of a third person the Defendant is not relieved of liability for such injury if:

"1. At the time of its conduct Defendant realized or reasonably should have realized that a third person might act as he did;

"2. A reasonable person knowing the situation existing at the time of the conduct of the third person would not have regarded it as highly extraordinary that the third person had so acted."

It is well established in Montana that when instructions are inconsistent or contradictory to a degree that would confuse the average juror, reversal is required. Brothers v. Surplus Tractor Parts Corporation (1973), 161 Mont. 412, 506 P.2d 1362, 1364. However, this Court has also ruled that where the jury instructions, taken as a whole, state the law applicable to the case, a party cannot claim reversible error as to the giving of certain instructions. Rock Springs Corporation v. Pierre (1980), Mont., 615 P.2d 206, 211, 37 St.Rep. 1378, 1383. As noted by our sister court in Idaho, when considering jury instructions, it must be remembered that often a jury is deluged with numerous instructions, many of which attempt to explain complex questions of law. The court on review must therefore balance the possible confusion created by layer upon layer of instructions and the necessity of providing the appropriate legal theories. Messmer v. Ker (1974), 96 Idaho 75, 524 P.2d 536.

Because the instructions given by the District Court are not inconsistent or contradictory, and because they reflect, in substance, the applicable Montana law, we cannot say that the appellants were prejudiced by the giving of these instructions.

In Halsey v. Uithof (1975), 166 Mont. 319, 532 P.2d 686, we discussed the rules of concurrent cause and superseding-intervening cause and how they relate to the determination of proximate cause:

"We agree with the proposition that where one has negligently caused a condition of danger, he is not relieved of responsibility for damage caused to another merely because the injury also involved the later misconduct of someone else. But, this is true only if both negligent acts are in fact concurring proximate causes of the injury; and it is not true if the later negligence is an independent, intervening sole cause of the incident. (Citation omitted.)

"In determining whether the negligence in creating a hazard (the truck stalled on the highway) was a proximate cause of the accident, this test is to be applied: Did the wrongful act, in a natural continuous sequence of events, which might reasonably be expected to follow, produce the injury? If so, it is a concurring proximate cause of the injury even though the later negligent act of another ... cooperated to cause it. On the other hand, if the latter's act of negligence in causing the accident was of such a character as not reasonably to be expected to happen in the natural sequence of events, then such later act of negligence is the independent, intervening cause and therefore the sole proximate cause of the injury. (Citations omitted.)" 532 P.2d at 690-691.

Here, Instruction No. 14 provides that a superseding cause is an "intervening cause not reasonably foreseeable that cuts off the causal connection between the alleged original negligence and the injury complained of and thereby prevents the alleged original negligence from being the proximate cause thereof." While this is neither the...