Haynes v. Missoula County
| Decision Date | 10 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 12140,12140 |
| Citation | 163 Mont. 270,517 P.2d 370,30 St.Rep. 1083 |
| Parties | , 69 A.L.R.3d 1008 Bill and Fay HAYNES, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MISSOULA et al., Defendants and Respondents |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Christian, McCurdy, Ingraham & Wold, Polson, Douglas J. Wold (argued), Polson, Stanley M. Doyle, Polson, for appellants.
Garnaas, Hall & Riley, Missoula, J. Robert Riley (argued), Missoula, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, Sherman V. Lohn (argued), Missoula, Robert L. Deschamps, III, (argued), Missoula, for respondents.
Plaintiffs secured a jury verdict in the amount of $80,650 for the loss of two horses in a fire at the Missoula Conty fairgrounds in August 1967, and judgment was entered thereon. Subsequently the district court of Missoula County, the Honorable Jack L. Green, district judge, granted defendants Missoula County and its Fair Board a new trial. From the order granting defendants a new trial, plaintiffs appeal.
Plaintiffs are Bill and Fay Haynes, the owners of two registered quarter horses destroyed in the fire and American Livestock Insurance Company, a material damage carrier. American paid the Hayneses $5,000 for the loss of one of the two horses involved and became subrogated to the Hayneses' claims against defendants to the extent of such payment. Defendants are Missoula County and its Fair Board, the operators of the Western Montana Fair. The fairgrounds where the fire occurred are owned by Missoula County and located within the Missoula city limits.
A general factual background of this action is necessary for an understanding of the issues involved in this appeal.
Defendant Missoula County Fair Board has operated the Western Montana Fair as agent of Missoula County for a number of years. In 1967 the fair was held August 23 through August 26.
Sometime prior to the fair date, the Board sent by mail to prospective exhibitors a letter, a premium book, and an entry blank containing a general release. The Hayneses completed the entry blank and Mrs. Haynes signed the general release form and returned the form to the Fair Board. The premium book also contained a general release clause purporting to release the Missoula County Fair Board from liability for loss or damage to exhibits. The Hayneses had exhibited horses at the Missoula County fair in previous years, and in 1967 they exhibited two horses-Jule Bar, a stallion, and his yearling son, Jule's Dandy. Both were registered quarter horses. The Hayneses' horses were assigned stall space in barn number two and pursuant to the premium book regulations the feeding, watering and grooming was left to the exhibitor.
One of the Hayneses' horses was entered in the halter classes and the barrel racing event. Bill Haynes had been hired by the Fair Board to work as arena director for the 1967 fair. The tasks of arena director required the use of a saddle horse.
At approximately 4:00 a. m. the morning of August 24, 1967, a fire of unknown causes erupted in barn number two which resulted in the death of both the Hayneses' horses.
Hayneses filed suit against defendants on October 24, 1967, to recover damages for the loss of their two quarter horses, Jule Bar and Jule's Dandy. Considerable time elapsed and two substitutions of judges occurred before trial. During that time, the American Livestock Insurance Company, material damage carrier on one of the horses, was added as party plaintiff. This insurer had paid the Hayneses $5,000, the fact of the policy, for the loss of one of the two horses.
A complex and extended jury trial began in the district court of Missoula County in May 1971, before Judge Jack L. Green. On May 27, 1971, the jury returned a general verdict for plaintiffs and awarded damages in the amount of $80,650; $1,000 of which was for the loss of the horse Jule's Dandy and the remainder for the loss of the horse jule Bar. The jury also returned a special interrogatory in which it found that the care, custody and control of the two horses was in the Missoula County Fair Board. A flurry of post-trial activity occurred, culminating in the granting of defendants' amended motion for a new trial on June 18, 1971. From the order granting defendants a new trial, plaintiffs appeal.
The basic theory of plaintiffs' case was that defendants breached their duty of ordinary care owing to plaintiffs, thereby rendering them negligent; that such negligence on defendants' part was the proximate cause of the destruction of plaintiffs' horses and the resulting monetary damages represented the value of the two horses at the time of loss. Specific acts of negligence alleged covered both acts of commission and omission on the part of defendants and involved the hazardous condition of the building, a fireworks display and failure to provide adequate fire protection.
Evidence at the trial discloses many conflicts. Principal conflicts involved the cause of the fire; in whose care, custody and control the horses were at the time of loss; and the value of the horses at the time of loss.
On the evening of August 23, 1967, Rich Company, a fireworks display company under contract to the Fair Board, exploded fireworks. Several witnesses testified concerning small grass fires which were ignited by the fireworks. Plaintiffs' witness, Meredith E. Fite, the Missoula Fire Marshal, testified that in his opinion 'the probable cause of this fire would have been the fireworks.' Mr. Fite stated that during the testimony of the plaintiffs' other witnesses he had formed the opinion the fire had started in the sawdust accumulated outside the building, had slowly burned under the sill, and erupted inside the building at 4:00 a. m.
Defendants' witness, Thor Fladwed, a professional fire investigator with experience in insurance cases, testified that he had performed tests on material samples taken from barn number one and from the fire area. He stated that in his opinion the chain of causation stated by Mr. Fite was practically impossible.
One witness for defendants stated that he saw a bright blue falsh on the morning of the fire which could have been an electrical failure, but plaintiffs produced a Montana Power Company employee who testified there had been no transformer power surge or similar malfunction the night of the fire.
Witnesses for the defendants also suggested the possibility of arson, accident, or a nearby trash barrel as possible causes of the fire. Plaintiffs' expert Fite stated he had ruled out these various possible causes of the fire.
The Fair Board kept no fire trucks within the premises of the fairgrounds. Three night watchmen were on duty in the fairgrounds on the night of the fire. At about 4:00 a. m. watchman Cassidy observed smoke coming from barn number two. He and watchman Cambridge went to barn number two and commenced releasing horses from their stalls. Watchman Brennan called the city fire department. Persons who were sleeping in campers and trailers adjacent to barn number two awoke and took part in attempting to release horses from the barn. Some horses had been padlocked in their stalls. The fire swept through the barn very rapidly and several horses, including those owned by the Hayneses, were killed in the fire. The Hayneses were not on the fairgrounds the night of the fire.
Plaintiffs' five witnesses who testified as to the market value of the horse Jule Bar varied in their opinions between $30,000 and $105,000. Plaintiff Bill Haynes testified the value of the horse Jule's Dandy was $1,000. A defense value witness valued Jule Bar at $7,500. The jury returned a verdict awarding damages of $79,650 for the loss of Jule Bar, and $1,000 for the loss of Jule's Dandy.
Following entry of judgment for plaintiffs, the trial court granted an amended motion for a new trial filed by defendants. The amended motion listed six of the eight statutory grounds provided in section 93-5603, R.C.M.1947, upon which a new trial may be granted:
(1) Irregularity in the proceedings and abuse of discretion by the trial court which prevented defendants from having a fair trial.
(2) Accident or surprise which could not be guarded against.
(3) Excessive damages given under the influence of passion or prejudice.
(4) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.
(5) Error at law occurring at trial.
(6) Misconduct of the jury.
The trial court's order granting the amended motion was general and did not specify on which of these enumerated grounds the new trial was granted.
On appeal this Court rendered an opinion on May 31, 1973, affirming the trial court's order granting defendants a new trial which was subsequently withdrawn and a rehearing granted. The present opinion follows.
The underlying issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendants' amended motion for a new trial.
At the outset we observe that the granting of a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and its order granting a new trial will be reversed only for manifest abuse of that discretion. Garrison v. Trowbridge, 119 Mont. 505, 177 P.2d 464; Maki v. Murray Hospital, 91 Mont. 251, 7 P.2d 228. An order, general in its terms, granting a new trial will be upheld if it can be sustained on any ground stated in the motion therefor. Tigh v. College Park Realty Co., 149 Mont. 358, 427 P.2d 57.
The first ground enumerated in defendants' motion for a new trial is irregularity of the proceedings and abuse of discretion by the trial court whereby defendants were prevented from having a fair trial Defendants contend the district court's pretrial order suppressing plaintiffs' general release in the Western Montana Fair entry blank is reversible error. Specifically defendants argue that this release is a valid and enforceable contract absolving defendants from liability.
The release at the bottom of the entry blank provided:
'I hereby release the Missoula...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kopischke v. First Continental Corp.
...Plaintiff argues that a person cannot contract away liability because to do so would contravene public policy. Haynes v. County of Missoula (1973), 163 Mont. 270, 517 P.2d 370. Therefore, the "as is" provision is ineffective to protect defendant from liability for its negligent Plaintiff al......
-
Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
...Thus, we find the statements from Hoyt unpersuasive in this case. For this same reason, we also distinguish Haynes v. County of Missoula, 163 Mont. 270, 517 P.2d 370 (1973), Lindemann v. American Horse Shows Assn., 164 Misc.2d 937, 624 N.Y.S.2d 723 (1994), and Morrison v. Union Park Assn., ......
-
State v. Sharbono
...properly admitted this testimony. The rule in Montana relating to the admission of expert testimony is set forth in Haynes v. County of Missoula, 163 Mont. 270, 517 P.2d 370. This Court has held highway patrolmen are experts in their field of accident investigation. See: State v. Souhrada, ......
-
Thermal Design, Inc. v. Duffy
... ... District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and ... For the County" of Gallatin, Cause No. DV-15-403-A Honorable ... Peter B. Ohman, Presiding Judge ... \xC2" ... questioning. The Duffys and Central Copters cite to ... Haynes v. County of Missoula , for the proposition ... that "every litigant is entitled to a fair and ... ...