Thomas Helicopters, Inc. v. San Tan Ranches

• Decision Date: 09 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 13191,13191
• Citation: 102 Idaho 567,633 P.2d 1145
• Parties: THOMAS HELICOPTERS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SAN TAN RANCHES, a partnership; as individual partners, the following: William Albert Anderson, Gordon H. Anderson, R. Trent Anderson, Thomas M. Anderson, William A. Anderson, Jr., Ben W. Laverty III, Clifford L. Smith, John G. Anderson, Mack Martin, Jeffrey M. Martin and Michael K. Martin, Defendant-Appellants. SAN TAN RANCHES, a partnership; as individual partners, the following: William Albert Anderson, Gordon H. Anderson, R. Trent Anderson, Thomas M. Anderson, William A. Anderson, Jr., Ben W. Laverty III, Clifford L. Smith, John G. Anderson, Mack Martin, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. SPRAY RITE, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Respondent, and Chemagro Agricultural Division, Mobay Chemical Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 1145

633 P.2d 1145

102 Idaho 567

THOMAS HELICOPTERS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SAN TAN RANCHES, a partnership; as individual partners, the following: William Albert Anderson, Gordon H. Anderson, R. Trent Anderson, Thomas M. Anderson, William A. Anderson, Jr., Ben W. Laverty III, Clifford L. Smith, John G. Anderson, Mack Martin, Jeffrey M. Martin and Michael K. Martin, Defendant-Appellants.

SAN TAN RANCHES, a partnership; as individual partners, the following: William Albert Anderson, Gordon H. Anderson, R. Trent Anderson, Thomas M. Anderson, William A. Anderson, Jr., Ben W. Laverty III, Clifford L. Smith, John G. Anderson, Mack Martin, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. SPRAY RITE, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Respondent, and Chemagro Agricultural Division, Mobay Chemical Corporation, Defendants.

No. 13191.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Sept. 9, 1981.

Lloyd J. Webb, Twin Falls, for appellants.

Robert M. Tyler, Jr. of Elam, Burke, Evans, Boyd & Koontz, Boise, Severt Swenson, Jr., Gooding, for respondents.

BAKES, Chief Justice.

This appeal involves consolidated actions by San Tan Ranches claiming that its potato crop was damaged due to the negligent application of Sencor, a herbicide, by Thomas Helicopters, Inc., and Spray Rite, Inc., to certain potato fields farmed by San Tan Ranches. San Tan Ranches is a large partnership farming operation. In 1976 the partnership grew approximately 3,600 acres of potatoes, of which 1,383 acres are the subject of this suit. San Tan purchased approximately 2,480 pounds of Sencor in December, 1975. During the spring of 1976 the potato fields were prepared and planted. Application of the previously purchased Sencor was contracted out to Thomas Helicopters and Spray Rite, and performed during the early weeks of June, 1976. Subsequent to the application of the Sencor, it became apparent that there was a severe weed infestation, which occurred in noticeable strips in some of the fields.

San Tan refused to pay Thomas Helicopters for the herbicide application, and Thomas Helicopters brought suit to collect its fee. San Tan counterclaimed for damages occurring from the weed infestation, asserting that the infestation was a result of Thomas Helicopters' negligence. In addition, San Tan brought suit against Spray Rite to recover damages under the same theory. The two cases were consolidated for trial. Apparently, it was then stipulated that San Tan Ranches would present its case on the counterclaim and that, should it lose, Thomas Helicopters could recover a judgment in the amount of $15,893.88 for work done. San Tan Ranches then presented its evidence. Thereafter, upon respondent's motion, the court directed a verdict in favor of Thomas Helicopters and Spray Rite pursuant to I.R.C.P. 50(a), stating in its order that "(i)t appearing as a matter of law that there is no substantial evidence which constitutes a prima facie case of negligence of Spray Rite, Inc., or Thomas Helicopters, Inc., that would justify submitting the case to the jury, nor any substantial evidence that San Tan Ranches could prove damages with any degree of reasonable certainty ... it is hereby ordered that judgment should be entered in favor of (Spray Rite, Inc., and Thomas Helicopters, Inc.)." On appeal, San Tan argues that the evidence was sufficient to require a decision of the jury, and that the granting of a directed verdict was error.

As was stated in Shields & Co., Inc. v. Green, 100 Idaho 879, 882, 606 P.2d 983, 986 (1980),

"A directed verdict should only be granted when the evidence is so clear and undisputed that all reasonable minds must reach the same conclusion. On a motion for directed verdict pursuant to I.R.C.P. 50(a), the moving party admits the truth of the adverse evidence and every inference that may be legitimately drawn from it. Where there is substantial competent evidence tending to establish plaintiff's case, or where reasonable minds may differ as to the conclusion to be reached from the evidence, the cause should be submitted to a jury." (Citations omitted.)

After reviewing the record in this case, we find that the evidence is such that reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusion supported by the evidence. There is substantial and competent evidence which, when taken as true, and when drawing every legitimate inference in favor of San Tan, tends to establish its case at least to some, if not all of the fields. Consequently, we hold that the district court erred in directing a verdict against San Tan Ranches.

Although it is not necessary to discuss all of the evidence presented in this case, a short review of some of the major items supporting San Tan's claims of negligence and damages will be beneficial. Testimony and exhibits admitted at trial on behalf of San Tan indicate that the weed infestation in at least some of the fields occurred in noticeable strips, alternating with strips which were relatively weed free; that the weeds were of types controllable with the proper application of Sencor; that the proper field preparation, irrigation and timing necessary for effective Sencor application were effected on San Tan's part; that the best control of weeds required application of one pound of Sencor compound per acre; that as of June 15, 1976, the 2,480 pounds of Sencor had been used up, while bills and records received by San Tan from the respondents indicated that 2,315 acres had been sprayed as of that date; that experts held the opinion that the stripping was caused by aerial misapplication; and that even if an inadequate amount of Sencor had been applied due to error on San Tan's part, weed infestation would have been uniform rather than stripped. ¹

During cross examination, counsel for the respondent through questioning and the submission of exhibits cast doubt upon much of the evidence set forth above. However, when the evidence is viewed most favorably in behalf of San Tan, as required under I.R.C.P. 50(a), it must be concluded that San Tan had presented enough evidence to take the question of negligence to the jury. Although there is no direct evidence of negligence on the part of respondents, it is clear under our law that "circumstantial evidence is competent to establish negligence and proximate cause." Splinter v. City of Nampa, 74 Idaho 1, 10, 256 P.2d 215, 220 (1953); see also Ryals v. Broadbent Development Co., 98 Idaho 392, 395, 565 P.2d 982, 985 (1977); Dent v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co., 86 Idaho 427, 434, 388 P.2d 89, 93 (1963).

Respondents also argue that San Tan failed in its proof of proximate cause and that Chisholm v. J. R. Simplot Co., 94 Idaho 628, 495 P.2d 1113 (1972), is factually so close to this case that it requires an affirmance of the directed verdict. We disagree. Chisholm similarly concerned a claim arising from potato crop damage due to weed infestation. The action in that case involved a breach of warranty claim against the producer of the herbicide Lorox. The jury was unable to reach a decision following thirteen hours of deliberation. The court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant pursuant to I.R.C.P. 50(b). "The record (in Chisholm indicated) that there was a plethora of possible causes of the appellants' crop loss, for all but one of which the respondents were clearly not responsible." Id. at 632, 495 P.2d at 1117. Some of the alternative causes of damage in Chisholm were frost, disease, inadequate watering and rotation of crops, and weeds not controllable by Lorox.

In affirming the decision of the trial court on the basis of that record, we stated the following:

"Where the record shows that there are several possible causes of an injury, for one or more of which the defendant was not responsible, and it is just as reasonable and probable that the injury was the result of the latter, the plaintiff may not recover since he has failed to prove that the defendant's breach caused the injury. The rule is stated as follows in 65A C.J.S. (Negligence § 264 at 928 (1966).):

" 'Where the evidence is such that a jury can do no more than guess or conjecture as to which of...