Sanders v. Mount Haggin Livestock C

No. 12060

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN

1972 RICHARD SANDERS and ANNASTELLE SANDERS,

P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,

M U T HAGGIN LIVESTOCK COMPANY, ON a Montana c o r p o r a t i o n ,

Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Nat A l l e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellant :

Poore, McKenzie & Roth, B u t t e , Montana. Urban L. Roth a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana. Donald C. Robinson a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana.

F o r Respondents:

K n i g h t , Dahood and Mackay, Anaconda, Montane. Wade J. Dahood a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana. David M. McLean a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana. McKeon & McKeon, Anaconda, Montana. John L. McKeon a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana.

Submitted: J u n e 1 3 , 1972

Decided :Aid6 2 1 1972 Nr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d the Opinion o f t h e Court,

This i s an appeal from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of the t h i r d j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Deer Lodge County. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n favor of p l a i n t i f f s and awarded damages i n t h e sum of $96,140. Defendant moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l and f o r judgment notwithstanding t h e v e r d i c t ; both motions were denied by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Defendant appeals from t h e judgment. I n e a r l y May 1969, defendant Mount Haggin Livestock Company owned approximately 600-850 head of Black Angus c a t t l e which were pastured i n a fenced p a s t u r e i n t h e Deer Lodge Valley between Galen and Anaconda, Montana, i n t h e g e n e r a l proximity of Montana Highway No, 273. This highway i s a l s o known a s t h e Lost Creek Highway o r t h e Old Galen Road, The e n c l o s u r e i n which t h e c a t t l e were p a s t u r e d was r e f e r r e d t o throughout t h e t r i a l a s t h e "Peterson place", O t h e t h r e e days of May 8 t o May 10, 1969, Mount Haggin n divided t h e c a t t l e i n t o two groups, w i t h no attempt b e i n g made t o keep t h e cows w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c a l v e s , and then moved each group from t h e Peterson Place down t h e Lost Creek Highway, approximately one-half t o t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of a m i l e , t o a p a s t u r e 11 known a s t h e Swamp Pasture" o r t h e "Poor Farm Pasture". Three cowboys, James Baustadt, J i m Nolan and Donald Martz, who had worked f o r defendant during t h e h e r d i n g o p e r a t i o n b u t were employed elsewhere a t t h e time of t r i a l , t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e f a c t s of t h a t herding. They e s t a b l i s h e d t h e o p e r a t i o n had taken t h r e e days. The f i r s t two days,May 8 and 9 , each of t h e two h a l v e s of t h e herd were d r i v e n t o t h e Poor Farm P a s t u r e . O F r i d a y , May 9 , n a " s p i l l back" occurred, i . e . , some of t h e c a t t l e turned around a t t h e e n t r a n c e t o t h e Poor Farm P a s t u r e t o which they were being moved, and they r a n back up t h e road t o t h e Peterson P l a c e where

t h e y had been o r i g i n a l l y p a s t u r e d . On Saturday, May P O , t h e cowboys r e t u r n e d t o t h e a r e a and picked up t h e s t r a y s which had e i t h e r been l e f t i n t h e P e t e r s o n P l a c e p a s t u r e o r had " s p i l l e d back" and returned t o t h a t pasture. These c a t t l e were e i t h e r d r i v e n o r hauled t o t h e Poor Farm P a s t u r e . On t h e evening of May 1 0 , Rick B a r k e l l , J r . , and C h r i s t i e Sanders, who was seventeen y e a r s of a g e , planned t o a t t e n d a b i r t h d a y p a r t y i n t h e Modesty Gulch a r e a , They l e f t Anaconda t o g e t h e r w i t h Norman Motland a t approximately 4:00 o r 5:00 p.m. Their intention Mas t o h u n t gophers b e f o r e they went on t o t h e a r e a where t h e p a r t y was t o be h e l d , They a r r i v e d a t t h e Modesty Gulch a r e a a t approxi- mately 8:00 o r 9 : 0 0 p.m., where t h e p a r t y was under way. During t h e time they were a t t h e p a r t y t h e y b o t h drank some keg b e e r . They remained a t t h e p a r t y u n t i l approximately 12:30 o r 1:00 a.m. Returning home, Rick B a r k e l l and C h r i s t i e Sanders proceeded td Moatana Highway 273 on a d i f f e r e n t road than t h e one they had t r a v e l e d going t o t h e p a r t y . Suddenly B a r k e l l , who was d r i v i n g t:he pickup t r u c k , n o t i c e d a cow v e r y c l o s e t o t h e f r o n t of h i s gehicle. The cow was a t r u c k - l e n g t h t o a t r u c k - l e n g t h and a h a l f i n f r o n t of him, moving a c r o s s t h e road i n t o h i s l a n e o f t r a f f i c . Y a r k e l l , a f t e r a t t e m p t i n g t o swerve around t h e cow, h i t i t . At c h i s p o i n t t h e pickup s t a r t e d t o r o l l and ended up i n a borrow p i t :o che l e f t of t h e highway. B a r k e l l found himself l y i n g on t h e gi-uund o u t s i d e t h e pi-ckup cab w i t h t h e t r u c k on h i s f o o t . H e freed ; ~ i m s e l fand looked around f o r C h r i s t i e , who was l y i n g behind him. she c a l l e d h i s name and he t o l d h e r t o l i e s t i l l and h e then went sfor a s s i s t a n c e . B a r k e l l l e f t t h e scene of t h e a c c i d e n t , r a n down lo the Poor Farm t o seek h e l p and f i n d i n g none he e v e n t u a l l y caught

3 r i d e i n t o Anaconda. Highway Patrolman William S t e i n e r i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e a c c i d e n t . H e a r r i v e d a t t h e scene a t approximately 2:30 t o 3:00 a.m. and

- 3 -

discovered t h e body of t h e deceased C h r i s t i e Sanders. After c a l l i n g an ambulance, he began h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n which continued i n t o t h e following day. The cow t h a t was s t r u c k was a mature Black Angus owned by the Mount Haggin Livestock Company. P l a i n t i f f s , p a r e n t s of C h r i s t i e Sanders, contend t h e negligence of t h e Mount Haggin Livestock Company was t h e proximate cause of t h e i r d a u g h t e r ' s d e a t h . Defendant p r e s e n t s s e v e r a l i s s u e s o n appeal. The f i r s t i s s u e contends defendant was e n t i t l e d t o a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t , f o r these r e a s o n s : A. Defendant owed no duty t o fence i n t h e cow which had wandered onto t h e highway; o r B. The evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e v e r d i c t o~ judgment; o r C, The j u r y was improperly i n s t r u c t e d on n e g l i g e n t h e r d i n g and damages, W cannot a g r e e w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s on t h e f i r s t e issue, P l a i n t i f f s e s t a b l i s h e d a prima f a c i e c a s e and t h e j u r y had a r i g h t and duty t o examine t h e evidence and t o h e a r t h e testimony % ~ he witnesses. t f S u f f i c i e n t testimony was brought b e f o r e t h e j u r y t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e c a s e of n e g l i g e n c e ; consequently, ?he t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t d e f e n d a n t ' s motions. Testimony was introduced a s t o whether o r n o t t h e h e r d i n g was done i n a n e g l i g e n t manner. C o n f l i c t s i n t h e testimony e x i s t e d , b u t t h e iury was t h e u l t i m a t e f i n d e r of f a c t . d

N one w i l l d i s p u t e t h a t Montana i s an open range s t a t e , o f h i s Court h a s many times so r u l e d , But, a s with every r u l e of law, f e f i n i t e exceptions do e x i s t . The exception t o t h e open range r u l e z x i s t s when t h e animals i n q u e s t i o n a r e i n charge of h e r d e r s . This Court s t a t e d t h i s exception i n Jenkins v. Valley Garden Ranch I n c . ,

151 Mont. 463, 465, 443 P,2d 753, c i t i n g from Montgomery v. Gehring, 145 Mont. 278, 283, 400 P.2d 403: "'One r e l e a s i n g h i s l i v e s t o c k onto l a n d s where he h a s a r i g h t t o do so i s under no duty t o r e s t r a i n them from e n t e r i n g a n o t h e r ' s unenclosed land. Such l i v e s t o c k owner i s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r damages occa- sioned by t h e e n t r y of h i s l i v e s t o c k on such unfenced hand through following t h e i r n a t u r a l i n s t i n c t s . The - exception t o t h i s , of c o u r s e , i s w i l l f u l o r i n t e n t i o n a l h e r d i n g o r d r i v i n g l i v e s t o c k onto a n o t h e r ' s unfenced land o r p l a c i n g them s o n e a r t h a t t r e s p a s s i s bound t o occur. -- I' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d )

I n E s t a t e of Bartsch, 149 Mnnt. 405, 427 P.2d 302, t h e Court p l a i n l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t i f an animal i s w i l l f u l l y o r i n - t e n t i o n a l l y d r i v e n onto t h e highway right-of-way a duty i s c r e a t e d , he breach of which c o n s t i t u t e s negligence. Here, t h e testimony and evidence presented c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t Mount Haggin may have w i l l f u l l y , i n t e n t i o n a l l y and d e l i b e r a t e l y d r i v e n t h e animals upon t h e highway right-of-way and l e f t them t h e r e once they had escaped from t h e c o n t r o l of t h e h e r d e r s . There i s n o t h i n g i n t h e record t o i n d i c a t e t h a t a c t i o n was taken t o warn m o t o r i s t s of t h e hazard t h a t may have been c r e a t e d upon t h e highway. In t h i s case, a duty may have been v i o l a t e d c o n s t i t u t i n g n e g l i g e n c e , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n allowing i t t o go t o t h e j u r y f o r f i n a l determination. Defendant's second i s s u e on appeal i s whether o r n o t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o exclude t h e testimony of p l a i n - t i f f s ' w i t n e s s e s whose i d e n t i t y had n o t been d i s c l o s e d , d e s p i t e interrogatories requesting t h e i r identity. W f i n d such r e f u s a l e was error. A b a s i c p h y s i c a l f a c t of t h i s c a s e was t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t which took t h e l i f e of C h r i s t i e Sanders occurred i n t h e Deer Lodge Valley n e a r t h e o l d "Poor Farmrq, and t h a t defendant had moved a herd of c a t t l e p a s t t h a t farm, through an a d j a c e n t g a t e , s h o r t l y before the accident. This elementary f a c t was known t o p l a i n t i f f s ' counsel soon a f t e r they began i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e c a s e .

Plaintiffs subsequently filed their complaint alleging defendant was guilty of negligently conducting a herding operation which caused the death of their daughter. Thereafter, discovery was initiated by counsel for plaintiffs and defendant. At the same time, plaintiffs' counsel employed a private investigator to interview witnesses or possible witnesses in the area where the accident occurred. About one month after the accident, this investigator interviewed Ethel and Doug Davis, a married couple who live at the old "Poor arm" and who subsequently became key witnesses for plaintiffs. The investigator, a police officer regularly employed by the city of Anaconda, interviewed Ethel and Doug Davis again two or three months later. They related to him the information they subsequently gave at the trial, Months after this investigative activity by plaintiffs' counsel, counsel for defendant propounded and submitted interroga- tories to plaintiffs and their counsel which requested inter -alia 9

the following information: "INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Give the name, addresses, places of employment, home and business telephone, numbers, job titles and capacities and Last known whereabouts of: I1 a, Any person known to you, your agents, employees or attorneys who witnessed the acci- dent, or was in its vicinity before, at the time of or just after its occurrence * ik *." "INTERROGATORS NO. 60: What is the name and address of each person who has knowledge of one or more facts or-circumstances upon which you base your allegations of: "a. Negligence of the Defendant, but who did not actually see the accident;

"c. Any other matters which relate to the accident or to damages or causation,I1 "INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Have any persons made any statements. written or otherwise. while being inter- viewed or questioned by you or on your behallf, in- cluding your attorneys, insurance adjuster, agents

or representatives of your attorneys, in connection with the accident complained of?" "INTERROGATORY NO, 62: If so, for each statement indicate : 11 a. The name, address, occupation and relation- ship to you of the person taking it; "b. The date of making; "c. The place of making; "d. Whether signed or unsigned; * , " >t ' 1I

"INTERROGATORY NO. 63: What is the name, last known address. present whereabouts, if known. of each person whom yo& b r anyone acting insyour behaif, including attorneys, agents, insurance adjusters, or other per- sons, knows or believes to have any relevant knowledge of the conditions at the scene of the accident existing prior to, at, or immediately after the same.It The names of Ethel and Doug Davis were not listed in the answers given to the above quoted interrogatories. These witnesses, whom the investigator discovered and interviewed, fell within the scope of the answers to the interrogatories which plaintiffs subsequently submitted to defendant, in that Ethel and Doug Davis were : I. Persons who had "knowledge of one or more facts or upon circumstances hhich" plaintiffs base their allegations of "a. Negligence of the Defendant", (Interrogatory No, 6 ) 0. 2. Persons who had "knowledge of one on: more facts or circumstances upon which" plaintiffs base their allegations of ' tl c. Any other matters which relate to the accident 9 : * or causation. If (Interrogatory No. 60) 3, Persons who had "made any statements, written or otherwise, while being interviewed or questioned by *** agents or representatives of [plaintiffs'] attorneys ;k * *I1,

(Interrogatory No. 6 ) 1. 4 Persons whom plaintiffs "or anyone acting in [their] . behalf, including attorneys, agents *** or other persons, knows or believes to have any relevant knowledge of the condi-tionsat

t h e scene o f t h e a c c i d e n t e x i s t i n g p r i o r t o , a t , o r immediately

a f t e r t h e same." ( I n t e r r o g a t o r y No. 63). The i n v e s t i g a t o r was n o t mentioned i n t h e answers t o t h e s e i . n t e r r o g a t o r i e s a s a person who knew, f o r i n s t e n c e , of t h e "conditions a t t h e scene of t h e a c c i d e n t " , although he interviewed people and took photographs, Then, on September 10, 1970, some 46 days b e f o r e t h e t r i a l began, defendant propounded supplementary i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o t h e plaintiffs. They r e q u e s t e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s l i s t a l l of t h e w i t - n e s s e s they intended t o c a l l a t t h e t r i a l and t h e names of " a l l persons from whom s t a t e m e n t s have been taken by a t t o r n e y s , a g e n t s , i n v e s t i g a t o r s o r any o t h e r persons on b e h a l f of t h e p l a i n t i f f s and s p e c i f y whether t h e statement i s w r i t t e n o r o r a l and t h e name o f t h e person t a k i n g such statement. " P l a i n t i f f s , although r e - q u i r e d by Rule 33, M.R,Civ.P., t o answer t h o s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s w i t h i n 20 d a y s , f a i l e d t o respond, Thus, d e s p i t e t h e foregoing account of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and d i s c o v e r y procedures by counsel t h e i d e n t i t y of E t h e l Davis was n o t d i s c l o s e d u n t i l f o u r days b e f o r e t h e t r i a l . The i d e n t i t y of h e r husband, Doug Davis, was n o t d i s c l o s e d t o defense counsel u n t i l t h e morning of t h e t r i a l , The t r i a l began on Monday morning, October 26, 1970. On Thursday b e f o r e t h e t r i a l , counsel f o r

defendant exchanged a l i s t of w i t n e s s e s w i t h counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f s . A t t h a t time and f o r t h e f i r s t time, t h e i d e n t i t y of E t h e l Davis

was d i s c l o s e d . When defense counsel asked f o r t h e a d d r e s s of w i t n e s s E t h e l Davis, he was informed she l i v e d "somewhere o u t i n t h e (Deer Lodge) v a l l e y . " Some hours p r i o r t o t h i s d i s c l o s u r e , counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f s had i s s u e d a subpoena f o r E t h e l Davis d i r e c t i n g h e r t o appear and t e s t i f y a s a w i t n e s s f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Yet, a few hours l a t e r , counsel f o r t h e defense was advised t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' counsel d i d n o t know where she l i v e d .

The record shows t h e testimony of E t h e l and Doug Davis came a s a complete s u r p r i s e t o defendant, Defense counsel were forced t o r e l y upon a t r a n s c r i p t of a t a p e r e c o r d i n g taken by counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f s and then, subsequently, a r e c o r d i n g taken by two members of t h e i r own law f i r m who had no knowledge o r background of t h e case. Neither E t h e l o r Doug Davis had been interviewed o r deposed b y counsel r e p r e s e n t i n g defendant p r i o r t o t h e i r a c t u a l appearance on t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d . This s i t u a t i o n j u s t i f i e d and r e q u i r e d t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e w i t n e s s e s ' testimony. A motion t o exclude and d i s a l l o w any testimony of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s was made, supported, and e l a b o r a t e d upon w i t h a complete statement of t h e surrounding f a c t s . The t r i a l c o u r t was i n e r r o r t o r e f u s e t h i s s a n c t i o n f o r f a i l u r e t o make proper and a c c u r a t e responses t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t h a t were designed t o e l i c i t e x a c t l y t h e information which was withheld. The i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s propounded t o p l a i n t i f f s were c o n t i n u i n g in n a t u r e and s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h e information requested of p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r a t t o r n e y s , and a l s o extended t o f a c t s w i t h i n t h e knowledge of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e i r "agents and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s " , A s t h e testimony a t t h e t r i a l and t h e a f f i d a v i t s submitted by

p l a i n t i f f s ' counsel c l e a r l y show, t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r was an agent of t h e law f i r m of Knight, Dahood & MacKay, and conducted an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e a c c i d e n t f o r t h a t law firm. Mrs. Davis v e r i f i e d , i n h e r own testimony, t h a t she had t o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r t h e same s t o r y she t e s t i f i e d t o a t t h e t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s ' counsel considered h e r testimony most c r u c i a l t o t h e i r c a s e , and they argued t o t h e j u r y t h a t h e r testimony had a d i r e c t b e a r i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n of whether Mount Haggin conducted n e g l i g e n t h e r d i n g opera- tions, Counsel f o r defendant c o r r e c t l y c i t e s Smith v . Babcock, 157 Kont. 81, 91, 482 P.2d 1014, a s a u t h o r i t y f o r excluding t h e

Davis testimony. In Smith, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e testimony of a w i t n e s s should have been r e q u i r e d when t h e p a r t y who introduced h i s testimony f a i l e d t o supply t h e name of t h e w i t n e s s i n answer t o an i n t e r r o g a t o r y which requested "names and a d d r e s s e s of a l l persons who have any knowledge o r information r e l a t i n g t o t h e a c c i d e n t o r i t s c a u s e . .I I Counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f s c i t e Wolfe v . Northern Pac, Ry., 147 Mont, 29, 40, 409 P.2d 528: "Rule 33, M.R.Civ,P., a u t h o r i z i n g t h e u s e of i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s f o r purposes of p r e - t r i a l d i s - covery from any I adverse p a r t y , ' although l i b e r a l l y construed t o make a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t s a v a i l a b l e t o p a r t i e s i n advance of t r i a l and t o reduce t h e pos- s i b i l i t i e s of s u r p r i s e and u n f a i r advantage 5: ** cannot become a weapon f o r punishment o r f o r f e i t u r e i n t h e hands of a p a r t y , o r an instrument f o r avoidance of a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . 5: * *. l1

The r u l e s t a t e d i n Wolfe i s v a l i d and we a g r e e w i t h p l a i n t i f f s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; however, i n Wolfe t h e Court a l s o s t a t e d : "In i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s e r u l e s [Montana Rules of C i v i l Procediire] we w i l l r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l judge only when h i s judgment may m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e a p p e l l a n t and allow a p o s s i b l e mis- c a r r i a g e of j u s t i c e , I I Under t h e f a c t s h e r e , we b e l i e v e a p o s s i b l e m i s c a r r i a g e of j u s t i c e h a s s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d t h e r i g h t s of defendant. From t h e testimony given a t t r i a l , one r e a d i l y d i s c e r n s t h e importance of t h e testimony of E t h e l and Doug Davis. Both t e s t i f i e d they were a b l e t o observe t h e h e r d i n g o p e r a t i o n of t h e Mount Haggin cowboys and t h a t i t was c a r r i e d on i n a n e g l i g e n t and i n e f f i c i e n t manner. Both t e s t i f i e d t h a t some of t h e c a t t l e , a s they w e r e d r i v e n down t h e highway, r e f u s e d t o e n t e r t h e Poor Farm (Swamp) p a s t u r e and e i t h e r "stampeded1' o r " s p i l l e d back" t o t h e Peterson Place. They a l s o t e s t i f i e d they b e l i e v e d t h a t c a t t l e were p r e s e n t on t h e highway t h e n i g h t of t h e a c c i d e n t . Due t o t h e f a c t t h a t Doug Davi-s had had a s e r i e s of h e a r t a t t a c k s he was unable t o come t o t h e courtroom, s o t h e t r i a l judge ordered t h e j u r y

t o go eo t h e r e s i d e n c e of Doug Davis and h i s testimony was t a k e n i n t h e Poor Farm b u i l d i n g which i s l o c a t e d immediately a d j o i n i n g t h e Swamp P a s t u r e a r e a .

This Court a g r e e s w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e testimony of t h e w i t n e s s e s Davis was c r u c i a l t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c a s e and from t h e v e r d i c t r e t u r n e d by t h e j u r y we a r e compelled t o b e l i e v e t h i s testimony was s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e j u r y d u r i n g i t s deliberations. Since proper d i s c o v e r y procedures were n o t f o l - lowed, we f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d commit e r r o r i n a l l o w i n g t h e testimony of E t h e l and Doug Davis. Counsel f o r defendant made t h r e e formal o b j e c t i o n s d u r i n g che c o u r s e of t h e t r i a l i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n t h e quashing of t h e Davis testimony. The f i r s t o b j e c t i o n was made immediately a t t h e commencement of t h e t r i a l : "MR. ROTH [Counsel f o r d e f e n d a n t ] : Now, may i t p l e a s e t h e c o u r t . The Defendant w i l l now o b j e c t t o t h e a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s t h a t have been l i s t e d by t h e P l a i n t i f f s , and t h e u s e of t h e i r testimony i n t h e t r i a l of t h i s c a s e , on t h e ground and f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t a t t h e p r e - t r i a l con- f e r e n c e t h e names and a d d r e s s e s of a l l w i t n e s s e s were t o be exchanged between counsel f o r t h e p a r t i e s a t l e a s t t e n days p r i o r t o t r i a l , and t h i s was agreed t o by t h e p a r t i e s . Now, t h e n , your honor, t h e P l a i n t i f f s had a d u t y i n t h i s c a s e t o p r e p a r e t h e p r e - t r i a l o r d e r , and i t w a s n ' t prepared w i t h i n t h e time i t was supposed t o have been p r e p a r e d , and s o t h e names of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s comes a s a complete s u r p r i s e t o t h e Defendant, your honor, a t t h i s l a t e d a t e , f o r we have n o t had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n s u l t and i n v e s t i g a g e t h e testimony of Mrs. E t h e l Davis, o r t h e o t h e r a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s named, Dick H a r r i s , Dan J a n c i c , o r Margaret Durkin. 1 1 This o b j e c t i o n was o v e r r u l e d . The second o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d by M r . Roth was a t t h e time M r s . E t h e l Davis was about t o t e s t i f y : "MR. ROTH: May i t p l e a s e t h e c o u r t , Comes now t h e Defendant, Mount Haggin Livestock Company, i n t h e cause now b e i n g t r i e d b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t , and r e s p e c t - f u l l y moves t h e c o u r t t o quash and d i s a l l o w any t e s t i - mony of e i t h e r of t h e w i t n e s s e s , E t h e l Davis and Doug Davis, upon t h e f o l l o w i n g grounds, and f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : (1) t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were propounded t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s on November 2 1 s t , 1969, among which i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were t h e following: I n t e r - r o g a t o r y Number 59: Give t h e names, a d d r e s s e s , p l a c e s

of employment, home and b u s i n e s s telephone numbers, job t i t l e s , and c a p a c i t i e s , and l a s t known whereabouts o f : (a) any person known t o you, your a g e n t s , employees, o r a t t o r n e y s , who witnessed t h e a c c i d e n t , o r was i n i t s v i c i n i t y b e f o r e , a t t h e time o f , o r j u s t a f t e r i t s occurrence. I n t e r r o g a t o r y Number 60: What i s t h e name and a d d r e s s of each person who h a s knowledge of one o r more f a c t s o r circumstances upon which you b a s e your a l l e g a t i o n o f : ( a ) negligence of t h e defendant, b u t who d i d n o t a c t u a l l y s e e t h e a c c i d e n t ; and, f u r t h e r , ( c ) any o t h e r m a t t e r s which r e l a t e t o t h e a c c i d e n t , o r t o damages o r c a u s a t i o n . I n t e r r o g a t o r y Number 61: Have any persons made any s t a t e m e n t s , w r i t t e n o r o t h e r w i s e , w h i l e being interviewed o r questioned by you, o r on your b e h a l f , i n c l u d i n g your a t t o r n e y s , i n s u r a n c e a d j u s t e r , a g e n t s o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of your a t t o r n e y s , i n connec- t i o n w i t h t h e a c c i d e n t complained o f . I n t e r r o g a t o r y Number 62: I f s o , f o r each s t a t e m e n t , i n d i c a t e : (a) t h e name, a d d r e s s , occupation, and r e l a t i o n s h i p t o you, of t h e person t a k i n g i t ; (b) t h e d a t e of making; (c) whether signed o r unsigned. I n t e r r o g a t o r y Number 63: What i s t h e name, l a s t known a d d r e s s , p r e s e n t whereabouts, i f known, of each person whom you, o r anyone a c t i n g on your b e h a l f , i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y s , a g e n t s , i n s u r a n c e a d j u s t e r s , o r o t h e r persons, knows o r b e l i e v e s t o have any r e l e v a n t knowledge, of t h e c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e scene of t h e a c c i d e n t , e x i s t i n g p r i o r t o , a t , o r immediately a f t e r t h e same, (2) t h a t answers t o t h e s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were r e c e i v e d by t h e defendant on January 23, 1970, b u t t h a t nowhere i n t h e answers t o t h e foregoing i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .was t h e r e any i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o r whereabouts of E t h e l Davis o r Doug Davis. (3) t h a t the i d e n t i t y of E t h e l Davis and Doug Davis was known t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s , and t h e i r a t t o r n e y s , one month a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , through M r . Daniel J a n c i c , an employee and agent of s a i d a t t o r n e y s , and a g a i n f o u r months a f t e r t h e a c c i - dent. (4) t h a t counsel f o r t h e defendant have interviewed t h e s a i d M r . Daniel J a n c i c , t h e employee and agent of t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s , and t h e man who i n v e s t i - g a t e d t h e a c c i d e n t f o r Wade J . Dahood, and h i s f i r m , and t h a t M. J a n c i c advised t h a t he interviewed Mrs. E t h e l r Davis, and saw Doug Davis, a t t h e i r farm, approximately one month a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , and, a g a i n , approximately f o u r months a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , and t h a t a t each such i n t e r v i e w , E t h e l Davis t o l d N r . J a n c i c s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same t h i n g s she t o l d John L. "Luke" McKeon, and M r . J a n c i c , on October 25, 1970, b u t , we submit, your honor, t h a t t h e v e r y f i r s t time t h e defendant was advised of t h e e x i s t e n c e of E t h e l Davis was on Thursday, October 22nd, 1970, a t which t i m e , i n a conversation between Donald C. Robinson and David L. NcLean, M r . Robinson asked f o r t h e a d d r e s s of Mrs. E t h e l Davis, and was advised i n response t o t h a t i n q u i r y t h a t she l i v e d 'somewhere out i n t h e v a l l e y . 1 (5) we f u r t h e r submit, your honor, t h a t recorded s t a t e - ments were taken from E t h e l and Doug Davis, b u t t h a t counsel f o r t h e defendant were n o t given a copy of t h e s e recorded statements u n t i l Tuesday, October 27tI;, 1970, and, of c o u r s e , up t o t h a t time d i d n o t have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n t e r v i e w e i t h e r of t h e s e people. (6) t h a t during t h e t r i a l of t h i s c a s e , t h e counsel t r y i n g t h e c a s e f o r defendant, Urban L. Roth, Donald C , Robinson, o r , Robert J. Boyd, would n o t have time t o p e r s o n a l l y i n t e r v i e w s a i d w i t n e s s e s ,

nor t o c a r e f u l l y i n t e r r o g a t e t h e s e w i t n e s s e s on t h e s t a t e r ~ e n t st h a t t h e y had given t o E4.r. McICeon; ( 7 ) f u r t h e r , t h e y would n o t have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n - v e s t i g a t e t h e backgrounds of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s t o de- termine what a n i m o s i t y , i f any, t h e y h e l d toward fdiount Haggin Livestock Company, o r any of i t s em- ployees. (8) t h a t t h e y would n o t have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e p a r e f o r an e x h a u s t i v e d e p o s i t i o n of t h e s e witnesses, (9) t h a t M. J a n c i c had a d v i s e d c o u n s e l r f o r d e f e n d a n t , Urban Roth and Don Robinson, t h a t t h e names of E t h e l and Doug Davis were given t o Wade J . Dahood a t o r s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e time he o r i g i n a l l y i n t e r v i e w e d them. (10) t h a t t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure, upon which t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure a r e p a t t e r n e d , r e q u i r e f u l l and complete d i s c l o s u r e of a l l i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d i n i n t e r r o g a - t o r i e s propounded t o one p a r t y by t h e o t h e r , and we r e s p e c t f u l l y submit t o t h e c o u r t t h a t c e r t a i n s a n c t i o n s may be imposed by t h e c o u r t where t h e r e i s a v i o l a t i o n of t h e s p i r i t of t h e r u l e s of procedure f o r d i s c o v e r y , and we r e s p e c t f u l l y move t h e c o u r t t h a t such s a n c t i o n be imposed upon counsel f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s f o r t h e i r u t t e r d i s r e g a r d and v i o l a t i o n of t h i s r u l e of procedure f o r d i s c o v e r y , and t h e i r f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e t h i s i n - f o r m a t i o n , and based upon t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I have j u s t submitted t o t h e c o u r t , we submit t h a t t h i s s a n c t i o n -I

i s most a p p r o p r i a t e under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I I This second o b j e c t i o n was a l s o o v e r r u l e d . to The t h i r d o b j e c t i o n l t h e Davis testimony was made by Mr. Roth i n h i s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t :

" (9) Now, f u r t h e r m o r e , your honor, we submit t h a t t h e motion t o quash t h e testimony of E t h e l and Douglas Davis should be g r a n t e d , and t h a t t h e c o u r t , i n determining t h e m e r i t s of Defendant's motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , should completely d i s r e g a r d t h e testimony of E t h e l and Douglas Davis, on t h e grounds p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d i n t h i s r e c o r d , t h a t i s , t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f s , and t h e i r a t t o r n e y s , f a i l e d t o respond t o s p e c i f i c i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , which would have d i s c l o s e d t h e names and e x i s t e n c e of E t h e l and Doug Davis months b e f o r e t h e t r i a l of t h e c a s e , and t h a t t h e r e was a b s o l u t e l y no excuse f o r t h e i r f a i l u r e t o name E t h e l and Doug Davis i n r e s p o n s e t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and t h a t t h e i r testimony should be completely d i s r e g a r d e d i n r u l i n g on t h e motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t . This third o b j e c t i o n was a l s o denied. From t h i s r e c o r d , i s c l e a r t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l took every o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b j e c t t o t h e Davis testimony. A l l these o b j e c t i o n s , even though w e l l t a k e n , were denied by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . M r . Roth d i d a l l t h a t a c o u n s e l could do under t h e circumstances t o exclude t h e Davis testimony. He c o r r e c t l y b e l i e v e d t h a t any

f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n would h i n d e r h i s c l i e n t ' s c a s e ; t h e r e f o r e , h e d e c i d e d t o r a i s e t h i s e r r o r on appeal. T h i s Court w i l l c o r r e c t Chis e r r o r . A new t r i a l i s ordered.

I n c o n c l u s i o n , we b e l i e v e i t n e c e s s a r y t o mention one o t h e r

issue. Since t h i s c a s e i s b e i n g remanded f o r a new t r i a l , i t i s n o t riecessary LLO f u l l y develop t h e i s s u e , however, i t does m e r i t some discussion. That i s s u e i s damages. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n t h e amount of $96,140. This Court f i n d s a s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t h a t t h e amount was e x c e s s i v e , I n t h e r e c o r d t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t C h r i s t i e Sanders would have remained i n t h e Anaconda a r e a a f t e r g r a d u a t i o n from h i g h s c h o o l ; no evidence was i n t r o d u c e d a s t o what h e r f u t u r e p l a n s were so f a r a s r e s i d e n c e o r s c h o o l ; t h e r e was no evidence o f f e r e d t h a t s h e had e v e r given h e r f a m i l y any pecuniary s u p p o r t o r t h a t she was motivated i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n ; and, v e r y l i t t l e evidence was o f f e r e d a s t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between h e r and h e r p a r e n t s . The p a u c i t y of evidence a s t o damages i n d i c a t e s a s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i t y t h e v e r d i c t was prompted by p a s s i o n and p r e j u - d i c e ; o r , t h e j u r y was improperly i n s t r u c t e d a s t o t h e proper c r i t e r i o n of damages. I n Wyant v . Dunn, 140 Mont. 181, 368 P.2d 917, t h e Court recognized t h e u n i v e r s a l r u l e t h a t damages i n t h i s t y p e of a c t i o n a r e f i r s t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e j u r y , t h e n reviewed by t h e t r i a l judge, who must s e t a s i d e o r modify t h e v e r - d i c t on a motion f o r a new t r i a l i f t h e amount of t h e v e r d i c t i s not just. Only i n r a r e c a s e s should a d e c i s i o n b e r e v e r s e d where t h e t r i a l judge and t h e j u r y a g r e e t h a t t h e v e r d i c t i s p r o p e r . The p r e s e n t f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s u g g e s t s a s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h i s i s such a c a s e .

I n Montana i n a wrongful d e a t h a c t i o n , such a s t h i s , dzmages a s under a l l t h e circumstances of t h e c a s e may be j u s t may be r e c o v e r e d ; b u t , a v e r d i c t f o r damages must be based upon a d m i s s i b l e evidence. Krohmer v . Dahl, 145 Mont. 491, 402 P.2d 979; Davis v . Smith, 152 Mont. 170, 448 P.2d 133.

Nevertheless, though t h e amount of damages i s s o l e l y w i t h i n t h e province of t h e j u r y , t h e j u r y i s n o t given c a r t e blanche. Some

s u b s t a n t i a l evidence must e x i s t upon which t h e award of $96,140 can be p r e d i c a t e d . I n M i l l e r v . Boeing Company, (D.C.Mont.1965) 245 F.Supp. 178, Judge Jameson, applying Montana law, concluded t h a t a v e r d i c t of $52,700 t o p l a i n t i f f widow f o r t h e wrongful d e a t h of h e r husband was e x c e s s i v e .The v e r d i c t was reduced t o $37,500. involved The c o u r t noted t h a t t h e Montana s t a t u t e l w a s adopted from C a l i f o r n i a and quoted from Ure v. Maggio Bros. Co., 24 Cal.App.2d 490, 75 P.2d

" ' ~ u tw h i l e l o s s of s o c i e t y , comfort, and p r o t e c t i o n may be an element of t h e i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by t h e s t a t u t o r y b e n e f i c i a r i e s , i t i s only t h e pecuniary, and n o t t h e s e n t i m e n t a l , v a l u e of such l o s s which may be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e assessment of damages. Nothing can be recovered a s a s o l a t i u m f o r wounded f e e l i n g s . ( 1 1 The c o u r t quoted f u r t h e r from Dickinson v. Southern P a c i f i c Co.,

I n two r e c e n t c a s e s t h i s Court c o n s i d e r e d v e r d i c t s f o r wrongful d e a t h s of minors, Davis ---$4,000, ~rohmer---$35,000, b u t i n b o t h c a s e s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence was i n t r o d u c e d a s t o damages. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e we have a v e r d i c t of $96,140, i

We boncur: . t ' $ .r

. ' ; . *

v------------------ Associate Justices

Mr. Justice Daly and Hr. Justice Haswell, dissenting: We dissent. The majority grant a new trial to defendant because of failure of plaintiffs to list the names and addresses of two witnesses in response to defendant's pretrial interrogatories. It is clear that this failure constituted a violation of pretrial discovery rules. It is equally clear that the names of these witnesses were communicated by plaintiffsf counsel to defendant's counsel several days before trial; that the witnesses' exact address was not given but only that they lived somewhere in the valley; and that plaintiffs' counsel furnished defendant's counsel with a tape of the witnesses! statements and defendant's counsel interviewed them and had a transcript of the statements of such witnesses prior to their examination at the trial. During the course of trial when plaintiffs called the first of such witnesses to testify, defendant moved to exclude the testi- mony on the grounds of surprise occasioned by plaintiffs' violation

of pretrial discovery rules and requested the court to impose sanctions for such violation by excluding the testimony of such witnesses. The district court denied defendant's motion in the following manner: "THE COURT: Well, I am not going to invoke or impose this sanction, because I feel that this is pretty im- portant testimony from their viewpoint. The sanction will not be imposed, and the motion will be denied. "MR. ROTH: [defendant's counsel] If your honor please, may we have the benefit of the use of a recorded statement that we have of this witness, which has not been transcribed as yet, and we would like the oppor- tunity to review that testimony before her testimony is given, and we must cross examine. "MR. McKEON: [plaintiffs' counsel] We will have no objection to that. "THE COURT: All right, that may be done, and this witness may be called at another time. If that is all, then we can return to the courtroom.

"THE COURT: All right, the record may show that the court is again in session, and in the presence of the jury. You may proceed, "MR.M~KEON: Your honor, as the court knows, counsel for the defendant have advised that they have a state- ment which they took this morning of Mrs. Ethel Davis, and which has not as yet been prepared and transcribed, and they would like to have the advantage of this statement when conducting cross examination of Mrs. Davis, and so we would be very happy to wait and call Mrs. Davis tomorrow morning, so that they will have the advantage of that particular statement at that time, "MR. ROTH: Yes, that is our position in this matter, if the court please. "THE COURT: Very well, that may be done, and the witness may be called tomorrow morning. "MR. ROTH: Thank you, your honor, and thank you, again, Mr. bfcKeon.I I Following this colloquy, no further continuance was requested. ~efendant's counsel received his request for a day's delay in the examination of these witnesses. These witnesses were exhaustively

examined and cross-examined t h e following day. The case was sub- mitted t o t h e jury i n t h i s posture without f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n by defendant. The j u r y returned a v e r d i c t f o r p l a i n t i f f s . Defendant moved f o r a new t r i a l on t h e b a s i s of s u r p r i s e which ordinary prudence could not have guarded a g a i n s t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied defendant's motion f o r a new t r i a l , The majority of t h i s Court has reversed t h i s r u l i n g of t h e t r i a l judge. Section 93-5603, R.C.M. 1947, s e t s f o r t h the grounds on which a new t r i a l may be granted. Subsection (3) provides f o r a new t r i a l where t h e moving p a r t y was s u r p r i s e d by t h e testimony offered a t the t r i a l . I n H i l l v, McKay, 36 Mont. 440,446, 93 P. 345, t h i s Court s e t down t h e following c r i t e r i a f o r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l on t h i s ground: ''iv * i t i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t a new t r i a l w i l l be granted'on t h e ground of s u r p r i s e , only when i t i s c l e a r l y shown t h a t t h e movant was a c t u a l l y s u r p r i s e d , t h a t t h e f a c t s from which t h e s u r p r i s e r e s u l t e d had a m a t e r i a l bearing on t h e c a s e , t h a t t h e v e r d i c t o r d e c i s i o n r e s u l t e d mainly from t h e s e f a c t s , t h a t t h e a l l e g e d condition i s n o t t h e r e s u l t of movant's own i n a t t e n t i o n o r negligence, t h a t he has acted promptly and claimed r e l i e f a t t h e e a r l i - e s t opportunity, t h a t he has used every means reasonably a v a i l a b l e a t t h e time of t h e s u r p r i s e t o remedy the d i s a s t e r , and t h a t t h e r e s u l t of a new t r i a l w i l l probably be d i f f e r e n t . 11 These c r i t e r i a were c i t e d with approval r e c e n t l y i n Morris v. Corcoran Pulpwood Co., 154 Mont. 468, 465 P. 2d 827. I n our view a p a r t y may not secure a one day continuance i n t h e witnesses' testimony t o prepare f o r cross-examination, f a i l t o r e q u e s t a f u r t h e r continuance, permit t h e case t o be the submitted t c / j u r y without f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n , and a f t e r an adverse v e r d i c t secure a new t r i a l on t h e grounds of s u r p r i s e . Under ~ k c h circumstances t h e p a r t y seeking a new t r i a l has not used every means reasonably a v a i l a b l e a t t h e time of s u r p r i s e t o remedy t h e s i t u a t i o n , one of t h e required c r i t e r i a f o r securing a new t r i a l on t h i s ground. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e where, a s h e r e , the

trial judge has denied movant a new trial under these circum- stances. Additionally, the refusal of the trial judge to impose the sanction of exclusion is not an abuse of discretion here nor is it an independent ground for granting a

Associate Justices

Footnotes

[11] 1 I t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o measure i n e x a c t terms of money t h e l o s s which a s u r v i v i n g husband, w i f e , o r c h i l d may have s u s t a i n e d through being deprived of t h e comfort and s o c i e t y of t h e deceased spouse o r p a r e n t , For t h i s r e a s o n , some play i s allowed t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e j u r y by t h e p r o v i s i o n of s e c t i o n 377 t h a t such damages may be allowed, a s under a l l t h e circumstances of t h e c a s e may be j u s t . But, i n f i x i n g t h e amount, t h e j u r y i s always bound by t h e fundamental r u l e t h a t ecuniary damage i s t h e l i m i t of recovery, and t h e :mount allowed must b e a r some r e a s o n a b l e r e l a t i o n t o t h e ecuniary l o s s shown by t h e evidence ."' :Emphasis supplied') g e e a l s o : S e c t i o n 93-2810, R.C.M. 1947. . The c o u r t f u r t h e r commented upon t h e duty of a judge t o review a v e r d i c t and d e c l a r e a v e r d i c t e x c e s s i v e when he c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y II b e l i e v e s " t h a t t h e j u r y h a s exceeded t h e bounds of p r o p r i e t y . D e l l a r i p a v. N w York, New Haven & Hartford R..Co., 257 F.2d 733, e 735. A f t e r n o t i n g t h a t t h e evidence a s t o t h e pecuniary v a l u e of l o s s of s o c i e t y , comfort, p r o t e c t i o n and companionship was inadequate, t h e c o u r t concluded t h a t any recovery i n excess of $37,500 was j u s t not justified. almost t h r e e times t h e award i n Krbhmer, f o r t h e wrongful death o f a minor unsupported by any evidence of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , s u p p o r t t o t h e p a r e n t s , o r any damage o t h e r t h a n l o s s of comfort, s o c i e t y , companionship, e t c . The amount of t h e award can be accounted f o r only upon t h e b a s i s t h e j u r y (1) was n o t p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d , (2) was given an improper s t a n d a r d i n o r a l argument upon which t o compute pecuniary v a l u e of l o s s of comfort, s o c i e t y and companionship, o r ( 3 ) i t was a c t u a t e d and motivated by p a s s i o n o r prejudice. The judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h e cause remanded f o r a new t r i a l . ~ s s o c i y t e ustice J