Gilleard v. Draine

No 11922 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

WILLIAM T GILLEARD, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs- M K DRAINE, Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k L Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : Harold L Garnaas, a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana. F o r Respondent: L a r r y E R i l e y , a r g u e d , Missoula , Montana.

Submitted: Maoch 15, 1972

Decided: APR 2 1 1972

Filed: PiPR 2 1 1972

M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.

I n a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g a c o l l i s i o n between p l a i n t i f f ' s pickup and d e f e n d a n t ' s parked t r u c k on a n unopened s e c t i o n o f I n t e r s t a t e highway, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Missoula County, t h e Hon. J a c k L. Green, d i s t r i c t judge, g r a n t e d summary judgment t o d e f e n d a n t . P l a i n t i f f now a p p e a l s from t h i s summary judgment e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him.

The m a t e r i a l f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e a r e undisputed. The a c c i -d e n t o c c u r r e d a b o u t 4:45 p.m. on November 1 8 , 1966, on a n unopened s e c t i o n of I n t e r s t a t e Highway 90 a b o u t e i g h t m i l e s west of Missoula, Montana. P l a i n t i f f was d r i v i n g h i s pickup, w i t h i t s h e a d l i g h t s on i n a dense fog, i n a n e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n i n what would become t h e eastbound a r e a of t h e roadway a t a speed o f 10-15 m i l e s a n hour. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k , which was towing a house behind i t , was parked f a c i n g west i n t h e same f u t u r e eastbound a r e a o f t h e roadway; i t was s t a n d i n g t h e r e unoccupied and u n a t t e n d e d , w i t h o u t f l a r e s o r warning d e v i c e s . P l a i n t i f f ' s pickup s t r u c k d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k headon, r e s u l t i n g i n e x t e n s i v e d i s a b l i n g i n j u r i e s t o plaintiff.

P l a i n t i f f i s William T. G i l l e a r d , a n ironworker employed

i n c o n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e W l d o r f -Hoerner p l a n t west o f Missoula a . On t h e day of t h e a c c i d e n t h e had l e f t t h e Waldorf-Hoerner p l a n t

a f t e r completing h i s d a y ' s work and was r e t u r n i n g t o h i s home i n C l i n t o n , s e v e r a l m i l e s e a s t of Missoula. He e n t e r e d t h e unopened

s e c t i o n o f I n t e r s t a t e 90 by d r i v i n g p a s t t h r e e s i g n s marked II C o n s t r u c t i o n Aheadr', spaced a t 500 f o o t i n t e r v a l s commencing

a t a p o i n t 1500 f e e t b e f o r e r e a c h i n g t h e d e t o u r o f f t h e I n t e r s t a t e highway; and then by d r i v i n g through o r around 5 o r 7 t e n - f o o t wide black and w h i t e "zebra boardq' b a r r i c a d e s spaced d i a g o n a l l y a c r o s s t h e width of t h e I n t e r s t a t e highway t o r o u t e t r a f f i c o f f t h e unopened s e c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e and onto t h e d e t o u r .

P l a i n t i f f knew t h a t t h a t s e c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e where t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , was under c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h a t i t had n o t been opened t o p u b l i c t r a v e l . However, he had used t h e unopened s e c t i o n some 30 o r 40 times i n t h e t h r e e month period pre-

ceding t h e a c c i d e n t . O some of t h e s e occasions he had observed n

s t a t e highway p a t r o l c a r s , c i t y p o l i c e c a r s and s h e r i f f ' s department c a r s t r a v e l i n g on t h e unopened s e c t i o n ; he had a l s o seen c o n s t r u c t i o n crews working t h e r e . P l a i n t i i t had never been stopped o r t o l d by anyone t o s t a y o f f t h e unopened s e c t i o n , s o he " f i g u r e d i t was a l l r i g h t a s long a s you drove i n a c a r e f u l and prudent manner on it1'and " f i g u r e d i t was l e g a l " . Plaintiff i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had d r i v e n enough "on cons t r u c t i o n roads where you d o n ' t t l y down them, you d r i v e easy, because you never know what you a r e going t o f i n d . "

A t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t t h e unopened s e c t i o n o i t h e roadway had been s u r f a c e d and s e a l e d but i t had n o t been s t r i p e d . G u a r d r a i l s were s t i l l being i n s t a l l e d . The record does n o t d i s c l o s e whether t h e unopened s e c t i o n was signed o r n o t , n o r does i t d i s c l o s e what o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n work, i f any, remained uncompleted. About a month a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e new highway was opened t o p u b l i c t r a v e l .

Defendant i s M. K . Draine who had purchased a house from t h e s t a t e of Montana a t p u b l i c a u c t i o n ; t h e s t a t e had p r e v i o u s l y a c q u i r e d t h i s house by condemnation o r purchase i n connection w i t h c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e highway. Defendant, w i t h t h e permission and consent o t both t h e s t a t e and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r , was using t h e unopened s e c t i o n of I n t e r s e c t i o n 90 t o h a u l t h e house away. He had d r i v e n h i s t r u c k , w i t h t h e house a t t a c h e d behind, west along t h e unopened s e c t i o n of t h e roadway and had a p p a r e n t l y l e f t i t parked f o r t h e n i g h t on t h e f u t u r e eastbound a r e a of t h e roadway f a c i n g west.

The i n s t a n t p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n was f i l e d on November 14, 1969. P l a i n t i f f seeks recovery o t $233,500 damages a l l e g e d l y r e s u l t i n g from d e f e n d a n t ' s negligence i n l e a v i n g h i s v e h i c l e on t h e highway "without p u t t i n g o u t any f l a r e s , f l a g s , o r o t h e r warning devices whatsoever". ~ e f e n d a n t ' sanswer c o n t a i n s f i v e d e f e n s e s : (1) f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m , (2) a g e n e r a l d e n i a l , ( 3 ) c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e , (4) assumption of r i s k , and (5) t r e s p a s s by p l a i n t i f f .

Three d e p o s i t i o n s were taken and f i l e d i n t h e a c t i o n : t h e f i r s t from p l a i n t i f f ; t h e second from Robert L. Harper, c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t f o r P e t e r Kiewit Sons ' Company, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r on t h e s e c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e highway i n q u e s t i o n ; and t h e t h i r d from Martin J . Briggeman, p r o p e r t y manager f o r t h e Montana Highway Department.

O t h i s s t a t e of t h e r e c o r d , defendant moved f o r summary n

judgment. A f t e r h e a r i n g t h e r e o n , Judge Green g r a n t e d defendant 's motion and e n t e r e d summary judgment i n favor of d e f e n d a n t , d i s -missing p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m wich p r e j u d i c e . P l a i n t i f f appeals from t h i s summary judgment.

There i s but a s i n g l e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e upon appeal: Was p l a i n t i f f c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law precluding recovery on h i s claim?

' Rule 56 (c) , M.R.Civ. P. , provides t h a t summary judgment

"sha 1 be rendered f o r t h w i t h i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , 1

answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e show t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r of law." The burden of proof i s on t h e p a r t y seeking summary judgment t o show t h e absence of any genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. Roope v . The

Anaconda Company, - t. Mon - 2 -P.2d , 29 S t . Rep. 170;

Byrne v. P l a n t e , 154 Mont. 6 , 459 P.2d 266 and c a s e s c i t e d therein.

I n t h i s c a s e t h e negligence of defendant i s conceded i n s o -f a r a s summary judgment i s concerned. This e n t i r e c o n t r o v e r s y concerns whether p l a i n t i f f , under t h e undisputed f a c t s h e r e , was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law. Contributory n e g l i g e n c e , by d e f i n i t i o n , involves t h e d u a l elements of (1) p l a i n t i f f ' s negligence and (2) proximate cause. M J I G #11.00; DeVerniero v. Eby, Mont . 9 P.2d , 29 St.Rep.

273 . P l a i n t i f f contends t h a t he was n o t c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t

a s a m a t t e r of law because he was n o t a t r e s p a s s e r on t h e unopened highway a g a i n s t d e i e n d a n t ; t h a t h i s u s e of t h e unopened highway i n i t s e l f does n o t c o n s t i t u t e negligence a s a m a t t e r of law; t h a t he was n o t n e g l i g e n t i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of h i s pickup a s a m a t t e r of law; and t h a t , i n any e v e n t , any a c t s o r omissions on h i s p a r t were n o t , a s a m a t t e r of law, a proximate cause of t h e a c c i d e n t . Upon o r a l argument p l a i n t i f f i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n h i s view, t h e following m a t e r i a l f a c t s were i n c o n t r o v e r s y precluding summary judgment f o r defendant: (1) Was t h e roadway where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred a n uncompleted road? (2) Must a v e h i c l e t r a v e l on t h e shoulder of t h e highway t o g e t around t h e "zebra boardtt b a r r i c a d e s and o n t o t h e unopened s e c t i o n of t h e roadway where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred? (3) \?hat was t h e s t a t u s of p l a i n t i f f on t h e unopened highway where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred? (4) Was p l a i n t i r f using t h e unopened highway w i t h implied c o n s e n t ? ( 5 ) was p l a i n t i f f ' s n e g l i g e n c e , i f any, a proximate cause of t h e accident?

D i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n i n i t i a l l y t o p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e r e a r e genuine issues of m a t e r i a l f a c t precluding summary

judgment. W f i n d none. e Whether t h e roadway where t h e a c c i d e n t

occurred was i n f a c t uncompleted i s i r r e l e v a n t . The undisputed f a c t s show t h a t i t was signed w i t h t h r e e d e t o u r s i g n s , b a r r i c a d e d w i t h 5 o r 7 "zebra boards", and t h a t i t was n o t open t o t r a v e l by t h e p u b l i c . P l a i n t i f f admitted i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he knew t h a t t h e roadway was under c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h a t he drove through o r around t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s t o g e t onto t h e roadway. The d e p o s i t i o n of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n -d i c a t e s t h a t t h e roadway was u n s t r i p e d , and t h a t t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of g u a r d r a i l s was i n p r o g r e s s and uncompleted on t h e day o f t h e accident. Under such circumstances whether t h e roadway was completed o r n o t i s a n immaterial f a c t unnecessary t o t h e r e s o l u -t i o n o f any i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e .

Nor i s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether a v e h i c l e must t r a v e l on t h e s h o u l d e r of t h e highway t o g e t around t h e "zebra board" b a r r i -c a d e s and o n t o t h e unopened s e c t i o n o f t h e roadway a m a t e r i a l f a c t i n issue here. P l a i n t i f f a d m i t s t h a t h e knew t h e roadway was under c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h a t he d r o v e t h r o u g h o r around t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s , and t h a t i n d r i v i n g on t h e unopened roadway he was d r i v i n g i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n zone. The d e p o s i t i o n o f H a r p e r , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , shows t h a t t h e "zebra boards" were l o c a t e d a t t h e e n t r a n c e t o t h e d e t o u r a n d " s e t a t a diagonal angle across the i n t e r s t a t e o r t h e portion of r o a d t h a t ' s c l o s e d t o t r a f f i c " and were i n s p e c t e d and i n p l a c e o n l y a few minutes p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , a l l of which i s u n r e f u t e d . Whether p l a i n t i f f had t o t r a v e l on t h e s h o u l d e r of t h e highway t o g e t around t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s h a s no m a t e r i a l i t y o r r e l e v a n c e t o any i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e .

The s t a t u s o f p l a i n t i f f on t h e unopened s e c t i o n o f t h e highway i s n o t a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t b u t a q u e s t i o n o f law under t h e circumstances of t h i s case. Here t h e m a t e r i a l f a c t s c o n c e r n i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s e n t r y upon and u s e of t h e unopened roadway a r e undisputed. Under s u c h c o n d i t i o n s , p l a i n t i f f ' s s t a t u s t h e r e o n i s p u r e l y a q u e s t i o n o f law.

Nor i s t h e u s e of t h e roadway by p l a i n t i f f w i t h " i m p l i e d consent", a s he contends, a m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t h e r e . Section 32-2136 ( a ) , R . C . M . 1947, r e q u i r e s t h e d r i v e r o f a motor v e h i c l e t o obey t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s of any o f f i c i a l t r a f f i c c o n t r o l d e v i c e . S e c t i o n 32-2119, R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n e s o f f i c i a l t r a f f i c c o n t r o l

d e v i c e s a s " A l l s i g n s , s i g n a l s , markings, and d e v i c e s *** p l a c e d o r e r e c t e d by a u t h o r i t y of a p u b l i c body o r o f f i c i a l ***

f o r t h e purpose of r e g u l a t i n g , w r n ing , o r guiding t r a f f i c . " a

The d e p o s i t i o n of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t was signed according t o s p e c i f i -c a t i o n s of t h e Montana Highway Department. Thus t h e d e t o u r s i g n s and "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s were o f f i c i a l t r a f f i c cont r o l d e v i c e s e r e c t e d by p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y i n conformity w i t h t h e foregoing p ~ o v i s i o n sof t h e highway code. Disobedience t o any of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e highway code i s punishable a s a misdemeanor under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 32-21-157, R.C .M. 1947. '.'Implied consent" i s n o t an i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e a s our d e c i s i o n i s n o t grounded on p l a i n t i f f ' s s t a t u s on t h e highway. Accordingly, no i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t i s presented.

F i n a l l y , p l a i n t i f f argues t h a t a m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t

e x i s t s concerning proxima t e cause. W disagree. e Plaintiff

i n a dense fog maneuvered around o r through t h e "zebra board" b a r r i c a d e s t o e n t e r a highway unopened f o r p u b l i c t r a v e l , committing a misdemeanor i n t h e process. He knew he was i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n zone and t h a t "you never know what you a r e going t o find" there. Although h i s h e a d l i g h t s were on and he was only d r i v i n g 10-15 m i l e s a n hour, he was d r i v i n g beyond t h e range of h i s h e a d l i g h t s and v i s i o n . H i s deposition indicates t h a t he never saw d e f e n d a n t ' s parked t r u c k w i t h t h e house a t -tached behind and consequently h i t i t headon without ever applying h i s brakes :

"Q. Did you have any o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e e t h i s t r u c k and house b e f o r e you a c t u a l l y h i t i t ; an o p p o r t u n i t y t o brake your c a r , o r d i d you h i t i t without braking? O r do you r e c a l l ?

"A. I never seen i t . I d i d n ' t even know what I h i t , u n t i l I woke up. I seen I was pinned. The brake pedal had m f o o t pinned down. y

. Your f o o t was under t h e brake p e d a l ?

"A. Was under t h e brake p e d a l . So---

"Q. To t h e b e s t o f your r e c o l l e c t i o n - - - - -

"A. So I n e v e r touched t h e b r a k e s . I n f a c t P d i d n ' t even know what I h i t u n t i l a c a r came a long. I I

Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , p l a i n t i f f ' s own n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t e d a s a proximate c a u s e t o t h e c o l l i s i o n and h i s r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s a s a m a t t e r o t law. This i s t h e o n l y conc l u s i o n p o s s i b l e under t h e undisputed f a c t s , . Under s u c h circums t a n c e s t h e i s s u e o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e becomes a m a t t e r o f law t o be determined by t h e c o u r t . 0 ' ~ r i e nv . G r e a t N o r t h e r n Ry. Co., 148 Mont. 429, 421 P.2d 710.

Although no c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a c t i o n s f o r damages by one i n o t o r i s t a g a i n s t a n o t h e r f o r o b s t r u c t i n g a n unopened highway have been brought t o o u r a t t e n t i o n by c o u n s e l and we have d i s -covered none, s e v e r a l c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a c t i o n s by m o t o r i s t s a g a i n s t c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s a r i s i n g from o b s t r u c t i o n s c r e a ted o r maintained on unopened highways have been c i t e d which i n v o l v e t h e same p r i n c i p l e a s t h e i n s t a n t c a s e w i t h l i k e r e s u l t s . See Fenske v . Kramp Const. Co., 207 W i s . 397, 241 N.W. 349; Hanson v . B a i l e y , 249 Minn. 495, 83 N.W.2d 252; Trantham v. G i l l i o z , (Mo.1961), 348 S.W.2d 737. Cases r e l i e d on by p l a i n t i k t t h a t reached a c o n t r a r y r e s u l t a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e f o l -lowing grounds: Pittman v . S a t h e r , 68 Idaho 29, 188 P.2d 600 (no b a r r i c a d e s o r warnings a t m o t o r i s t ' s p o i n t o f e n t r y ) ; G a i t h e r v . Richardson Co., 152 Mont. 504, 452 P.2d 428 (absence of b a r r i c a d e s ) ; Ulmen v . Schwieger, 92 Mont. 331, 12 P.2d 856 (no b a r r i c a d e s ) .

W f i n d i t u n n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r o r d e c i d e whether e

p l a i n t i i f was a t r e s p a s s e r o r n o t , a s p l a i n t i f f c a n n o t p r e v a i l whatever h i s s t a t u s may have been.

F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we h o l d t h a t p l a i n t i f f was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law p r e c l u d i n g r e c o v e r y by him on h i s c l a i m . The summary judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is affirmed.

Associate J u s t i c e