Barile v. Atlantic Richfield, 309 P.3d 1009

Background

Tripp and Dragstedt Apartments, a historic five-story building in Butte, showed exterior brick cracking and settlement; Barile purchased it in 1997 and worked with Kuss on renovations.
Underground mining (Emma/Travona mines) beneath the site caused historical surface subsidence; ARCO (successor to Anaconda Copper Mining Co.) inherited liability for mine-related subsidence.
Barile sued school defendants in 2003 alleging construction damage; later amended complaint (2005) added ARCO alleging mining-related subsidence caused the current brick damage. Barile settled with the school defendants; case proceeded against ARCO.
The District Court entered a stipulated pretrial order: subsidence had occurred and the mining successor has a duty, but plaintiffs must prove subsidence caused the alleged damages; defendants may show intervening/superseding causes.
At trial, plaintiffs’ experts attributed the cracking to mining subsidence; ARCO’s experts (including Winters and Womack) offered alternative causes (recent settlement direction inconsistent with historical mining settlement, water infiltration, and school construction activity). Jury returned 11–1 that mining subsidence did not cause the claimed damage.
Plaintiffs moved for JMOL (Rule 50) and a new trial (Rule 59); both were deemed denied and plaintiffs appealed. Supreme Court affirmed the denial of both motions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether JMOL should have been granted that mining-related subsidence caused the claimed damage	Barile: Evidence (plaintiffs’ experts) conclusively shows mining subsidence caused the exterior cracking and loss of value	ARCO: Expert testimony and other evidence raised reasonable alternative causes (water infiltration, recent northeast settlement, school construction), so causation was disputed	Denied — reasonable persons could differ; ARCO presented sufficient evidence to submit causation to the jury
Whether JMOL should be granted that no superseding/intervening cause existed	Barile: No credible evidence of any superseding/intervening cause	ARCO: Presented evidence (Winters, Womack, construction testimony, water issues) supporting intervening causes	Not reached by jury (jury found no causation from mining); court found instructions/issue had no effect on outcome
Whether a new trial (Rule 59) should be granted for insufficiency of evidence	Barile: Verdict lacks substantial credible evidence; jury’s rejection of mining causation unsupported	ARCO: Substantial credible evidence (expert and lay testimony) supports jury’s doubt about mining causation	Denied — record contains substantial credible evidence supporting the verdict
Standard of review for JMOL/Rule 59 challenge	Barile: N/A (argues sufficiency)	ARCO: N/A (relies on appellate standards)	Court applies de novo review; views evidence in light most favorable to non-movant and asks whether substantial credible evidence supports the verdict

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 336 Mont. 105, 152 P.3d 727 (de novo review standard for judgment as a matter of law)
Kearney v. KXLF Communications, Inc., 263 Mont. 407, 869 P.2d 772 (if reasonable persons could differ, JMOL is improper)
Magart v. Schank, 302 Mont. 151, 13 P.3d 390 (jury may disregard expert testimony)
McDonald v. Washington, 261 Mont. 392, 862 P.2d 1150 (background on municipal water system leakage relevant to causation evidence)
Pula v. State, 308 Mont. 122, 40 P.3d 364 (unreached jury issues do not affect outcome)
Stubblefield v. Town of W. Yellowstone, 369 Mont. 322, 298 P.3d 419 (standard for reviewing sufficiency under Rule 59)
Giambra v. Kelsey, 338 Mont. 19, 162 P.3d 134 (de novo review when insufficiency of evidence is basis for Rule 59)
Wise v. Ford Motor Co., 284 Mont. 336, 943 P.2d 1310 (substantial credible evidence test for jury verdict)
C. Haydon Ltd. v. Mont. Min. Props., Inc., 286 Mont. 138, 951 P.2d 46 (definition of substantial credible evidence)
D.R. Four Beat Alliance, LLC v. Sierra Prod. Co., 352 Mont. 435, 218 P.3d 827 (contradictory or weak evidence may still be substantial)