City of Whitefish v. Ralph Jentile, 285 P.3d 515

Jentile appealed a restitution order from a district court affirming a municipal court award for damage to two Whitefish PD patrol cars after a pursuit of Jentile.
MHP concluded Zebro followed too closely; Jentile’s criminal conduct was Eluding a Peace Officer under a two-year deferred imposition of sentence.
The City sought restitution for the patrol cars’ damages; Jentile argued officer negligence and comparative negligence should reduce restitution.
Municipal Court awarded $7,327.81 in restitution, finding the collision was a direct consequence of Jentile’s driving.
Jentile argued the MHP report showed Zebro caused the collision by following too closely; the district court denied relief on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution should be reduced for comparative negligence	Jentile argues Zebro’s negligence contributed to the collision	City argues Jentile’s eluding caused the damages; no comparative negligence	Restitution must consider comparative negligence and apportion liability
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing comparative negligence	Jentile claims counsel failed to raise comparative negligence	City contends issue not preserved; defense not argued	Court did not address this issue because first issue dispositive

Brownback v. State, 2010 MT 96 ( MT 2010) (restitution requires showing of pecuniary loss from offender’s conduct)
Giambra v. Kelsey, 338 Mont. 19 (2007 MT 158) (negligence per se does not bar contributory or comparative negligence defenses)
Reed v. Little, 680 P.2d 937 (1984 MT) (negligence per se considered with comparative negligence)
Stenberg v. Neel, 613 P.2d 1007 (Mont. 1980) (duty of care for authorized emergency vehicles under pursuit conditions)
Eklund v. Trost, 151 P.3d 870 (MT 2006) (police may ignore some laws in pursuit but must drive safely; liable for reckless disregard)