Goles v. Neumann, 247 P.3d 1089

Neumann built a barn addition in 2005 based on the existing design; the roof of the addition blew off on June 29, 2007.
The severed power line from the damaged roof caused a fire destroying seven outbuildings and substantial property of the Goles.
Goles filed a negligence complaint (May 14, 2008) alleging failure to use storm collars or proper metal strapping on the new roof, foreseeably causing damage to neighboring property.
Neumann rebuilt the roof with storm collars after the incident; he argued the original construction was good, workmanlike, and not negligent.
Experts disagreed: Kavanagh testified storm collars are prudent in windy areas, while Neumann’s expert Burke noted many safeguards but acknowledged storm collars can strengthen a roof.
A jury trial occurred (April 19–22, 2010); the court instructed on multiple negligence concepts, and the jury found Neumann not negligent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in giving Instruction No. 9	Goles: instruction was cumulative, improper, and a comment on the evidence.	Neumann: instruction fairly instructed negligence law and reflected both theories of the case.	Instruction No. 9 was error; prejudiced trial and warranted a new trial.

Jacobsen v. State, 236 Mont. 91, 769 P.2d 694 (Mont. 1989) (instruction approved as correct statement of negligence law; later questioned here)
Ewing v. Esterholt, 210 Mont. 367, 684 P.2d 1053 (Mont. 1984) (instruction that assumes fact in controversy is erroneous)
Busta v. Columbus Hospital Corp., 276 Mont. 342, 916 P.2d 122 (Mont. 1996) (foreseeability of risk is central to duty analysis)
Simonson v. White, 220 Mont. 14, 713 P.2d 983 (Mont. 1986) (disapproved instructions creating extra hurdles or straw issues)
Graham v. Rolandson, 150 Mont. 270, 435 P.2d 263 (Mont. 1967) (disapproved instruction on sudden emergency/foreseeability themes)