Horn v. Bull River Country Store Properties, LLC
288 P.3d 218
Mont.2012Background
- Pete Horn sued Bull River for damage to two diesel-powered machines after allegedly purchasing water-contaminated fuel in 2008; trial lasted five days in Oct. 2011; jury found Bull River not negligent; Horn moved for a new trial which the District Court denied; Bull River asserted a settled-party defense under § 27-1-703, MCA (2007) after Horn settled with Moore Oil and Watts Trucking; the district court allowed questioning of Horn about unrelated insurance claims; Horn argued due process and juror misconduct but appeal was denied; court affirmed the denial of a new trial.
- Horn claimed the settled-party defense violated due process because nonparties could be unfairly assessed; Bull River argued Horn lacked standing to challenge the statute and evidence showed compliance with the statute.
- The district court allowed cross-examination about Horn’s insurance claims; Horn argued this was irrelevant and prejudicial; Bull River argued Horn opened the door and acquiesced to the ruling.
- Horn asserted insurance-related arguments were prejudicial and that juror misconduct occurred due to extraneous information; court held no reversible error under preserved objections and internal juror influence was not grounds for reversal.
- The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of the settled-party defense under § 27-1-703 | Horn: statute unlawful due process issue | Bull River: statute constitutional and properly invoked | No prejudice shown; constitutional question not reached |
| Was the district court’s questioning of Horn about unrelated insurance claims improper? | Horn: improper and prejudicial; motion in limine preserved objection | Bull River: door opened due to Horn’s questions; acquiescence | No reversible error; no preserved objection or waiver; court declined new trial |
| Did the district court abuse discretion by denying Horn’s new-trial motion based on insurance-related arguments? | Horn: strategy misled jury about Bull River’s liability | Bull River: evidence linked to insurer; trial strategy proper | No abuse of discretion; statements were within trial discretion and objections waived |
| Is there juror misconduct entitling Horn to a new trial? | Wood discussed station policies; external influence to verdict | Wood’s remarks were internal knowledge; not external influence | No manifest abuse; internal influence not ground for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Plumb v. Fourth Jud. Dist. Ct., 279 Mont. 363, 927 P.2d 1011 (1996) (nonparty fault apportionment due process concerns)
- Cusenbary v. Mortensen, 1999 MT 221, 296 Mont. 25, 987 P.2d 351 (1999) (jury apportionment against nonparties not fairly feasible)
- Seltzer v. Morton, 2007 MT 62, 336 Mont. 225, 154 P.3d 561 (2007) (verdict-form issues and non-speculative prejudice)
- Ammondson v. Northwestern Corp., 2009 MT 331, 353 Mont. 28, 220 P.3d 1 (2009) (acquiescence to trial rulings can waive objections on appeal)
- In re A.A., 2005 MT 119, 327 Mont. 127, 112 P.3d 993 (2005) (acquiescence can waive rights to object to error)