Stewart v. Rice, 296 P.3d 1174

Clark Rice and Edythe Rice were sued for injuries from a January 20, 2006 collision involving Edythe's ranch activities and Clark's tractor; Vianna Stewart and Juanita Stands were plaintiffs, Edythe was a defendant and Clark’s employer for vicarious liability.
Edythe, in her late eighties, had declining cognitive function; her counsel moved to withdraw and suggested a conservatorship and that Edythe might be incompetent to testify.
The district court granted withdrawal of Edythe’s counsel but did not address competency or appoint a conservator; Edythe testified only by deposition with Clark’s agreement to have her deposition adopted as trial testimony.
A bench trial occurred with Edythe present but unrepresented and not participating; the court found Clark negligent per se and Edythe vicariously liable, awarding damages in favor of plaintiffs.
Edyehe’s counsel raised competency concerns; Rule 10 notice requirements for unrepresented parties after withdrawal were not provided to Edythe, though Clark received notice.
This Court affirmed against Clark, but reversed and remanded as to Edythe for a conservator evaluation and a new trial limited to Edythe’s vicarious liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark is entitled to a new trial/new judge due to evidentiary issues	Clark claims errors in rulings, witness bias, missing attendance, and lack of counsel compromised trial fairness.	Appellees contend challenges are unsupported; no clear abuse of discretion affected substantial rights.	No reversible error against Clark; no basis for new trial or judge.
Whether Edythe’s competency and Rule 10 notice were properly addressed, affecting due process	Edythe’s competency should have been evaluated; Rule 10 notice to Edythe was missing, violating due process and prejudicing her.	Competency lacked evidence; Edythe did not preserve the issue; Rule 10 notice arguments rely on misapplication of notices.	Competency evaluation required and Rule 10 notice failure reversible; remand for conservator evaluation and new trial on vicarious liability.

Quantum Electric, Inc. v. Schaeffer, 2003 MT 29 (Mont. 2003) (strict Rule 10 notice and statutory notice required to protect unrepresented parties)
Puhto v. Smith Funeral Chapels, Inc., 2011 MT 279 (Mont. 2011) (procedural safeguards for unrepresented litigants)
Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (U.S. 2011) (due process considerations for self-represented defendants)
Weinow v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 2010 MT 292 (Mont. 2010) (due process implications in incomplete representation)
In re Conservatorship of Kloss, 2005 MT 39 (Mont. 2005) (standing to seek conservatorship for protected persons)
State v. West, 2008 MT 338 (Mont. 2008) (timely objection rule for trial errors)
Stevenson v. Felco Indus., LLC, 2009 MT 299 (Mont. 2009) (review of evidentiary rulings; standard of review)