Styren Farms v. Sherry Roos
2011 MT 299
| Mont. | 2011Background
- On May 8, 2006, Roos (driving east on Midway Road) collided with Riley (driving north on Brady Frontage Road) at a T-intersection on Highway 91 near Conrad, Montana.
- Riley’s vehicle was struck in the westbound lane; Roos’s vehicle ended in the eastbound lane; there was damage to Riley’s rear side and Roos’s front.
- There was dispute whether Riley stopped at the stop sign before entering Midway Road; at trial, some witnesses testified Riley did stop, others testified he did not.
- Styren Farms, Inc. and Riley Styren sued Roos for negligence; Julia Roos and Stordahl were later dismissed from claims via summary judgment, and the case proceeded against Roos alone for negligence.
- The District Court granted Julia Roos summary judgment on negligent entrustment and the family purpose doctrine; a jury later found Roos not negligent.
- Styren challenged the rulings and a post-trial motion for a new trial; the District Court’s rulings and the jury verdict were reviewed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by granting Julia summary judgment on negligent entrustment? | Styren argued Julia knew or should have known Roos was incompetent. | Roos contends there was no evidence of incompetence or agency; Delbert’s affidavit lacked personal knowledge. | No error; Julia entitled to summary judgment |
| Did the district court err by granting summary judgment on the family purpose doctrine claim? | Styren asserted agency relationship existed via family purpose doctrine. | Roos argued no agency; mere family relationship is insufficient. | No error; no agency established; summary judgment affirmed |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying a new trial on various grounds? | Styren claimed irregularities, misstatements, and insufficient evidence warranted a new trial. | Roos argued no surprise or irregularity; the deposition and witnesses supported the verdict. | No manifest abuse; no basis for new trial; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crisafulli v. Bass, 2001 MT 316 (Mont. 2001) (limited circumstances for parental negligent entrustment liability)
- McGinnis v. Hand, 1999 MT 9 (Mont. 1999) (competence of a driver is required; negligent entrustment requires more than mere age or license)
- Smith v. Babcock, 157 Mont. 81 (Mont. 1971) (competent driver; no negligent entrustment where driver is licensed and not shown incompetent)
- Castle v. Thisted, 139 Mont. 328 (Mont. 1961) (family purpose doctrine rejected; agency required for liability)
- Clawson v. Schroeder, 63 Mont. 488 (Mont. 1922) (family purpose doctrine requires agency relationship for liability)
- PPL Montana, LLC v. State of Montana, 2010 MT 64 (Mont. 2010) (summary judgment standard applied to absence of genuine issues of material fact)
- Fish v. Harris, 2008 MT 302 (Mont. 2008) (substantial evidence standard for review of a motion for a new trial on insufficiency of the evidence)
- Stevenson v. Felco Industries, Inc., 2009 MT 299 (Mont. 2009) (hearsay exclusion for official findings in expert investigations)
- Massee v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121 (Mont. 2004) (jury verdict credibility and evidence sufficiency considered on appeal)
- Delaware v. K-Decorators, Inc., 1999 MT 13 (Mont. 1999) (jury instruction and credibility determinations within jury's domain)