United Tool Rental, Inc. v. Riverside Contracting, Inc.
2011 MT 213
| Mont. | 2011Background
- UTR and Paulsen admitted negligence for a crash in a construction zone on Highway 93; they then sought contribution from the Construction Parties.
- Six days after the crash, Trooper Gehl prepared a memorandum noting hazards at the intersection and a need for a no left turn sign; the DOT later erected such a sign.
- Barricades at Old Highway 93 and Highway 93 were removed before the crash and re-erected by the DOT after the crash due to safety concerns.
- Matt sued UTR and Paulsen for damages; after settlement with Matt, UTR/Paulsen proceeded against Riverside, Highway Technologies, Carter & Burgess, and DOT for contribution.
- A jury found UTR and Paulsen 100% at fault for the crash; the district court denied some but not all of UTR/Paulsen's evidentiary challenges.
- UTR/Paulsen appeal on evidentiary rulings, cross-examination scope, alleged inflammatory remarks, and the sufficiency of the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-crash memorandum and no left turn sign | Impeachment exception to Rule 407 applies; memorandum and sign impeach witnesses' dangerousness findings. | Impeachment exception is narrow; post-remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligence; door was not opened. | Impeachment exception not applicable; district court did not abuse discretion; exclusion affirmed. |
| Cross-examination, deposition use, and inflammatory remarks | Cross-exam should probe causation; deposition use and comments were appropriate to impeach or inform the jury. | Scope of cross-examination and use of deposition were improper or inflammatory remarks were prejudicial. | Court did not abuse discretion; cross-examination permitted; deposition use unavailing; remarks not reversible error. |
| Whether the jury's verdict was defective or required a new trial | Special verdict did not clearly reflect a proper allocation of fault; new trial warranted. | Verdict intelligible; any ambiguity waived by failure to object or poll the jury. | Verdict intelligible; no reversible error; no new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seltzer v. Morton, 336 Mont. 225 (2007 MT) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Johnson v. State, 233 P.3d 1133 (2010 Ariz.) (impeachment exceptions to subsequent remedial measures)
- Runkle v. Burlington N., 613 P.2d 982 (1980 Mont.) (narrow impeachment of post-remedial evidence)
- Cech v. State, 604 P.2d 97 (1979 Mont.) (negligence and subsequent remedial measures in impeachment context)
- Herzog v. Lexington Township, 657 N.E.2d 933 (1995 Ill. 2d) (limits on impeachment use of subsequent remedial measures)
- Fauver v. Wilkoske, 211 P.2d 420 (1949 Mont.) (procedural guidance on verdicts and objections)
- Lopez v. Josephson, 305 Mont. 446 (2001 MT) (appellate review of trial court rulings and discretion)
- Stevenson v. Felco Indus., Inc., 352 Mont. 303 (2009 MT) (standard for erroneous admission of evidence and harmless error)
- State v. Duncan, 343 Mont. 220 (2008 MT) (abuse of discretion in discretionary rulings)