Varano v. Hicks
2012 MT 195
Mont.2012Background
- Varano lent his snowmobile to Hicks with an understanding Hicks would pay for gasoline and any repair costs.
- Hicks allegedly damaged the snowmobile by driving off an embankment after using it.
- A Justice Court awarded Varano gasoline and oil costs and his court costs, but no other damages.
- The District Court held a bench trial and awarded Varano $500 for repairs, $116.33 for gasoline/oil, and costs.
- Hicks appeals the district court judgment, challenging the enforceability of the agreement and the sufficiency of the evidence for damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the contract | Varano. | Hicks. | Contract established; court affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for damages | Damages supported by Varano's testimony. | Evidence inadequate to prove damages. | Judgment amount supported by substantial evidence; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Milner, 364 Mont. 523 (2012 MT) (clear error standard for findings of fact in bench trials)
- Micone v. Dep’t of Pub. HHS, 361 Mont. 258, 258 P.3d 403 (2011 MT) (substantial evidence standard; review of factual findings)
- Eldredge v. Asarco Inc., 360 Mont. 112, 252 P.3d 182 (2011 MT) (substantial evidence review; credibility determinations limited to finder of fact)
- Hendricks v. State, 331 Mont. 47, 128 P.3d 1017 (2006 MT) (credit to district court credibility determinations and factual findings)