Document Type

Article

Publication Date

7-20-2004

Abstract

  • In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court considered 9 Several issues on appeal::

  • Pre-Trial Rulings:

  • Whether the trial court erred in barring plaintiff from introducing any evidence regarding subsequent remedial repairs;

  • Whether the trial court’s rulings in limine prejudicially precluded plaintiff from demonstrating inconsistencies in the testimony of certain of defendant’s witnesses on deposition at trial;

  • Whether the trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgement on the issue of product liability; and

  • Whether the trial court erred in striking plaintiff’s discrimination claim.

  • subsequent remedial repairs – the Court ruled that, under these circumstances, it was not error for the trial court to have barred any evidence of a subsequent remedial repair at trial. According to Blackfeet Rules of Civil Procedure 17B and the Federal Rules of Evidence 407, “evidence of subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, design defect, or need for warning or instruction.” The striking or exclusion of the evidence of subsequent repair was done specifically for establishing defendant’s negligence (citing Glacier Tennis Club at Summit, LLC v. Treweek Const. Co. Inc., 2004 MT 70, 320 Mont. 351, 87 P.3d 431).

  • Product Liability and Abnormally Dangerous Activity – The Court held that it is abuse of discretion for the trial court to have granted a directed verdict regarding the well, considering the evidence of conflicting ownership of the well. It is proper to let a jury decide this issue. Additionally, the Court held that is is properfor the court to refuse a directed verdict regarding abnormally dangerous activity and should likewise be left to a jury.

  • Trial Issues:

  • Whether the trial Court erred in refusing to adopt certain of plaintiff’s proposed jury instructions on product liability and on hazardous activity/inherently dangerous activity. See above for Court’s determination.

  • Jury Verdict and Post Trial Issues

  • Whether the jury’s verdict was inconsistent with the evidence; and

  • Whether given the totality of the circumstances the trial court should have ordered a new trial.

  • Jury Verdict – The Court cites Masse v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121, 121 Mont. 210, clarifying that review of a jury verdict is done in a narrow scope and that “substantial evidence” need only be evidence from which any point of view could have been accepted by the jury as credible. [Citations omitted]. The Court determined that even if a jury were to conclude that defendant owned the poles and lines, and therefore, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant was not obligated to foresee that plaintiff would attempt to remove the poles and lines in the manner he did.

  • New Trial – The Court rejected plaintiff’s assertion that the Court ignored “certain proofs” which would have necessitated a finding in his favor.

  • Overall, the Court affirmed the lower Court’s orders and affirmed the jury’s finding of no negligence attributable to the defendant.

  • See also: Williams v. Glacier Electric Cooperative Inc., 97-CA-189 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 2002)

Download

Share

COinS