HELENA, Mont. (Legal Newsline) - A Montana utility was ordered to pay attorneys’ fees and sanctions for its behavior in defending a lawsuit by farmers who sued after an employee of the electric company plowed his vehicle into a herd of cows, killing 10.
Yellowstone Electric Co. was ordered to pay farmers Robert and Sylvan Walden $68,000, including more than $40,000 in fees and sanctions, after the company refused to turn over the vehicle involved in the crash and engaged in delaying tactics including objecting more than 180 times during the deposition of the driver.
Yellowstone appealed, but the Montana Supreme Court upheld the award in a May 18 decision.
The Waldens were driving a herd of cattle along Highway 24 in Montana in December 2016 when the accident occurred. They placed a homemade “Caution Cattle Ahead” signs in front of and behind the herd and Sylvan Walden was parked on the side of the road a mile in front with her hazards blinking. Bob Walden trailed behind the heifers on a horse.
Thomas Newell testified he was driving a Yellowstone truck on the road and didn’t see the caution signs. He thought Sylvan was having vehicle trouble or was waiting for someone by the side of the road. He was heading uphill when he plowed into the herd of heifers.
The Waldens initially filed a claim with Yellowstone’s insurance carrier, offering to settle for $15,750 plus prejudgment interest for the loss of their cows. Neither Yellowstone nor the insurer responded, so they sued in November 2017. When they asked for the Chevy Silverado involved in the accident or at least the federally mandated accident data recorder, the utility refused.
In pretrial maneuvering, the utility made numerous objections and refused to respond to the Walden’s discovery requests. At a deposition of the driver, the utility’s lawyers objected repeatedly, telling Newell not to answer questions or offering him hints on what to say.
The Waldens, meanwhile, submitted an affidavit from a retired Montana Department of Livestock employee saying they had complied with safety rules and provided adequate warning to oncoming traffic.
Following a hearing, the district court granted the Waldens summary judgment for $20,500. When the utility said it would appeal, the court ordered sanctions and attorneys fees, bringing the total to $68,000.
In its decision, the Montana Supreme Court noted that negligence claims are typically unsuitable for summary judgement because of disputed facts. But courts can dismiss negligence cases when reasonably people can’t draw different conclusions from the evidence, the high court said.
Here, Montana law requires drivers to “see that which is in plain sight.” Video evidence showed the section of road where Newell plowed into the heifers provided a clear view of any hazard ahead. Yellowstone argued the Waldens submitted a report saying the accident occurred on a hill facing the sun, but the court concluded the driver had a duty to adjust his speed to the conditions.
“The undisputed facts are that Newell drove into a herd of approximately 80 cows at midday after having passed warning signs and a vehicle (with stock trailer) on the side of the road with its hazards on,” the court said. If his visibility was impaired by the sun, he had a duty to slow down.
The appeals court also rejected Yellowstone’s argument the Waldens didn’t meet the definition of “flag person” under Montana law. The definition actually appears in different laws, one of which refers to the movement of livestock, the court noted, and it shouldn’t be read to require an actual flag. If the court applied universal definitions drawn from the statute books that “could lead to even stranger results.” One Montana law defines “flag” as the official flag of the U.S. or Montana.
“The parties do not make any argument that the Waldens’ cattle must be escorted down the road by persons carefully waving—without contempt—an official United States or Montana flag,” the court observed in a footnote.
Finally, Yellowstone challenged the award of attorneys’ fees and sanctions. Yellowstone argued a law allowing for fees in motor vehicle cases only applies to damage to a vehicle, but the appeals court said it covers any property damage caused by an accident involving a motor vehicle. Sanctions were justified to punish the behavior of Yellowstone and its insurer, the court said, who failed to preserve the vehicle as evidence and engaged in “discovery abuses.”