No. 83-433

I N THE SUPREILE: COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A

O T N

1985 FARbERS U N I O N G R A I N TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, a c o r p o r a t i o n ,

P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , M N A A P W R COMPANY, a O T N O E corporation,

Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,

I n a n d f o r t h e County o f J u d i t h B a s i n ,

The H o n o r a b l e LeRoy McKinnon, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O RECORD:

F

For Appellant:

Marra, Wenz, J o h n s o n & Ilopkins; H-ekfi- J e n s e n ,

Great F a l l s , Montana 1

~ ~ c t x s

F o r Respondent :

J a r d i n e , S t e p h e n s o n , B l e w e t t & Weaver; K e i t h

T o k e r u d , Great F a l l s , Montana

- -

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Jan. 31, 1985

Decided: Jul\l 'r 7985 Filed: Lr

t \?N' i 1'385

- - -

-

Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .

F a r m e r s Union G r a i n T e r m i n a l A s s o c i a t i o n (GTA) a p p e a l s a judgment following jury verdict for Montana Power Co. (Montana Power) i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , J u d i t h B a s i n County. W e affirm.

The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l a r e :

1. Was t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o r e q u i r e a r e v e r s a l o f the jury f i n d i n g t h a t Montana Power's n e g l i g e n c e was n o t a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e f i r e t h a t d e s t r o y e d t h e GTA e l e v a t o r ?

2. Did the trial court commit reversible error by h a m p e r i n g t h e GTA e x p e r t ' s testimony a s t o t h e cause of t h e fire?

3. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n g i v i n g two j u r y i n s t r u c - t i o n s t o which G A o b j e c t e d ?

T

The GA

T grain elevator was located at Coffee Creek, Montana, about 15 miles from Stanford and 7 miles from Denton. The e l e v a t o r was c r i b b e d c o n s t r u c t i o n , which means t h a t t h e wooden 2 x 6 ' s and 2 x 4 ' s w e r e l a i d on t h e f l a t s i d e , o n e on t o p o f t h e o t h e r and n a i l e d t o g e t h e r . This is a common form o f g r a i n e l e v a t o r c o n s t r u c t i o n .

Electrical service to the e l e v a t o r 5 was furnished by Montana Power through a single-phase transformer, which furnished 110-220 volt power, and through a three-phase transformer, which furnished 208 v o l t power for l a r g e r mo- tors. The e l e c t r i c service l i n e s e n t e r e d t h r o u g h t h e r o o f o f the s c a l e room and r a n t h r o u g h a m e t e r b a s e i n t o w h i c h t h e Montana Power m e t e r was p l u g g e d and t h e n i n t o t h e main b r e a k - e r box. The m e t e r and b r e a k e r box w e r e l o c a t e d on t h e w e s t w a l l of t h e s c a l e room a n d t h e r e w e r e v a r i o u s o t h e r e l e c t r i - c a l boxes l o c a t e d a l o n g t h a t w e s t w a l l .

The Montana Power e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e Montana Power w i r e s a t t a c h e d t o t h e GTA w i r e s on t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e elevator, so that the w i r e and c o n d u i t which ran down t h e w e s t wall of the room t o t h e meter base belonged t o GTA. Although t h e m e t e r b e l o n g e d t o Montana Power, t h e m e t e r b a s e belonged to GTA. The evidence also established that the c o n d u i t , w i r e , v a r i o u s b r e a k e r b o x e s and e l e c t r i c a l e q u i p m e n t located i n the s c a l e room b e l o n g e d t o GTA w i t h t h e s i n g l e exception of t h e e l e c t r i c meter.

On t h e weekend p r i o r t o Monday, J u l y 3 0 , 1 9 7 9 , a l i g h t - ening storm occurred in the Coffee Creek area. Without positive proof, various witnesses assumed lightening had s t r u c k t h e GTA e l e v a t o r o r i n i t s v i c i n i t y , c a u s i n g s i g n i f i - c a n t damage t o t h e e l e c t r i c m e t e r l o c a t e d i n t h e s c a l e room. E v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e r e had been a f i r e i n t h e s c a l e room t h a t had r e s u l t e d i n some b u r n i n g a l o n g t h e w a l l s . In addition, a c a r d b o a r d box o f l i g h t bulbs on t h e f l o o r had burned.

On Monday, J u l y 3 0 , M r . Pemberton, a lineman f o r Montana Power, came t o t h e e l e v a t o r t o r e a d t h e m e t e r . H e had worked a s a lineman i n t h i s a r e a f o r many y e a r s . The e l e v a t o r was n o t o p e r a t i n g a t t h a t t i m e , a s t h e p r i o r t e n a n t had t e r m i n a t - ed i t s l e a s e and GTA had n o t y e t begun o p e r a t i n g t h e e l e v a - tor. D u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d , t h e e l e v a i o r was e s s e n t i a l l y empty of grain. Mr. Pemberton looked a t t h e meter and saw t h a t it had b e e n damaged, was u n r e a d a b l e and had t o be r e p l a c e d . He a l s o n o t i c e d t h e r e had been a f i r e i n t h e c a r d b o a r d box. Mr. Pemberton t e s t i f i e d he saw no damage t o a n y o f t h e e l e c t r i c a l equipment except the m e t e r , although he d i d n o t check the r e s t o f t h e e q u i p m e n t , which was owned by GTA.

L a t e r t h a t day M r . Pemberton r e c e i v e d a r e p o r t t h a t t h e bulk plant near the elevator had no electric power. He d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s m a l l e r t r a n s f o r m e r which s e r v e d b o t h t h e e l e v a t o r and t h e b u l k p l a n t had t r i p p e d o u t . H e reset t h e t r a n s f o r m e r on Monday and o r d e r e d a r e p l a c e m e n t m e t e r , which was n e v e r i n s t a l l e d . From Monday t o F r i d a y o f t h a t week, a number o f t h e p r i o r t e n a n t ' s and GTA's employees w e r e i n t h e elevator.

On F r i d a y , August 3 , 1979, a f t e r r e c e i v i n g a r e p o r t t h a t the l a r g e r t r a n s f o r m e r had a red light showing on i t , M r . Pemberton reset the larger transformer, which furnished three-phase power. Within a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t t i m e a f t e r t h e r e s e t t i n g o f t h a t t r a n s f o r m e r , t h e e l e v a t o r was r e p o r t e d t o be on f i r e . Essentially a l l of the elevator, including the s c a l e room and a l l t h e e l e c t r i c a l e q u i p m e n t i n it w e r e de- stroyed. The testimony of various witnesses as to their o b s e r v a t i o n s b e f o r e t h e f i r e and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h a t e v i d e n c e by t h e e x p e r t s o f b o t h s i d e s c o n s t i t u t e d t h e e v i - dence a s t o t h e cause o f t h e f i r e .

Following a jury t r i a l , a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e j u r y found t h a t t h e Montana Power Company was n e g l i g e n t , b u t t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f Montana Power was n o t a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e damage t o G T A ' s e l e v a t o r . As a r e s u l t , judgment was e n t e r e d f o r Montana Power. GTA a p p e a l s .

Was t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o r e q u i r e a r e v e r s a l o f t h e j u r y f i n d i n g t h a t Montana P o w e r ' s n e g l i g e n c e was n o t a p r o x i - mate c a u s e o f t h e f i r e t h a t d e s t r o y e d t h e GTA e l e v a t o r ?

GTA a r g u e s t h a t overwhelming e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d that t h e f i r e was c a u s e d by t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f e l e c t r i c i t y by t h e Moiltana Power l i n e m a n . GTA b a s e s i t s p r i m a r y argument upon t h e expert testimony of D r . Bernstein, a professor of elec- trical engineering from t h e University of Wisconsin. Dr. Bernstein's credentials were extensive with regard to his e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e t h e o r y o f e l e c t r i c i t y , h i s work i n r e v i s i n g electrical codes, investigating approximately 100 fires r e l a t i n g t o e l e c t r i c a l c a u s e s , and t e s t i f y i n g i n a p p r o x i m a t e - l y 20 t r i a l s on b e h a l f o f b o t h p l a i n t i f f s a n d d e f e n d a n t s . In addition, he is the author of various publications about l i g h t e n i n g caused f i r e s and o t h e r c a u s e s o f e l e c t r i c a l f i r e s . In substance, D r . B e r n s t e i n concluded t h a t t h e conduct o f t h e Montana Power l i n e m a n was t h e cause o f the fire. He also i n d i c a t e d a n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y which w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d later.

Montana Power r e l i e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y o f M r . Pemberton, t h e Montana Power l i n e m a n who had a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 y e a r s o f experience as a lineman, including 17 y e a r s of experience s e r v i c i n g t h e GTA e l e v a t o r . Montana Power a l s o c a l l e d M r . Williams, the linemen's supervisor for Fergus Electric C o - O p e r a t i v e o f Lewistown. Mr. W i l l i a m s had a p p r o x i m a t e l y 28 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a s a lineman. Mr. Ronish, a p r i v a t e b u s i - ness electrician with 30 y e a r s o f experience, including 11 y e a r s a s a l i n e m a n , was a l s o c a l l e d .

The t e s t i m o n y o f t h e s e t h r e e w i t n e s s e s d i r e c t l y c o n t r a - dicted parts of Dr. Bernstein's testimony. As a result, the j u r y was r e q u i r e d t o evaluate t h e testimony of the various experts and determine which portions of the testimony it f o u n d more b e l i e v a b l e .

W h i l e GTA a r g u e s t h a t i t s e v i d e n c e was o v e r w h e l m i n g i n nature, t h a t i s not t h e standard o f review t o be applied. As we pointed out i n Gunnels v. Hoyt (Mont. 1981), 633 P.2d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 1 , 38 S t . R e p . 1 4 9 2 , 1495:

" W e r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e

t o the prevailing party. W e w i l l reverse only

where t h e r e i s a l a c k o f s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o

s u p p o r t t h e judgment.

" E v i d e n c e may b e i n h e r e n t l y weak and s t i l l b e

deemed s u b s t a n t i a l , a n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e may

c o n f l i c t with o t h e r evidence." (citations omitted) I n J a c q u e s v . Montana N a t . Guard (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 649 P.2d 1319, 1325, 39 St.Rep. 1565, 1573-74, citing G a l l o w a y v. United States ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 319 U.S. 372, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 8 7 L.Ed. 1458 (Black J., dissenting), this Court agreed with Justice Bl a c k ' s w a r n i n g o f t h e p o s s i b l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l infringements inherent i n s e t t i n g aside a jury verdict:

"'. .. I b e l i e v e t h a t a v e r d i c t should be d i r e c t -

e d , if a t a l l , o n l y when, w i t h o u t w e i g h i n g t h e

c r e d i b i l i t y of the witnesses, there is i n the

e v i d e n c e no room w h a t e v e r f o r h o n e s t d i f f e r e n c e o f

opinion over t h e f a c t u a l i s s u e i n controversy. I

s h a l l continue t o believe t h a t i n a l l other cases a

judge s h o u l d , i n o b e d i e n c e t o t h e command o f t h e

S e v e n t h Amendment, n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e j u r y ' s

function. Since t h i s i s a matter of high consti-

t u t i o n a l importance, a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s should be

a l e r t t o insure t h e preservation of t h i s constitu-

t i o n a l r i g h t even t h o u g h e a c h c a s e n e c e s s a r i l y

t u r n s on i t s p e c u l i a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' 319 U.S. a t

407, 63 S . C t . a t 1 0 9 6 , 8 7 L.Ed. a t 1480."

Our a p p e l l a t e review i s l i m i t e d t o a n a n a l y s i s o f the evidence t o determine whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e jury verdict. W e may reverse t h e j u r y v e r d i c t o n l y i f t h e e v i d e n c e i s s o overwhelming t h a t t h e r e i s no room for an honest difference of opinion on the issue of causation.

The GTA b r i e f s c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d i n b e h a l f o f GTA. W e d o n o t f i n d it n e c e s s a r y t o r e v i e w t h a t evidence i n d e t a i l . The e v i d e n c e was e x t e n s i v e , w e l l p r e - p a r e d and c e r t a i n l y would have s u p p o r t e d a v e r d i c t f o r GTA on t h e question of proximate cause, had t h e j u r y g i v e n s u c h a verdict. However, o u r a n a l y s i s h e r e must b e d i r e c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by Montana Power.

On Monday, J u l y 30, M r . Pemberton r e s e t t h e s m a l l e r o r lighter transformer (single-phase power) after being told that the bulk plant had no electric power. Pemberton's t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t he c l i m b e d t h e p o l e o n which t h e t r a n s f o r m e r was l o c a t e d and hooked up h i s v o l t - a m m e t e r t o t h e w i r e r u n n i n g from t h e s e c o n d a r y s i d e o f t h e transformer t o the elevator. Wh.en h e looked a t t h e ammeter t o see i f t h e r e was a n y c u r r e n t p a s s i n g , h e found none and c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e t r a n s f o r m e r had been t r i p p e d o u t . Pemberton t h e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e used a s t i c k t o reset t h e h a n d l e on t h e s i d e o f t h e transformer. A s he r e s e t t h e t r a n s f o r m e r , Pemberton t e s t i - f i e d t h a t h e watched h i s ammeter t o s e e what t h e e l e c t r i c a l c u r r e n t d i d a s t h e t r a n s f o r m e r was r e e n e r g i z e d . The ammeter needle moved just a little, indicating to Pemberton that power was r e s t o r e d t o t h e s e c o n d a r y l i n e , b u t a l s o i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e was no s h o r t c i r c u i t o r o t h e r a p p a r e n t f a u l t . In the absence o f a n y s i g n i f i c a n t amperage r e a d i n g , Pemberton concluded that t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n o f e q u i p m e n t damage t h a t r e q u i r e d f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s on h i s p a r t .

Dr. Bernstein t e s t i f i e d t h a t M r . Pemberton was n e g l i g e n t in turning on the electricity after viewing the damaged meter. M r . W i l l i a m s , t h e l i n e m e n ' s s u p e r v i s o r from t h e Co-op, and M r . Ronish, t h e independent e l e c t r i c i a n , both t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e f o l l o w e d by Pemberton was c o r r e c t and t h a t a damaged m e t e r d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e a p r o b l e m i n a n e l e c t r i c system. All three of t h e Montana Power w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t i f t h e r e w e r e v i s i b l e damage t o o t h e r e l e c t r i - cal equipment, then the power should not be turned on. Pemberton t e s t i f i e d t h a t except f o r t h e e l e c t r i c meter, he saw no indication of damage t o o t h e r e l e c t r i c a l equipment. All t h r e e Montana Power w i t n e s s e s testified that when the reset t r a n s f o r m e r " h e l d " and t h e r e was no f l o w o f power t o indicate a short c i r c u i t or similar condition, the lineman c o u l d s a f e l y a l l o w t h e power t o c o n t i n u e t o flow. The t e s t i - mony by t h e Montana Power w i t n e s s e s a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t it was not the lineman's responsibility to inspect or repair e q u i p m e n t owned by t h e c u s t o m e r .

The only evidence of damage to t h e main b r e a k e r box owned by GTA and l o c a t e d n e x t t o t h e m e t e r was p r e s e n t e d i n t h e testimony of M r . P a t t e r s o n and M r . Nemec. Patterson, an employee o f t h e Co-op w h i c h had o p e r a t e d t h e e l e v a t o r , t e s t i - fied t h a t w h i l e h e was i n t h e s c a l e room, h e opened GTA's main breaker box and showed Nemec that there were charred w i r e s on t h e i n s i d e . T h e r e i s no t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h i s i n f o r - m a t i o n was e v e r p a s s e d on t o t h e Montana Power Company. The t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a GTA employee i n s t r u c t e d o n e o f t h e Co-op employees t o h i r e a n e l e c t r i c i a n t o t a k e c a r e o f m a t t e r s i n t h e s c a l e room, b u t t h i s was n o t done p r i o r t o t h e fire. Mr. R o n i s h ' s t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t an i n d e p e n d e n t e l e c t r i c i a n was c l o s e by and a v a i l a b l e t o d o t h e work.

The Montana Power w i t n e s s e s ' testimony established t h a t , with the single exception of the electric meter, GTA was responsible for the various components of the electrical s y s t e m i n t h e s c a l e room. This testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t it was G T A ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o m a i n t a i n and r e p a i r t h e c o n d u i t and w i r e coming i n t o t h e s c a l e room, a n d a l l o f t h e c o n d u i t and b r e a k e r b o x e s below t h e m e t e r , i n c l u d i n g t h e b r e a k e r box i n which t h e c h a r r e d w i r e s w e r e o b s e r v e d .

I n a d d i t i o n , on F r i d a y , August 3 , a number o f GTA p e r - sonnel inspected the elevator in order to prepare it to receive grain. One of the GTA personnel, Mr. Fredrick, testified t h a t h e t o u c h e d t h e main s w i t c h t o see i f it was burned o u t and t o d e t e r m i n e i f i t had t o b e r e p l a c e d . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he t o o k h o l d o f and b a r e l y moved t h e d o o r t o o p e n i t , t h e r e was a f l a s h and a loud buzzing sound o r arcing sound. Mr. Fredrick testified t h a t h e had n o t be- lieved t h e r e was e l e c t r i c a l power running t o t h e e l e v a t o r . When t h i s a r c i n g sound and f l a s h o c c u r r e d , h e r e a l i z e d t h e r e was e l e c t r i c a l power r u n n i n g t o t h e e l e v a t o r . He testified t h a t h e d i d n o t open a n y o f t h e o t h e r m e t e r b o x e s o r t o u c h any o f t h e o t h e r equipment.

The t e s t i m o n y on t h e p a r t o f t h e GTA p e r s o n n e l was t h a t t h e y a g r e e d t o c o n t a c t someone i n o r d e r t o have t h e e l e c t r i - c a l system checked. T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t e i t h e r a n e l e c t r i c i a n o r Montana Power w e r e a d v i s e d o f the a r c i n g c o n d i t i o n which t h e GTA p e r s o n n e l o b s e r v e d and h e a r d prior t o the fire. The t h r e e l i n e m e n t e s t i f y i n g f o r Montana Power e a c h emphasized t h a t t h e a r c i n g c o n d i t i o n s u f f i c i e n t l y i n d i c a t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s e r i o u s e l e c t r i c a l p r o b l e m s , and someone s h o u l d have been n o t i f i e d i m m e d i a t e l y .

Mr. Pemberton also testified that after receiving a t e l e p h o n e c a l l t h a t a r e d l i g h t was lit on t h e l a r g e r t r a n s - f o r m e r , h e went t o t h e e l e v a t o r on F r i d a y . No GTA p e r s o n n e l w e r e t h e r e when h e a r r i v e d . H i s testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e r e d w a r n i n g l i g h t on t h e t r a n s f o r m e r g o e s on u n d e r two different circumstances. First, t h e r e may b e an overload which i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o a c t u a l l y t r i p t h e c i r c u i t b r e a k e r and s t o p t h e f l o w o f e l e c t r i c i t y , b u t s u f f i c i e n t t o c a u s e t h e w a r n i n g l i g h t t o go on. Second, t h e l i g h t w i l l g o on when a n o v e r l o a d i s s u f f i c i e n t t o t r i p t h e c i r c u i t b r e a k e r and s t o p t h e flow o f e l e c t r i c i t y . T h a t F r i d a y , Pemberton c l i m b e d t h e p o l e on which t h e l a r g e r t r a n s f o r m e r was l o c a t e d and f o l l o w e d a p r o c e d u r e s i m i l a r t o t h a t which h e had u s e d w i t h t h e s m a l l - e r t r a n s f o r m e r on Monday. He hooked h i s ammeter t o t h e l i n e coming o f f t h e s e c o n d a r y s i d e o f t h e t r a n s f o r m e r . The amme- t e r showed a s m a l l l o a d on t h e t r a n s f o r m e r . H e t h e n reset t h e t r a n s f o r m e r s u f f i c i e n t l y s o t h a t t h e l i g h t went o f f and o b s e r v e d t h e same s m a l l l o a d shown on t h e s e c o n d a r y s i d e o f the transformer. He testified that this i n d i c a t e d t o him t h a t t h e t r a n s f o r m e r had been on b e f o r e a s w e l l a s a f t e r t h e resetting. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h e r e was no f l o w o f elec- tricity on the secondary side after the resetting. This i n d i c a t e d t o him t h a t t h e r e was no short circuit or other e l e c t r i c a l problem a t t h a t t i m e .

The f o r e g o i n g a n a l y s i s was d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d by D r . Bernstein. However, M r . W i l l i a m s and M r . Ronish b o t h t e s t i - f i e d t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e t h a t Pemberton u s e d was c o r r e c t and safe. Both a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t Pemberton was w a r r a n t e d in l e a v i n g t h e s c e n e upon r e s e t t i n g t h e t r a n s f o r m e r a f t e r f i n d - ing no indication of a short circuit o r other electrical problem when h i s ammeter r e g i s t e r e d no s i g n i f i c a n t r e a d i n g . A f t e r r e s e t t i n g t h e l a r g e r t r a n s f o r m e r , Pemberton went t o t h e e l e v a t o r t o i n s t a l 1 t h e new meter. However, t h e d o o r was l o c k e d and he was n o t a b l e t o g e t i n .

Dr. Bernstein emphasized i n h i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t i t was i m p r o p e r t o have r e s t o r e d power t o t h e s y s t e m when t h e r e was a damaged m e t e r and t h a t that readily c o u l d h a v e been the cause o f t h e fire. In contradiction t o t h a t testimony, a l l three of the linemen t e s t i f i e d t h a t none of them had e v e r heard o f a meter causing a f i r e . Each t e s t i f i e d t h a t it was unlikely that t h e meter had a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e f i r e .

In h i s opinion testimony, Dr. B e r n s t e i n concluded t h a t t h e r e s e t t i n g of t h e t r a n s f o r m e r was t h e c a u s e o f t h e f i r e . However, h e a l s o gave a n a l t e r n a t e o p i n i o n which i n v o l v e d GTA personnel. Dr. Bernstein stated:

"I b e l i e v e t h e f i r e s t a r t e d i n t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r

on F r i d a y , b e c a u s e M r . Pemberton r e s e t t h e t e a s e r

t r a n s f o r m e r [ t h e l a r g e r t r a n s f o r m e r ] and p u t 2 0 8

v o l t s on t o t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r . The f i r e s t a r t e d

s h o r t l y a f t e r he d i d t h a t . I b e l i e v e t h a t i s what

started the fire. M other opinion is:

y i n the

e v e n t t h a t t h e t e a s e r t r a n s f o r m e r a c t u a l l y was on

a t t h e t i m e M r . Pemberton r e s e t i t , and I d o n o t

b e l i e v e it was on when h e r e s e t i t , b e c a u s e h i s

method o f measurement was n o t p r o p e r , I d o n ' t t h i n k

he c o u l d t e l l . Then i n t h a t e v e n t t h a t it had b e e n

on a l l t h e t i m e , t h e n I b e l i e v e t h e f i r e was s t a r t -

ed by some change i n t h e s y s t e m , when t h e p e o p l e

from G A w e r e on [ s i c ] t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r , and t h e y

T

moved s o m e t h i n g which c a u s e d an a r c which e v e n t u a l -

l y l e d t o a f i r e , and t h e f i r e was c a u s e d b e c a u s e

power had b e e n l e f t on t h i s b u i l d i n g w i t h damaged

equipment."

With regard to Dr. Bernstein's conclusion that the r e s e t t i n g of t h e transformer s t a r t e d t h e f i r e , M r . Pemberton t e s t i f i e d t h e r e was no e x i s t i n g f a u l t o r s h o r t c i r c u i t on t h e secondary l i n e a t t h e t i m e he reset t h e l a r g e r t r a n s f o r m e r . His t e s t i m o n y on t h a t p o i n t was s u p p o r t e d by t h e o t h e r two linemen. T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e i n t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t Pemberton checked t h e s e c o n d a r y l i n e w i t h t h e ammeter and t h a t no f a u l t was i n d i c a t e d .

I n a d d i t i o n , Pemberton t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r a n e x p e r i m e n t s on t h e same l a r g e r t r a n s f o r m e r a f t e r t h e f i r e t o o k p l a c e and c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e ammeter r e a d i n g s b e f o r e and a f t e r reset- ting were correct. H e r a n a f u r t h e r e x p e r i m e n t on a s i m i l a r t r a n s f o r m e r and r e a c h e d t h e same c o n c l u s i o n .

T h e r e was a d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n between t h e t e s t i m o n y of D r . B e r n s t e i n and M r . Pemberton, W i l l i a m s and Ronish. The e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d on e a c h s i d e was e x t e n s i v e and s u f f i c i e n t i n nature t o allow t h e jury t o decide f o r e i t h e r theory of causation.

Dr. Bernstein's second theory a s t o t h e cause of the f i r e i n d i c a t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e p e o p l e from GTA moved s o m e t h i n g which c a u s e d a n a r c , which e v e n t u a l l y l e d t o t h e fire. Even u n d e r t h a t t h e o r y , he concluded t h a t f a u l t l a y w i t h Montana Power, which had l e f t t h e power on i n t h e e l e v a - tor. Even i f t h e j u r y had a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e o r y , i t d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Montana P o w e r ' s n e g l i g e n c e was t h e cause of t h e f i r e . The j u r y c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t it was t h e GTA employees who c a u s e d t h e problem by moving t h e i r own equipment, causing an arc, and negligently failing to do anything about t h e a r c a t t h a t t i m e . As a result, the jury c o u l d h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f i r e was c a u s e d by t h e a c t i o n of GTA and resulted from GTA's failure to i n f o r m Montana Power o f t h e a r c o r t o t a k e any f u r t h e r p r o t e c t i v e m e a s u r e s .

After a careful review of the testimony, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict that the negligence of Montana Power was not the proximate cause of the fire. Clearly, the evidence established a basis for an honest difference of opinion on the question of causation.

T I

Did the trial court commit reversible error by hampering the GTA expert's testimony as to the cause of the fire? Montana Power's counsel made several objections during the course of Dr. Bernstein's testimony and the qualification by GTA counsel of Dr. Bernstein as an expert. Following one objection, counsel adjourned to the chambers where there was an extensive discussion of the rules of evidence. The court ultimately ruled that Dr. Bernstein could express his opinion and no limitations were placed on his testimony. GTA argues that the conduct of the trial court in considering these objections prejudiced GTA by hampering the expert's testimony. We find that the action on the part of counsel was reasonable and that the action on the part of the District Court was also reasonable. We do not find anything in the record that demonstrates prejudice to GTA. We conclude there was no error on the part of the District Court in this regard.

I11

Did the trial court err in giving two jury instructions to which GTA objected? GTA's first argument is directed to Instruction No. 40, which related to the state of mind that is required before imposition of punitive damages. In substance, Instruction No. 40 provided that one who has suffered injury through the oppression, f r a u d o r m a l i c e o f a n o t h e r may r e c o v e r e x e m p l a r y damages. " M a l i c e " was d e f i n e d a s importing a wish t o vex, annoy o r injure, o r an i n t e n t t o do a wrongful act. GTA argues this is confusing in light of Instruction No. 20, which p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f GTA i s n o t t o b e con- sidered if t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e e l e v a t o r was p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d by reckless o r wanton misconduct by Montana Power. "Reckless o r wanton1' was d e f i n e d a s i n t e n t i o n a l , wrongful, done e i t h e r w i t h knowledge t h a t s e r i o u s i n j u r y w i l l p r o b a b l y result or with wanton and reckless disregard of possible results. GTA contends that these instructions establish d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d s o f c o n d u c t o r i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f GTA and w e r e s o confusing t h a t t h e jury may h a v e been m i s l e d .

We note that because the jury did not find that the negligence of Montana Power was a proximate cause of the fire, t h e jury n e v e r r e a c h e d t h e i s s u e o f p u n i t i v e damages u n d e r I n s t r u c t i o n No. 40. I n a s i m i l a r manner, b e c a u s e t h e jury concluded t h a t Montana P o w e r ' s n e g l i g e n c e was n o t t h e proximate cause, t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r a p p l y i n g I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20 t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e .

A s w e r e a d a l l o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o g e t h e r , w e f i n d no c o n t r a d i c t i o n s o f a r a s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 40 i s c o n c e r n e d . We hold there was no prejudicial error in giving that instruction.

GTA next complains that the District Court erred in g i v i n g I n s t r u c t i o n No. 24, which i n s u b s t a n c e p r o v i d e s t h a t a p e r s o n i s bound t o e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e and d i l i g e n c e t o avoid l o s s and may n o t r e c o v e r f o r l o s s e s which c o u l d h a v e b e e n p r e v e n t e d by r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s o r e x p e n d i t u r e s on h i s part. Again w e n o t e t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e o f damages because it first concluded that Montana Power's n e g l i g e n c e was n o t a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e f i r e . GTA h a s failed to show how it could have been prejudiced by this instruction.

We conclude there was no error in giving Instruction No. 24. We affirm the District Court. We concur: /'