 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Winslow v. Montana Rail Link9/6/2005
hat provision requires the parties to agree in open court to deliberation by a lesser number of jurors. Such an agreement did not exist here, as MRL did not consent in open court to a jury of less than twelve persons.
We must conclude that the District Court did not err by not allowing the jury to deliberate regarding punitive damages. Because, for this reason, deliberations on punitive damages could not have occurred in any event, we need not reach the District Court's interpretation of the verdict pursuant to ยง 27-1-221, MCA, or the other issues Winslow raises relative to punitive damages, including challenges to the punitive damage instructions, the verdict form and the jury's determination of contributory negligence by Winslow.
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in concluding that MRL properly responded to discovery and should not be subject to sanctions?
Winslow argues that MRL persistently engaged in discovery abuses that delayed the proceedings, prevented a fair trial, and precluded the admission of relevant evidence. Winslow contends that MRL should be sanctioned for obstructing witnesses, concealing information, and for improper use of boilerplate objections. MRL responds by arguing that the District Court, after thorough review, concluded that MRL properly responded to discovery, did not obstruct witnesses, did not conceal information, and did not improperly state objections.
This Court has previously held that when litigants and their attorneys abuse the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, they are subject to sanctions. Bulen v. Navajo Ref. Co., Inc., 2000 MT 222, 19, 301 Mont. 195, 19, 9 P.3d 607, 19. Furthermore, when litigants use willful delay, respond evasively, or disregard court directions as part and parcel of their trial strategy, they must suffer the consequences. Bulen, 19.
The lengthy litigation which marked this matter involved numerous unique questions of law leading to the first appeal in Winslow I, which addressed the legal validity of Winslow's claims after they had been dismissed by the District Court. On remand, the prosecution of Winslow's claims involved difficult issues of proof. Plaintiff's counsel skillfully established Winslow's claims in the face of resolute advocacy by defense counsel. It is in the context of this long and difficult litigation that the sanctions issues arise.
We review a district court's sanction orders under the deferential abuse of discretion standard "because the trial court is in the best position to know whether the parties are disregarding the rights of opposing parties in the course of litigation and which sanctions for such conduct are most appropriate." Lewistown Propane, 22 (quoting McKenzie v. Scheeler (1997), 285 Mont. 500, 506, 949 P.2d 1168, 1172). Even so, we have reviewed each of the numerous motions to compel, for protective orders, and for sanctions and the orders issued by the District Court in response thereto. After that careful review, and in the context of this complex and groundbreaking litigation, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion, nor that Winslow has established that the trial court's discovery rulings caused "prejudice" or "materially affected substantial rights." Anderson, 13. We therefore affirm the District Court on these issues.
Affirmed.
JIM RICE
We concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
Justice Patricia O. Cotter concurs.
I concur in the ultimate result reached by the Court, but I disagree with the Court's analysis of the issue of the dismissed juror and the denial of further delibe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|