Pula v. State, 2002 MT 9

40 P.3d 364, 308 Mont. 122 (2002) · Supreme Court of Montana · January 25, 2002 · No. No. 99-315

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed a verdict and judgment for the State in a negligence action arising from the rape of Wendy Pula by a state prison inmate housed in a county jail. The court held that evidence concerning the conduct of nonparties was properly admitted to address causation and intervening cause, that sufficient evidence supported submission of the case to the jury, and that any instructional error concerning intervening cause was harmless because the jury did not reach that issue.

Court
Supreme Court of Montana
Writing for the Court
W. William Leaphart; Karla M. Gray; Jim Regnier; Terry N. Trieweiler; Dorothy McCarter; Ed McLean; James C. Nelson
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
January 25, 2002
Docket number
No. 99-315
Procedural posture
Pula appealed a jury verdict and judgment for the State of Montana in her negligence action.
Standard of review
A motion in limine is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a motion for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed by considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and asking whether there is a complete absence of evidence supporting submission to the jury; jury instructions are reviewed as a whole to determine whether they fully and fairly state the applicable law.
Precedential value
Published Montana Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Wendy Michael Pula v. State of Montana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

negligenceproximate causeevidencestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

negligencetortsevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by admitting evidence concerning the conduct of Blaine County, its officials, and Bauer to show an intervening or superseding cause rather than to apportion liability to nonparties.
  2. Whether sufficient evidence supported submitting the State's negligence and causation issues to the jury and denying Pula's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
  3. Whether the District Court's jury instructions and special verdict form incorrectly instructed the jury on intervening and superseding cause.

Holdings

  1. Evidence concerning the conduct of Blaine County and Bauer was relevant and admissible to determine whether an intervening cause severed the causal connection between the State's conduct and Pula's injuries; admitting the evidence for that purpose did not impermissibly apportion liability to nonparties.
  2. The State presented sufficient evidence to submit the negligence and causation issues to the jury, and the District Court properly denied Pula's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
  3. Any error in the District Court's instructions concerning intervening cause did not warrant reversal because the jury did not reach the intervening-cause question and the instructions therefore had no effect on the outcome.

Key quotations

Evidence of the conduct of Blaine County and Bauer was relevant to the issue of causation in Pula's negligence claim and was properly admitted by the District Court. (¶ 17; 40 P.3d at 366)
Since the jury did not consider the issue of intervening cause in reaching its verdict, we conclude that the District Court's instructions on intervening cause had no effect on the outcome of the trial. (¶ 34; 40 P.3d at 370)

Factual background

The State transferred Montana State Prison inmate Chester Bauer, a convicted sexual offender, to the Blaine County Jail for his protection. Despite his status, Bauer was allowed substantial freedom in and around the jail, including access to jail keys. Pula was jailed in a solitary cell after failing to appear on a minor-in-possession charge, and Bauer used jail keys to enter her cell, take her to his cell, and rape her. The State had provided Blaine County with warnings concerning Bauer's unsupervised access to the community, while the evidence was disputed regarding when State officials learned that Bauer had access to jail keys.

Procedural history

Pula initially brought federal claims against the State, local governmental entities, and officials. The claims against the local defendants were dismissed following settlement, the § 1983 claim against the State was dismissed, and the federal court dismissed the pendent negligence claim for lack of jurisdiction. Pula refiled the negligence claim against the State in the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Blaine County. After the jury found that the State was negligent but that its negligence was not a cause of Pula's injuries, the District Court entered judgment for the State, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…