Roberts Realty Corp. v. City of Great Falls

6 Citing cases

  1. I.M. of Atlantic City v. District of Columbia

    356 F. Supp. 487 (D.D.C. 1973)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding that “the occurrence of one circumferential break” in the same block “three years before the break in question did not impose a duty to replace or repair the main” citing expert testimony that “demonstrated that the number of water system failures in the District of Columbia compare favorably with other jurisdictions” and “the District of Columbia's policy of allowing a quota of one break per mile per year appears reasonable and not a breach of due care”

    The policy of only replacing a main when a sufficient number of breaks occur is mentioned in case law. See, e.g., Roberts Realty Corp. v. City of Great Falls, 500 P.2d 956, 959 (Mont. 1972); Grace Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 168 F. Supp. 344, 349 (S.D.Cal. 1958), aff'd 278 F.2d 771, 773 (9th Cir. 1960). In Roberts, the city's replacement formula called for installation of new pipe when "the annual cost of repairing the breaks becomes greater than the annual cost of replacing the main."

  2. Arnold Associates, Inc. v. City of Wichita

    5 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 12 times
    Refusing to apply res ipsa loquitur where damage was caused by a broken water main because plaintiff failed to show that the occurrence was of a kind that does not occur in the absence of negligence

    There is a split of authority as to whether breaks in buried water mains occur in the absence of negligence. See, e. g., City of Houston v. Church, 554 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Civ.App.1977), and Roberts Realty Corp. v. City of Great Falls, 160 Mont. 144, 500 P.2d 956 (1972), discussed below. Here the trial court had to defer to expert opinion as the answer to this question is not a matter of common knowledge.

  3. State Farm v. Municipality of Anchorage

    788 P.2d 726 (Alaska 1990)   Cited 11 times
    Holding operation of water lines not ultrahazardous because "such systems are common indeed"

    However, many jurisdictions refuse to apply res ipsa loquitur to water main breaks. E.g., Jennings Buick, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.2d 167, 406 N.E.2d 1385, 1390 (1980); City of Houston v. Church, 554 S.W.2d 242, 243-44 (Tex.App. 1977); Roberts Realty Corp. v. City of Great Falls, 160 Mont. 144, 500 P.2d 956, 963 (1972). As the court in City of Houston correctly observed, where there is evidence that in the locality a particular type of accident frequently occurs as the result of unpredictable natural forces, res ipsa loquitur should not apply; it cannot then be said that the accident "does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence."

  4. Tynes v. Bankers Life Co.

    224 Mont. 350 (Mont. 1986)   Cited 37 times
    Concluding that the purpose of the statute of limitations is to provide a defendant with adequate notice of the claim against it, give a defendant the opportunity to adequately defend, ensure fairness, and prevent undue prejudice to the defendant

    "Where it is impossible to say upon what theory or under what part of the court's instructions a verdict is based, error in any one of the instructions which is prejudicial and which may influence the jury entitles the unsuccessful party to a new trial." Roberts Realty Corp. v. City of Great Falls (1972), 160 Mont. 144, 159, 500 P.2d 956, 964. I would therefore reverse the District Court and send the matter back for new trial.

  5. Penn v. Burlington Northern, Inc.

    185 Mont. 223 (Mont. 1980)   Cited 9 times
    In Penn both parties agreed that certain documentary evidence did not need to be introduced at trial if the railroad would admit that it had notice of the dangerous nature of a railroad crossing.

    The contention that an instruction does not state the law cannot be considered absent a proper objection at trial. Roberts Realty Corp. v. City of Great Falls (1972), 160 Mont. 144, 500 P.2d 956. The third assignment of error asserted is the District Court's failure to admit a petition of the Rosebud County Commissioners and other documents concerning the warning devices at the Koselka crossing.

  6. Wolfe v. Schulz Refrigeration

    188 Mont. 511 (Mont. 1979)   Cited 8 times

    We have previously held that a party has the duty of raising his objection to the instruction at the time of trial or the opportunity is lost. Roberts Realty Corp. v. City of Great Falls (1972), 160 Mont. 144, 154, 500 P.2d 956, 962. Objections to instructions not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.