Semenza v. Bowman - Nos. 268 Mont. 118, 885 P.2d 451 (1994)

Rule:

Amendments involving new plaintiffs relate back in the following limited circumstances: (1) where there is a close identity of interest between the original plaintiff and the present plaintiff; and (2) where the new claim is based on the same allegations as the original claim. 

Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-317 provides that damages shall compensate for all the detriment proximately caused, whether or not it could have been anticipated. In addition, Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-302 requires that damages be reasonable. Compensatory damages to property are designed to return the damaged party to the same, or nearly the same, position enjoyed before the property is damaged.

Facts:

Plaintiffs Larry Semenza and Faye Fitzgerald commenced this action to recover compensation for crop damage which they allege was caused when their crops were sprayed by defendants Ronald Bowman and Eric Johnson or L & R Spraying Service. The complaint first was filed by Semenza, but it included a claim for crops damaged on the land he farmed on behalf of the Fitzgerald. The complaint was amended to add the Fitzgerald as a party. The court found that L & R's spraying caused the crop damage, and that Fitzgerald was damaged in the amount of $ 47,737.28, based on calculations done by her expert, Neal Fehringer. The basis for that amount was the court's finding that she should have been able to sell all of her barley as malt barley at $ 3.69/bushel and would have harvested at least 13,194 more bushels. In addition, the court found that Semenza had to rent equipment for $ 3,000 to screen out "thins" to ensure the maximum amount of Fitzgerald's barley was suited for malt and added that amount to her damage award. Fehringer also testified, and the District Court found, that based on crop reduction at both of his locations, Semenza sustained damages in the total amount of $ 55,073.02. The District Court also found that L & R knew that Semenza's damages were at least the amount set forth above and awarded Semenza and Fitzgerald prejudgment interest to accrue from September 15, 1989. L & R claimed that the District Court erred when it concluded that Fitzgerald's claim was not barred by § 27-2-207(1), MCA, which provides a two-year statute of limitations for injury to property since she was not added as a party until more than two years after her crops were damaged. L & R contends that Rule 15(c), M.R.Civ.P., does not contain specific language allowing a new plaintiff to be added after the statute of limitations has expired. L & R contended that the District Court erred as a matter of law by accepting plaintiffs' expert's damage calculations and that based on decisions from other jurisdictions, we should hold that the $ 2.40 value at the time of harvest must be used to calculate damages.

Issue:

1. Did the District Court err when it concluded that Fitzgerald's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations?
2. Did the District Court err in its calculation of Semenza's and Fitzgerald's damages?

Answer:

1. No. 2. No.

Conclusion:

1. Amendments involving new plaintiffs relate back in the following limited circumstances: (1) where there is a close identity of interest between the original plaintiff and the present plaintiff; and (2) where the new claim is based on the same allegations as the original claim. The damage in this case occurred in approximately July 1987. Semenza filed his complaint on March 30, 1989, in which he sought recovery for the damage to Fitzgerald's acreage. On January 15, 1990, an amended complaint was filed adding Fitzgerald as a plaintiff. Fitzgerald's claim arose out of the same transaction or occurrence, i.e., that L & R's spraying caused damage to her crops. The parties had a close identity of interest because Semenza custom farms Fitzgerald's property and he requested L & R to spray Fitzgerald's crop. Fitzgerald's claim is based on the same allegations of negligence as Semenza's original claim.
2. 2. § 27-1-317, MCA, provides that damages shall compensate for all the detriment proximately caused, whether or not it could have been anticipated. In addition, § 27-1-302, MCA, requires that damages be reasonable. Compensatory damages to property are designed to return the damaged party to the same, or nearly the same, position enjoyed before the property is damaged. The testimony indicated that it was a common practice to delay selling crops for weeks or months to enable farmers to achieve a higher price for their crop. Testimony also indicated that pursuant to another common farming practice, Semenza and Fitzgerald, at the time of harvest, took out United States Government loans for the value of the crop, and then sought to sell the crop at a later date because of the glut in the barley market on the date of harvest. Because this was their common practice, and was not done to enhance their damages, they were entitled to recognize the amount they would ordinarily recognize on the date of sale. This ensured Semenza and Fitzgerald were compensated for all detriment that was proximately caused by L & R's negligent acts. The district Court, and Montana's statutory law of damages, that the District Court's finding regarding plaintiffs' damages was supported by substantial evidence, it was not clearly erroneous, and it was not contrary to the laws of this State.