## Facts

- Lawrence A. Chapel went to a Montana hospital emergency room with a broken leg after being kicked by a horse.
- Dr. James G. Allison, a non-board-certified general practitioner, treated the fracture by placing Chapel in a long-leg cast.
- When the cast was removed, Chapel’s leg showed a deformity commonly described as a bowed leg.
- The parties disputed whether the bowing existed before the fracture and treatment.
- Chapel later underwent additional surgery to correct the deformity.
- Chapel sued Allison for medical malpractice, claiming Allison’s treatment caused (or failed to prevent) the deformity.
- Chapel’s main standard-of-care witness was a physician from outside Montana who consulted with at least one Montana doctor about practice conditions.
- The witness testified that a general practitioner would not ordinarily manage this type of fracture without referring the patient to an orthopedic surgeon or, at minimum, consulting one before proceeding.
- Allison argued that Chapel’s proposed standard did not account for rural Montana practice realities and would hold rural general practitioners to the same expectations as urban practitioners or specialists.
- The district court read Montana’s general-practitioner “locality rule” to limit the standard of care to similar communities within Montana, found Chapel’s testimony insufficiently tied to that in-state standard, and granted a directed verdict for Allison at the close of Chapel’s case.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by directing a verdict for Allison on the ground that Chapel failed to present sufficient expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care and breach.
2. Whether Montana’s locality-based standard for a general practitioner should remain limited to similar communities within Montana or be stated more broadly while still allowing consideration of local practice conditions.
3. If the Court restated the locality rule, whether the new formulation should apply to Allison’s past conduct or only to future cases.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the directed verdict and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Chapel, Chapel presented enough expert testimony to create a jury question on the standard of care and breach; disputes about how well the testimony fit local conditions went to weight, not admissibility on a directed-verdict motion.
- The Court abandoned the version of the locality rule that confined “similar communities” to communities within Montana and adopted a broader “similar communities” approach not bounded by state lines, while still allowing consideration of local factors affecting rural practice.
- The Court ordered the revised locality rule to apply prospectively only; on remand, the standard governing Allison’s conduct would be the Tallbull v. Whitaker locality standard as it existed when Allison treated Chapel.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is improper if, when the evidence is viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, reasonable jurors could differ on the outcome.
- In medical malpractice cases, once a plaintiff presents qualified medical testimony stating a standard of care and an opinion that the defendant fell below it, challenges that the standard does not sufficiently reflect local practice conditions generally present fact questions for the jury.
- Montana rejected a strict in-state geographic limit on the general-practitioner locality rule; the comparison group is practitioners in similar communities, even if those communities are outside Montana.
- Even under the broader “similar communities” approach, local conditions (including rural resources and access to specialists) may be considered in deciding whether the physician acted reasonably under the circumstances.
- When the Court changes the stated standard of care in a way that could affect reliance interests, it may apply the new rule only to future cases; earlier conduct is judged under the rule in effect at the time of treatment.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held the trial court wrongly took the case from the jury because Chapel’s medical witness provided evidence of a standard of care and breach sufficient to survive a directed verdict, even though the defense disputed how well that standard accounted for rural conditions. The Court also revised Montana’s general-practitioner locality rule by removing the Montana-only boundary and allowing comparison to similar communities beyond state lines while still permitting juries to consider local rural practice limits; however, that revised rule applied only going forward, and Allison’s conduct on remand would be measured under the prior Tallbull locality standard.


Chapel v. Allison, 785 P.2d 204 (1990)