nature as presently exercised by such Judges shall continue until changed pursuant to law.” ROBERT L. BROWN, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part. I agree with the majority that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on the two jury instructions proffered by Ludwig. However, I disagree with the majority that the circuit court erred in submitting the nuisance issue to the jury for determination. After the jury’s verdict that a nuisance was ongoing, the judge determined that injunctive relief was warranted. This procedure was appropriate in my judgment for several reasons. First, common law nuisance has traditionally been a cause of action submitted to the jury. See, e.g., McLean v. City of Fort Smith, 185 Ark. 582, 48 S.W.2d 228 (1932) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the court instructed the
holding that the question whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review holding that where there is no essential conflict as to the facts and the evidence the trial court was correct in refusing to submit the theory of strict liability to the jury holding that when facts establishing nuisance are indispute the court should submit the question to the  injury holding that to apply the personal injury endorsement montana law requires the complaint to allege facts establishing the elements of one of the enumerated torts listed under the insurance policys definition of personal injury holding it was error to submit a fraud claim to the jury partly because there was no principle of law establishing an obligation of disclosure