Case Title: KNOEPKE v SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-080

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-80 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1980 ESTHER KNOEPKE, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, SOUTHWESTERN R A I L W A Y CO., e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f J u d i t h Basin, The Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert L. Johnson and Torger O a a s , Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: Robert J. Emmons, Great F a l l s , Montana Dzivi, Conklin & Nybo, Great F a l l s , Montana Alexander and Baucus, Great F a l l s , Montana F i l e d : Submitted on B r i e f s : October 9, 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The p l a i n t i f f s i n f o u r wrongful d e a t h and s u r v i v o r s h i p l a w s u i t s , E s t h e r Knoepke, A l l a n Samson and J u d i t h Mikkelson, Thomas and June Brady, and Frank and Marion Dusek, a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , J u d i t h Basin County. On December 28, 1979, t h e Hon. W. W. L e s s l e y d i r e c t e d t h e e n t r y of f i n a l judgment o f an o r d e r e n t e r e d J u n e 7 , 1977, i n which t h e Hon. LeRoy McKinnon d i s m i s s e d a l l t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s f r o m t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' l a w s u i t s . I n h i s o r d e r , Judge L e s s l e y found no r e a s o n f o r d e l a y i n g t h e e n t r y of Judge McKinnon's o r d e r and t h e r e f o r e d i r e c t e d f i n a l judgment be e n t e r e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. I n t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' p r e v i o u s a t t e m p t t o a p p e a l Judge McKinnon's o r d e r , t h i s Court d e c l i n e d t o e n t e r t a i n t h e a p p e a l because t h e d i s m i s s a l o r d e r d i d n o t comply w i t h Rule 5 4 ( b ) . S e e , Knoepke v. Southwestern Ry. Co. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 595 P.2d 376, 36 St.Rep. 957. The a p p e a l is now p r o p e r l y b e f o r e us. For r e a s o n s s t a t e d below, we a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o d i s m i s s t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s from t h e s e l a w s u i t s . P l a i n t i f f s a r e the, l e g a l s u r v i v o r s and r e l a t i v e s of p a s s e n g e r s k i l l e d i n an a i r p l a n e c r a s h which o c c u r r e d n e a r S t a n f o r d , Montana. P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t an employee of t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s n e g l i g e n t l y o p e r a t e d t h e a i r p l a n e . T h i s Court h a s t w i c e reviewed t h e f a c t s of t h i s t r a g i c a c c i d e n t , i n -- Knoepke, -- s u p r a , and i n Haker v . Southwestern Ry. Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . , 578 P.2d 724, 35 St.Rep. 523. The Haker c a s e involved a wrongful d e a t h and s u r v i v o r s h i p l a w s u i t brought by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e e s t a t e of a passenger k i l l e d i n t h i s same a i r p l a n e c r a s h . Although t h e f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h i s a c c i d e n t a r e provided i n our p r e v i o u s Knoepke and Haker d e c i s i o n s , we s h a l l r e i t e r a t e them b r i e f l y . On September 29, 1973, an a i r p l a n e p i l o t e d by Arthur Myllymaki, J r . , c r a s h e d i n t o t h e h i l l s surrounding S t a n f o r d , Montana. The a i r c r a f t was owned by d e f e n d a n t , C h a r l e s Newman and loaned t o d e f e n d a n t , Dudley Newman, f o r a f l i g h t from Arizona t o Washington S t a t e . Following t h e f l i g h t t o W a s h i n g t o n , Dudley Newman g a v e M y l l y m a k i , a p i l o t f o r d e f e n d a n t Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company, p e r m i s s i o n t o f l y t h e a i r p l a n e t o S t a n f o r d , t o v i s i t Myllymaki's r e l a t i v e s . A t t h e time of t h e c r a s h , Myllymaki was g i v i n g a j o y r i d e t o h i s f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s , i n c l u d i n g Lenny Haker , P a t r i c i a and Lyle Myllymaki, Zane Aaro Samson, John Raymond Brady and L e s l i e David Dusek. None s u r v i v e d t h e a i r p l a n e c r a s h . P l a i n t i f f E s t h e r Knoepke is t h e g u a r d i a n ad litem f o r t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n of P a t r i c i a and Lyle Myllymaki. P l a i n t i f f s A l l a n Samson and J u d i t h Mikkelson a r e t h e p a r e n t s and l e g a l h e i r s of Zane Aaro Samson. P l a i n t i f f s Thomas and June Brady a r e t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s and l e g a l h e i r s of John Raymond Brady. P l a i n t i f f s Frank and Marion Dusek a r e t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s and l e g a l h e i r s of L e s l i e David Dusek. The o r i g i n a l d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e Knoepke l a w s u i t included t h e Arizona Railway Company, Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company and t h e s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Arthur Myllymaki's e s t a t e , C e c e l i a K . B a i l e y . The o r i g i n a l d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e o t h e r t h r e e l a w s u i t s i n c l u d e d S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company, Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company and Cecelia B a i l e y . The c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t s a r e a l l Arizona c o r p o r a t i o n s . Other d e f e n d a n t s l a t e r included i n t h e s e l a w s u i t s were C h a r l e s Newman, Dudley Newman and D a r r e l l Sawyer. C h a r l e s Newman and Dudley Newman a r e b r o t h e r s and a r e both r e s i d e n t s of t h e S t a t e of Arizona, and o f f i c e r s and s t o c k h o l d e r s i n S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e two b r o t h e r s a r e engaged i n a p a r t n e r s h i p doing b u s i n e s s a s S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company. D a r r e l l S a w y e r , a n o t h e r Arizona r e s i d e n t , is t h e p r i n c i p a l s t o c k h o l d e r and g e n e r a l manager of Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company. He a l s o does b u s i n e s s i n d i v i d u a l l y a s Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company and a s Sawyer School of A v i a t i o n . I n response t o t h e c o m p l a i n t s f i l e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s , d e f e n d a n t Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company e n t e r e d a " s p e c i a l appearance" i n each c a s e moving t o quash s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s , c l a i m i n g l a c k o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e Montana D i s t r i c t Court. Defendant Southwestern Railway Company f i l e d an answer i n t h e Samson, Brady and Dusek s u i t s a l s o c h a l l e n g i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Southwestern Railway Company was n o t named a s a d e f e n d a n t i n t h e Knoepke s u i t . Defendant C e c e l i a K . B a i l e y f i l e d an answer i n a l l f o u r c a s e s . E x t e n s i v e d i s c o v e r y took p l a c e a f t e r t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s made t h e i r i n i t i a l appearance. On September 28, 1976, t h e Knoepke p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a motion r e q u e s t i n g t h a t Arizona Railway Company be dropped from her l a w s u i t a s a d e f e n d a n t . Knoepke r e q u e s t e d t h a t Southwestern Railway Company be s u b s t i t u t e d i n its p l a c e . On t h e same day, t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n a l l f o u r s u i t s moved t o add Dudley Newman, Thomas Newman and D a r r e l l Sawyer a s -8ef e n d a n t s . On June 7, 1977, Judge McKinnon g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f s ' motions t o add Dudley Newman, C h a r l e s Newman and D a r r e l l Sawyer a s d e f e n d a n t s . The judge o r d e r e d t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f Southwestern Railway Company i n t h e Knoepke l a w s u i t . The j u d g e f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h a t t h e d e f e n s e s p r e v i o u s l y i n t e r p o s e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e s u i t s b e deemed i n t e r p o s e d a s t o t h e j o i n e d d e f e n d a n t s . A t t h e same t i m e , however, Judge McKinnon e n t e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r : "IT IS ORDERED a s f o l l o w s : "1. The motion of t h e Defendants D a r r e l l Sawyer and Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company t o d i s m i s s t h e complaint a s t o s a i d Defendants be, and it is hereby, g r a n t e d . "2. The motion of t h e Defendants Southwestern R a i l w a y Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , Dudley Thomas Newman and C h a r l e s R. Newman, t o d i s m i s s t h e complaint a s t o s a i d Defendants be, and it is hereby, g r a n t e d . " 3 . The motion of t h e P l a i n t i f f s f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment be and is hereby, denied." The p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y thereupon d i s q u a l i f i e d Judge McKinnon . J u d g e W . W . L e s s l e y t h e r e a f t e r assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c a s e s and e n t e r e d t h e December 1979 o r d e r d i r e c t i n g e n t r y of judgment on Judge McKinnon's o r d e r . From t h i s o r d e r f o r f i n a l judgment, p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l , p r e s e n t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r our review: 1. Is a " s p e c i a l appearance" made by a p a r t y d e f e n d a n t t o quash s e r v i c e of a summons allowed under t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure? 2. May a D i s t r i c t Court use a f f i d a v i t s t o d e t e r m i n e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a p a r t y t o a l a w s u i t w i t h o u t denying any of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e s u i t t h e r i g h t t o a t r i a l ? 3 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r by o r d e r i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s from t h e l a w s u i t ? I n t h e i r r e s p o n d i n g b r i e f s , d e f e n d a n t s r a i s e a n a d d i t i o n a l i s s u e : Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n its June 1977 o r d e r j o i n i n g t h e a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t s w i t h o u t n o t i c e ? W e s h a l l d i s c u s s t h e s e i s s u e s i n t h e o r d e r t h e y a r e p r e s e n t e d . If a p a r t y t o a l a w s u i t p l a n s t o appea.r i n c o u r t t o a t t a c k t h e c o u r t ' s p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , a s p e c i a l appearance of t h e p a r t y , a s opposed t o a g e n e r a l appearance, is no longer r e q u i r e d . Rule 12, M.R.Civ.P., a b o l i s h e d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s p e c i a l and g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e s . Following s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s a p a r t y can a t t a c k t h e c o u r t ' s p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n simply by r a i s i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s u e i n an i n i t i a l response t o p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m by motion b e f o r e answering t h e c l a i m o r i n an answer t o t h e claim. I f t h e p a r t y ' s i n i t i a l response t o t h e o p p o n e n t ' s c l a i m r a i s e s a p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s u e , t h e n t h e p a r t y is n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e g e n e r a l power of t h e c o u r t s o l e l y because o f t h e response. See, 2 A Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 5 12.12. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e Arizona d e f e n d a n t s included a t t a c k s on t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e i r i n i t i a l responses t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' complaints. I n each response, t h e d e f e n d a n t s moved t h e c o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e c l a i m s f o r l a c k o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . A 1 t h o u g h d e f e n d a n t Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company l a b e l e d i t s i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e a " s p e c i a l a p p e a r a n c e " , t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e r e s p o n s e s e r v e a s a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . The c o u r t d i d n o t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by g r a n t i n g a motion t h a t used t h e a n t i q u a t e d l a b e l of s p e c i a l appearance. On t h e second i s s u e , t h e p l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d by u s i n g a f f i d a v i t s and d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l included i n t h e c o u r t f i l e t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e deceased p i l o t was a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e scope of h i s employment w i t h t h e A r i z o n a d e f e n d a n t s when t h e a i r p l a n e c r a s h o c c u r r e d . P l a i n t i f f s contend t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n h e r e based on t h e d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l s and a f f i d a v i t s , a m o u n t s t o a d e c i s i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s u l t i m a t e t o r t l i a b i l i t y r a t h e r t h a n a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e A r i z o n a d e f e n d a n t s . W e d i s a g r e e . T h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n was n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e c o u r t t o respond t o t h e A r i z o n a d e f e n d a n t s ' c l a i m r e g a r d i n g t h e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . S u f f i c i e n t minimum c o n t a c t s between Montana and n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s must be found t o e x i s t i n o r d e r f o r t h e c o u r t t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s . See, S t a t e ex r e l . Goff v. D i s t r i c t Court of F i r s t Jud. D i s t . ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157 Mont. 495, 487 P.2d 292. W e a g r e e w i t h d e f e n d a n t s ' a r g u m e n t t h a t w h i l e j u r i s d i c t i o n and u l t i m a t e l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t where d i s p u t e s of f a c t e x i s t a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o d e t e r m i n a t i o n by motion, common c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s connection with t h e t o r t i o u s a c t a r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e s which may be r e s o l v e d b e f o r e t r i a l . The c o u r t ' s use of a f f i d a v i t s t o r e s o l v e t h e s e c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e s was c o r r e c t . The p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s were n o t v i o l a t e d by t h e c o u r t ' s a c t i o n . I n H a l s e y B r a n t v. G a t e n s C a t t l e Co. e t a l . ( u n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n , C i v i l No. 761, decided August 20, 1 9 6 9 ) , t h e Hon. William Jameson used a f f i d a v i t s t o d e c i d e a p e r s o n a l .j uri s d i c t i o n q u e s t i o n q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e Judge McKinnon. I n Halsey, a f f i d a v i t s submitted by t h e p a r t i e s were used t o determine whether one of t h e named d e f e n d a n t s was employed by a second named d e f e n d a n t , a non-Montana r e s i d e n t . Through t h e a f f i d a v i t s , Judge Jameson found t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t was n o t t h e employer, which d e f e a t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m of minimum contacts between t h e n o n - r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t and t h e S t a t e of Montana. With r e g a r d t o h i s use of t h e a f f i d a v i t s t o determine j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e c o u r t h e l d : "The use of a f f i d a v i t s . . . ( t o determine per- s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ) under Rule 1 2 ( d ) is p r o p e r . While t h e r u l e i t s e l f does n o t s p e c i f y t h e t y p e of e v i d e n c e which may b e p r e s e n t e d , R u l e 4 3 ( e ) p r o v i d e s t h a t , 'When a motion is based on f a c t s n o t appearing of r e c o r d t h e c o u r t may hear t h e m a t t e r on af f i d a v i t s p r e s e n t e d by t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s , b u t t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h a t t h e m a t t e r be heard wholly o r p a r t l y on o r a l testimony o r d e p o s i t i o n s . ' "Rule 5 6 ( e ) , r e l a t i n g t o motions f o r summary judg- m e n t , p r o v i d e s t h a t , ' S u p p o r t i n g and o p p o s i n g a f f i d a v i t s s h a l l be made on p e r s o n a l knowledge, s h a l l s e t f o r t h such f a c t s a s would be a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , and s h a l l show a££ i r m a t i v e l y t h a t t h e a f f i a n t is competent t o t e s t i f y t o t h e m a t t e r s s t a t e d t h e r e i n . ' " B u t t r e s s i n g t h e i r argument on t h i s i s s u e , p l a i n t i f f s c i t e H a r r i n g t o n v. Holiday Rambler C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 165 Mont. 32, 525 P.2d 556. I n H a r r i n g t o n , we commented on t h e u s e of a f f i d a v i t s a s f o l l o w s : "The most t r o u b l e s o m e a s p e c t h e r e i s t h a t d e f e n d a n t was p e r m i t t e d simply t o s a y 'Nay' upon a f f i d a v i t and t h e r e b y p r e v e n t p l a i n t i f f s f r o m having t h e i r day i n c o u r t . W e a r e n o t d i s p o s e d t o s a y it is always improper t o g r a n t a motion t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t when a t a h e a r i n g on t h a t motion t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s n o t h i n g more i n s u p p o r t o f i t s p o s i t i o n t h a t an a f f i d a v i t , b u t we do f e e l t h a t i n t h e normal c o u r s e of t h i n g s p l a i n t i f f s a t l e a s t ought t o have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine t h e d e f e n d a n t . Fundamental f a i r n e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t t o t h e e x t e n t p l a i n t i f f s a r e d e n i e d s u c h a n o p p o r t u n i t y , d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t should be g i v e n less weight." The c a s e now b e f o r e u s is s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t t h a n H a r r i n g t o n . Here, e x t e n s i v e d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l s and a f f i d a v i t s were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t . W e approve of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s use of t h e s e e x t e n s i v e d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l s and a f f i d a v i t s i n d e t e r m i n i n g i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s . The p l a i n t i f f s were g i v e n a s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o examine t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s through d e p o s i t i o n s and i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t o develop t h e i r argument r e g a r d i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e i n . P l a i n t i f f s ' t h i r d i s s u e a s s e r t s t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n a c t i n g on i t s own i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s from t h e s e l a w s u i t s . P l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h a t because t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y f i l e a motion t o d i s m i s s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , t h e c o u r t was powerless t o d i s m i s s t h e d e f e n d a n t s . P l a i n t i f f s , h o w e v e r , m i s s t a t e t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n s . An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l p l e a d i n g s f i l e d by t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s i n d i c a t e s t h e d e f e n d a n t s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n s f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . These e x p r e s s r e q u e s t s n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n and d i s m i s s a l of d e f e n d a n t s from t h e l a w s u i t s . The d e f e n d a n t s ' r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s empowered t h e c o u r t t o a c t . The f o u r t h i s s u e i s b r o u g h t by t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e i r b r i e f s f i l e d i n t h i s a p p e a l . The d e f e n d a n t s argue t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n s t o add a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s t o t h e l a w s u i t s w i t h o u t f i r s t p r o v i d i n g n o t i c e of t h e motion t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s . W e a r e asked t o c o n s i d e r t h i s i s s u e under t h e " d o c t r i n e of compensatory e r r o r " . W e d e c l i n e t o do s o . W e f i n d t h e c o u r t ' s a c t i o n c a u s e d no p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s and t h e r e f o r e , we s h a l l n o t a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n . For t h e foregoing r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i s m i s s i n g t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s from t h e s e l a w s u i t s . I J u s t i c e i W e Concur: C h i , f J u s t i c e 1 - 7