Datasets:

HFforLegal

/

case-law

like 6

86a23fd7-4ebf-4606-a0e0-925a420f81c8

Dawson v. Allstate Insurance Co.

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Dawson v. Allstate Insurance Co. Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1993 Term ___________ 21492 ___________ KAREN E. DAWSON, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND RALPH BURTON, Defendants Below, Appellees ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County Honorable Paul Zakaib, Jr., Judge Civil Action No. 89-C-683 AFFIRMED, IN PART; REVERSED, IN PART, AND REMANDED. ______________________________________ Submitted: May 11, 1993 Filed: July 16, 1993 Barbara H. Lupton Masters & Taylor, L.C. Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellant Ricklin Brown Elizabeth D. Harter Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellees This Opinion was delivered PER CURIAM. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "To successfully defend against a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must make some showing of fact which would support a prima facie case for his claim." Syl. pt. 2, Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 178 W. Va. 164, 358 S.E.2d 423 (1986). 2. "In order to make a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code § 5-11-1 et seq. (1979), the plaintiff must offer proof of the following: (1) That the plaintiff is a member of a protected class. (2) That the employer made an adverse decision concerning the plaintiff. (3) But for the plaintiff's protected status, the adverse decision would not have been made." Syl. pt. 3, Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 178 W. Va. 164, 358 S.E.2d 423 (1986). 3. "Under the provisions of Rule 56 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, when the moving party presents depositions, interrogatories, affidavits or otherwise indicates there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the resisting party to avoid summary judgment must present some evidence that the facts are in dispute." Syl. pt. 2, Guthrie v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 158 W. Va. 1, 208 S.E.2d 60 (1974). 4. "The question to be decided on a motion for summary judgment is whether there is a genuine issue of fact and not how that issue should be determined." Syl. pt. 5, Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963). 5. "A party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of fact and any doubt as to the existence of such issue is resolved against the movant for such judgment." Syl. pt. 6, Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963). 6. "Even if the trial judge is of the opinion to direct a verdict, he should nevertheless ordinarily hear evidence and, upon a trial, direct a verdict rather than try the case in advance on a motion for summary judgment." Syl. pt. 1, Masinter v. WEBCO Co., 164 W. Va. 241, 262 S.E.2d 433 (1980). Per Curiam: This case is before the Court upon the appeal of Karen E. Dawson, the plaintiff below, from the June 9, 1992 order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County which granted summary judgment for the appellees and defendants below, Allstate Insurance Company and Ralph Burton. Ms. Dawson brought this action against the appellees alleging that the appellees had refused to hire her as an insurance agent solely on the basis of her gender in violation of W. Va. Code, 5-11-9 [1989].See footnote 1 Ms. Dawson also alleged that the appellee, Ralph Burton, made false representations to her about getting the job upon which she detrimentally relied. For reasons set forth below, we hold that the granting of summary judgment was proper in Ms. Dawson's false misrepresentation action, and improper in Ms. Dawson's gender discrimination action. Therefore, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, and remand this case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I The appellee, Ralph Burton, supervises agents and has the responsibility of hiring agents in West Virginia for Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate). Mr. Burton was actively recruiting two Allstate agents in the summer of 1988. In June of 1988 Ms. Dawson, the appellant, applied for one of the positions. There were at least two other people who applied for the positions: Patrick Reynolds and James Matthews. Eventually, Mr. Reynolds was hired for one of the agent positions. Mr. Matthews decided not to pursue the job, and Ms. Dawson was not offered a position. Mr. Burton stated that although there is not a list of absolute standards which indicate that a person is qualified to be a sales agent, there were qualities that he looked for when determining whether a person would be successful as an agent. For instance, he stated that Allstate preferred that the applicant has a college degree and that the applicant has some prior success pattern, preferably in sales. The applicant has to pass the TRACK test, a general aptitude test. The applicant should also like to win awards and have high monetary goals. Mr. Burton states that competitiveness is important, and one way he checks to see if the applicant is competitive is to find out whether the applicant played sports in college or competes in races. The applicant also has to work well with people and have a professional image. During his deposition, Mr. Burton outlined the general procedure he used when considering an applicant for a position with Allstate. First, the applicant takes the TRACK test. Second, Mr. Burton interviews the applicant. Third, the applicant completes work samples which gives the applicant an idea of what the job entails by having the applicant contact people about their auto and homeowner's insurance. Fourth, the applicant observes the job. Fifth, the applicant is interviewed by the Territorial Sales Manager, John Rushe, or the Territorial Sales Development Manager, Charlie Landen. Sixth, the applicant must obtain an insurance license. Ms. Dawson completed the entire procedure outlined by Mr. Burton with the exception of obtaining an insurance license. Ms. Dawson passed the TRACK test and interviewed with Mr. Burton. Ms. Dawson stated that during the interview Mr. Burton asked her why she was not pursuing a teaching degree. Mr. Burton admits that he questioned Ms. Dawson about a teaching career. Mr. Burton also told Ms. Dawson that he would need to meet with her children in order to make sure that they understood the demands of an agent's job. The appellees point out that the Allstate manual suggests that the family be involved in the interview process in order to make sure they understand the commitment of an agent. Ms. Dawson also stated that she gave Mr. Burton her schedule for the summer since she would be out of town throughout the summer taking classes in order to complete her master's degree. Mr. Burton does not recall Ms. Dawson giving him the schedule. Ms. Dawson alleges that even though Mr. Burton had her schedule, he nevertheless sent her work samples to be completed in two days when he knew that she would not receive the forms until a week after they were due since she was out of town. Ms. Dawson completed the first set of work samples which involved calling people and asking about their insurance. The purpose of the work samples is to give the candidate a feel for calling strangers to solicit insurance business. Ms. Dawson then interviewed with Mr. Rushe. Ms. Dawson stated that Mr. Rushe told her that as far as he was concerned she had the job, but it was Mr. Burton's decision. In his affidavit, Mr. Rushe stated that he did not tell Ms. Dawson that the job was hers. Mr. Rushe did ask Ms. Dawson to complete 30 additional work samples since she had called 30 acquaintances when doing the first set of work samples which would not give Ms. Dawson an indication of what it is like to call strangers. Mr. Rushe also stated in his affidavit that he asked Mr. Burton to have her complete an Annual New Business Income/Sales Projection form since he had concerns about whether Ms. Dawson comprehended the amount of work she would need to complete in order to reach her monetary goal. Ms. Dawson was given the Annual New Business Income/Sales Projection form to complete. Mr. Burton stated that he explained how the form was to be completed. Ms. Dawson stated that Mr. Burton did not explain how to do the form, so she asked her ex-husband, who was an insurance agent, how to complete the form. Mr. Burton stated that after she completed the form, he had her explain it to him and she could not. Mr. Burton stated that Mr. Reynolds was not asked to complete the Annual New Business Income/Sales Projection form nor was he asked to do thirty additional work samples. Mr. Reynolds stated in his affidavit that he was required to complete the Annual New Business Income/Sales Projection form. Ms. Dawson did observe agents at the Allstate booth located in the Town Center mall. Mr. Burton stated that the agents who were working in the booth on the day Ms. Dawson observed did not make any comments regarding Ms. Dawson when usually they will say that they think a candidate would be a good agent. Mr. Burton also stated that one agent at the booth stated that it was her understanding that Ms. Dawson was not motivated to work. Ms. Dawson stated that she told Mr. Burton that she would get her insurance license after she was hired. Mr. Burton stated that obtaining a license is a prerequisite to getting the job. However, Ms. Dawson stated that Mr. Reynolds was hired before he obtained his license, though Mr. Burton denies that Mr. Reynolds was offered a job before he had obtained his insurance license. Ms. Dawson stated that Mr. Burton told her that he could not offer her a job because there were three other people, who were men, who were more qualified than she was. Ms. Dawson also stated that Mr. Burton said that he could not offer her a position because she did not have a track record. Mr. Burton gave the following reasons for not hiring Ms. Dawson: concern about whether Ms. Dawson understood what it took to perform the job; the lack of comments by agents at the booth about Ms. Dawson after Ms. Dawson's observation; the less than satisfying job references of Ms. Dawson (though Mr. Burton never actually spoke with any of Ms. Dawson's references); Ms. Dawson's failure to obtain her agent's license; the concern about her lack of initiative in pursuing a full-time teaching position or working as a solicitorSee footnote 2 in her ex-husband's insurance agency; the wearing of a dress by Ms. Dawson which did not appear appropriate for the job (looked like a dress you would wear to a dinner party according to Mr. Burton); the fact that Ms. Dawson got upset when the interview dates were mixed up and when he was going over the Annual New Business Income/Sales Projection form; and what appeared to be lack of good judgment by Ms. Dawson. Mr. Burton stated that he told Ms. Dawson that Allstate did not have a position for her only after she demanded to know whether or not she had the job. Ms. Dawson filed a complaint alleging that the appellees had not hired her solely on the basis of her gender, and that Mr. Burton had made false representations to her about getting the job upon which she detrimentally relied. The appellees filed a motion for summary judgment on July 30, 1990. Ms. Dawson did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. On June 9, 1992, the circuit court granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment. The circuit court had before it the pleadings, the depositions of Mr. Burton and Ms. Dawson, the affidavits of Mr. Rushe and Mr. Reynolds, and the appellees' answer to the appellant's interrogatories and request for the production of documents. It is from the circuit court's granting of the motion for summary judgment that Ms. Dawson appeals. II We first address Ms. Dawson's contention that she established a prima facie case of gender discrimination under W. Va. Code, 5-11-9 [1989] precluding summary judgment. We agree with Ms. Dawson. W. Va. Code, 5-11-9(a)(1) [1989] states, in part, that "[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, . . . [f]or any employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment if the individual is able and competent to perform the services required[.]" "The term 'discriminate' or 'discrimination' means to exclude from, or fail or refuse to extend to, a person equal opportunities because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, blindness, handicap, or familial status and includes to separate or segregate[.]" W. Va. Code, 5-11-3(h) [1989] (emphasis added).See footnote 3 These two code sections in the West Virginia Human Rights Act are the basis of Ms. Dawson's gender discrimination claim. In syllabus point 2 of Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 178 W. Va. 164, 358 S.E.2d 423 (1986) we stated that in order "[t]o successfully defend against a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must make some showing of fact which would support a prima facie case for his claim." Furthermore, in syllabus point 3 of Conaway, supra, we outlined what the plaintiff must show in order to make a prima facie case in an employment discrimination action: In order to make a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code § 5-11-1 et seq. (1979), the plaintiff must offer proof of the following: (1) That the plaintiff is a member of a protected class. (2) That the employer made an adverse decision concerning the plaintiff. (3) But for the plaintiff's protected status, the adverse decision would not have been made. In the case before us, Ms. Dawson has satisfied the first two requirements of proving a prima facie case: she is a woman, and she was not hired by Allstate. It is the third requirement that is in dispute. This Court noted in Conaway that it is unlikely that a plaintiff will have direct proof of the third requirement. Therefore, direct proof is not necessary. The first two parts of the test are easy, but the third will cause controversy. Because discrimination is essentially an element of the mind, there will probably be very little direct proof available. Direct proof, however, is not required. What is required of the plaintiff is to show some evidence which would sufficiently link the employer's decision and the plaintiff's status as a member of a protected class so as to give rise to an inference that the employment decision was based on an illegal discriminatory criterion. This evidence could, for example, come in the form of an admission by the employer, a case of unequal or disparate treatment between members of the protected class and others by the elimination of the apparent legitimate reasons for the decision, or statistics in a large operation which show that members of the protected class received substantially worse treatment than others. Id. at 170-71, 358 S.E.2d at 429-30. Therefore, all Ms. Dawson has to show in order to meet the third requirement is an inference that the decision to not hire her was based on gender. Ms. Dawson points to several pieces of evidence in order to give rise to an inference that Allstate's decision to not hire her was based on gender. In her deposition Ms. Dawson stated that Mr. Burton asked her on at least three occasions why she did not pursue a teaching job. Historically, teaching has been considered a good career for women with children. Ms. Dawson contends that Mr. Burton was implying that teaching was more suited for women. Ms. Dawson had a teaching degree, and she had substituted over a period of approximately ten years. Mr. Burton admits that he asked her about a teaching career and about becoming a solicitor. He states that the fact that she did not attempt to obtain a teaching job or apply for a solicitor's job showed a lack of initiative since Ms. Dawson stressed that she needed a job.See footnote 4 Mr. Burton also informed the appellant that he would have to meet with her children in order to make sure they understood the long hours of an agent. The appellees point out that the Allstate manual requires potential agents' families to be involved in the interview because of the long work hours. Mr. Burton stated that he thought an applicant's participation in sports was a big plus since it demonstrates aggressiveness. Mr. Burton also states that he gives heavy weight to successful prior work experience. Ms. Dawson argues that these two criteria put women at a disadvantage. The defendants' answer to the plaintiff's interrogatories indicate that out of forty-nine agents in West Virginia, four were women in 1988, and out of fifty-one agents in West Virginia, five were women in 1989. We noted in Conaway, supra, that since it is unlikely that a plaintiff will have direct proof of discrimination, the plaintiff can use statistical evidence which indicates that members of the protected class were treated worse than others as evidence of discrimination. Therefore, we find the statistical gender disparity which exists to be relevant to whether Ms. Dawson has established a prima facie case of gender discrimination. Ms. Dawson states that she was told that she did not have a proven successful employment history, and that the other applicants, who were men, were more qualified than she. Ms. Dawson points out that Mr. Burton never spoke with any of her references, who had been past employers. Ms. Dawson also points out that she had several part-time jobs while her children were small. However, Mr. Reynolds, who was eventually hired as an agent, had just graduated from college and had only worked as a solicitor in his father's insurance business. The appellees point out that once a prima facie case is established, then the employer, if it can, offers a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision. The plaintiff must then show that the offered nondiscriminatory reason was merely pretextual.See footnote 5 See syl. pt. 4, Conaway, supra. The appellees state that they have given a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for their failure to hire Ms. Dawson, so she must show that the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason they offered was pretextual in order to survive a motion for summary judgment. We disagree. In syl. pt. 2 of Conaway, supra, we made it clear that all a plaintiff must do to survive a motion for summary judgment is to establish a prima facie case. To hold otherwise would put an unfair burden on the plaintiff since there is often little direct evidence of discrimination. The decision of whether there is discrimination rests with the jury's determination of the motive or intent behind the actions of the parties. Therefore, Ms. Dawson established a prima facie case since the above facts give rise to an inference that gender played a role in Allstate not hiring Ms. Dawson for the position. Furthermore, summary judgment is not proper in complex cases which involve motive or intent. 6 James W. Moore & Jeremy C. Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.16 (1993). See also Karnell v. Nutting, 166 W. Va. 269, 273 S.E.2d 93 (1980). While it is not clear that the above facts will enable Ms. Dawson to prevail at trial, the facts do enable Ms. Dawson to survive a motion for summary judgment. III Next, we address whether summary judgment was appropriate in Ms. Dawson's fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Although Ms. Dawson mentions in her petition for appeal, which is also her brief, that count two of her complaint was a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Ms. Dawson does not discuss nor argue in her petition for appeal what evidence is in the record to support her fraudulent misrepresentation claim. In syllabus point 3 of Higginbotham v. City of Charleston, 157 W. Va. 724, 204 S.E.2d 1 (1974) overruled on other grounds, O'Neil v. City of Parkersburg, 160 W. Va. 694, 237 S.E.2d 504 (1977), we held that assignments of error which are not argued in the briefs will be deemed waived. Therefore, the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment on Ms. Dawson's fraudulent misrepresentation claim. IV Last, we address the appellees' contention that the circuit court properly granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment because Ms. Dawson failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. The appellees point out that Ms. Dawson had two years from the time they filed the motion for summary judgment until the circuit court granted the motion to respond; however, Ms. Dawson failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. The appellees point to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 56(e), which states, in part: When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. The appellees also point to syllabus point 2 in Guthrie v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 158 W. Va. 1, 208 S.E.2d 60 (1974) which states: Under the provisions of Rule 56 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, when the moving party presents depositions, interrogatories, affidavits or otherwise indicates there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the resisting party to avoid summary judgment must present some evidence that the facts are in dispute. The appellees contend that since Ms. Dawson did not respond to the motion for summary judgment, then the circuit court correctly granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment. We disagree. Although syllabus point 2 in Guthrie does state that the nonmoving party must present evidence that the facts are in dispute, syllabus point 2 also states that the moving party's evidence must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. See also Crain v. Lightner, 178 W. Va. 765, 364 S.E.2d 778 (1987). In syllabus point 5 of Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963) we made it clear that "[t]he question to be decided on a motion for summary judgment is whether there is a genuine issue of fact and not how that issue should be determined." Furthermore, in syllabus point 6 of Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., supra, we pointed out that "[a] party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of fact and any doubt as to the existence of such issue is resolved against the movant for such judgment." Therefore, in the case before us the appellees have the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of fact. If the appellees fail to prove that there is no genuine issue of material fact, then there is no need for Ms. Dawson to respond. The Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida pointed out that it is not necessary for the non-moving party to respond if the moving party fails to show that there is no genuine issue of fact: Much of the argument in the briefs deal with the contention that the party moved against must file a counter-affidavit or suffer summary judgment. This, of course, is not correct. If the court file contains other competent proof such as depositions, admissions, or answers to interrogatories, which contradicts the moving party's claim, it is not necessary for the non-moving party also to file an affidavit to counter the movant's affidavit. That is not to say that good practice may not often suggest also filing an affidavit so as to point up the contradicting statements which may be buried throughout a voluminous court file. Miscal Construction Co., Inc. v. Rusco Industries, Inc., 403 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981). See 6 James W. Moore & Jeremy C. Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[2] (1993). In the case before us, the circuit court had before it the pleadings, two depositions, answers to interrogatories, and two affidavits. The evidence before the circuit court did show that there is an issue of fact. Allstate had hired more men than women to be agents in West Virginia. Mr. Burton admits that he asked Ms. Dawson why she did not pursue a teaching career. Whether Mr. Burton's question about teaching shows gender discrimination is a question for the jury since it involves motive. It has been pointed out that "although there may be no dispute as to the basic evidentiary facts, summary judgment is improper where the case stands or falls on the inference that may be drawn from these facts--particularly, where the inferences depend upon subjective feelings and intent." Dalesio v. Allen-Bradley Co., 64 F.R.D. 554, 556 (W.D. Pa. 1974) (citing cases). Furthermore, we have stated that "[e]ven if the trial judge is of the opinion to direct a verdict, he should nevertheless ordinarily hear evidence and, upon a trial, direct a verdict rather than try the case in advance on a motion for summary judgment." Syl. pt. 1, Masinter v. WEBCO Co., 164 W. Va. 241, 262 S.E.2d 433 (1980). Therefore, since the case before us involves motive and intent and since the appellees have failed to show that there is no genuine issue of fact, summary judgment should not have been granted on the issue of gender discrimination even though Ms. Dawson failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. V Accordingly, we hold that the granting of summary judgment was proper in Ms. Dawson's false misrepresentation action, and improper in Ms. Dawson's gender discrimination action. Therefore, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, and remand this case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded. Footnote: 1W. Va. Code, 5-11-9 was amended in 1992; however, the amendments do not affect the issue in this case. Footnote: 2The following is a general description of the difference between an agent and a solicitor: A 'general' agent is ordinarily one who is authorized to accept risks, to agree upon and settle terms of insurance contracts, to issue policies of insurance, to renew policies, and to change, modify, or vary the terms of existing contracts, as distinguished from a 'soliciting' agent, who merely procures applications, forwards them to other officers of the insurer, collects premiums, and delivers policies. 16 John A. Appleman & Jean Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 8696, at 274 (1981) (footnote omitted). Footnote: 3W. Va. Code, 5-11-3 was amended in 1992; however, the amendments do not affect our discussion. Footnote: 4Following is a portion of Mr. Burton's testimony: Q. Can you name one thing for me right now that would indicate to you that she [Ms. Dawson] lacked initiative, based on your interviews, based upon any of your interview process, testing or whatever, other than what this Teresa girl said that would demonstrate to you that she lacked initiative? A. [Mr. Burton:] There was a question that I had regarding why she did not work or had not pursued, which I had talked to her about in the last two meetings I had with her, why she had not pursued a solicitor's job with either Jim or another agent where she could probably well have worked part-time and worked around the children, too, at that time. In other words, the job could have been fit in most offices where she could have worked around her children's hours. That I was wondering about. Q. That showed you a lack of initiative that she didn't want to work as a solicitor? A. [Mr. Burton:] Yes, I was wondering why she did not pursue a solicitor's job if she wanted to get in sales. Q. Wasn't she working part-time as a teacher, substitute teacher? A. [Mr. Burton:] Yes, but still, you could even work -- when you're not teaching, you could work as a solicitor on your days when you're not teaching. It's pretty flexible to be a solicitor, you know, if you've got an agent that would be agreeable with it. Q. So besides the fact that she wasn't a part-time solicitor along with being a part-time school-teacher, was there anything else besides Teresa's comment that led you to believe that she lacked initiative? A. [Mr. Burton:] Well, the fact that she did not get an agent's license, did not pursue that, and the fact that she did not pursue getting a full-time teaching position. Footnote: 5Although not at issue in the case before us, we point out that the Supreme Court of the United States recently held that even if the plaintiff shows that the employer's nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions are pretextual the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law since the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, No. 92-602, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S. Ct. ___, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (June 25, 1993).

b6f96ce826ee3e875cb2c5e0c686c311da18de4f3295b4f8cb71bda0bdb968b5

1993-07-16 00:00:00

6ffd44a9-6991-4149-920b-ac14febd6312

Parsons v. McCoy

202 S.E.2d 632

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Parsons v. McCoy Annotate this Case 202 S.E.2d 632 (1973) Sue Anne PARSONS, etc., et al. v. Donald C. McCOY et al., and Berton W. Cremeans et al. No. 13089. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted September 26, 1973. Decided December 4, 1973. Dissenting Opinion February 19, 1974. *633 Preiser & Wilson, David C. McCue, Chester Lovett, James Cooper, Charleston, for appellants. Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, Charles Q. Gage, W. T. Shaffer, Charleston, for appellees Martha White Bean Co. and Martha White Mills. BERRY, Chief Justice: This is an appeal by the plaintiffs below, Sue Anne Parsons and Anna Leola Hall, from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County entered August 4, 1970 which vacated, set aside and annulled an order by the court of June 2, 1970 which had granted the plaintiffs a default judgment against Martha White Mills of West Virginia, a corporation and Martha White Bean Company, a corporation. Sue Anne *634 Parsons, individually, and by her next friend, Anna Leola Hall, and Anna Leola Hall on her own behalf brought the action for personal injuries to Sue Anne Parsons against numerous defendants as a result of a multi-vehicle collision. The two corporate defendants failed to answer the complaint or otherwise appear within 30 days, and a default judgment was entered against them. However, the two corporate defendants promptly filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, contending that their failure to file an answer within 30 days was the result of excusable neglect. The plaintiffs allege that the lower court erred in setting aside the default judgment contending that the failure of the corporate defendants to file an answer was inexcusable neglect. This Court granted plaintiffs' appeal on May 10, 1971; the case was continued on December 18, 1972, and on September 26, 1973 the case was submitted for decision upon arguments and briefs on behalf of the respective parties. Sue Anne Parsons was injured as a result of a multi-vehicle collision on Interstate 64 near Dunbar, West Virginia on April 25, 1969. The chain collision accident occurred at approximately 7:15 a. m. in a fog bank. The defendant corporations had leased a truck which was involved in the accident and the corporations had insured the truck with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. After the accident, the defendant corporations notified Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and the insurance company investigated the accident. Stanley A. Smith, the claims supervisor for Liberty Mutual, who worked in the Cincinnati office and was responsible for claims in this region of West Virginia, opened a property damage file in the name of Sue Anne Parsons after receiving a letter from the Buckeye Union Insurance Company, asserting a subrogation claim against Steiner Leasing, Inc., the lessor of the truck, and Martha White Mills of West Virginia. Stanley A. Smith denied the subrogation claim on behalf of Liberty Mutual on October 2, 1969. On July 24, 1969 Patricia Ann Morrison, administratrix of the estate of Ronald Eugene Morrison, deceased, brought an action in the Common Pleas Court of Kanawha County against Berton W. Cremeans, the driver of the truck, and Steiner Leasing, Inc., insureds of Liberty Mutual. Smith, the claims supervisor, opened a file in the name of Patricia Ann Morrison and contacted the law firm of Jackson, Kelly, Holt, and O'Farrell in Charleston, which regularly represents Liberty Mutual in that locality, but was informed by the law firm that it would not be able to represent Liberty Mutual because other insurance companies represented by Jackson, Kelly, Holt and O'Farrell were involved in the litigation arising out of the multi-vehicle accident. Smith then employed Spilman, Thomas, Battle and Klostermeyer, and Howard R. Klostermeyer, Esquire of that law firm, to represent Liberty Mutual in the Morrison action. On April 17, 1970 Sue Anne Parsons brought the present action and the defendants Martha White Mills of West Virginia and Martha White Bean Company received the summons and complaint from the State Auditor on April 23, 1970. On April 20, 1970 Howard R. Klostermeyer forwarded a copy of a newspaper article to Smith in Cincinnati which advised Smith of the suit by Sue Anne Parsons. Smith incorrectly assumed that Klostermeyer would protect the company against default because over the years Liberty Mutual had worked out a procedure with its regular counsel, Jackson, Kelly, Holt and O'Farrell that if the local counsel were advised of an action against Liberty Mutual, the law firm would notify Smith in Cincinnati and would proceed to file an answer or seek to have the answer date extended. Smith, after receiving a copy of the summons and complaint from the insured, would forward the same to counsel along with any pertinent information received as a result of the company's investigation of the accident. However, in this case, Smith received the summons and complaint from *635 the corporate defendants on April 24, 1970 and laid them on his desk with the intent of forwarding them to Klostermeyer at a later date. An unidentified clerk in Liberty Mutual's offices in Cincinnati picked up the summons and complaint from Smith's desk and mistakenly filed them in the previously opened property damage file in the name of Sue Anne Parsons. Smith did not open a new file for this action and forgot to forward the summons and complaint. Klostermeyer, not knowing of the procedure followed by Jackson, Kelly, Holt and O'Farrell, and not having received any instructions from Smith, did not take any action to protect the insureds against a default. The plaintiffs contend that the conduct of the insurance company was inexcusable and the circuit court erred in setting aside the default judgment. The defendants filed a cross-assignment of error alleging that the order setting aside the default judgment is not a final order and thus is not appealable. The defendants' cross-assignment of error will be considered first because if they prevail on this issue the appeal would be dismissed as improvidently awarded. It is the contention of the defendants that the order of the trial court setting aside the default judgment is not an appealable order under the provisions of Code, 58-5-1. The two provisions of the aforementioned statute under which appeals may be granted by this Court are subsections (a) and (i). Subsection (a) allows appeals in civil cases where the amount involved is more than $100, exclusive of costs, where there is a final judgment, and subsection (i) allows appeals in civil cases from an order granting a new trial or rehearing. The general rule in this country with regard to orders setting aside default judgments is that they are neither final orders nor orders granting a new trial, the reasoning being that they are interlocutory in nature and since there has never been a trial in the first instance they cannot be considered as orders granting a "new" trial or "rehearing". Annot., 8 A.L.R.3d 1272; Dodd v. Bonds, 220 Ark. 951, 251 S.W.2d 587; Bergen v. Schrodi, 44 Wis.2d 19, 170 N.W.2d 698 ; Hall v. American National Plastics, Inc., 73 Wash. 2d 203 , 437 P.2d 693 . However, this Court has held that an order setting aside a default judgment is appealable under Code, 58-5-1(i) by virtue of a liberal interpretation of the statute of the term "trial". Clark v. Lee, 76 W.Va. 144, 85 S.E. 64. There is virtually no other authority in other jurisdictions holding that such an order is appealable under statutes similar to Code, 58-5-1(i). See Annot., 8 A.L.R.3d 1272, 1316. The Clark case is the only case in which this matter has been squarely raised and discussed by this Court. An appeal was allowed by this Court from an order setting aside a default judgment in the case of Citizens' Trust & Guaranty Co. v. Young, 75 W.Va. 241, 83 S.E. 1007, and although the jurisdictional question was not raised by either the parties or the court, the order setting aside the default judgment was reversed primarily because no plea nor counter affidavit denying liability was filed during the term of the court in which the default judgment was entered, as required by the statute at that time. This case was decided before the Clark case. In the recent case of McDaniel v. Romano, W.Va., 190 S.E.2d 8 , an appeal was allowed by this Court from an order setting aside a default judgment but the question of whether or not the order was appealable was not raised or discussed in that case. There have been very few cases appealed to this Court involving the setting aside of default judgments for the simple reason that after a default judgment is set aside in most cases a trial is had on the merits, which, incidently, was done in the Clark case. Inasmuch as this Court has enunciated a rule allowing such appeals and since we did not desire to raise the jurisdictional matter on our own motion in the Romano case, we are not inclined at this time to overrule the Clark case. It is the contention of the appellants, plaintiffs below, that the Circuit Court of *636 Kanawha County erred in setting aside the default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants below, because the failure of the defendants to serve answers within thirty days as required by Rule 12(a), R.C.P., was not a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or unavoidable cause to justify the setting aside of the default judgment as provided by Rules 55(c) and 60(b), R.C.P. The facts in this case were stipulated by the parties and they reveal considerable misunderstanding which led to the failure of the timely filing of answers by the defendants. The driver of the truck leased by the defendants was involved in a fourteen car and truck accident as a result of thick fog on Interstate 64 near Dunbar. The defendants carried liability insurance with the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and their regular local counsel was the firm of Jackson, Kelly, Holt and O'Farrell. This firm was unable to represent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in an action arising out of this accident because of a conflict of interest. The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, through its claim manager, Stanley A. Smith, employed Howard R. Klostermeyer of the firm of Spilman, Thomas, Battle and Klostermeyer to defend the action brought by Patricia Ann Morrison against one of their insureds. Another claim in the name of Sue Anne Parsons, the infant plaintiff in the instant case, had been made against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company by way of subrogation by another insurance company and liability had been denied by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and a file made for said claim which was still active. Howard R. Klostermeyer, who had been employed by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in the Morrison case, sent a newspaper clipping to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company with regard to the institution of the action by Sue Anne Parsons in the instant case arising out of the multiple car accident. Mr. Klostermeyer was not employed to represent Liberty Mutual in this case. The summons and complaint in the case were received by Mr. Smith of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in Cincinnati, Ohio and placed on his desk and these papers were apparently removed from his desk by an unidentified clerk and placed in the property damage claim file previously opened in the name of the plaintiff Sue Anne Parsons. Mr. Smith forgot to have a new file made for the instant case and also forgot to send the summons to attorney Klostermeyer. Mr. Klostermeyer, not having been employed in the instant case, did not serve an answer within the time required, and, as a result, the default judgment was entered against the defendants. As soon as Mr. Smith of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was advised of the default judgment he immediately notified their regular counsel of the failure to serve an answer and three days after the default judgment was entered the motion was made to set aside the default judgment. The judge of the circuit court who entered the default judgment conducted a full hearing on the motion to set aside the judgment after which the default judgment was set aside and the case was appealed to this Court. The hearing before the circuit court indicated that the defendants had a meritorious defense. Although there is a conflict in the authorities, the majority of the reported cases appear to hold that where an insurance company has misfiled papers this amounts to excusable neglect on the part of the defendant. Annot., 87 A.L.R.2d 870, 879; Toon v. Pickwick Stages, 66 Cal. App. 450, 226 P. 628; Orange Transportation Co. v. Taylor, 71 Idaho 275, 230 P.2d 689; Schuyler v. Board of Education, 14 A.D.2d 468, 217 N.Y.S.2d 255; Scott v. McEwing, 337 Pa. 273, 10 A.2d 436, 126 A.L.R. 367; Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 53 N.W.2d 454. The contrary view is expressed in the case of Stevens v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 108 R.I. 209, 274 A.2d 163 , where the papers were misfiled and were not found until about two months later at which time a motion to set aside the default judgment was denied. In the instant case only three *637 days elapsed before the motion for default judgment was made. The general rule with regard to the setting aside of default judgments is that such motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that the court's ruling on such motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that there was an abuse of such discretion. Lugar and Silverstein, W.Va. Rules of Civil Procedure, 55(b) R.C.P.; 7 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 60.19, (2d Ed.); Intercity Realty Co. v. Gibson, W.Va., 175 S.E.2d 452 ; McDaniel v. Romano, W.Va., 190 S.E.2d 8 ; Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., supra; Orange Transportation Co. v. Taylor, supra; Scott v. McEwing, supra. This principle is clearly stated in point 3 of the syllabus of the case of Intercity Realty Co. v. Gibson, supra, in the following language: "A motion to vacate [a default] judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and [the court's ruling on such motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of] an abuse of such discretion." If we were hearing the motion to set aside the default judgment in the first instance we may not have ruled the same as the trial court, but we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion under the circumstances of this case. It has been held that the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to the setting aside of default judgments should be liberally construed in order to provide the relief from onerous consequences of default judgments and accomplish justice where merited. McDaniel v. Romano, supra; Kelly v. Belcher, W.Va., 187 S.E.2d 617 ; Tolson v. Hodge, 4 Cir., 411 F.2d 123. It has also been held that if any doubt exists as to whether relief should be granted such doubt should be resolved in favor of setting aside the default judgment in order that the case may be heard on the merits. McDaniel v. Romano, supra; Hutton v. Fisher, 3 Cir., 359 F.2d 913; Tolson v. Hodge, supra. The evidence taken before the trial court at the hearing on the motion to set aside the default judgment clearly indicates that the defendants have a meritorious defense to the action. In the case of Intercity Realty Company v. Gibson, supra, the answer by the defendant's attorney was knowingly not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 12(a) R.C.P. It appeared in that case that the attorneys were circumventing the Rules of Civil Procedure by agreeing, among themselves, not to file pleadings within the prescribed time provided by Rule 12(a) and in the argument of that case it was stated that this was a general practice and that Rule 6(b) which sets forth the required procedure for an extension of time for filing was generally ignored. It was held in that case that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment. As a result of the statements with regard to circumventing the Rules the concurring opinion in that case stated that it was mandatory that the defendant serve an answer within twenty days after the service of summons upon him as required by Rule 12(a), R.C.P., and the concurring opinion also stated that unless the Rules were complied with under such circumstances none of the Rules of 60 R.C.P. would be applicable. By so doing, an attempt was made to inform the bar that the Rules of Civil Procedure were made to be adhered to and not ignored. In the case at bar there was no attempt to ignore the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring an answer to be served within the time prescribed by Rule 12(a), R.C.P. The failure to comply with the Rules, as indicated by the stipulated facts in the case at bar, was the result of a misunderstanding and the inadvertence of Stanley A. Smith of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. It is clear that he did not intentionally allow the time for serving an answer to expire because immediately upon being apprised of the situation their attorneys were contacted and a motion to set aside the default judgment was filed within three days of the granting of the default judgment. *638 Default judgments should not be set aside without good cause in any case. However, the trial court found, under the facts involved in this case, that there was good cause for setting aside the default judgment and since timely relief was sought and a meritorious defense shown, any doubt in such cases should be resolved in favor of the motion to set aside the default judgment. It is the policy of the law to favor the trial of all cases on the merits. McDaniel v. Romano, supra; Kelly v. Belcher, supra; Bice v. Stevens, 160 Cal. App. 2d 222 , 325 P.2d 244. For the reasons enunciated in this opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. CAPLAN, Chief Justice (dissenting): Although I agree generally with the principles expressed by the majority relating to setting aside a default judgment under R.C.P. 60(b), I disagree with the application of such principles to the facts of the instant case and respectfully dissent. The majority opinion relates certain stipulated facts which reveal that Stanley A. Smith, Claims Supervisor for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, upon receipt of the summons and complaint involved in this case, placed them upon his desk with the apparent intention of later contacting counsel; that some unidentified clerk in his office misfiled the subject papers; and that the matter remained unattended. Consequently, no answer was timely filed by the defendant to the plaintiff's complaint. It is then stated in the opinion that these briefly stated facts caused considerable misunderstanding which resulted in the aforesaid failure to timely file an answer. It is my thought that rather than a misunderstanding the described circumstances constituted confusion, not contributed to by the plaintiff, but caused solely by the insurance company through its agents. The record reveals that Mr. Smith over a long period of years had handled these claims for the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and, being thoroughly experienced in this field, knew that an answer or some pleading had to be filed in reply to the complaint. He had no right to assume that Mr. Klostermeyer, or any other counsel, without his direction would file such answer. As noted in the opinion, "Mr. Smith forgot to have a new file made for the instant case and also forgot to send the summons to attorney Klostermeyer." I believe that this action on the part of Mr. Smith and therefore by the insurance company constitutes negligence but not the excusable neglect contemplated by R.C.P. 60(b). To adopt the view of the majority would, in my opinion, void all default judgments against insurance companies upon their showing that some clerk in their office, known or unknown, misfiled pertinent papers. It appears that there is a conflict in the authorities but it is my firm belief, in agreement with the decision in Stevens v. Gulf Oil Corp., 108 R.I. 209, 274 A.2d 163 , that the situation described in the instant case, that is, misfiling of the complaint or other pertinent papers does not constitute excusable neglect but is mere negligence. Even though, as aforesaid, I agree with Point 3 of the Syllabus of the opinion to the effect that a motion to vacate a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and that its ruling will not be disturbed unless there is a showing of abuse, I believe that the instant facts clearly show such abuse of discretion. If the facts of the instant case constitute excusable neglect then any time that a paper is misfiled or an answer is not made by reason of ordinary negligence grounds would be provided to set aside a default judgment. Although default judgments are not favored by the courts they constitute sound and enforceable judgments unless they are set aside for reasons expressly provided in R.C.P. 60(b). I have been authorized to say that Justice HADEN joins in this dissent.

01f77696a89a9fd9db08f1be5f3293fe31e15bdf63cfad0f3b2a0fb9c6f91996

1974-02-19 00:00:00

f18c2918-baaf-444b-8bc5-16fe07576e13

Allen v. State, Human Rights Com'n

324 S.E.2d 99

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Allen v. State, Human Rights Com'n Annotate this Case 324 S.E.2d 99 (1984) Edith ALLEN, Marguerite Francisco, Virginia Lucas, Henry Clay Moore, and Peggy Haid v. STATE of West Virginia HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, and Howard D. Kenney, the Executive Director of the West Virginia Human Rights Commission. No. 16303. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 6, 1984. *102 Mike Kelly, Charleston, for petitioners. Gail Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for respondents. Jane Moran, Williamson, for amicus curiae Now & Nat'l. Council of Jewish Women & W.Va. Civil Liberties Union. James E. Williams, Lonesome, Price & Williams, Charleston, Cheryl L. Henderson, Henderson & Henderson, Huntington, Grant Crandall, Crandall, Pyles & Crandall, Charleston, Sharon Mullens, Cross Lanes, Joseph Franklin Long, Bluefield, Allan N. Karlin, Morgantown, for amicus curiae, W.Va. State Conference of Branches of Nat'l. Assoc. for Advancement of Colored People & Mountain State Bar Assoc. *100 *101 McGRAW, Justice: The petitioners in this mandamus action, four individuals who have filed complaints with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission, and one individual who has attempted to file a complaint with the Commission, seek to compel the Commission, and its Executive Director, Howard D. Kenney, to: (1) accept complaints which meet criteria established in the statute and in rules and regulations promulgated by the agency; (2) employ at least one full-time hearing examiner to conduct public hearings; (3) promptly investigate all complaints filed; (4) conduct an immediate conciliation conference following probable cause determinations on all complaints filed; (5) hold public hearings within a reasonable time following probable cause determinations on all complaints filed; (6) promptly dispose of a number of docketed cases which are hampering the operation of the agency's administrative machinery; and (7) reimburse them for attorneys fees and other costs associated with the prosecution of this mandamus action. Following a brief description of the status of each petitioner's complaint before the Human Rights Commission; a discussion of the appropriateness of mandamus in this case; and an analysis of the structure and function of the Human Rights Commission, each of the issues raised by the petitioners will be addressed. IEdith Allen In 1974, and for several years thereafter, petitioner Edith Allen, a black female, filed applications for employment with the Union Carbide Corporation at its South Charleston and Institute plants. On February 2, 1977, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, charging that Union Carbide had failed to hire her on the basis of race when it hired white applicants with comparable training and experience. On January 11, 1979, almost two years after her complaint was filed, the Human Rights Commission determined that there was probable cause to believe her charge of race discrimination, stating that its investigation revealed a set of circumstances which "strongly support the findings of Probable Cause based on race discrimination in employment." Despite this finding of probable cause, no further action was taken by the Commission for over four years. Finally, the petitioner's *103 complaint was scheduled for hearing on February 24, 1983. This hearing, however, was not held on the date scheduled, but was rescheduled for June 6, 1983. This rescheduled hearing was also continued generally with no specific hearing date set. Although the Human Rights Commission indicated, following institution of this mandamus action in April 1984, that a hearing might be held in August 1984, one was not scheduled because of the unavailability of a hearing examiner. It has now been over seven years since the petitioner filed her complaint with the Human Rights Commission. Marguerite Francisco and Virginia Lucas On January 6, 1979, petitioners Marguerite Francisco and Virginia Lucas, who were then fifty-one and fifty-eight years of age respectively, were notified by their employer, Thorofare Markets, Inc., that it was closing its Pennyfare store in St. Albans where they worked on January 13, 1979. Petitioner Francisco had been employed at that same location by a number of supermarket operators for twenty-nine years, and petitioner Lucas had been employed at that same location for twenty-seven years. The next day, they were notified by their union that it had accepted a "package deal" which required the petitioners, along with other female employees, to either transfer to a distant Thorofare store or to resign in return for $4000.00 in severance pay. This "deal," negotiated by the union without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners, allowed male employees, who were younger and had less seniority, to remain at the Pennyfare location in St. Albans. On February 27, 1979, the Human Rights Commission docketed complaints from the petitioners charging Thorofare and Pennyfare with unlawful sex and age discrimination. On March 14, 1979, similar complaints were filed against the petitioners' union local. On February 1, 1982, almost three years after the petitioners' complaints had been filed, the Human Rights Commission determined that there was probable cause to believe that Thorofare had engaged in unlawful age and sex discrimination. A similar probable cause determination was issued against the Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, on April 5, 1982. The petitioners' complaints were scheduled for hearings to begin on August 11, 1982. These hearings were continued, however, on the motion of the union. The hearings were rescheduled for October 26, 1982. Again, these hearings were continued, this time on the motion of Thorofare. The hearings were rescheduled for December 14, 1982. These hearings were also continued on motion of the Commission. Finally, on February 22, 1983, over four years after the initiation of these discrimination actions, hearings began on the complaints of Francisco and Lucas. These hearings, however, lasted only one day, without the testimony of either the petitioners, the employer or its witnesses, or the union or its witnesses. Instead, the matter was continued generally, and has not been resumed or rescheduled. It has now been over five years since the petitioners filed their complaints against Thorofare, Pennyfare, and their former union with the Human Rights Commission. Henry Clay Moore Beginning in January 1979 and ending in December 1979, petitioner Henry Clay Moore, a black male, applied for employment with the United States Steel Corporation at its mine at Thacker in Mingo County. He alleges that he renewed his application there every three months; that he had successfully completed a miner's training class; and that he had experience with machinery utilized in the mining industry. Each time he renewed his application for employment, however, the petitioner alleges that he was informed that the company was not hiring. In March 1980, the petitioner learned that United States Steel had hired several white applicants at its Thacker mine over the previous fifteen months who were less qualified. After the petitioner threatened legal action, he was offered employment. On April 29, 1980, the Human Rights Commission docketed a *104 complaint filed by the petitioner charging United States Steel with race discrimination and seeking backpay for the period during which he was unlawfully denied employment on the basis of race. On May 26, 1981, over one year after the complaint was filed, the Human Rights Commission determined that there was probable cause to believe that United States Steel had engaged in unlawful race discrimination. Despite this finding of probable cause, however, no further action has been taken by the Human Rights Commission regarding the petitioner's complaint. It has now been over four years since the petitioner filed his complaint with the Human Rights Commission. Peggy Haid On January 12, 1984, petitioner Peggy Haid, a white female lab assistant with the Union Carbide Corporation at its South Charleston plant, noticed the posting of an announcement for the employment of a lab technician at the South Charleston plant. Because she had been employed at Union Carbide as a lab assistant since June 1981, and because of the higher salary associated with the position of lab technician, the petitioner filed a timely bid for this opening. She was, however, neither interviewed nor informed as to the status of her bid. Rather, she later learned that a male employee, whom she believed to be less qualified, had been promoted to the position. On April 6, 1984, a representative of the petitioner's attorney attempted to file the petitioner's complaint, which met all the criteria set forth in the statute and in agency rules, with the Commission. The representative was denied the right to file this petition, however, on the ground that the petitioner had another complaint against Union Carbide pending before the Commission. Subsequently, on May 22, 1984, the Executive Director of the Commission acknowledged, in a letter sent to the petitioner, that the complaint sought to be filed on April 6, 1984, "concerned a different issue," and should have been docketed. He still maintains, however, that the Commission may reject certain complaints for "various reasons." Unfortunately, these difficulties in the disposition of complaints filed with the Human Rights Commission are far from isolated.[1] As of April 30, 1984, there was *105 what the Human Rights Commission refers to as an "inventory"[2] of 1672 pending cases. Of this group, no action had been taken on 327 complaints; investigation had begun on 676 complaints; and probable cause determinations had been made on 669 complaints. Yet, in fiscal year 1983, the most recent year in which complete data is available, only 15 hearings were held. In fact, from fiscal year 1974 to fiscal year 1983, a total of 70 hearings have been held, or an average of 7 per year, on a total of 5207 complaints, or an average of 520.7 complaints filed per year. It is surprising, given these figures, that the Human Rights Commission's "inventory" is no greater than 1672 pending cases. These anonymous figures are also sadly reflected in the real frustration experienced by complainants, such as the petitioners, who wait indefinitely for action on their complaints of unlawful discrimination. II A threshold issue we must address prior to our discussion of the major areas of concern raised by the petitioners is whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy for the relief sought. First, it is well established in this jurisdiction that "A writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements coexist(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a clear legal duty on the part of respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy." Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969); see also Reed v. Hansbarger, 314 S.E.2d 616 , 619-20 (W.Va. 1984), and cases cited therein.[3] The first two elements of this formula require an analysis of the legal rights and duties of the respective parties. At this point, it is sufficient that the petitioners are complainants under an antidiscrimination adjudicatory system administered by the respondents. As to the third element, the respondents maintain that the private cause of action under West Virginia Code § 5-11-13 (Supp.1984) provides an adequate alternative remedy for the petitioners in this case.[4]*106 This Court has long recognized, however, that, "Mandamus will not be denied on the ground that there is another remedy unless such other remedy is equally convenient, beneficial, and effective." Syl. pt. 5, Hardin v. Foglesong, 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308 (1936).[5] When faced with similar circumstances in Walls v. Miller, 162 W.Va. 563, 566-67, 251 S.E.2d 491 , 495 (1978), this Court stated that: [W]e find in the case before us that the alleged deprivations of petitioner's rights are capable of being repeated under numerous variations of a basic recurring factual pattern, in spite of all other available administrative and legal remedies if no definitive resolutions of these issues are provided by this Court. Despite the availability of a private cause of action, the repetitiousness of the alleged noncompliance with legal duties imposed upon the respondents and the concomitant violation of the legal rights of the petitioners minimize the effectiveness of individual private causes of action, particularly when the relief sought in this mandamus action would inure to the benefit of a large class of persons who could not otherwise obtain similar relief individually in the context of actions for damages under the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The respondents further contend, with respect to the appropriateness of mandamus in this proceeding, that the petitioners seek to compel certain actions which the agency regards as within its exclusive discretion. Specifically, the respondents maintain that the imposition of time limitations within which certain activities must be performed would impermissibly impinge *107 upon agency discretion in the execution of various agency functions. In effect, they assert that, in the absence of clearly defined legislatively imposed time limitations, administrative agencies possess unfettered discretion in the alacrity with which they perform mandatory duties. It is generally recognized that, "Mandamus cannot be employed ordinarily to control official discretion." Syl., Reynolds v. State Road Commission, 111 W.Va. 398, 162 S.E. 319 (1932).[6] There are, however, two important exceptions to this general rule. First, "caprice, passion, partiality, fraud, arbitrary conduct, some ulterior motive, or misapprehension of law" will permit compulsion of discretionary activity by writ of mandamus. See Bailey v. Truby, 321 S.E.2d 302 , 307 (W.Va.1984).[7] Second, "a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the tribunals and officers exercising discretion and judicial power to act, when they fail so to do, in violation of their duty...." Syl. pt. 3, Meador v. County Court, 141 W.Va. 96, 87 S.E.2d 725 (1955).[8] The petitioners allege both a misapprehension of the law with respect to the timely performance of agency functions and extraordinary delay amounting to, for all practical purposes,[9] a complete failure to act. Unquestionably, discretion may be abused, and that abuse may be remedied by writ of mandamus. As the incredible delays in the disposition of complaints before the Human Rights Commission as evidenced by the experience of the petitioners in the present action demonstrate, agency discretion has been exercised to effectuate agency inaction. Therefore, we must analyze the issue of administrative delay in the processing of complaints before the Human Rights Commission in order to determine at what point discretion ends and duty begins.[10] *108 III The Legislature has declared it "the public policy of the State of West Virginia to provide all of its citizens equal opportunity for employment, equal access to places of public accommodations, and equal opportunity in the sale, purchase, lease, rental and financing of housing accommodations or real property." West Virginia Code § 5-11-2 (Supp.1984). In defining the parameters of this fundamental concept of equal opportunity, the Legislature has stated that "equal opportunity" is the "human right or civil right of all persons without regard to race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, blindness or handicap" to employment, housing, and public accommodations. Id. This concept of equality is so basic to our system of government, that the Legislature has declared, "The denial of these rights to properly qualified persons by reason of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, blindness or handicap is contrary to the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity and is destructive to a free and democratic society." Id. Therefore, every act of unlawful discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations is akin to an act of treason, undermining the very foundations of our democracy. This fundamental concept of equal opportunity is also reflected in several of our *109 constitutional provisions. First, West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 1 states the basic principle on which our entire democratic structure is founded: All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their prosterity, namely: the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Second, West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 3 provides, "Government is instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community." Third, West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 10 provides, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and the judgment of his peers." Fourth, West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 17 provides, "The courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Finally, West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 20 provides, "Free government and the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people only by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." Equal opportunity in this State is a fundamental principle which has its foundation in these constitutional provisions. The Human Rights Act breathes life into these constitutional provisions which mandate equal opportunity, imbuing administrative procedure before the Human Rights Commission with the same constitutional aura attendant to any other procedure which can culminate in a judicial proceeding. Despite the lofty expressions of legislative policy, the development of an administrative mechanism for enforcing the concept of equal opportunity in the workplace and in the marketplace is a relatively recent phenomenon. In Human Rights Commission v. Pauley, 158 W.Va. 495, 498-500, 212 S.E.2d 77 , 79 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Human Rights Commission v. Pearlman Realty Agency, 161 W.Va. 1, 5, 239 S.E.2d 145 , 147 (1977), this Court traced the development of the enforcement power of the Human Rights Commission. This effort to place teeth in what was previously token legislation was an important step in the evolution of the concept of equal opportunity in this State. As was stated by Justice Caplan in Pauley, 158 W.Va. at 499-500, 212 S.E.2d at 79: [I]t is readily discernible that the Legislature, by its recent enactments in the field of human rights, intended to and did provide the Commission the means with which to effectively enforce the law and meaningfully implement the legislative declaration of policy. If our society and government seriously desire to stamp out the evil of unlawful discrimination which is symptomatic of unbridled bigotry, and we believe they do, then it is imperative that the duty of enforcement be accompanied by an effective and meaningful means of enforcement. The forceful language used by the Legislature mandates the eradication of unlawful discrimination. If this mandate is to be carried to fruition the provisions of the 1967 Human Rights Act and the amendments thereto must be given the significance intended so as to provide for meaningful enforcement. The administrative mechanism developed by the Legislature to enforce its mandate is relatively straightforward. The initiation of proceedings before the Human Rights Commission is precipitated by the filing of a complaint by "[a]ny individual claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory practice[11] ... within ninety days after the alleged act of discrimination." West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 *110 (1979 Replacement Vol.) (Emphasis added). The Legislature has mandated that "[a]fter the filing of any complaint ... the commission shall make prompt investigation in connection therewith." Id. (Emphasis added). The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether "probable cause exists for substantiating the allegations of the complaint." Id. If, after completing its investigation, it is determined that no probable cause exists, "the commission shall, within ten days from such determination, cause to be issued and served upon the complainant written notice of such determination." Id. (Emphasis added).[12] If, after completing its investigation, it is determined that probable cause does exist to substantiate the allegations of the complaint, "the commission shall immediately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful discriminatory practices complained of by conference, conciliation and persuasion." Id. (Emphasis added). The Legislature then has provided that "[i]n case of failure so to eliminate such practice or in advance thereof, if in the judgment of the commission circumstances so warrant, the commission shall cause to be issued and served a written notice ... requiring the ... respondent[] to answer the charges of such complaint at a hearing...." Id. (Emphasis added).[13] This written notice must "be served at least thirty days prior to the time set for the hearing." Id. (Emphasis added). At the hearing,[14] the complainant's case is presented before the Commission "by one of its attorneys or agents." West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.). The respondent may "appear at such hearing in person or otherwise, with or without counsel, and submit testimony and evidence." Id. Upon conclusion of such hearing, the statute provides that if "the commission shall find that a respondent has engaged in ... any unlawful discriminatory practice ... the commission shall issue and cause to be served ... an order to cease and desist ... and to take such affirmative action ... as in the judgment of the commission, will effectuate the purposes of this article...." Id. Conversely, the statute provides that if "the commission shall find that a respondent has not engaged in such unlawful discriminatory practice, the commission shall state its findings of fact and conclusions of law... and shall issue and cause to be served on the complainant an order dismissing the said complaint as to such respondent." Id. Several features of this legislatively designed structure for the processing of complaints before the Human Rights Commission are particularly noteworthy. First, unlike ordinary civil litigation, complaints before the Human Rights Commission are scrutinized in order to determine whether probable cause, traditionally the test for determining the legitimacy of complaints of criminal conduct, exists to substantiate the allegations in those complaints. This, however, to a certain extent, parallels the gatekeeping function performed by private attorneys who, prior to filing civil actions in the appropriate forum, determine the *111 validity of complaints advanced by potential litigants, and is related to the role served by the Commission in furnishing legal representation to complainants who reach the hearing stage of the administrative process. Second, voluntary compliance with our antidiscrimination laws is sought through a conciliation mechanism, although the Commission's role at this stage of the proceedings is an active one, "immediately endeavor[ing] to eliminate the unlawful discriminatory practices complained of." West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.). This, to a certain extent, parallels the role performed by judges in the pretrial process, where settlements are sought to avoid the time and expense associated with protracted litigation. Third, the foundation on which the entire administrative structure is built is the ultimate disposition of complaints of unlawful discrimination through the adjudicatory hearing process. Without at least the potential, if not the likelihood, of a hearing on the merits of complaints of unlawful discrimination, the remainder of the administrative process is rendered a meaningless exercise in chest thumping. Anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of the dynamics of any litigation has undoubtedly noted the substantial correlation between decreases in time before trial and increases in the number of settlements. With no hearing there can be no sanctions, with no sanctions there is no incentive to conciliate, with no incentive to conciliate there is no reason to investigate, with no reason to investigate there is no reason to complain, with no reason to complain there is no reason for the administrative agency to exist. Finally, the Legislature has clearly expressed its desire that the processing of complaints before the Human Rights Commission be as expeditious as possible. Complaints must be filed "within ninety days" of alleged acts of discrimination; the Commission must make a "prompt"[15] investigation of those complaints; once a probable cause determination is made the Commission must either notify the complainant of an adverse determination "within ten days" or "immediately" endeavor to eliminate unlawful discrimination upon a favorable determination that probable cause exists; the Commission is authorized to proceed directly to hearing once probable cause is determined "in advance" of the conciliation process; and the notice of hearing period is limited to "thirty days." West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.). This concern with expeditiousness is a reflection of the dynamics of unlawful discrimination in the workplace and in the marketplace. Without swift administrative action in such areas as unlawful employment and housing discrimination, complainants may be effectively precluded appropriate relief by the positions sought being filled and the housing sought being sold or rented. With the above discussion of the structure and function of the Human Rights Commission, we now turn to each of the issues raised by the petitioners. IV The first issue raised by the petitioners concerns the docketing of complaints which meet criteria established by statute and in rules and regulations promulgated by the Human Rights Commission. As previously noted, the Human Rights Commission refused to docket petitioner Haid's complaint on the ground that she had another complaint pending before the Commission against the same employer. Although the Executive Director subsequently acknowledged that petitioner Haid's complaint should have been docketed, he maintains that the Commission may reject proffered complaints for "various reasons." West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.), governing the filing of *112 complaints before the Human Rights Commission, provides: Any individual claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory practice shall make, sign and file with the commission a verified complaint, which shall state the name and address of the person, employer, labor organization, employment agency, owner, real estate broker, real estate salesman or financial institution alleged to have committed the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of, and which shall set forth the particulars thereof and contain such other information as may be required by the commission's rules and regulations.... Any complaint filed pursuant to this article must be filed within ninety days after the alleged act of discrimination. There are no other statutory requirements with regard to the filing of complaints before the Human Rights Commission. Therefore, there is no lawful authority to support the Executive Director's contention that complaints which meet statutory and administrative criteria may be rejected by the Commission. Under West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.), the Human Rights Commission has a mandatory duty to place on its docket all complaints tendered that meet five criteria: (1) verification; (2) name and address of the respondent; (3) description of the alleged discriminatory action or practice; (4) other information as required in rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission; and (5) filing within ninety days after the alleged act of discrimination. The respondents admit that petitioner Haid's complaint met these five criteria, and should have been docketed upon tender. Thus, the failure to docket the complaint was unlawful. We therefore hold that petitioner Haid's complaint should have been placed on the Human Rights Commission docket on April 6, 1984, the date it was first tendered to the Commission. V The second issue raised by the petitioners concerns the employment of a full-time hearing examiner to conduct public hearings on behalf of the Human Rights Commission. West Virginia Code § 5-11-6 (1979 Replacement Vol.) provides, in pertinent part, that "The commission shall employ a hearing examiner who shall be an attorney, duly licensed to practice law in the State of West Virginia, for the conduct of the public hearings authorized in ... [§ 5-11-8(d)(3) ] of this article." As previously noted, "The word `shall' in the absence of language in the statute showing a contrary intent on the part of the legislature, should be afforded a mandatory connotation." Syl. pt. 2, Terry v. Sencindiver, 153 W.Va. 651, 171 S.E.2d 480 (1969).[16] Yet, despite the fact that a hearing examiner, as agent to be employed by the Commission to discharge its adjudicatory function, is the only position specifically mandated by the Legislature to be filled by the Human Rights Commission, no full-time hearing examiner has ever been employed in the history of the agency. This noncompliance with its fundamental duty to employ a full-time hearing examiner is central to the Commission's difficulty in disposing of docketed cases in a timely fashion. The Legislature has established the Human Rights Commission as an alternative to the prosecution of claims of unlawful discrimination through more expensive and time-consuming judicial proceedings. Therefore, the entire structure and function of the Human Rights Commission is designed to achieve the goal of a relatively inexpensive and expeditious administrative quasi-judicial proceeding. The key actor in this proceeding is the hearing examiner. Without a full-time hearing examiner, the Commission, its Executive Director, and its employees all perform vain acts, which ultimately serve no particular purpose other than self-justification. Since its inception, the Commission has secured its hearing examiners through *113 contract with private attorneys on a part-time, fixed-fee basis. The respondents continue to defend this practice on several grounds. First, the respondents contend that the Commission cannot afford to hire a full-time hearing examiner.[17] As this Court stated, however, in Cooper v. Gwinn, 298 S.E.2d 781 , 791 (W.Va.1981), "lack of funds is not a valid excuse for denying ... society as a whole[ ] the constitutional right to the benefit of legislative enactments...." See also Meadows v. Lewis, 307 S.E.2d 625 , 641 (W.Va.1983); Perry v. Barker, 289 S.E.2d 423 , 428-29 (W.Va.1982); Moore v. Starcher, 280 S.E.2d 693 , 696 (W.Va.1981). Second, the respondents maintain that part-time hearing examiners are more impartial than a full-time hearing examiner would be. It is difficult to understand how a part-time hearing examiner who sits in judgment on cases argued by fellow lawyers who normally practice in the same geographic area would be more impartial than a full-time hearing examiner whose professional activity is limited to service as a hearing examiner for the Human Rights Commission. Furthermore, the amount of expertise sacrificed in utilizing part-time hearing examiners who devote most of their time to the general practice of law as opposed to a full-time hearing examiner whose area of expertise would be limited to civil rights law is immeasurable. Finally, the respondents argue that a full-time hearing examiner would be underutilized because the Commission's funds are insufficient to cover the cost of hearings conducted. Lack of funds, however, as previously noted, is not a valid excuse for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties.[18] In addition to the inadequacy of the arguments advanced by the respondents in support of the practice of employing part-time hearing examiners, testimony from a former part-time hearing examiner for the Human Rights Commission in this case illustrates other problems inherent in the part-time hearing examiner mechanism. First, it is often difficult to secure a hearing date given the exigencies that arise in the practice of law, particularly given the fact that some hearings may require more than one day of testimony. Second, given the lack of access to case files prior to thirty day hearing notices, part-time hearing examiners often have limited time within which to familiarize themselves with the facts and issues involved prior to the actual hearing. Finally, given the realities of the practice of law in some of the more rural areas, part-time hearing examiners must sometimes recuse themselves when they belatedly discover past or present professional relationships with either the complainant *114 or the respondent. All of these factors contribute to the delay inherent in agency utilization of part-time hearing examiners. We therefore hold that under West Virginia Code § 5-11-6 (1979 Replacement Vol.), the Human Rights Commission has a mandatory duty to employ at least one full-time hearing examiner, who is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of West Virginia, for the conduct of public hearings authorized under the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The hearing examiner must give precedence to his or her duties as hearing examiner over all other duties. VI The next three issues raised by the petitioners all concern the expeditious processing of complaints before the Human Rights Commission. Basically, there are three steps in the Human Rights Commission dispositionary process: investigation, conciliation, and adjudication. As to the investigation stage, West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.) provides, "the commission shall make a prompt investigation." As to the conciliation stage, West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.) provides, "the commission shall immediately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of by conference, conciliation and persuasion." Finally, as to the adjudication stage, West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.) provides, "[i]n case of failure so to eliminate such practice or in advance thereof ... the commission shall cause to be issued and served a written notice ... to answer the charges of such complaint at a hearing." Although all three of these provisions mandate the expeditious completion of each step in the dispositionary process, the petitioners' experiences and statistics submitted by the agency indicate that the Human Rights Commission has failed to comply with these nondiscretionary duties. Despite the statutory requirement of "prompt" investigation, which is defined as "performed readily or immediately" in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 914 (1979) and as "responding instantly" in Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1970), the Human Rights Commission has consistently failed to complete its investigation of complaints for extraordinary periods of time. The investigation of complaints filed by petitioners Francisco and Lucas took almost three years to complete, the investigation of the complaint filed by petitioner Allen took almost two years to complete, and the investigation of the complaint filed by petitioner Moore took over one year to complete, such negligence is inexcusable! A statistical analysis of sample cases filed in fiscal year 1983 (July 1, 1982June 30, 1983), submitted by the respondents in this proceeding, demonstrates that delay occurs both in the commencement and in the completion of investigations. Of 189 sample cases filed in fiscal year 1983, 32 were not yet under investigation almost one year later on May 18, 1984. In other words, almost 17 percent of the sample cases filed in fiscal year 1983 were not yet under investigation almost one year later. Of 124 sample cases which had proceeded to investigation as of May 18, 1984, the mean number of days between filing and the start of investigation was calculated to be 97.9 days. With a standard deviation of 98.6 days, however, on this figure, along with the exclusion of 17 percent of the sample cases on which investigations had not yet commenced, the actual lapse between the filing of complaints with the Human Rights Commission and the commencement of investigations upon those complaints is much greater in a large number of cases. Nevertheless, even with a statistical sample most favorable to the agency, the analysis provided by the respondents demonstrates an inordinate delay in the start of investigations on complaints filed. The second area of delay in the investigatory process is the actual completion of investigations once commenced. Despite the fact that the statistical analysis submitted by the respondents asserts that 118 of the 189 sample cases had been closed by May 18, 1984, it identifies only 37 cases for which a date on which investigation *115 began and a date on which investigation concluded could be located.[19] Of this group, the mean length of investigation was 170.4 days, with a standard deviation of 107.7 days. Again, even with a statistical sample most favorable to the agency, excluding cases still under investigation for example, the analysis provided by the respondents demonstrates an inordinate delay in the completion of investigations once commenced. Furthermore, the statistical study identifies a gap between determinations of probable cause and administrative closures which might create further delay. Of 44 cases which had both closure and probable cause determination dates, the mean length of time lapsed was 67.3 days, with a standard deviation of 92.5 days. Despite the statutory mandate that the Commission "immediately endeavor" upon a finding of probable cause to eliminate the unlawful discriminatory practice through the conciliation process, it has consistently failed to begin or complete conciliation efforts within a reasonable time. The respondents admit that, "There may be a delay of up to 30 days in starting the process of conciliation." It is unclear how this delay affects the application of Rule 4.09 promulgated by the Human Rights Commission which provides that, "Failure to arrive at a satisfactory adjustment within forty-five (45) days after respondent is notified in writing of a finding of probable cause may constitute sufficient reason for the Commission to determine efforts at conference and conciliation to be a failure."[20] Nevertheless, it is clear, as evidenced by the experience of the petitioners, that the period between determination of probable cause and notice of hearing is commonly longer than 45 days. Probable cause was determined on petitioner Allen's complaint in January 1979, a hearing on that complaint was not scheduled until January 1983. Probable cause was determined on petitioners Francisco's and Lucas's complaints in February and April 1982, hearings on these complaints were not scheduled until July 1983. Probable cause was determined on petitioner Moore's complaint in May 1981, a hearing on that complaint still has not been scheduled. Without question, thirty days is not "immediately" and, certainly, four years is not "immediately." Finally, in spite of the statutory requirement that a thirty day notice of hearing issue on the failure of conciliation efforts, or earlier in the process if the Commission determines that the circumstances so warrant,[21] and in spite of agency rule that failure at conciliation efforts occurs forty-five days after determination that probable cause exists, the performance of the Human Rights Commission with regard to the conduct of hearings has been tragic. Even after the agency issues favorable probable cause determinations, complainants must wait not a matter of days, nor a matter of weeks, nor a matter of months, but a matter of years before *116 their complaints of unlawful discrimination are heard by the Human Rights Commission. In the statistical study of sample cases filed in fiscal year 1983, not a single case had proceeded to public hearing almost one year later on May 18, 1984. In a separate analysis of 80 cases which had proceeded to public hearing, the mean length of time between filing date and hearing date was 1283 days, with a standard deviation of 725 days. Furthermore, no case filed after fiscal year 1979, ending June 30, 1979, was found to have reached public hearing as of May 18, 1984. The study further reveals that the performance of the agency in processing complaints to public hearing has grown progressively worse over the years. The mean length of time between filing date and hearing date for complaints filed between fiscal year 1967 and fiscal year 1973 was 948 days, with a standard deviation of 653 days. The mean length of time between filing date and hearing date for complaints filed between fiscal year 1974 and fiscal year 1976 was 1433 days, with a standard deviation of 912 days. Finally, the mean length of time between filing date and hearing date for complaints filed between fiscal year 1977 and fiscal year 1979 was 1410 days, with a standard deviation of 593 days. Because no case filed after fiscal year 1979 has reached the hearing stage, a complaint of unlawful discrimination filed on July 1, 1979, would still have been pending hearing 1783 days later, almost five years, on May 18, 1984. Furthermore, even after a hearing was held on 61 complaints which had both proceeded to hearing and which had resulted in closure, the mean interval between the commencement of the hearing and the date of closure, either through final order of the Commission or through settlement, was 487 days, with a standard deviation of 286 days. In addition to the statutory implications of the extraordinary delays in processing complaints by the Human Rights Commission, constitutional provisions guaranteeing certain procedural due process protections are also implicated. This State's procedural due process provision, West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 10, states that, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." An important element of this procedural due process guaranty is found in West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 17, which provides that "justice shall be administered without ... delay." Therefore, "due process of law implies not merely an opportunity to be heard, but also opportunity to be heard with reasonable promptness...." 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 844, at 1049-50 (1979). Recently, in Syllabus Point 1 of State ex rel. Patterson v. Aldredge, 317 S.E.2d 805 (W.Va.1984), this Court held that: Under article III, § 17 of the West Virginia Constitution, which provides that "justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay," and under Canon 3A(5) of the West Virginia Judicial Code of Ethics (1982 Replacement Vol.), which provides that "A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court," judges have an affirmative duty to render timely decisions on matters properly submitted within a reasonable time following their submission. In Patterson, 317 S.E.2d at 808, this Court concluded that a thirty-three month delay between initial hearing and the filing of the mandamus action to compel a decision was unreasonable and justified the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding rendition of a decision. See also State ex rel. Cackowska v. Knapp, 147 W.Va. 699, 700-01, 130 S.E.2d 204 , 205 (1963) (seventeen month delay in rendering a decision warranted issuance of writ of mandamus compelling decision). This Court has also consistently held that administrative delay may be subject to a writ of mandamus compelling action. In the single Syllabus Point of Village of Bridgeport v. Public Service Commission, 125 W.Va. 342, 24 S.E.2d 285 (1943), this Court stated: "When the Public Service Commission expressly declines to act in a matter properly pending before it for a named reason which does not justify its refusal, this Court by a peremptory writ of *117 mandamus will require it to proceed therein." In Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. Sheppe v. Board of Dental Examiners, 147 W.Va. 473, 128 S.E.2d 620 (1962), this Court held that, "In the absence of a specific time limit, the failure of a state board or agency to take decisive action with a reasonable time, upon a matter properly before it, will be assumed to be a refusal of the action sought." In Syllabus Point 3 of State ex rel. Bowen v. Flowers, 155 W.Va. 389, 184 S.E.2d 611 (1971), involving the suspension of a pharmacist from participation in pharmaceutical programs administered by the Department of Welfare, this Court stated, "Where a suspension is justified prior to a hearing, the refusal to hold a hearing after a reasonable time has elapsed in which to conduct a proper investigation constitutes arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the administrative officer involved." Finally, in Kanawha Valley Transportation Co. v. Public Service Commission, 159 W.Va. 88, 95, 219 S.E.2d 332 , 338 (1975), this Court stated, "It is true that cases before the Public Service Commission should be promptly disposed of. This principle applies to any administrative body or court...." In Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. Ellis v. Kelly, 145 W.Va. 70, 112 S.E.2d 641 (1953), this Court recognized that, "Due process of law, within the meaning of the State and Federal constitutional provisions, extends to actions of administrative officers and tribunals, as well as to the judicial branches of the governments." See also Syl. pt. 5, State ex rel. Bowen v. Flowers, supra; Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Gooden v. Bonar, 155 W.Va. 202, 183 S.E.2d 697 (1971); Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. Siders, 155 W.Va. 193, 183 S.E.2d 433 (1971). The interrelationship between procedural due process and administrative promptness can be seen from this Court's reliance in State ex rel. Bowen v. Flowers, 155 W.Va. at 394, 184 S.E.2d at 614, upon Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. Ellis v. Kelly, supra, in holding that unreasonable administrative delay warranted issuance of a writ of mandamus.[22] We therefore hold that under *118 West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 10, which provides that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...," and under West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 17, which provides that "justice shall be administered without ... delay," administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions have an affirmative duty to dispose promptly of matters properly submitted.[23] *119 The procedural due process right to the prompt disposition of matters pending before administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions is not without corresponding duty on the part of those agencies to act within certain time constraints. Time limitations are frequently imposed by the Legislature in recognition of the need for expeditiousness. See, e.g., Meadows v. Lewis, 307 S.E.2d 625 , 641-42 (W.Va.1983). Similarly, time limitations are often imposed by the administrative agencies themselves through the promulgation of rules and regulations pursuant to grants of legislative power in recognition of the need for expeditiousness. See, e.g., Reed v. Hansbarger, 314 S.E.2d at 619-20. Finally, time limitations are implicitly imposed by the demands of procedural due process. See, e.g., State ex rel. Bowen v. Flowers, 155 W.Va. at 394, 184 S.E.2d at 614. At times, legislative intent and procedural due process considerations merge to form the basis for the imposition of specific guidelines to govern the performance of administrative agency functions. For example, in United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 , 372-74, 91 S. Ct. 1400, 1406-07, 28 L. Ed. 2d 822, 832-33 (1971), the United States Supreme Court, when confronted with unreasonable delays in the institution and completion of forfeiture hearings under 19 U.S.C. § 1305(a), which authorizes seizure of obscene materials by customs collectors, imposed specific time limitations on United States Customs, stating: We ... see no reason for declining to specify the time limits which must be incorporated into § 1305(a)a specification that is fully consistent with congressional purpose and that will obviate the constitutional objections raised by claimant. Indeed, we conclude that the legislative history of the section and the policy of giving legislation a saving construction in order to avoid decision of constitutional questions require that we undertake this task of statutory construction.[24] *120 Fortunately, in analyzing the issue of specific time limitations within which the Human Rights Commission must act upon complaints, we are guided not only by the clear legislative intent that agency functions be performed as expeditiously as possible, but also by implicit time constraints enacted as amendments to the Human Rights Act in 1983. See 1983 W.Va.Acts ch. 105. In 1983, the Legislature amended the Act to permit a private right of action pending final disposition of complaints before the Human Rights Commission. West Virginia Code § 5-11-13 (Supp.1984). Under the amendment: The commission shall give a complainant who has filed a complaint a notice of a right to sue forthwith upon (1) the dismissal of the complaint within one hundred eighty days of the filing thereof for any reason other than a decision on the merits of the case, or (2) the expiration of a period of one hundred eighty days during which period no public hearing has been held on such complaint and the commission and the respondent have not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the complainant is a party: Provided, that the commission shall also give the complainant notice of a right to sue in any case in which, after the expiration of one year, the complaint has not been determined on its merits or a conciliation agreement entered into to which the complainant is a party. West Virginia Code § 5-11-13(b) (Supp. 1984). Under this provision, two time periods are significant: one hundred eighty days and one year. The provision evidences a legislative intent that the Human Rights Commission hold public hearings within one hundred eighty days after the filing of the complaint. At the end of this period, a duty on the part of the Human Rights Commission is triggered to provide the complainant with a right-to-sue letter, an admission by the Commission of its failure to perform its mandatory duty to hold a public hearing within one hundred eighty days. The provision also evidences a legislative intent that the Human Rights Commission enter a final order on each complaint filed within one year after the filing of the complaint. At the end of this period, a duty on the part of the Human Rights Commission is again triggered to provide the complainant with a right-to-sue letter, another admission by the Commission of its failure to perform its mandatory duty to issue a final order within one year. Both right-to-sue letters, in addition to being admissions of the Commission's failure to perform its mandatory stationary duties, would provide foundations upon which to seek extraordinary relief by way of mandamus to compel compliance with those mandatory statutory duties. We also emphatically note that the Commission's duties with respect to complaints filed are not extinguished by issuance of a right-to-sue letter, but are only concluded "[i]f a suit is filed" pursuant to a right-to-sue letter under West Virginia Code § 5-11-13 (Supp. 1984). We therefore hold that, under West Virginia Constitution art. III, §§ 10 and 17; West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.); and West Virginia Code § 5-11-18 (Supp.1984), the Human Rights Commission has a mandatory duty to hold adjudicatory hearings within one hundred eighty days, and to issue final orders within one year, from the date of filing of complaints upon which it is determined that probable cause exists for substantiating their allegations. Accordingly, we order the Human Rights Commission to immediately issue and serve written notice of hearing on the complaints of petitioners Allen, Francisco, Lucas, and Moore, to begin within ninety days from the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this proceeding.[25] We further note that under West Virginia *121 Code § 5-11-8(h) (Supp.1984), the Human Rights Commission is empowered to "do all other acts and deeds necessary and proper to carry out and accomplish effectively the objects, functions and services contemplated by the provisions of this article, including the promulgation of rules and regulations... implementing the powers and authority hereby vested in the commission," and that under West Virginia Code § 29A-5-1(a) (1980 Replacement Vol.), "Each agency shall adopt appropriate rules of procedure for hearing in contested cases." In order to comply with these time limitations it will be necessary for the Commission to coordinate its internal operating procedures. We therefore hold that the Human Rights Commission has a mandatory duty to promulgate rules and regulations pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5-11-8(h) (Supp.1984) specifying internal procedural time limits through which adjudicatory time requirements can be met. See Syl. pt. 6, Meadows v. Lewis, supra. Obviously, one of these rules should be that hearing dates must be set within six months from the filing of all complaints at the time those complaints are docketed by the Human Rights Commission. VII The sixth issue raised by the petitioners concerns the disposition of a large backlog of cases which are clogging the administrative machinery of the Human Rights Commission and which are delaying disposition of their own complaints. Although the employment of hearing examiners and compliance with time limitations on adjudicatory activities will significantly reduce the amount of delay attendant to the processing of complaints, the problem of delay will remain intractable unless a concerted effort is made to eliminate the enormous backlog of cases now pending. Assignment of blame at this point is a fruitless exercise which only serves to divert attention from the key issue: the protection and vindication of basic human and civil rights. Undoubtedly, the Legislature ought to devote more of this State's resources to the elimination of what it has defined as "contrary to the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity and is destructive to a free and democratic society." West Virginia Code § 5-11-2 (Supp.1984). Those noble words ring hollow to complainants such as Douglas T. Davis,[26] who has been waiting for fifteen long years for the veracity of his complaint to be tested. It is indeed a mockery of justice for the Legislature to sanctimoniously pass a piece of token legislation ostensibly designed to provide victims of the most contemptible forms of unlawful discrimination with affirmative relief to remedy violations of their most basic human and civil rights, while penuriously refusing to provide enough funds to enforce its mandate. It is not surprising that this level of cynicism on the part of our elected representatives engenders a great deal of distrust on the part of the public. The Legislature, however, is not alone responsible.[27] The respondents indicate that the Governor's failure to fill vacant positions on the Human Rights Commission for long periods of time, ranging from eighteen months to three years according to testimony by the Executive Director, resulting in only six of nine positions being filled during the last quarter of 1983, has frequently delayed the disposition of recommended decisions which must be approved by the majority of a quorum of five Commissioners. West Virginia Code § 5-11-5 (1979 Replacement Vol.) provides, "The commission shall be composed of nine members ... to be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate." (Emphasis added). Therefore, under West *122 Virginia Code § 5-11-5 (1979 Replacement Vol.), the governor has a mandatory duty to immediately fill vacancies on the Human Rights Commission, with the advice and consent of the senate, so as to maintain membership on the Commission at nine members. See Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Brotherton v. Moore, 159 W.Va. 934, 230 S.E.2d 638 (1976). The performance of the Human Rights Commission has also been adversely affected, according to testimony by its Executive Director, by the refusal of the Attorney General to provide legal assistance to the Commission in the execution of its adjudicatory function. This refusal is clearly a violation of the Attorney General's mandatory statutory duty. Under West Virginia Code § 5-11-7 (1979 Replacement Vol.), "The commission may call upon other officers, departments and agencies of the state government to assist in its hearings, programs and projects." Therefore, any officer, department or agency of state government has a mandatory duty, under West Virginia Code § 5-11-7 (1979 Replacement Vol.), to assist the Human Rights Commission upon request in its hearings, programs, and projects. Furthermore, the Legislature has imposed a special duty upon the Attorney General under West Virginia Code § 5-11-7 (1979 Replacement Vol.), which provides, in pertinent part, that "The attorney general of the State shall render legal services to the commission upon request made by the commission or by the chairman or the executive director thereof." Therefore, the Attorney General has a mandatory duty, under West Virginia Code § 5-11-7 (1979 Replacement Vol.), to furnish all legal services required by the Human Rights Commission.[28] The Legislature, in these respects, has generously bestowed upon the Human Rights Commission substantial power to utilize all the resources available in state government without recompense by the Commission in pursuit of its fundamental objectives. It has established human and civil rights as the highest priority not only of the Human Rights Commission, but also of the Attorney General, and of every executive officer, department, and agency of this State. Although an inadequate alternative to appropriate funding for the Human Rights Commission, the availability of other state resources is a powerful complement provided by the Legislature to a level of direct funding which the Legislature clearly anticipated might prove insufficient. The Human Rights Commission should immediately begin to utilize these broad grants of power both creatively and aggressively in fulfilling its statutory mandates. We note that interpretation of this broad grant of power must be guided by West Virginia Code § 5-11-15 (1979 Replacement Vol.), which provides that "The provisions of this article shall be liberally construed to accomplish its objectives and *123 purposes." Finally, we note that, under his or her oath, the governor is subject to a constitutional mandate to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This mandate, in West Virginia Constitution art. VII, § 5, casts the governor in the responsible role of insuring that all executive agencies comply fully with their mandatory duty to assist the Human Rights Commission without recompense in the preservation and vindication of the fundamental human and civil rights guaranteed under the Human Rights Act and under our state constitution. Finally, the Human Rights Commission, despite the aforementioned lack of cooperation on the part of the Legislature, the Governor, and the Attorney General, must share a great deal of the responsibility for the sad state of affairs which now exists. Rather than maximizing its available resources, the Commission uses its lack of funds as a scapegoat for its own misdirection and mismanagement. For example, a relatively sophisticated econometric study prepared by two economics professors at West Virginia University, commissioned by the Human Rights Commission at an undisclosed cost, was submitted in connection with this litigation to support the hypothesis that an increase in agency funding would result in an increase in agency activity. Although this hypothesis is undoubtedly valid, unless of course the agency utilized its increase in funding to commission other econometric studies to validate the hypothesis that even more money would result in even more activity, ad infinitum, its self-evidence demonstrates the unfortunate degree of bureaucratization of the Human Rights Commission. The Commission should not waste precious resources on studies while claimants are being denied their constitutional and statutory rights. With respect to the Human Rights Commission's lack of financial resources, we note that the Modern Budget Amendment, West Virginia Constitution art. VI, § 51, anticipates that the Human Rights Commission's estimate of funds required for the performance of its mandatory duties be included in the governor's budget proposal in the absence of public hearings on any reduction in that estimate. West Virginia Constitution art. VI, § 51(D)(9) provides, in pertinent part, that: For the purpose of making up the budget, the governor shall have the power, and it shall be his duty, to require from the proper state officials, including herein all executive departments, all executive and administrative officers, bureaus, boards, commissions and agencies ... such itemized estimates and other information, in such form and at such times as he shall direct. West Virginia Constitution art. VI, § 51(D)(9) further provides that, "The estimates for the legislative department ... and for the judiciary ... shall be transmitted to the governor in such form and at such times as he shall direct, and shall be included in the budget." The governor's duty to include in the budget the estimates submitted by executive departments and administrative agencies is also nondiscretionary in the absence of public hearings on those estimates. In this regard, West Virginia Constitution art. VI, § 51(D)(10) provides that: The governor may provide for public hearings on all estimates and may require the attendance at such hearings of representatives of all agencies and all institutions applying for state moneys. After such public hearings he may, in his discretion, revise all estimates except those for the legislative and judicial departments. Clearly, the governor may reduce the estimate submitted by the Human Rights Commission only "after" public hearings on estimate of funds necessary to enforce its legal mandates. This Court stated in Syllabus Point 1 of Cooper v. Gwinn, supra, that, "Inherent in the republican form of government established by our State Constitution is a concept of due process that insures that the people receive the benefit of legislative enactments." In State ex rel. Steele v. Kopp, 305 S.E.2d 285 , 291 (W.Va. 1983), this due process concept was implicitly *124 applied in the budget context in our holding that: [I]nasmuch as the regulation of nonintoxicating beer in this State is "essentially for legislative determination," Hinebaugh [v. James, 119 W.Va. 162, 192 S.E. 177 (1937) ], and the legislature chose to regulate nonintoxicating beer through the creation of the office of the nonintoxicating beer commissioner under "The Nonintoxicating Beer Act," the governor had a duty to submit a budget to the legislature under which the office of the commissioner could continue operations as prescribed by law. [Footnote omitted]. Similarly, the governor must submit a budget to the Legislature under which the Human Rights Commission can perform its duties as prescribed by law. The absence of commissioners at important agency functions has also contributed to the lack of expeditiousness. The Legislature has imposed substantial duties upon the commissioners. See West Virginia Code §§ 5-11-8(a)(k); -10, -11, and -18 (1979 Replacement Vol. & Supp.1984). For example, under West Virginia Code § 5-11-8(d)(3) (Supp.1984), one commissioner must be present at each adjudicatory hearing. Furthermore, under this same statutory provision, "all decisions and actions growing out of or upon such hearings shall be reserved for determination by the commission." Finally, in addition to the substantial responsibilities imposed by the quantity of decisions rendered by the Commission, West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.) imposes qualitative duties on the Commission with respect to those decisions, mandating that "findings of fact and conclusions of law as specified in section three [§ 29A-5-3], article five, chapter twenty-nine-A of this Code"[29] accompany the Commission's orders made pursuant to adjudicatory hearings. This quasi-judicial aspect of the Commission's responsibilities places great demands upon each of the commissioners in terms of preparation, contemplation, and rationalization. Although some prestige is associated with appointment to the Commission, the Legislature has clearly mandated that membership is not merely honorary or of a volunteer nature, but imposes substantial working obligations requiring a substantial expenditure of time upon those who choose to accept the call to service. In exchange for this substantial service in advancing the cause of human and civil rights, however, the Legislature has provided[30] a relatively insubstantial salary, only $9,125 annually, although members are reimbursed for reasonable *125 and necessary travel expenses actually incurred in the performance of their duties. See West Virginia Code § 5-11-5 (1979 Replacement Vol.). We note that while this salary is not much, the performance of agency functions cannot be impeded by the failure of the commissioners to perform their mandatory duties in a timely fashion.[31] Accordingly, at a minimum, we direct all the members of the Commission to meet immediately to consider all the Commission's business, with a particular emphasis upon the disposition of cases awaiting final decision, and adjourn from month to month until the current backlog of cases is eliminated. Another startling example of agency management involves the expenditure of federal funds expressly granted to dispose of 164 targeted backlog cases awaiting adjudicatory hearings. Among the cases targeted for hearing were those involving petitioners Allen, Francisco, and Lucas. Utilizing funds provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, two part-time hearing examiners were contracted at $20,000 each for an eighteen month period to dispose of 82 cases each. Although the contract began on October 1, 1981, the first full hearing was not held for almost six months. Many of the hearings scheduled were continued without notice to all of the participants, resulting in the payment of a court reporter on at least two occasions when she was not notified that a hearing had been continued. Finally, in April 1983, nineteen months into the contract, all hearings were ordered continued because of the depletion of funds to hire court reporters. By the end of the contract period in September 1983, no action had been taken on 84 cases, notice had issued on 15 cases on which hearings had not begun, and hearings were begun but not completed on 3 cases. The respondents complain that, in addition to the provision of an inadequate level of funding, the Legislature has failed to adopt certain amendments to the Human Rights Act proposed by the Commission which would facilitate the performance of its statutory duties. We note, however, that the Legislature has done a good job in the drafting of procedure for the Human Rights Commission. Properly administered, the Human Rights Act provides both a simple and expeditious method of protecting and vindicating fundamental human and civil rights. Rather than roaming the halls of the Legislature, seeking political solutions which would effectively deny relief to victims of unlawful discrimination by excusing nonperformance of its lawful duties, the Commission must direct its attention to the administration and enforcement of the Human Rights Act as it is written. The respondents appear to confuse personal inconvenience with statutory unwieldiness. Recently, in United Mine Workers of America v. Scott, 315 S.E.2d 614 , 632 (W.Va.1984), this Court noted that the "lackluster performance" of the Board of Coal Mine Health and Safety "to a great extent, resulted from self-serving political posturing by Board members, while the lives and limbs of our state's coal miners hang in the balance." In the instant proceeding, the record reflects that the lackluster performance of the Human Rights Commission has also been influenced by what might be described as "avoidance" politics. If the Commission concentrated more on the performance of its lawful duties, rather than on the unbecoming avoidance of those duties, there would be no need for any assistance, with the exception of additional funding, from the Legislature. Lack of organization, coordination, and established procedure, as well as a counterproductive preoccupation with the bureaucratic aspect of agency functioning, have all contributed to the failure of the Human Rights Commission to perform its mandatory duties in compliance with its legislative mandate and with the demands of due process. The petitioners note that the Commission's *126 own personnel practices have contributed to its failure to comply with statutory mandates. For example, despite having a work force of only twenty employees, the Commission employs a financial clerk to assist its financial officer and a manager of a legal unit that for more than one year consisted of only one attorney. The primary functions of the Human Rights Commission are investigation, conciliation, and adjudication. Until additional funding is available, essential personnel for the Commission are those performing these three functions along with their limited support staff. With the new emphasis on its adjudicatory function, the Commission will obviously need to reconsider its allocation of personnel. Finally, however, the Commission must squarely face the enormous backlog which it has allowed to accumulate. Accordingly, we order the Human Rights Commission to submit, to this Court, within ninety days from the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this proceeding, a specific time schedule for the appropriate disposition of its "inventory" at the time of issuance of a writ of mandamus in this proceeding, with an emphasis upon the expeditious disposition of complaints awaiting adjudicatory hearings, in order to secure the complete elimination of all backlogged cases, i.e., those awaiting hearing for a period exceeding one hundred eighty days. Although employment of full-time hearing examiners,[32] compliance with time limitations on adjudicatory activities, promulgation of rules regarding internal procedural time limitations, appointment of a full complement of commissioners, assistance of other officers, departments, and agencies of state government, rendition of legal services by the Attorney General, monthly meetings by the entire membership of the Commission, maximization of all available resources by the Commission, and creation of a specific time schedule for the disposition of pending cases, will serve to accelerate the disposition of the backlog of cases now pending before the Human Rights Commission, additional provisions must be made for the complete elimination of the backlog problem. As we have noted, full-time hearing examiners are preferable to part-time hearing examiners for various reasons. It is recognized, however, that under West Virginia Code § 5-11-10 (1979 Replacement Vol.), hearings are conducted "in the county where the respondent resides or transacts business." Therefore, particularly in disposing of the large backlog of cases now pending, some flexibility is needed in order to maximize efficiency while minimizing delay. Accordingly, under West Virginia Constitution art. VIII, § 3, which provides that this Court "shall have the power to promulgate rules ... for all courts of the State relating to ... practice... which shall have the force and effect of law," and under West Virginia Code § 5-11-7 (1979 Replacement Vol.), which provides that "The commission may call upon other officers, departments and agencies of the state government to assist in its hearings, programs and projects," we will direct the Administrative Director of this Court to obtain the assistance of the West Virginia State Bar, in furtherance of its duty to provide continuing legal education for its membership and in cooperation with the Human Rights Commission, to prepare, as directed by this Court, a manual or benchbook for Human Rights Commission hearing examiners and training seminars to assist in the preparation of a cadre of lawyers, a list of whom is to be delivered to this Court through its Administrative Director, duly licensed to practice *127 law in this State, who will to sit as hearing examiners in our various counties to conduct public hearing as authorized in West Virginia Code § 5-11-8(d)(3) (Supp.1984). We note that this part-time hearing examiner program must be designed to avoid some of the problems associated with the utilization of part-time hearing examiners as previously discussed, with a special emphasis on avoiding any unnecessary delays in the adjudicatory process and conflicts which may arise in lawyers serving as hearing examiners in their geographic area of practice. VIII The final issue raised by the petitioners concerns their reimbursement for attorneys fees and other costs associated with the prosecution of this mandamus action. In Syllabus Point 4 of Nelson v. Public Employees Insurance Board, 300 S.E.2d 86 (W.Va.1982), this Court held that, "In mandamus proceedings where a public officer willfully fails to obey the law, attorneys fees will be awarded." See also Syl. pt. 8, Meadows v. Lewis, 307 S.E.2d 625 (W.Va.1983). The rationale for the award of attorneys fees in Nelson, 300 S.E.2d at 92, applies with equal force in the present case: Our statutory law does not contemplate that officers of the executive branch of government, after taking their oath, ... will knowingly disregard their duty to faithfully execute the law.... [T]he constitution explicitly contemplates that public officers "shall perform such duties as may be presented by law." (Emphasis added.) W.Va. Const, art. 7, § 1. Citizens should not have to resort to lawsuits to force government officials to perform their legally prescribed non-discretionary duties. When, however, resort to such action is necessary to cure willful disregard of law, the government ought to bear the reasonable expense incurred by the citizen in maintaining the action. No individual citizen ought to bear the legal expense incurred in requiring the government to do its job. [citations omitted]. An award of attorneys fees is particularly appropriate in the present proceeding given the constitutional implications of the respondents' inaction. Accordingly, we order the respondents to reimburse the petitioners for the attorneys fees[33] and other costs associated with the prosecution of this mandamus action. IX For the foregoing reasons, we grant a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to: (1) place on its docket all complaints tendered that meet the five statutory criteria, including the complaint tendered by petitioner Haid on April 6, 1984; (2) employ at least a full-time hearing examiner, duly licensed to practice law in this State, for the conduct of public hearings authorized under the Human Rights Act; (3) hold adjudicatory hearings within one hundred eighty days, and issue final orders within one year, from the date of filing of complaints upon which it is determined probable cause exists for substantiating their allegations, including the scheduling of hearings on complaints filed by petitioners Allen, Francisco, Lucas, and Moore, within ninety days from the issuance of this writ; (4) promulgate rules and regulations specifying internal procedural time limits; (5) request the Attorney General to provide such full-time staff attorneys and supporting assistance as the Commission deems necessary to assist in the prompt discharge of its duties; (6) request other officers, departments, and agencies of staff government to provide such assistance as the Commission deems necessary to perform its various hearings, programs, and projects; (7) meet immediately to consider all the Commission's business, with a particular emphasis upon the disposition of *128 cases awaiting final decision, and adjourn from month to month with the entire membership of the Commission present until the current backlog of cases is eliminated; (8) submit to the Clerk of this Court, within ninety days from issuance of this writ, a specific time schedule for the appropriate disposition of its "inventory" at the time of issuance of this writ; (9) cooperate with the West Virginia State Bar in the development of a list of lawyers to sit as hearing examiners for the conduct of public hearings; (10) cooperate with the West Virginia State Bar in the development of a hearing examiner manual or benchbook and training seminars to assist in the preparation of the cadre of lawyers for service as hearing examiners; and (11) reimburse the petitioners for attorneys fees and other costs associated with the prosecution of this mandamus action. We will retain jurisdiction over this case[34] in order to secure compliance with our mandates, particularly those which require performance within certain time constraints, and direct the hearing examiner, as an officer of this Court, to supervise their implementation and to report to the Court Administrator periodically on the progress of the Commission in eliminating the backlog of cases now pending. Writ granted.

39b44956de41912f2dbe49304220caf88709bbd036689aeeac547260082012d8

1984-12-06 00:00:00

29a6b889-be8b-42a2-916b-e49402ec60e7

SER McCormick v. Zakaib

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

SER McCormick v. Zakaib Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1993 Term _________ NO. 21458 _________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. DONALD C. MCCORMICK, Relator V. HONORABLE PAUL ZAKAIB, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION; AND DAVID DAILEY, Respondents __________________________________________________________ Petition For A Writ of Prohibition WRIT GRANTED ____________________________________________________________ Submitted: January 12, 1993 Filed: February 25, 1993 James C. Peterson Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Dietzler Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Relator Charles M. Love, III Benjamin L. Bailey Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Respondents JUSTICE MILLER delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "The attorney-client privilege may be waived if disclosure of privileged communications is made to third parties." Syllabus Point 12, Marano v. Holland, 179 W. Va. 156, 366 S.E.2d 117 (1988). 2.If a party turns over material as a result of discovery under the rules of civil procedure and makes no claim of an attorney-client privilege, then such privilege is deemed waived. 3."A writ of prohibition is available to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of its discretion in regard to discovery orders." Syllabus Point 1, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stephens, ___ W.Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 21368 12/16/92). Miller, Justice: In this original proceeding, the relator, Donald C. McCormick, seeks a writ to prohibit enforcement of the respondent judge's June 1, 1992 order. The order precluded the relator's expert witness, Jack Lane, from testifying because Mr. Lane was allegedly in possession of confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. We find that the trial court erred; accordingly, we grant the writ. I. Donald C. McCormick, the relator, had his 1984 Ford Escort insured by the respondent, Allstate Insurance Company. On August 28, 1988, Mr. McCormick was involved in an automobile accident which severely damaged his car. When David Dailey, an Allstate claims adjuster, inspected Mr. McCormick's vehicle, he determined that it was a total loss. After looking up the value assigned to a 1984 Ford Escort in the National Automobile Dealers Association Used Car Guide, Mr. Dailey took "conditioning deductions" totaling $595.See footnote 1 On September 9, 1988, the relator was issued an insurance draft for $1,590. On November 8, 1988, Mr. McCormick filed a lawsuit against Allstate and its adjuster, David Dailey, alleging that Allstate routinely takes "conditioning deductions" in total loss cases and that this practice is a violation of the company's contractual and statutory duties. In preparation for litigation, Mr. McCormick retained the services of Jack Lane, a former employee of Allstate,See footnote 2 to testify as a witness on his behalf. The plaintiff wanted Mr. Lane to testify about Allstate's practices in taking "conditioning deductions."See footnote 3 Upon learning that Mr. Lane had been employed by the relator as a witness, Allstate filed a motion in limine to exclude his testimony because Mr. Lane, while employed at Allstate, had participated in collecting raw data in preparation for threatened litigation by Rita and David Stuart that raised issues identical to those asserted by Mr. McCormick. The attorney representing the Stuarts had, in August of 1988, sent a letter to Allstate, along with a draft complaint designed as a class action to recover damages for taking improper reconditioning fees in automobile total loss claims. The letter advised that unless Allstate settled with the Stuarts for their motor vehicle total loss claim, the suit would be filed. Allstate subsequently settled and the complaint was never filed. As a result of this incident, a Mr. MacKay, an attorney in Allstate's corporate litigation section in Chicago, requested its automobile claims director, a Mr. Tortorello, to compile data as to what amount of clean-up deductions had been taken in total loss claims in West Virginia. This request was passed to a Mr. Shelton who was in charge of the regional office in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, that supervised Allstate's West Virginia offices. Mr. Shelton then contacted a Mr. Hepps, who was in the Kanawha Valley office, and Mr. Lane in the Bridgeport, West Virginia office and asked them to randomly examine total loss automobile files of Allstate and compile data on the "conditioning deductions." This was done by Mr. Lane, who reported the findings, based on a review of some 167 total loss automobile files, to Mr. Shelton. After the McCormick suit was filed in Kanawha County, the plaintiff pursued discovery and obtained from Allstate West Virginia automobile total loss files for the years 1983 to 1988 in which conditioning fees had been charged. Shortly before this case was to be tried, Allstate moved the circuit court to exclude Mr. Lane as an expert. Allstate argued that the information compiled in anticipation of the Stuart litigation formed an integral part of Allstate's strategy in this case. It claimed that Mr. Lane's analysis as an expert would be based on privileged information. To substantiate these claims, Allstate provided the trial court with three documents it contends demonstrate that Mr. Lane had been privy to confidential information.See footnote 4 After receiving these documents, the trial court conducted an in camera examination of Mr. Lane. During his testimony, Mr. Lane recalled that he had his clerical employees pull total loss files and that he may have had an employee collect the necessary information. He testified that he did not analyze the files or even look at them. Moreover, he testified that he was not aware of any threatened litigation. At the time this information was being collected, the McCormick claim had not yet been filed. When asked how he obtained his knowledge about Allstate's practice of taking conditioning fees, Mr. Lane explained: "[I]t is not like this is a big secret, you know, that Allstate had about this clean up fee." Based on the three documents, Mr. Lane's testimony, and the holding in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 , 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981), the trial court ruled that Mr. Lane was precluded from testifying for the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in this Court. We issued a rule to show cause why the writ should not be granted. II. We find the trial court's reliance on Upjohn Co. v. United States, supra, to be misplaced. Upjohn involved an attempt to obtain discovery of certain internal documents generated by its general counsel to its foreign general and area managers. The general counsel in his letter advised that the chairman of Upjohn had requested that he investigate the possibility of illegal payments being made to foreign officials. The letter advised that the investigation was highly confidential and enclosed a questionnaire which was to be completed. The managers were also instructed not to discuss the investigation with anyone other than employees of Upjohn who might be able to provide the relevant information. The Internal Revenue Service sought to obtain these questionnaires after it instituted litigation against Upjohn claiming illegal tax deductions had been made with regard to its payments to foreign officials. Upjohn claimed that the questionnaires were not discoverable as they were a result of work-product and were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The crucial distinction in this case is that, at the time Allstate sought to block the expert testimony of Mr. Lane, it had already turned over to the plaintiff's attorney through discovery the 167 automobile total loss adjustment files that contained reconditioning charges. Even assuming, arguendo, that the original information contained in the three sealed documents was confidential and protected by the attorney-client privilege, Allstate waived this privilege by voluntarily producing the claim files in response to the plaintiff's discovery request.See footnote 5 We recognized in Syllabus Point 12 of Marano v. Holland, 179 W. Va. 156, 366 S.E.2d 117 (1988), that the attorney-client privilege could be waived by voluntary disclosure of privileged communications to a third person: "The attorney-client privilege may be waived if disclosure of privileged communications is made to third parties." It appears to be generally recognized that if a party turns over material as a result of discovery under the rules of civil procedure and makes no claim of an attorney-client privilege, then such privilege is deemed waived.See footnote 6 See, e.g., In Re Grand Jury Investigation of Ocean Transp., 604 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 915, 100 S. Ct. 229, 62 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1979); Edens v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 858 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1988); Goldsborough v. Eagle Crest Partners, 105 Or. App. 499, 805 P.2d 723 (1991), aff'd 314 Or. 336, 838 P.2d 1069 (1992); Eloise Bauer & Assocs., Inc. v. Electronic Realty Assocs., Inc., 621 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981). See generally 1 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence 342-43 (4th ed. 1992). Ordinarily, when the attorney-client privilege is waived with respect to a particular document, it is also waived for all other communications relating to the same subject matter. As explained by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982): "Any disclosure inconsistent with maintaining the confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship waives the attorney-client privilege. Any voluntary disclosure by the client to a third party waives the privilege not only as to the specific communication disclosed, but often as to all other communications relating to the same subject matter." (Citation omitted). See also In Re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793 (D.C. Cir. 1982); John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A, United Food & Commercial Workers, 913 F.2d 544 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct. 1683, 114 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1991); United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142 (8th Cir. 1972); Garfinkle v. Arcata Nat'l Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). See generally 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure ¶2016 (1970). Thus, when Allstate disclosed the claim files to Mr. McCormick during discovery without objection, the company waived any attorney-client privilege which arguably could have been asserted regarding the three sealed documents, because the information contained in them relates to the same subject matter and does not disclose any additional privileged communications.See footnote 7 Finally, we have recognized in Syllabus Point 1 of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stephens, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 21368 12/16/92), after reviewing some of our earlier cases, that in certain instances a writ of prohibition could be used to control a circuit court's discovery order: "A writ of prohibition is available to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of its discretion in regard to discovery orders." We find these conditions to exist in this case, as the error is a legal one and is substantial because it prohibits the plaintiff from utilizing his only expert witness. For the foregoing reasons, we issue the writ of prohibition as prayed for. Writ granted. Footnote: 1According to the "Total Loss and Salvage Report" prepared by Allstate and attached to the relator's complaint, these fees consisted of a $50 charge for cleaning the engine and a $20 charge for cleaning the vehicle's interior. $525 was deducted from the settlement because the vehicle had minor surface blemishes, scratches on the exterior paint, and stained car seats. In September of 1988, the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner issued Informational Letter No. 55, which was distributed to all insurance carriers operating in the state. The letter informed the companies that it is a bad faith settlement practice to take reconditioning fees in total loss vehicle cases. See Hawkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 733 P.2d 1073 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 874 , 108 S. Ct. 212, 98 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1987). Footnote: 2Mr. Lane had been employed by Allstate for fifteen years. In September of 1988, he was the market claims manager in the company's Bridgeport, West Virginia office and worked in that capacity until he ended his employment with the company in June of 1990 and began working as an insurance consultant. Footnote: 3The exact nature of Mr. Lane's testimony is not clear from the record. We have not been provided with Mr. Lane's deposition nor any claim files. Both parties merely assert that he was going to testify about Allstate's practices and procedures. As an employee for over fifteen years, Mr. Lane doubtless acquired voluminous nonconfidential knowledge about Allstate's routine business practices. Footnote: 4The three documents were sealed by the trial court, and two of them have never been seen by the relator. Document No. 1 is a memorandum from Attorney MacKay to Allstate's claims director, Mr. Tortorello, dated September 9, 1988, instructing Mr. Tortorello to review total loss vehicle claims in West Virginia and to determine how often conditioning deductions were taken. Document No. 2 is a memorandum from Mr. Shelton, the regional manager, to a Mr. Osborne, who is not identified except as an Allstate employee, stating that the pertinent total loss files were being reviewed and that the results would be forwarded as soon as they were compiled. Mr. Lane did not receive a copy of either Document No. 1 or Document No. 2 and neither mention his name. Document No. 3 is a memorandum from Jack Lane to Ronnie Shelton, dated September 8, 1988, in which Mr. Lane explained that 167 total loss vehicle claim files had been reviewed. The memorandum further detailed how often a clean-up charge was taken, the amount deducted from the claim, and how often each claims representative in the Bridgeport office elaborated on the reason for taking the conditioning deduction. Footnote: 5In note 4, supra, we summarized the contents of the three sealed documents. Documents 1 and 2 pertain to the collection of data on total loss claims. Document 3 contains Mr. Lane's summary of the 167 files reviewed. Certainly, the factual data extracted from the files is not privileged. Footnote: 6Some courts have recognized that a party may seek to avoid the attorney-client waiver after a voluntary disclosure by showing some substantial excusable error. See United States v. Zolin, 809 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987); Transamerican Computer Co., Inc. v. International Business Mach. Corp., 573 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1978); Farm Credit Bank v. Huether, 454 N.W.2d 710 (N.D. 1990). Footnote: 7The same waiver principle exists as to any claim of an attorney work-product under Rule 26(b)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Even if we were to assume that the privilege existed with regard to the three sealed documents described in note 4, supra, the voluntary production of the files to the plaintiff's attorney would waive any claim of attorney work-product as to the same information contained in the sealed documents. See generally 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶26.64[4] at 26-390 (1991). We also reject Allstate's assertion that Mr. Lane cannot act as an expert and render an opinion about Allstate's business practice. This is not a situation as in Wang Lab., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 762 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Va. 1991), where the disqualified expert was hired by Wang's attorney and given access to corporate papers. The court found the papers confidential. The expert then proceeded to represent the adverse party. Here, as we have already found the automobile total loss files were voluntarily turned over, Mr. Lane can testify regarding the information contained in these files, as well as the company forms. His knowledge of the meaning of this information as a result of his employment with Allstate may also be stated.

818e398a01ca208b5102112da8b2679d509d36ea706fd6b5c5c3a6c48453f2ac

1993-02-25 00:00:00

c2be5588-5aee-43f0-b080-103663332c3a

In Re Markle

328 S.E.2d 157

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

In Re Markle Annotate this Case 328 S.E.2d 157 (1985) In re Danny MARKLE. Complaint No. 17-83. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 21, 1984. Rehearing Denied January 10, 1985. *159 Talbot & Alsop, Jack Alsop, Webster Springs, for appellant. Charles R. Garten, Charleston, for appellee. *158 MILLER, Justice: This is a judicial disciplinary proceeding arising from a charge that Magistrate Danny Markle failed to follow the procedures set out in State ex rel. Harper v. Zegeer, W.Va., 296 S.E.2d 873 (1982), in incarcerating a semiconscious inebriate, who subsequently committed suicide in the jail. The Judicial Hearing Board (hereinafter referred to as Board), after hearing testimony from several witnesses, recommended dismissal of this charge. We disagree. Two issues are presented for our consideration. First, did Magistrate Markle violate the Judicial Code of Ethics by placing a semiconscious, highly intoxicated person in the county jail without contacting his family or friends, or seeking alternative placement in a hospital or mental health facility as required by Harper? The Board concluded that he did not because it was not shown that Mr. Palmer was a chronic alcoholic. The second issue centers on whether the work product doctrine bars discovery of investigative reports prepared by the Judicial Investigation Commission (hereinafter Commission) where discovery is sought in a disciplinary proceeding by the judge who is being investigated. On February 14, 1983, Roger Palmer was arrested for public intoxication by Trooper D.R. Butler of the West Virginia Department of Public Safety. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Palmer was lying semiconscious beside a road in Webster County, soaking wet, with an empty whiskey bottle by his side. After the arrest, Mr. Palmer was taken to the office of Magistrate Markle, but because of the arrestee's size and condition, Trooper Butler was unable to get him out of the car and into the office. At the request of Trooper Butler, Magistrate Markle went to the State Police cruiser to view the arrestee. Mr. Palmer was too intoxicated to respond to any questions. The magistrate ordered Mr. Palmer held in the Webster County Jail. *160 The trooper and assistant jailer were unable to carry Mr. Palmer up the stairs to the second floor of the Webster County Jail, so, after a conversation with the sheriff, they placed Mr. Palmer in a locked cell in a "juvenile section" of the jail. When the sheriff of Webster County learned that Mr. Palmer was being incarcerated, he contacted Magistrate Markle to express his belief that Mr. Palmer was an alcoholic. Roger Palmer had two brothers residing in Webster County, both of whom were known to Magistrate Markle, but he did not attempt to contact either of them or any other member of Mr. Palmer's family or to secure an alternative disposition by way of temporary commitment under the applicable mental health statutes. Magistrate Markle did not talk to Mr. Palmer after he was incarcerated, although he did contact the jail at least twice to inquire about Mr. Palmer's condition. We note initially that we have an independent obligation to review the record and recommendations of the Board, as stated in Syllabus Point 1 of In Re K. Pauley, W.Va., 318 S.E.2d 418 (1984): "`The Supreme Court of Appeals will make an independent evaluation of the record and recommendations of the Judicial Review Board [now Judicial Hearing Board] in disciplinary proceedings.' Syllabus Point 1, W.Va. Judicial Inquiry Commission v. Dostert, W.Va., 271 S.E.2d 427 (1980)." In State ex rel. Harper v. Zegeer, W.Va., 296 S.E.2d 873 (1982), we discussed at some length our law surrounding the handling and incarceration of chronic alcoholics for the crime of public intoxication and stated in Syllabus Point 1: "Criminal punishment of chronic alcoholics for public intoxication violates our State constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. W.Va. Const. art. III, § 5." Aside from decriminalizing the crime of public intoxication for chronic alcoholics, we established guidelines for magistrates to follow in dealing with inebriated persons who have been arrested for public intoxication. We stated that when such an individual is brought before a magistrate on a charge of public intoxication: "[T]he judicial officer may release the charged individual on his own recognizance or other bond upon a determination that the accused possesses the necessary rational capability to conduct his own affairs. W.Va.Code § 62-1C-1 (1977 Replacement Vol.) Alternatively, the judicial officer may release the individual into the custody of a responsible person who agrees to be responsible for the accused's actions. However, if it is determined that the accused is an `inebriate', defined by statute as `anyone over the age of eighteen years who is incapable or unfit to properly conduct himself or herself, or his or her affairs, or is dangerous to himself or herself or others, by reason of ... drunkenness ...,' W.Va.Code § 27-1-4 (1980 Replacement Vol.), an alternative disposition must be made under the applicable mental health statutes." 296 S.E.2d at 884. (Emphasis added). In speaking of an inebriate, we pointed out that "the judicial officer may order that the defendant be remanded to the custody of the nearest county or regional mental health facility," citing W.Va.Code, 27-5-2. 296 S.E.2d at 884. We also stated that such commitment "may extend for no more than 24 hours without a judicial determination of the need for further detention. W.Va.Code §§ 27-1-4; 27-5-2, 27-1A-11." 296 S.E.2d at 885. Finally, after referring to W.Va. Code, 16-1-10(19), relating to the treatment of alcoholics by the Mental Health Division of the Department of Health, we said that: "The Legislature has clearly demonstrated by enactment of the mental health laws that it does not contemplate that inebriated persons, as defined by law, should be detained in jails or lockups." 296 S.E.2d at 885.[1] *161 From the foregoing, it is clear that Harper mandates that a person arrested for public intoxication who is so inebriated that he is unable to care for himself should not be incarcerated, but should be released to a member of his family or some other responsible adult or taken to a county or regional mental health facility.[2] From the facts of this case, it is clear that Mr. Palmer was so inebriated that he was virtually unconscious. Rather than heeding the strictures of Harper and contacting members of Mr. Palmer's family or having him sent to a mental health facility, the magistrate sent him to jail. We believe this was a clear violation of Canon 3(A)(1) which requires, in part, that: "A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it." We discussed this provision in In Re K. Pauley, where a magistrate had failed to follow certain mandatory criminal procedures in the commitment of a defendant to jail. Relying in part on a number of cases from other jurisdictions,[3] we held in Syllabus Point 2: "The deliberate failure to follow mandatory criminal procedures constitutes a violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics." Here, as in In Re K. Pauley, the magistrate was aware of the mandates of our law and decided not to follow them. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the Board and conclude that a violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics has been shown by clear and convincing evidence.[4] In In Re K. Pauley, we suspended the magistrate for six months without pay. Here, we do not believe the facts are as egregious as in that case and we, therefore, conclude that a suspension for three months without pay is appropriate. With regard to the second issue of whether the Commission's investigative report had to be turned over to Magistrate Markle, we resolve this issue under Rule 26(b)(3) of our Rules of Civil Procedure. We recognized in Syllabus Point 1 of State ex rel. McGraw v. West Virginia Judicial Review Board, W.Va., 271 S.E.2d 344 (1980), that because of language contained in our Rules of Procedure for the Handling of Complaints Against Justices, Judges and Magistrates, the Rules of Civil Procedure applied to hearings before the Board:[5] "`Proceedings of the West Virginia Judicial Review Board are governed by the *162 West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure; consequently, the Board must permit appropriate discovery of Judicial Inquiry Commission members upon proper motion made by a party subject to investigation by the Judicial Review Board.' Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. West Virginia Judicial Review Board, W.Va., 264 S.E.2d 168 (1980)." In this same case, we announced this principle in Syllabus Point 2: "It is the obligation of the Judicial Review Board to supervise the extent of discovery in the same manner that a trial court supervises discovery under the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure; this Court will not assume original jurisdiction of discovery matters." The Commission's investigative report contained a summary of testimony given by various witnesses relative to the Palmer incident. The Board granted Magistrate Markle's motion to compel production of this report. Counsel for the Commission contends that this material constituted work product under Rule 26(b)(3) of our Rules of Civil Procedure.[6] Our Rule 26(b)(3) is identical to the federal rule, which was adopted in 1970 as a part of a larger reorganization of the discovery section of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 J. Moore, J. Lucas and G. Grotheer, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26-63[9] at 26-346 (2d ed. 1984).[7] The purpose of Rule 26(b)(3) is to narrow the ability to obtain trial preparation material by expanding the coverage of the work product rule to include persons other than an attorney. This is explained in 8 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2024 at 202-07 (1970): "Prior to 1970 the principal controversy about what type of material was within the work product protection was whether the protection extended only to materials prepared or obtained by a lawyer or whether it also reached trial preparation materials prepared by others.... Under the 1970 amendment it is clear that all documents and tangible things prepared by or for the attorney of the party from whom discovery is sought are within the qualified immunity given to work product, so long as they were prepared in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial. "Prior to the 1970 amendment some cases held that statements obtained by claim agents and investigators had the same protection given to attorneys. Other cases thought that the work product rule was based on the unique place of the attorney in the adversary system and refused to extend the protection to these nonlawyers.... Accordingly the 1970 amendment expressly extends protection to documents prepared by or for a representative of a party, including his agent. "... Rule 26(b)(3) protects documents prepared for litigation by or for a party's representative, including his indemnitor or insurer. Thus it will now be clear that a report from the insured to the insurer is within the immunity as also will be statements obtained by investigators for the insurer.*163 "The 1970 amendment extends the work product protection to documents and things prepared for litigation or trial by or for the adverse party himself or his agent. Prior to the amendment some cases have held that documents of this kind were not within the immunity." (Footnotes omitted). The federal courts have followed this view and applied the work product doctrine to materials produced by nonlawyers. See e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 45 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1975) (criminal investigators hired by defense attorney); Sprague v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp., 688 F.2d 862 (1st Cir.1982) (physician); In Re Int'l Systems & Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir.1982) (accountants); Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 663 F.2d 120 (D.C.Cir.1980) (economists); Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir.1980) (private investigator); In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 601 F.2d 162 (5th Cir.1979) (accountant); Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 540 F.2d 1215 (4th Cir.1975) (French patent agent); Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342 (D.Del.1975) (marine surveyors); Home Insur. Co. v. Ballenger Corp., 74 F.R.D. 93 (N.D.Ga.1977) (claim agent). Rule 26(b)(3) also makes a distinction between factual and opinion work product with regard to the level of necessity that has to be shown to obtain their discovery. Where factual work product is involved, the party demanding production must show "a substantial need" for the material and that he cannot obtain the same or its equivalent through other means "without undue hardship."[8] Where opinion work product is involved, the showing required to obtain discovery is even stronger since the rule states that "the court shall protect against disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories." Rule 26(b)(3).[9] It should also be noted that Rule 26(b)(3) contains an exception allowing a party to obtain his own statement without meeting the substantial need and undue hardship standard.[10] Furthermore, since the limitation in Rule 26(b)(3) is against obtaining documents and other tangible things used in trial preparation, there is no prohibition against using other discovery methods to identify witnesses and depose them. In Re Int'l Systems & Controls Corp., Inc., 693 F.2d at 1240; Gay v. P.K. Lindsay Co., Inc., 666 F.2d 710, 713 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 975, 102 S. Ct. 2240, 72 L. Ed. 2d 849 (1982); 8 C. Wright and A. Miller, supra, § 2025 at 215. Where factual work product is involved, the question of what constitutes "substantial need" and "undue hardship" has been frequently litigated in the federal courts. It is now well established that this standard is met where a witness is no longer available for questioning or is hostile *164 and refuses to give a statement or has a faulty memory and can no longer remember the details of the event in question. 8 C. Wright and A. Miller, supra, § 2025 at 216-20; 4 J. Moore, J. Lucas and G. Grotheer, supra, at 26-369. Discovery has also been allowed where crucial information was in the exclusive control of the opposing party. 4 J. Moore, J. Lucas and G. Grotheer, supra, ¶ 26-64[3.-1] at 26-365 through -368. Although the cost of obtaining depositions may be relevant, it is seldom, if ever, sufficient in itself to constitute "undue hardship." In Re Int'l Systems & Controls Corp., 693 F.2d at 1241; Carver v. Allstate Insur. Co., 94 F.R.D. 131, 136 (S.D.Ga.1982); Connelly v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 96 F.R.D. 339, 343 (D.Mass. 1982). The investigative report in the present case does, we believe, fall within the ambit of Rule 26(b)(3) since the investigator is an agent of the Commission and works under the direction of its attorney in investigating and preparing reports that ultimately lead to a trial before the Board. His report consisted of summaries of interviews with nine persons, including Magistrate Markle. As we have earlier noted, Rule 26(b)(3) would enable the magistrate to obtain a copy of his own summary statement. As to the other witnesses, we do not believe that Magistrate Markle was entitled to their summaries. We treat this report as factual work product as it does not appear to contain mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of the investigator. Thus, the standard to be met is substantial need and undue hardship, as previously noted. The only argument advanced by the magistrate's attorney was that it would be burdensome to contact the eight witnesses, all of whom lived in Webster County. We do not believe this was sufficient to meet the undue hardship requirement.[11] For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the Board erred in requiring the Commission's counsel to turn over the entire report of its investigator. However, this error did not harm Magistrate Markle. We, therefore, conclude for the reasons hereinbefore stated that his deliberate failure to comply with the guidelines in Harper warrants his suspension without pay for three months. Complaint Sustained.

9e4e4c2e6f09d5e79b75e76c3095dd63d5e1415cbe8086be78a6e7d9bddc47be

1984-12-21 00:00:00

618702c0-cc70-4297-a7df-d1390db2093e

State Ex Rel. Haught v. Donnahoe

321 S.E.2d 677

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Haught v. Donnahoe Annotate this Case 321 S.E.2d 677 (1984) STATE ex rel. Eldon J. HAUGHT, etc. v. George Douglas DONNAHOE, et al, etc. No. 16427. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted September 12, 1984. Decided October 11, 1984. *678 David G. Hanlon, Harrisville, for petitioners. Sam White, St. Marys, for Donnahoe. Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen. and Marianne K. Hoover, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for Manchin. Keith White, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Marys, for Fox, Payne & Long. Lucien R. Sammons, Jr., Pros. Atty., West Union, for Britton, Michaels & Bland. McGRAW, Justice: I This is an original proceeding in mandamus, by the petitioner, Eldon J. Haught, a duly registered voter of Ritchie County, West Virginia, and Chairman of the Ritchie County Democratic Executive Committee. One of the respondents in this proceeding, George Douglas Donnahoe, was the sole Republican candidate for that party's nomination for Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit. As a result of the June 5, 1984 primary election, he became the Republican nominee for that office. The petitioner seeks a writ to compel the respondents, ballot commissioners for the counties of Ritchie, Pleasants and Doddridge, which comprise the Third Judicial Circuit of this State, to omit the name of respondent Donnahoe from the official ballot of the general election of November 6, 1984. The petitioner also seeks to compel the respondent, Secretary of State A. James Manchin, to withhold or withdraw the certification of the nomination of respondent Donnahoe as the Republican nominee for the office of Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit. By way of this petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner specifically challenges respondent Donnahoe's eligibility for such judicial office under West Virginia Constitution article VIII, section 7, and asks this Court to direct the above-mentioned election officials to perform their *679 respective legal duties under the election laws of this State. See West Virginia Code §§ 3-1-1 et seq. (1979 Replacement Vol. & Supp.1984). We find the respondent candidate ineligible under article VIII, § 7, to be elected to or hold the office of circuit judge. Accordingly, we grant the writ. Original jurisdiction in mandamus in cases involving elections is conferred upon this Court by article VIII, section 3 of the West Virginia Constitution, and, more specifically, by West Virginia Code § 3-1-45 (1979 Replacement Vol.).[1] In Syllabus point 1 of State ex rel. Summerfield v. Maxwell, 148 W.Va. 535, 135 S.E.2d 741 (1964), this Court held: The eligibility of a candidate for an elective office may be determined in a proceeding in mandamus and, upon a determination therein that a candidate is ineligible to be elected to or to hold the office for which he seeks nomination or election, a writ of mandamus will issue directing the board of ballot commissioners to strike or omit such candidate's name from the primary or general election ballot. A thorough review of this special form of mandamus is contained in this Court's most recent decision in this area. See White v. Manchin, 318 S.E.2d 470 (W.Va.1984). The applicability of this form of action to this particular case is beyond question. The underlying issues regarding respondent Donnahoe's eligibility present more novel questions. II Article VIII, § 7 of the West Virginia Constitution, in its first paragraph, provides: All justices, judges and magistrates must be residents of this State and shall be commissioned by the governor. No person may hereafter be elected as a justice of the supreme court of appeals unless he has been admitted to practice law for at least ten years prior to his election, and no person may hereafter be elected as a judge of a circuit court unless he has been admitted to practice law for at least five years prior to his election. (emphasis added). A brief summary of the facts giving rise to this proceeding, which put the exact meaning of the above language at issue, is in order at this point. Respondent George Douglas Donnahoe holds a law degree from Duke University. He was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on June 5, 1963, and, at that time, established a one-man office in the Los Angeles area where, until recently, he actively engaged in the practice of law. In late 1978, respondent Donnahoe purchased a farm in Doddridge County, West Virginia, and, on July 10, 1979, he and his family moved to this locale. By his affidavit, which accompanies the response to the subject petition, respondent Donnahoe relates that during the next several years after moving to West Virginia, he commuted to his law office in Los Angeles, California, for the sole purpose of closing up his law practice there, and in 1983 spent nearly six months in California finally winding his law practice down. He further relates that his intention then and now was to never practice law again, in California, West Virginia, or any other state. Accordingly, respondent Donnahoe, by his request of February 15, 1984, transferred to inactive membership in the State Bar of California.[2]*680 Additionally, he is not now admitted, nor has he ever sought admission to the practice of law in West Virginia or membership in the West Virginia State Bar. Therefore, the primary issue presented in this proceeding is whether article VIII, § 7 of the West Virginia Constitution requires candidates for circuit judge to have been duly admitted to practice law in West Virginia for five years, or whether admission to the practice of law anywhere for five years is sufficient.[3] We recognize that where "a constitutional provision is clear in its terms, and the intention of the electorate is clearly embraced in the language of the provision itself, this Court must apply and not interpret the provision." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Trent v. Sims, 138 W.Va. 244, 77 S.E.2d 122 (1953). We reject, however, respondent candidate's contention that the phrase "admitted to practice law for at least five years" is unambiguous. Only if the phrase read, for example, "admitted to practice law in any state for at least five years" would its meaning, under the terms of the respondent's argument, be unambiguous. The provision as written is, therefore, subject to application by the Court according to the common and recognized rules of construction. The paramount principle is that "[t]he object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it." Diamond v. Parkersburg-Aetna Corporation, 146 W.Va. 543, 555, 122 S.E.2d 436 , 443 (1961) (emphasis in original).[4] Although there are no West Virginia cases construing the language involved here, State ex rel. Summerfield v. Maxwell, 148 W.Va. 535, 135 S.E.2d 741 (1964) is instructive. In that case, this Court was presented with a similar issue involving whether a non-lawyer was eligible for the office of prosecuting attorney in the absence of a specific constitutional or statutory provision mandating that county prosecutors must be lawyers, licensed to practice in West Virginia. Noting both the strong policy reasons discussed in similar cases of other jurisdictions, and the statutory duties imposed on a prosecuting attorney in this State, this Court held that "such official must be an attorney licensed to practice his profession in this State." State ex rel. Summerfield v. Maxwell, 148 W.Va. at 549, 135 S.E.2d at 750. See also State ex rel. Dostert v. Riggleman, 155 W.Va. 808, 187 S.E.2d 591 (1972). A case cited with approval in Summerfield, also sheds some light on this matter. In State v. Russell, 83 Wis. 330, 53 N.W. 441 (1892), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin interpreted a state statute which provided that: "the circuit judges, within their respective *681 circuits, are hereby authorized, in their discretion, to appoint counsel to assist the district attorney...." (emphasis added). There were no qualifying terms pertaining to the word "counsel." This was an appeal of a criminal conviction where the appointed "counsel" was a Minnesota attorney, a "distinguished criminal lawyer of St. Paul." Russell, 83 Wis. at 331, 53 N.W. at 441. He was, however, not a resident of Wisconsin or a member of the Wisconsin bar. The court held that the proper meaning accorded the word "counsel" in the statute required that such persons "must be a member of the bar of this state." Russell, 83 Wis. at 335, 53 N.W. at 442. If prosecuting attorneys must meet these types of intraterritorial qualifications despite the absence of clear constitutional or statutory provisions mandating such qualifications, then the judges these prosecuting attorneys are to appear before should be at least similarly qualified despite similar constitutional and statutory silence. Such qualifications are implicit in the constitutional and statutory structure and function of the judicial and quasi-judicial offices involved. The legal powers and obligations exercised by and imposed upon these officers, by their very nature, presume such unspoken qualifications. In addition to West Virginia, forty-seven other states expressly require that their judges of courts of record be licensed attorneys at law; and of those forty-seven, forty-five expressly provide or have been construed to require that their judges must be licensed attorneys of that particular state.[5] Moreover, in addition to West Virginia, twenty-five other states expressly require a certain number of years of experience as a licensed attorney in order to be eligible for the office of appellate or trial court judge; and of those twenty-five, twenty-two expressly provide or have been construed to require that this experience must be acquired in that particular state.[6] To construe *682 this State's similar provision in like fashion does not exhibit a narrow and provincial view of the law. Rather, it recognizes that the regulation of the practice of law and the judiciary is traditionally and inherently intraterritorial. Phrases such as the formerly common constitutional requirement that judges must be "learned in the law" have been interpreted in this fashion. See Petition of Teigen, 221 N.W.2d 94 (N.D.1974); In re Daly, 294 Minn. 351, 200 N.W.2d 913 (1972), cert. denied sub. nom., Daly v. McCarthy, 409 U.S. 1041, 93 S. Ct. 528, 34 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1972); In re Scarrella, 300 Minn. 500, 221 N.W.2d 562 (1974). See generally Annot., 71 A.L.R.3d 498 (1976). In Petition of Teigen, supra, the Supreme Court of North Dakota was asked to construe section 94 of the North Dakota Constitution which provides that: "[n]o person shall be eligible to the office of judge of the supreme court unless he be learned in the law...." The court held that "the phrase `learned in the law' is synonymous with and means `admitted to the bar' or `admitted to practice' by the Supreme Court of our State." 221 N.W.2d at 98. The North Dakota court's reasoning for this interpretation is well stated and directly applicable to the interpretation of the meaning of the provision at issue in the case at hand. From a practical standpoint, if we are to continue our practice of examining through the auspices of the State Bar Board those who have received Law Degrees from the finest law schools in this country to determine their qualifications to practice law before the highest court of this State, it would seem to follow that we must require that those who seek to sit on the highest court of the State demonstrate first that they are qualified. Under our statutes and under the rules of our court, no one may practice law as an attorney and counselor at law before the State Supreme Court or any other court of record of this State unless he has first been admitted to bar or to the practice of law by the Supreme Court of this State. By this opinion, we hold that one must first be admitted to the bar or to the practice of law by this court before one may have his name placed on the ballot as a candidate for the office of judge of this court. 221 N.W.2d at 99. It is fundamental that both federal and state power is limited to its constitutional framework. The organic law embodied within each state constitution runs with the territorial jurisdiction of the state. It is beyond the jurisdiction of another state to determine the necessary qualifications for admission to the practice of law in West Virginia, and vice versa. Statutes and constitutions "are to be construed and considered as relating to people and institutions within the state ... as intraterritorial and not extraterritorial." State ex rel. Fugina v. Pierce, 191 Wis. 1, 5, 209 N.W. 693, 694 (1926). Furthermore, a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia directly supports the conclusion that the intended scope of our constitutional provision is intraterritorial. In Littlejohn v. Cleland, 251 Ga. 597, 308 S.E.2d 186 (1983), with both facts and a constitutional requirement remarkably similar to this case, the Court disposed of the issue as follows: The remaining question is whether the court erred in concluding that an individual *683 must be a member of the State Bar of Georgia in order to be qualified to run for office as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Constitution of Georgia of 1976, Art. VI, Sec. XIII, Para. I (Code Ann. § 2-4201), provided that "[n]o person shall be a Justice of the Supreme Court ... unless, at the time of his election, he shall ... have practiced law for seven years." The State Bar of Georgia is an arm of this Court, and we have held that only those persons who are members of the State Bar of Georgia may practice law. Since a person may not practice law unless he or she is a member of the State Bar, a person cannot qualify for an office requiring law practice unless he or she is a member of the State Bar. Inasmuch as the court found that Littlejohn is not now nor has he ever been a member of the State Bar of Georgia, it is clear that he does not meet the constitutional requirement to seek or hold the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (citations omitted). In Whitmer v. Thurman, 241 Ga. 569, 247 S.E.2d 104 (1978), relied upon in Littlejohn, the Georgia Supreme Court also determined that the constitutional requirement that district attorneys must have "practiced law for three years" meant practice of law "as an active member of the State Bar of Georgia in good standing." Whitmer, 241 Ga. at 570, 247 S.E.2d at 106 (quoting Wallace v. Wallace, 225 Ga. 102, 166 S.E.2d 718 (1969)). The court further held that this requirement could not be partially or wholly satisfied with legal practice in another state.[7]See also Application of West, 61 Hawaii 112, 595 P.2d 1080 (1979). We therefore hold that the phrase "admitted to practice law for at least five years," contained in West Virginia Constitution art. VIII, § 7 imposes licensing and experimental requirements for persons elected to the office of circuit judge which may only be satisfied by unqualified[8] admission to the practice of law in this State for the requisite period.[9] "Admitted[10] to practice" means permitted[11] to practice before the official body[12] empowered to regulate *684 the practice of law in this State for the minimum five-year period provided in article VIII, § 7. This requires uninterrupted permission to practice in the State for such period. See Constitution of the West Virginia State Bar, art. III; By-laws of the West Virginia State Bar, arts. I to III. See also Syl. pt. 3, Phelps v. Shanahan, 210 Kan. 605, 502 P.2d 768 (1972). III Our inquiry, however, does not end with the interpretation of the requirements of article VIII, § 7. In this State, the right to become a candidate for public office is a valuable and fundamental right protected under the equal protection provisions of both the federal and state constitutions. See White v. Manchin, 318 S.E.2d 470 , 488 (W.Va.1984), and cases cited therein.[13] In order to satisfy the constitutional protections of this fundamental right, restrictions upon eligibility must serve a compelling state interest. State ex rel. Piccirillo v. City of Follansbee, 160 W.Va. 329, 333, 233 S.E.2d 419 , 423 (1977). Therefore, we must examine article VIII, § 7, which requires candidates for circuit judge to have been attorneys licensed by this State for at least five years before their election, in order to determine whether it serves such a compelling state interest.[14] As previously noted, similar experimental requirements for judges are common. The purpose for such requirements is unquestionably clear. They are intended to insure not only that judges are competent in the law, but that they are reasonably familiar with the law of the jurisdiction to which they are elected. While it may be axiomatic that judges are elected to interpret and uphold the law, due process demands a high level of jurisdictional competence and integrity in that endeavor. Requirements or restrictions affecting eligibility for judicial office that reasonably strive to meet such valid public purposes do not impose impermissible barriers to such offices. Furthermore, a state's particular interest in maintaining the integrity of its judicial system can support restrictions which could not survive constitutional scrutiny if applied to other types of offices. Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 , 968, 102 S. Ct. 2836, 2846, 73 L. Ed. 2d 508, 519 (1982). Therefore, we hold that the requirement contained in West Virginia Constitution art. VIII, § 7, that candidates for the office of circuit judge must have been admitted to the practice of law in the State for five years prior to their election advances the State's compelling interest in securing and maintaining a judiciary well qualified in the law of the jurisdiction. See Bullock v. State of Minnesota, 611 F.2d 258 (8th Cir.1979) (similarly constituted provision held to serve compelling state interest); Kraft v. Harris, 18 Wash. App. 432, 568 P.2d 828 (1977) (city charter provision that a corporation counsel candidate must have been practicing law in City of Seattle at least four years held to be reasonable requirement). See also Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623, 627 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 906 , 100 S. Ct. 219, 62 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1979) (equal protection clause does not prohibit adoption of more rigorous standards for assuring excellence in the judiciary than for other elective offices). IV For the foregoing reasons, we grant a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Secretary of State A. James Manchin to withhold or withdraw his certification of *685 candidacy of respondent George Douglas Donnahoe, commanding the respondent ballot commissioners of Ritchie, Doddridge and Pleasants Counties to strike, omit, or otherwise remove the name of George Douglas Donnahoe from the official ballots, ballot cards, or ballot labels, as the case may be, to be used in the general election to be conducted on November 6, 1984, as Republican candidate for the office of Circuit Judge for the Third Judicial Circuit; and commanding respondent Secretary of State A. James Manchin, under West Virginia Code § 3-1A-6 (1979 Replacement Vol.), to direct all election officials, county commissioners, clerks of county commissioners, clerks of circuit courts, boards of ballot commissioners, election commissioners, and poll clerks associated with the administration of the general election in the Third Judicial Circuit to disregard and refrain from tallying, tabulating, certifying, or returning any vote cast, absentee, write-in, or otherwise, for respondent George Douglas Donnahoe. Writ granted.

67f6fd1cf6f555c3e2abe3195be55300578a7a7d972e4446881b903946c9a898

1984-10-11 00:00:00

448ac01c-5113-4296-9bb7-bc088f55c91b

SER Council of the City v. Hall

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

SER Council of the City v. Hall Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1994 Term ___________ No. 22067 ___________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON; LINDA NIELSON; AND WEST VIRGINIA WASTE SERVICES, INC., Petitioners v. KENT STRANGE HALL, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, Respondent ___________________________________________________ Petition for Writ of Mandamus WRIT GRANTED ___________________________________________________ Submitted: January 11, 1994 Filed: February 18, 1994 Webster J. Arceneaux, III Lewis, Friedberg, Glasser, Casey & Rollins Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for Petitioners, Council of the City of Charleston and Linda Nielson Robert D. Pollitt Michael J. Funk Steptoe & Johnson Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for Petitioner, West Virginia Waste Services, Inc. Thomas M. Hayes Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for Respondent JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 does not preclude a contract for a term of twenty-five years whereby a city is obligated to pay a fee for solid waste disposal when that fee comes from a special fund collected by the city for such solid waste disposal. 2. The provisions of an agreement which provide a city the option of buying back improvements made to its solid waste facility at certain years of the agreement or when the City chooses to prematurely terminate the agreement, do not violate W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 or W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963] since the City decides when or if it will buy back the improvements to the solid waste facility. However, if the City chooses to buy back the improvements made to the solid waste facility it must do so without violating W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 or W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963]. 3. "A writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements coexist--(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy." Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W. Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969). McHugh, Justice: The petitioners, the Council of the City of Charleston (hereinafter the Council), Linda Nielson (a member of the Council, and a citizen, taxpayer, and voter of the City), and West Virginia Waste Services, Inc. (hereinafter West Virginia Waste), seek a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, the Mayor of Charleston, Kent Strange Hall, to execute, on behalf of the City of Charleston, the agreement, which is attached to the petition, between the City of Charleston and West Virginia Waste. The petitioners contend that the agreement is necessary to perform the required twelve to sixteen million dollar upgrade of the City's existing solid waste facility, and to continue its operation after the September 30, 1994 legislatively imposed deadline for the closing of all unlined solid waste facilities within West Virginia. The respondent declines to execute the agreement until this Court determines whether or not the agreement creates an unconstitutional debt in violation of the West Virginia Constitution art. X, § 8 or in violation of W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963]. This Court issued a writ of mandamus by an order dated January 27, 1994, directing the respondent to execute the agreement between the City of Charleston and West Virginia Waste. We indicated in the January 27, 1994 order that this opinion would follow explaining why we find that the agreement does not create an unconstitutional debt nor violate W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963]. I The City has operated a solid waste facility, more commonly known as a landfill, for twenty years. However, due to amendments of the West Virginia solid waste laws, the City is required to have its solid waste facility upgraded and in compliance with the more stringent environmental laws by September 30, 1994, or the facility will be required to cease operations. See W. Va. Code, 20-5F-8 [1993]. The City explored various options to raise the necessary capital to upgrade its solid waste facility, but concluded that its only option was to contract out the operation of the facility. West Virginia Waste was selected to negotiate an agreement to provide for the construction, operation, and management of the City's solid waste facility. On November 1, 1993, the Council approved the terms and conditions of the agreement and directed the mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. On December 6, 1993, the Council approved amendments to the agreement and directed the mayor to execute the agreement as amended. The agreement provides that the City, for 25 years, shall dispose of all solid waste collected by the City within the City at the solid waste facility operated by West Virginia Waste. In consideration for West Virginia Waste accepting and disposing of the waste, the City is to pay a certain rate for each ton of waste delivered to the facility. Additionally, the agreement provides that in the event the agreement is terminated before the expiration of the twenty-five-year term by the happening of certain enumerated events, the City shall purchase from West Virginia Waste the improvements made to its solid waste facility by West Virginia Waste.See footnote 1 The mayor wrote a letter dated December 14, 1993, to the Council informing it of his refusal to execute the agreement since he was concerned that the agreement may create an unlawful debt in violation of W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 or in violation of W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963]. In response to the mayor's letter the petitioners filed the petition for a writ of mandamus which is the subject of this opinion. The respondent was provided an opportunity to respond to such rule. After oral argument before this Court, the parties made certain modifications to the agreement on January 18, 1994, and forwarded those modifications to this Court by a letter dated January 20, 1994. When we refer to the agreement in this opinion, we are referring to the agreement with the January 18, 1994 modifications. There are three issues which this Court considered when we issued the writ of mandamus compelling the mayor to execute the agreement between the City of Charleston and West Virginia Waste. II The first issue is whether entry by the City into a contract whereby, for a term of twenty-five years, the City is obligated to dispose of all solid waste collected by it within the City at the solid waste facility operated by West Virginia Waste and is obligated to pay a certain rate for each ton of solid waste so handled violates W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 or W. Va. Code, 11-8- 26 [1963]. W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 states: § 8 . No county, city, school district, or municipal corporation, except in cases where such corporations have already authorized their bonds to be issued, shall hereafter be allowed to become indebted, in any manner, or for any purpose to an amount, including existing indebtedness, in the aggregate, exceeding five per centum on the value of the taxable property therein to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county taxes, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness; nor without, at the same time, providing for the collection of a direct annual tax on all taxable property therein, in the ratio, as between the several classes or types of such taxable property, specified in section one of this article, [W. Va. Const. art. X, § 1 concerns taxation and finance] separate and apart from and in addition to all other taxes for all other purposes, sufficient to pay, annually, the interest on such debt, and the principal thereof, within, and not exceeding thirty-four years. . . . Provided, that no debt shall be contracted under this section, unless all questions connected with the same, shall have been first submitted to a vote of the people, and have received three fifths of all the votes cast for and against the same. W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963] states: Except as provided in sections fourteen- b, twenty-five-a and twenty-six-a [§§ 11-8- 14b, 11-8-25a and 11-8-26a]See footnote 2 of this article, a local fiscal body shall not expend money or incur obligations: (1) In an unauthorized manner; (2) For an unauthorized purpose; (3) In excess of the amount allocated to the fund in the levy order; (4) In excess of the funds available for current expenses. Notwithstanding the foregoing and any other provision of law to the contrary, a local fiscal body or its duly authorized officials shall not be penalized for a casual deficit which does not exceed its approved levy estimate by more than three per cent, provided such casual deficit be satisfied in the levy estimate for the succeeding fiscal year. (footnote added). The constitutional provision and statute, quoted above, limit a municipality's power to contract for a debt without voter approval and are very similar to the limitations placed on the State's ability to contract a debt under W. Va. Const. art. X, § 4.See footnote 3 As the petitioners point out, historically, this Court has held: Long term contracts for the purchase of necessary services, such as electricity and water, have long been held not to violate constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting municipal corporations from incurring indebtedness, when the agreements specify that periodic installments will be paid as the service is furnished. Those contracts do not create a present indebtedness for the aggregate of all installments for the term of the contracts contrary to the municipal debt limitation provisions of [W.Va. Const. art. X, § 8 and W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963]], but are obligations that mature periodically as each installment comes due. State ex rel. W. Va. Resource Recovery v. Gill, 174 W. Va. 109, 114, 323 S.E.2d 590 , 595 (1984), overruled, in part, on other grounds, Winkler v. School Bldg. Authority, 189 W. Va. 748, ___, 434 S.E.2d 420, 429 (1993). However, this Court stressed in Appalachian Electric Power Co. v. State Road Commission, 117 W. Va. 200, 203, 185 S.E. 223, 225 (1936), that the payments due for the first year under the contracts for the purchase of necessary services must be made from the municipality's current levy. Today solid waste disposal is a necessary service which is heavily regulated in order to protect the environment. Therefore, like contracts for water and electricity the contract for solid waste disposal, which is paid in installments as the service is furnished, does not violate constitutional or statutory provisions prohibiting municipal corporations from incurring indebtedness as long as the payments for the first year under the contract could be made from current revenue. We note that the case before us is distinguishable from the contracts for a necessary service which are paid from a municipality's general fund, because the agreement in the case before us specifies that the city will pay West Virginia Waste's services out of a special fund which is "comprised of revenue derived by the City from charges for refuse disposal services[.]" Agreement ¶ 5.02, in part.See footnote 4 However, as the petitioners correctly point out, this Court has also approved the payment of revenue bonds that are liquidated out of a special fund. See Winkler, 189 W. Va. at ___, 434 S.E.2d at 429. In Winkler, which involves the State's ability to contract a debt under W. Va. Const. art. X, § 4, this Court explained the rationale of the special fund doctrine: First, the special fund doctrine is based on the fact that a specific source of revenue is required to be identified and committed to the repayment of the bonds beyond mere annual appropriations from the general revenue fund. Second, by identifying and dedicating this specific source of funds, the process automatically limits the total value of bonds that can be used. Id. at ___, 434 S.E.2d at 430 (emphasis in original). Although the case before us does not involve revenue bonds the rationale given in Winkler for the special fund doctrine is applicable to the case before us. The City of Charleston has identified a specific source of revenue other than funds from the general revenue fund to pay for West Virginia Waste's services. As we noted earlier, West Virginia Waste's services will be paid from a fund "comprised of revenue derived by the City from charges for refuse disposal services[.]" Agreement ¶ 5.02, in part. Furthermore, the money collected will limit the total amount that can be spent on the services provided by West Virginia Waste. Although there are no bonds which will be retired in the case before us, the situation where a special fund is used to retire a bond is strikingly similar to the situation where a special fund is used to pay for a long- term service. Accordingly, we hold that W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 does not preclude a contract for a term of twenty-five years whereby a city is obligated to pay a fee for solid waste disposal when that fee comes from a special fund collected by the city for such solid waste disposal. III The second issue, as framed by the petitioners, is whether entry by the City into a contract whereby, upon premature termination of the agreement caused by the happening of certain contingencies, the City is obligated to purchase the capital investments, minus accumulated depreciation, made to the solid waste facility by West Virginia Waste violates W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 or W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963]. This issue is the more difficult issue. The agreement has two sections which outline when the City may buy back the improvements made to the solid waste facility. Under ¶ 5.20 of the agreement, the City has the option to buy back the improvements at years five and ten of the agreement. Under ¶ 5.21 of the agreement, the City will buy back the improvements if it chooses to terminate the agreement because West Virginia Waste fails to provide a financial assurance of performance (i.e., performance bond) or if West Virginia Waste defaults (meaning West Virginia Waste has failed to perform its duties adequately) under the agreement. Therefore, the buy-back provisions only become operative when the City decides to make those provisions operative. The petitioners provide a detailed discussion of what they designate as the contingent liability doctrine. Their argument is that merely incurring a contingent future liability does not create an indebtedness which falls within the scope of the constitutional limitations. The rationale is that if the liability is contingent there is no way of knowing whether there will be a debt. Furthermore, if the contingency occurs and there is a debt, there is no way of knowing what the amount of the debt will be. The following discussion from The Law of Municipal Corporations indicates that there is no bright-line standard on when a contingent liability creates an indebtedness: Merely incurring a contingent future liability does not create an indebtedness. Thus, a contract to pay a fixed price annually, where contingent on the supply furnished, does not create an indebtedness. But it is held in some jurisdictions that a debt payable upon a contingency, as upon the happening of some event, such as the rendering of service or delivery of property, is no less a debt, and therefore, within the constitutional prohibition. 15 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 41.23 (3d ed. 1985) (footnotes omitted). Additionally, we could not find a case nor have the parties provided us with a case which sets forth parameters on when a contingent future liability is a debt subject to constitutional limitations. The petitioners argue that in the case before us the contingency is not likely to occur. However, what if the contingency is more than likely to occur? Will the debt not be subject to constitutional limitations? If it is not subject to constitutional limitations will that open the door to municipalities creatively by-passing the constitutional limitations on debt? The contingent liability doctrine is confusing and cannot easily be put into some sort of standard. In many of the cases cited by the petitioners, the City has no control over the contingency. Instead, some outside event controls when the contingency implements the debt. For instance, in Woodmansee v. Kansas City, 144 S.W.2d 137 (Mo. 1940) a city ordinance authorized the issuance of bonds to finance improvements of the city market. The bonds were payable from the income of the market. However, if the market's income was insufficient to both retire the bonds and pay for the market's operation and repair, then the City would pay for the operation and repair of the market from its general revenues. The court in Woodmansee found that the City's obligation to pay was contingent upon the insufficiency of the market's income; therefore, the obligation was not an unconstitutional debt. See also Davidson v. City of Elmira, 44 N.Y.S.2d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943), aff'd, 46 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943), appeal denied, 47 N.Y.S.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944) (city paid for housing project from proceeds of project, but guaranteed funds if proceeds from project were insufficient); Pearson v. Salt Lake County, 346 P.2d 155 (Utah 1959) (county guaranteed payment of improvement bonds if collections from assessed properties would be insufficient to pay the bond debt); Kelly v. City of Sunnyside, 11 P.2d 230 (Wash. 1932) (city guaranteed payment of improvement bonds if bonds could not be paid by local assessment funds). In Woodmansee the market's income was the force which determined whether the City would contribute to the retirement of the bonds. Unlike the case before us, the City in Woodmansee did not control when such contribution would be made to retire the bonds. The City of Charleston chooses when and if it will buy back the improvements to its solid waste facility. The buy-back provisions are not implemented by some outside event which is beyond the City's control.See footnote 5 Because we find that a decision which turns on the contingent liability doctrine is not necessary in this case, we decline to further address the doctrine in this opinion.See footnote 6 Accordingly, we hold that the provisions of an agreement which provide a city the option of buying back improvements made to its solid waste facility at certain years of the agreement or when the City chooses to prematurely terminate the agreement, do not violate W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 or W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963] since the City decides when or if it will buy back the improvements to the solid waste facility. However, if the City chooses to buy back the improvements made to the solid waste facility it must do so without violating W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 or W. Va. Code, 11- 8-26 [1963]. IV The last issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus. In syllabus point 2 of State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W. Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969), this Court stated: "A writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements coexist--(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy." It is well established that "public officers, or boards of officers, may maintain proceedings in mandamus to compel other officers to perform ministerial acts, which come within the scope of their supervision or which are necessary to be performed in order to enable such officer or board to perform its own duties." State ex rel. Board of Education v. Cavendish, 81 W. Va. 266, 266- 67, 94 S.E. 149 (1917) (citations omitted). The mayor has a ministerial duty to execute the agreement. W. Va. Code, 8-10-1 [1976] states, in pertinent part, that "the mayor of every municipality . . . shall see that the ordinances, orders, bylaws, acts, resolutions, rules and regulations of the governing body thereof are faithfully executed." Additionally, § 15 of the Charter of the City of Charleston provides, in part, that "the mayor . . . shall . . . perform such . . . duties as the council may require of [him]." The Council was acting under its authority to construct and maintain facilities for solid waste disposal set forth in W.Va. Code, 8-12-5(10) and (11) [1989] when it negotiated the agreement with West Virginia Waste. Therefore, the Council can require the mayor to execute the agreement. Furthermore, we find that the petitioners are entitled to have the agreement executed since it does not violate the debt provision of the Constitution. Additionally, since there is no other adequate remedy, we find that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the mayor to execute the agreement. V In conclusion, the agreement does not violate W. Va. Const. art. X, § 8 or W. Va. Code, 11-8-26 [1963]. However, if the City of Charleston opts to buy back the improvements under ¶ 5.20 of the agreement or chooses to buy back the improvements because it has chosen to terminate the agreement because West Virginia Waste has defaulted or failed to provide an adequate financial assurance of performance, then the City of Charleston must make sure that the buying of the improvements does not violate the Constitution. Writ granted. Footnote: 1Without going into any detail, ¶ 5.21 of the agreement provides that the purchase price of the improvements will be the capital investment to date less accumulated depreciation plus seven percent. Footnote: 2W. Va. Code, 11-8-14b [1963] concerns the levy of additional tax. W. Va. Code, 11-8-25a [1958] concerns the right of a county commission to expend surplus funds for equalization and revaluation. W. Va. Code, 11-8-26a [1963] concerns the revision of levy estimates. Footnote: 3W. Va. Const. art. X, § 4 states: No debt shall be contracted by this State, except to meet casual deficits in the revenue, to redeem a previous liability of the State, to suppress insurrection, repel invasion or defend the State in time of war; but the payment of any liability other than that for the ordinary expenses of the State, shall be equally distributed over a period of at least twenty years. Footnote: 4¶ 5.02 of the agreement states, in full: 5.02. City to Establish Separate Fund. In order to meet its obligations under this Agreement, the City shall establish a separate fund by Ordinance for the payment of the agreed rates scheduled to be paid for the disposal of solid waste under this Agreement. The City is expressly limited to payment of the rates for waste disposal at the solid waste facility from the separate fund established for that purpose. Said separate fund shall be comprised of revenue derived by the City from charges for refuse disposal services and said charges shall remain at sums sufficient to meet the City's obligations under this Agreement. Footnote: 5This Court finds the City's control to be significant. Before oral arguments on the case before us, the agreement stated that if a governmental entity took any action which precluded the operation of the solid waste facility, then the agreement would terminate and the city would have to buy back the improvements. The parties deleted that provision after this Court expressed serious reservations about the constitutionality of any entity other than the City determining when the buy-back provisions of the agreement would become operative. If such a provision were in the agreement then the threat of a debt which exceeds constitutional and statutory limits would be greater since the City would be unable to determine when it could afford to buy back the improvements to the solid waste facility. Footnote: 6Previously, this Court, in dicta, discussed the doctrine in Allison v. City of Chester, 69 W. Va. 533, 536, 72 S.E. 472, 473 (1911) and Spilman v. City of Parkersburg, 35 W. Va. 605, 614, 14 S.E. 279, 282 (1891), in which it was not necessary to those decisions. The court inferred that it would find a contingent future liability a debt. As a result, the dicta in those cases was noted in the petition in this case.

66587b37e7d3f73ffbdd2f3717127da167618b035073e6f5ee7476761ff1c8d6

1994-02-18 00:00:00

b0bb9fe0-c351-4389-badf-2d5f053776eb

In Re: L., Jeffrey R., Juvenile

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

In Re: L., Jeffrey R., Juvenile Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1993 Term ___________ No. 21535 ___________ IN RE: JEFFREY R. L., JUVENILE ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mineral County Honorable C. Reeves Taylor, Judge Civil Action No. 91-J-58 REVERSED ___________________________________________________ Submitted: April 7, 1993 Filed: June 14, 1993 Jane Moran Williamson, West Virginia Guardian ad litem V. Alan Riley Keyser, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellee, Gail L. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. Attorney General Charlene A. Vaughan Senior Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources James E. Smith Keyser, West Virginia Guardian ad litem below, Appellee Cinda L. Scales Askin, Burke & Schultz Martinsburg, West Virginia Attorney for Appellee, Jeffrey L. Kelley A. Kuhn Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Mineral County Keyser, West Virginia Amicus Curiae Mary M. Downey Facilities Review Panel Juvenile Justice Committee Charleston, West Virginia Amicus Curiae JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "'Termination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy under the statutory provision covering the disposition of neglected children, W. Va. Code, 49-6-5 [1977] may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood under W. Va. Code, 49-6-5(b) [1977] that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.' Syllabus Point 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980)." Syllabus point 4, In re Jonathan P., 182 W. Va. 302, 387 S.E.2d 537 (1989). 2. "W. Va. Code, 49-1-3(a) (1984), in part, defines an abused child to include one whose parent knowingly allows another person to commit the abuse. Under this standard, termination of parental rights is usually upheld only where the parent takes no action in the face of knowledge of the abuse or actually aids or protects the abusing parent." Syl. pt. 3, In re Betty J.W., 179 W.Va. 605, 371 S.E.2d 326 (1988). 3. Parental rights may be terminated where there is clear and convincing evidence that the infant child has suffered extensive physical abuse while in the custody of his or her parents, and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected because the perpetrator of the abuse has not been identified and the parents, even in the face of knowledge of the abuse, have taken no action to identify the abuser. 4. "In a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to W. Va. Code, 49-6-1 to 49-6-10, as amended, a guardian ad litem, appointed pursuant to W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a), as amended, must exercise reasonable diligence in carrying out the responsibility of protecting the rights of the children. This duty includes exercising the appellate rights of the children, if, in the reasonable judgment of the guardian ad litem, an appeal is necessary." Syl. pt. 3, In re Scottie D., 185 W. Va. 191, 406 S.E.2d 214 (1991). 5. Each child in an abuse and neglect case is entitled to effective representation of counsel. To further that goal, W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a) [1992] mandates that a child has a right to be represented by counsel in every stage of abuse and neglect proceedings. Furthermore, Rule XIII of the West Virginia Rules for Trial Courts of Record provides that a guardian ad litem shall make a full and independent investigation of the facts involved in the proceeding, and shall make his or her recommendations known to the court. Rules 1.1 and 1.3 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, respectively, require an attorney to provide competent representation to a client, and to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. The Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem in Abuse and Neglect cases, which are adopted in this opinion and attached as Appendix A, are in harmony with the applicable provisions of the West Virginia Code, the West Virginia Rules for Trial Courts of Record, and the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, and provide attorneys who serve as guardians ad litem with direction as to their duties in representing the best interests of the children for whom they are appointed. McHugh, Justice: Jane Moran, who was appointed as guardian ad litem to represent Jeffrey R.L. in this appeal,See footnote 1 seeks review of an order of the Circuit Court of Mineral County which transferred physical custody of Jeffrey R.L. to his mother, Gail L., and directed the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (hereinafter "DHHR") to monitor the situation with home visits. The guardian ad litem asserts that: (1) the circuit court erred in failing to terminate the parental rights of Jeffrey R.L.'s parents; (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in returning Jeffrey R.L. to his mother's custody without substantial evidence to support the ruling; and (3) Jeffrey R.L.'s best interests were not adequately represented before the circuit court. The Facilities Review Panel, commonly known as the Juvenile Justice Committee, has filed an amicus curiae brief urging this Court to adopt guidelines for attorneys who represent children in abuse and neglect cases to follow in order to ensure effective representation of their clients in those proceedings. I At the outset, we point out that it is necessary to set forth the facts before us in detail because of the nature of this proceeding and the decision we make. Gail L. gave birth to Jeffrey R.L. on May 23, 1991. Jeffrey's birth was a normal vaginal delivery; however, Jeffrey suffers from hemangioma, an overgrowth of blood vessels on the back of his neck. He has been receiving treatment from Bilal Itani, M.D. for his hemangioma and recurring vomiting since his birth. X-rays of Jeffrey were taken for his medical problems on May 24, 1991 and July 26, 1991. These x-rays revealed no trauma or fractures.See footnote 2 Gail L. arranged for Jeffrey R.L. to be examined again by Dr. Itani on August 30, 1991, because he was not moving his right arm in the same way he was moving his left arm. The x-rays taken by Dr. Itani revealed fractures to his skull, clavicle, ribs, arms and legs. Upon reviewing these x-rays, Dr. Itani arranged to have Jeffrey R.L. transferred to West Virginia University Hospital for further evaluation and treatment. Although Gail L. and her grandparents had asserted that the injuries were the result of a genetic bone disease, the staff at West Virginia University Hospital confirmed that Jeffrey R.L. had sustained fifteen fractures to his skull, clavicle, ribs, arms and legs, which were at various stages of healing, and that these fractures were not disease-related. The physicians instead diagnosed that Jeffrey was suffering from battered child syndrome. Upon receiving the diagnosis from West Virginia University Hospital, Grant Hospital, where Dr. Itani was employed, filed a report of child abuse with the Child Protective Services of the DHHR. On September 5, 1991, the DHHR worker assigned to the case, Barbara Mosier, and State Trooper Scott Goodnight went to Gail L.'s home to investigate the report of child abuse. Ms. Mosier found that Gail L., her husband Jeffrey L.,See footnote 3her grandmother and her grandfather were all caretakers of Jeffrey R.L. Gail L., who denied knowing the cause of Jeffrey's injuries, suggested that perhaps he sustained these injuries while rolling around in his crib. Upon examining the crib, however, Ms. Mosier observed that the inside of the crib was well-padded. By order dated September 9, 1991, the DHHR was granted emergency custody of Jeffrey R.L. The DHHR then filed a petition in the circuit court seeking to have the parental rights to Jeffrey R.L. terminated, and requesting that it be granted guardianship of him. A preliminary hearing on the petition was held before the circuit court on September 19, 1991. The DHHR presented two witnesses at the hearing, Ms. Mosier and William Thomas Corder, M.D., Jeffrey R.L.'s attending pediatric physician upon discharge from West Virginia University Hospital. The guardian ad litem before the trial court presented no testimony. Dr. Corder testified that Jeffrey R.L. was examined by a pediatric neurologist, a genetics expert, an orthopedist and an ophthalmologist. Dr. Corder testified that all of the experts consulted, with the exception of the ophthalmologist who only ruled out osteogenesis imperfecta,See footnote 4 concluded that Jeffrey R.L. was suffering from battered child syndrome.See footnote 5 Dr. Corder testified that it would be impossible for Jeffrey R.L. to have sustained all of his fractures from rolling around in his crib, that great force would be necessary to cause fractures of the ribs, and that the other fractures he sustained were "consistent with a twisting, torsion, shaking of limbs[.]"See footnote 6 Dr. Corder also testified that when he first saw Jeffrey R.L. he thought the child was blind because most three-month-old children enjoy looking at faces and Jeffrey R.L. did not look at his face.See footnote 7 After a few days of interacting with the nurses, however, Dr. Corder testified that Jeffrey R.L. "started regarding faces[.]" Ms. Mosier testified at the hearing that she became involved in the case following a referral from Grant Memorial Hospital. Ms. Mosier testified that she spoke with the physicians at West Virginia University Hospital who told her that they believed Jeffrey R.L. suffered from battered child syndrome. Ms. Mosier testified that she then spoke to both of the parents who stated that the child could have a bone disease that caused the fractures, that he could have hurt himself rolling around in his crib, or that he could have sustained the fractures during his delivery.See footnote 8 Ms. Mosier examined the child's crib and found it to be well-padded on the inside. Ms. Mosier then found out through the hospital that Jeffrey R.L. did not have a genetic bone disease, and that he had a normal delivery. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the court found probable cause to believe Jeffrey R.L. was an abused or neglected child, and concluded that temporary custody should be awarded to the DHHR. The court ordered controlled visitation and directed that the parents undergo psychological evaluations. Both parents were evaluated by Gregory Trainor, M.A., in October of 1991. With respect to Jeffrey R.L.'s father, Mr. Trainor reported that Jeffrey L. acknowledged that he experienced black-outs, but denied any recent violent behavior.See footnote 9 Mr. Trainor found that his "dissociative experiences are particularly disturbing and may represent some brief psychotic episodes." Mr. Trainor recommended that Jeffrey L. undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he needed medication. With respect to Jeffrey R.L.'s mother, Mr. Trainor believed that she had "at least some serious inattention difficulties" and that she was quite dependent on others.See footnote 10 Mr. Trainor suggested that her denial of problems indicates that she would not be "a very good candidate for counseling."See footnote 11 Mr. Trainer opined that it was "difficult to comprehend that this situation could have continued as long as it did in ones own home without some realization that there was some serious difficulty." Mr. Trainor further opined that "[t]he implication here is that [Gail L.] may be quite wrapped up in her own world and not ... able to focus resources on the care of this child." Mr. Trainor believed that it was very important to identify who caused Jeffrey R.L.'s injuries, and that Gail L.'s "apparent lack of serious motivation to uncover this does not augur well with this goal." An adjudication hearing was held on November 20, 1991, in response to the DHHR petition to have Jeffrey R.L. found to be an abused child. Both parents admitted at the hearing that some trauma to their child had occurred, but neither one of them admitted to harming the child or identified the abuser. The court found that Jeffrey R.L. was an abused child, granted the parents an improvement period and ordered custody to remain with DHHR during the improvement period. DHHR was also ordered to develop a treatment plan for the parents to complete during the improvement period. A hearing was held in January of 1992, at which time Mr. Trainor testified that he did not believe Gail L. was active in her child's abuse and that Gail L.'s grandfather had stated that Jeffrey L. confessed to abusing the child.See footnote 12 Mr. Trainor also stated that he would not be opposed to visitation between Gail L. and Jeffrey R.L. in her grandparents' home. The circuit court then entered an order continuing visitation twice a week, and ordered that if a treatment plan was not signed by the parties by February 10, 1992, then the parties would have to appear before the court for another hearing. The parties appeared before the circuit court again on March 20, 1992 and March 25, 1992, to consider Gail L.'s challenge to the amended treatment plan and to consider further progress in this matter. At the hearing, the DHHR pointed out that Gail L. continued to refuse to sign the treatment plan because she asserted that it failed to address future visitations with the child nor did it provide for ultimately returning the child to his home. At the hearing held on March 25, 1992, the court heard testimony from several witnesses. Vickie House, a family services specialist with Telamon Corporation, and Bobbie Harman, a case manager at Burlington Children's Placing Agency, testified at the hearing that Gail L.'s parenting skills had improved, and that they did not believe she would cause Jeffrey R.L. any harm. Ms. Harman, however, testified that she believed they still needed to identify who caused Jeffrey R.L.'s injuries. Ms. Mosier also testified at the March 25, 1992 hearing. Ms. Mosier stated that she believed it was the position of DHHR that unsupervised visitation between Jeffrey and his mother would not occur until the abuser was identified. Ms. Mosier testified that the initial treatment plan had to be modified because Gail L. and her husband, Jeffrey L., were getting a divorce and that it would effect the course of treatment. Ms. Mosier testified that Jeffrey L. had admitted that he has blackouts, and has attempted to hurt himself. Ms. Mosier stated that he acknowledged he needed treatment. Ms. Mosier testified that she had no "hard core evidence" that Jeffrey L. caused his son's injuries. However, Ms. Mosier clarified in her testimony that the statement made by Gail L.'s grandfather that Jeffrey L. confessed to Ms. Mosier that he had battered his son was not true. Ms. Mosier also testified that she had not had any problems in working with Jeffrey L. Ms. Mosier acknowledged that neither Gail L. nor Jeffrey L. had yet completed all of the Telamon program nor had they completed all of the required counseling. Jerry Borror, assistant supervisor for the DHHR, testified at the March 25, 1992 hearing that if the DHHR does not know who the perpetrator of the abuse is then they believe the child would be at risk to be placed back into the home. Unless the DHHR is satisfied that the perpetrator is identified, Mr. Borror testified that they would move to have the parental rights terminated. Mr. Borror testified that despite what Ms. House and Ms. Harman stated, he believed Gail L.'s parental rights should be terminated. Mr. Borror stated that he had no evidence that either Gail L. or Jeffrey L. caused Jeffrey R.L.'s injuries. At the conclusion of the hearing on March 25, 1992, the circuit court found that neither of the case plans developed by the DHHR were adequate and required the DHHR to present an amended treatment plan. The court further ordered that after Gail L.'s next counseling session with Mr. Trainor, she would be allowed an unsupervised weekend visitation with her son at her grandparents' house. The court stated that if the first unsupervised visitation was favorable, then another unsupervised weekend would be allowed at Gail L.'s home without her grandparents. In April of 1992, Jeffrey R.L. was hospitalized so that he could undergo surgery for his hemangioma, and therefore the unsupervised weekend visitation could not occur. The records from Jeffrey R.L.'s hospital stay indicate that he experienced stress because of a conflict between Gail L. and his foster mother over his feeding and care. In a letter dated April 7, 1992, the prosecuting attorney advised the circuit court that a social worker from the hospital contacted Beverly Hill, Jeffrey R.L.'s foster care worker, to inform her that Jeffrey does not eat well for Gail L. and that he became dehydrated during his hospital stay. The physicians at the hospital, therefore, directed the foster mother to be present while Gail L. was visiting her son. By letter dated April 13, 1992, Mr. Trainor advised the circuit court that, based on the incidents that occurred during Jeffrey R.L.'s hospital stay, he did not believe that the previously planned weekend visit with Gail L. and her grandparents was appropriate at that time. Mr. Trainor explained that [t]here have been interactions observed, between Gail and her grandparents, that suggest that Gail's care of the baby in their presence is a rather tension producing affair. The anxiety seems to be telegraphed to the baby, resulting in a decrease in his desire to take his formula. The weekend visitations . . . should not occur at the present time, pending stabilization in his condition. Another hearing concerning visitation was held on August 11, 1992. Trooper Goodnight, Gail L. and Beverly Hill, Jeffrey R.L.'s foster care worker, testified. Trooper Goodnight testified that he interviewed Harry Braithwaite, who made a statement regarding an incident he observed between Gail L. and Jeffrey L. while they were with Jeffrey R.L. in front of the "fire hall" in July of 1991. Mr. Braithwaite told Trooper Goodnight that when Jeffrey L. told Gail L. that the baby's diaper needed changing, Gail L. responded that she "ain't cleaning the damned kid." Trooper Goodnight also testified that he interviewed Charles Lee Riggleman, Jr., regarding his visit with Gail L. and Jeffrey L. at their trailer in August of 1991. Mr. Riggleman told the trooper that he went with Jeffrey L. to get the baby from Gail L.'s grandmother's house. When they went into the house to get Jeffrey R.L., Mr. Riggleman told Trooper Goodnight that Gail L.'s grandmother picked up Jeffrey R.L. by the right arm above the elbow and that Jeffrey "screamed" when she did this. Mr. Riggleman also told Trooper Goodnight that he saw Gail L. squeeze her son's chest in front of the fire hall when his diaper needed to be changed again a few minutes after it had been changed before, and that the baby cried as though he were in pain. Trooper Goodnight also testified that when he interviewed Jeffrey L., he believed that he was telling the truth. He further testified that when he interviewed Gail L., he had the impression that "something just wasn't right." Gail L. was questioned at the hearing about an argument she had with her grandfather. Gail L. testified that she and her grandfather were arguing over the remote control to the television and that he hit her in the nose. Gail L. went to the Burlington Fire Department where the rescue team is located to have someone look at her nose because she thought it was broken. Gail L. admitted that she told the EMT, Karen Davy, that she could not call the police because her grandfather told her if she called them, he would have her placed in jail. Ms. Hill, the foster care worker, testified that in observing Gail L. with her son, she seemed "a little nervous" and "uncomfortable" in handing him but that it was understandable in light of the fact that several people were watching her. She testified that both parents had been fulfilling the requirements of the case plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to terminate the parental rights of Gail L. and Jeffrey L., and directed them to schedule an appointment with Thomas Stein, Ed. D., for an evaluation.See footnote 13 In a progress summary dated August 11, 1992, Mr. Trainor reported that he had made no progress with Gail L. in determining who abused Jeffrey R.L. Mr. Trainor reported that, although Gail L. had made progress on her treatment plan and was attempting to gain more independence from her grandparents, his work with her "has been made difficult by the fact that no one has acknowledged involvement in [Jeffrey R.L.'s] abuse and that that problem has never been directly analyzed and dealt with." In a letter dated September 28, 1992, Vickie House of the Telamon Corporation stated that although Gail L. and Jeffrey L. had adequately completed their parenting classes, she could not recommend that Jeffrey R.L. be returned to the home until the person who inflicted the abuse is identified. By letter dated October 29, 1992, the Juvenile Justice Committee was contacted by Dr. Itani, who requested assistance in protecting Jeffrey R.L., and advised them of the proposed unrestricted visitation allowed by the circuit court's order in January, 1992. Dr. Itani wrote that he felt "the child's welfare has not been addressed adequately thus far." Dr. Itani believed that there was strong mother-child bonding between Jeffrey R.L. and his foster mother, and that he called her "mommy." In response to a request by Gail L., a status hearing was held on December 9, 1992. The circuit court denied the motion of the guardian ad litem for a stay of the proceedings until he could determine from the investigating officer, Dr. Itani and the foster mother their respective positions in this case. The circuit court then ordered that physical custody of Jeffrey R.L. be returned to his mother. The guardian ad litem did not request a stay of execution nor did he initiate an appeal with this Court. The matter has been appealed to this Court by a newly appointed guardian ad litem, Jane Moran, on behalf of Jeffrey R.L. II The first issue we shall address is whether the circuit court erred in failing to terminate the parental rights of Jeffrey R.L.'s parents, and whether the circuit court abused its discretion by returning custody of Jeffrey R.L. to his mother without sufficient evidence to support the ruling. The guardian ad litem asserts that the conditions giving rise to the abusive behavior cannot be substantially corrected when the perpetrator of the abuse has not been identified, and that the best interests of the child preclude returning his custody to either parent. Gail L. contends that: (1) there is insufficient evidence in the record to support termination of her parental rights; (2) there is no evidence that she was the abuser; and (3) she has fulfilled all of the requirements placed upon her by the circuit court and the DHHR. The DHHR contends that Jeffrey R.L. should not have been returned to his mother's custody until the perpetrator of the abuse had been identified and a determination of Gail L.'s ability to provide a safe environment for her son has been made. In the Court's analysis of child abuse and neglect cases, we must take into consideration the rights and interests of all of the parties in reaching an ultimate resolution of the issues before us. Although the rights of the natural parents to the custody of their child and the interests of the State as parens patriae merit significant consideration by this Court, the best interests of the child are paramount. Thus, as an initial matter, we emphasize that the health, safety, and welfare of Jeffrey R.L. must be our primary concern in analyzing the facts and issues before us. We shall begin our discussion by reviewing the rights of the natural parents to the custody of their children. Relying on the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 , 92 S. Ct. 1208, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1972), we acknowledged the constitutional right of the natural parents to the custody of their children in syllabus point 1 of In re Willis, 157 W. Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973): In the law concerning custody of minor children, no rule is more firmly established than that the right of a natural parent to the custody of his or her infant child is paramount to that of any other person; it is a fundamental personal liberty protected and guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of the West Virginia and United States Constitutions. While this Court has repeatedly recognized the constitutionally-protected right of the natural parent to the custody of his or her minor children, we have also emphasized that such right is not absolute. In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991); In re Scottie D., 185 W. Va. 191, 406 S.E.2d 214 (1991); Nancy Viola R. v. Randolph W., 177 W. Va. 710, 356 S.E.2d 464 (1987); In re Darla B., 175 W. Va. 137, 331 S.E.2d 868 (1985); In re Willis, supra. We explained the limits of the natural parent's right to custody of his or her minor children in In re Willis: "[T]his Court, early in the history of this State, recognized that the right of the natural parent to the custody of his child is not absolute; it is limited and qualified by the fitness of the parent to honor the trust of the guardianship and custody of the child. 157 W. Va. at 237-38, 207 S.E.2d at 137 (emphasis added). This Court has also identified the interests of the State where the issue of guardianship and custody of minor children is raised. We have recognized that the State, in its role of parens patriae, "is the ultimate protector of the rights of minors[,]" and "has a substantial interest in providing for their health, safety, and welfare, and may properly step in and do so when necessary." In re Betty J.W., 179 W. Va. 605, 608, 371 S.E.2d 326 , 329 (1988). While the State's parens patriae interests may favor preservation of the natural family bonds rather than severance of those bonds, "[t]he countervailing State interest in curtailing child abuse is also great." Id. We have, therefore, observed that "[i]n cases of suspected abuse or neglect, the State has a clear interest in protecting the child and may, if necessary, separate abusive or neglectful parents from their children." Id. Thus, a parent's right to custody of his or her children may be called into question by the State when there is evidence establishing that those children have been subject to abuse and neglect. W. Va. Code, 49-1-3(a)(1) [1992] defines an "[a]bused child" as "a child whose health or welfare is harmed or threatened by: (1) A parent, guardian or custodian who knowingly or intentionally inflicts, attempts to inflict, or knowingly allows another person to inflict, physical injury, or mental or emotional injury, upon the child or another child in the home[.]" This Court has recognized, in syllabus point 3 of In re Betty J.W., supra, that a parent who "takes no action in the face of knowledge of the abuse" to the child can have his or her parental rights terminated: W. Va. Code, 49-1-3(a) (1984), in part, defines an abused child to include one whose parent knowingly allows another person to commit the abuse. Under this standard, termination of parental rights is usually upheld only where the parent takes no action in the face of knowledge of the abuse or actually aids or protects the abusing parent. A parent's rights to custody of his or her child may also be terminated where there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect can be substantially corrected: 'Termination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy under the statutory provision covering the disposition of neglected children, W. Va. Code, 49-6-5 [1977] may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood under W. Va. Code, 49-6-5(b) [1977] that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.' Syllabus Point 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980). Syllabus point 4, In re Jonathan P., 182 W. Va. 302, 387 S.E.2d 537 (1989). Such termination of parental rights is even more appropriate in cases where the welfare of a child less than three years of age is seriously threatened and there is no reasonably likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected, as we recognized in syllabus point 1 of In re Darla B., 175 W. Va. 137, 331 S.E.2d 868 (1985): 'As a general rule the least restrictive alternative regarding parental rights to custody of a child under W. Va. Code, 49-6-5 [1977] will be employed; however, courts are not required to exhaust every speculative possibility of parental improvement before terminating parental rights where it appears that the welfare of the child will be seriously threatened, and this is particularly applicable to children under the age of three years who are more susceptible to illness, need consistent close interaction with fully committed adults, and are likely to have their emotional and physical development retarded by numerous placements.' Syl. pt. 1, In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980). Finally, the evidence upon which parental rights may be terminated must be clear and convincing. W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(c) [1992]; Nancy Viola R. v. Randolph W., 177 W. Va. at 715-16, 356 S.E.2d at 469-70 (citing cases). Relying upon the well-established principles stated above, we shall now review the facts before us in the present case. To begin with, during the first three months of his life, Jeffrey R.L. was in the care of his mother, father and maternal grandparents. At the helpless age of approximately three months, Jeffrey R.L. was brought to the hospital when his maternal grandparents showed Gail L. that he was not moving his right arm in the same manner he was moving his left.See footnote 14 X-rays revealed that Jeffrey R.L. suffered fifteen fractures to his skull, clavicle, ribs, arms and legs.See footnote 15 It is undisputed that Jeffrey R.L. suffered these extensive injuries as a result of physical abuse, and the physicians diagnosed him as suffering from battered child syndrome. Yet, his mother, Gail L., gave several possible explanations for the injuries to Jeffrey R.L. She stated that he could have suffered these injuries while he was rolling around in his crib. However, the crib was found by the social worker to be well-padded. Gail L. also stated that his injuries could be the result of a genetic bone disease from which her grandfather suffered.See footnote 16 Yet, after several tests were performed at West Virginia University Hospital, there was no indication that Jeffrey R.L. suffered from any bone disease. Furthermore, Gail L. offered the explanation that Jeffrey R.L. suffered his injuries during birth, despite the fact that the evidence in the record reveals Gail L. experienced a normal vaginal delivery. None of the evidence in the record supports any of Gail L.'s explanations of Jeffrey R.L.'s injuries.See footnote 17 Although Gail L. admitted to the circuit court at the hearing held on November 20, 1991, that some trauma had occurred to Jeffrey R.L., absent from the record is any evidence which would indicate that Gail L. made any attempts to identify her child's abuser. In fact, as previously noted in this opinion, Mr. Trainor, in his psychological report dated October 3, 1991, found that Gail L. showed "no emotionality about the loss of her child or apparent concern over [his] injuries except for some resentment over the way they had been treated by the physicians and by the Department of Human Services." He also observed that Gail had an "apparent lack of serious motivation to uncover" Jeffrey R.L.'s abuser. Although her grandfather had alleged that Jeffrey R.L.'s father had confessed to him and to a social worker that he had abused Jeffrey R.L., that allegation appears to be without foundation.See footnote 18 Even in the face of knowledge of her son's abuse, there is no indication in the record that Gail L. made any attempts to identify her son's abuser. At the time Jeffrey R.L. suffered these extreme injuries, he was under his mother's care and the care of those individuals with whom she entrusted him. Gail L. is aware of those individuals who cared for her child during the first three months of his life when he was subject to physical abuse; yet, she has never attempted to identify his abuser. Nearly two and one-half years have passed since Jeffrey R.L. suffered his injuries. By failing to even attempt to identify his abuser during this two and one-half-year period, Gail L. has not shown that she is fully committed to the welfare of her child.See footnote 19 Establishing the identity of the person or persons who inflicted these injuries on Jeffrey R.L. is crucial to his health, safety and welfare. Ms. Mosier, Mr. Trainor, Ms. Harman, Mr. Borror and Ms. House have all stated that Jeffrey R.L. should not be returned to either parent until the perpetrator of his abuse has been identified. Yet, despite the fact that the perpetrator has not been identified, the circuit court returned custody of Jeffrey R.L. to his mother. We find that the circuit court clearly erred in returning Jeffrey R.L. to his mother before the perpetrator who inflicted such extensive physical abuse on this helpless infant has been identified. There is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected because the perpetrator of Jeffrey R.L.'s physical abuse has not been identified. Jeffrey R.L., due to his young age and physical condition, needs consistent close interaction with fully committed adults. Jeffrey R.L.'s health, safety and welfare would be seriously threatened if he were to be placed back into the environment where he suffered extensive physical injuries when his abuser has not been identified. Therefore, because it appears that Jeffrey R.L.'s abuser will never be identified, this Court will not place him back into the environment where he suffered his abuse. We find that: (1) continuation in Jeffrey R.L.'s home is not in his best interests because his abuser has not been identified; (2) reunification between Jeffrey R.L. and his parents is not in his best interests because his parents have not identified his abuser; and (3) the state department made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, drafted a treatment plan Gail L. refused to sign, arranged for Gail L. and Jeffrey L. to complete a parental training program, and monitored the case. See W. Va. Code, 49-6-5 [1992]. Rather than prolong these proceedings, we believe there is clear and convincing evidence before us to warrant terminating parental rights. Thus, this Court believes that in order to safeguard Jeffrey R.L.'s well being, Gail L.'s parental rights to Jeffrey R.L. should be terminated. In summary, we hold that parental rights may be terminated where there is clear and convincing evidence that the infant child has suffered extensive physical abuse while in the custody of his or her parents, and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected because the perpetrator of the abuse has not been identified and the parents, even in the face of knowledge of the abuse, have taken no action to identify the abuser. Accordingly, the parental rights of Gail L. and Jeffrey L. to their son, Jeffrey R.L., are hereby terminated.See footnote 20 The guardian ad litem shall continue to represent Jeffrey R.L. until he is adopted or placed into a permanent home. If the guardian ad litem is unable to continue representing Jeffrey R.L., another guardian ad litem will be appointed. III By the very nature of the painful issues involved, abuse and neglect cases are troublesome to this Court. Despite our efforts to give the highest priority to child abuse and neglect cases, we have yet to find viable solutions to all of the problems which arise in these cases. As a result, we continue to explore stronger approaches to facilitate the fair and expeditious handling of child abuse and neglect cases. The Juvenile Justice Committee has brought to this Court's attention the problems which commonly arise with the representation of children by guardians ad litem in abuse and neglect proceedings. Quite often children do not get adequate representation because the guardians ad litem have not been given proper direction as to their role in representing the child in abuse and neglect proceedings. Thus, to further our goal of protecting the interests of children who suffer from abuse and neglect, the Juvenile Justice Committee has proposed that this Court adopt guidelines for guardians ad litem to follow in order to provide children in abuse and neglect proceedings with adequate representation. In suggesting the guidelines, the Juvenile Justice Committee represents that it has relied upon our state Code, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules of Civil Procedure for Trial Courts of Record and case law. The Juvenile Justice Committee has also consulted other sources such as: (1) the Department Advisory Committee of the Fourth Department Law Guardian Program in New York, Guidelines for Law Guardians/Abuse and Neglect Proceedings; (2) the National Association of Counsel for Children, Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem in Abuse and Neglect Cases; and (3) the New York State Bar Association's study, Jane Knitzer & Merrill Sobie, Law Guardians in New York State: A Study of the Legal Representation of Children (1984). As a brief background, we believe that two studies which were performed, one in North Carolina See footnote 21 and the other in New York,See footnote 22 to evaluate programs that provide children with attorneys in protection proceedings, illustrate why there is concern about the performance of guardians ad litem in child abuse and neglect cases. Robert F. Kelly & Sarah H. Ramsey, Monitoring Attorney Performance and Evaluating Program Outcomes: A Case Study of Attorneys For Abused and Neglected Children, 40 Rutgers L. Rev. 1217, 1231 (1988). First, the North Carolina study found, among other things, that experienced attorneys who knew how to represent their child clients and worked hard, spoke with their clients, and involved themselves in the negotiating and fact-finding, had a beneficial influence in the outcome of the case. However, the North Carolina study found that these experienced, hard-working attorneys were in the minority.See footnote 23 Kelly & Ramsey, 40 Rutgers L. Rev. at 1239. Among the findings of the New York study were that law guardians are uncertain about what is expected of them and that they "feel that they need assistance in their work, in particular, regular briefings on case law and legislation, and access to independent social work and mental health professionals." Kelly & Ramsey, supra at 1246. The results of both studies lead to the conclusion that there should be "greater accountability in the performance of individual attorneys, . . . systematic and continuing evaluations of program outcomes, and . . . enhanced efforts geared toward implementing and testing new approaches to representing children in protection proceedings." Kelly & Ramsey, supra at 1250 (footnote omitted). More recently, the Colorado Bar Association Family Law Section and Juvenile Law Forum established a Joint Guardian Ad Litem Standards Committee for the purpose of developing proposed standards for guardians ad litem because of increasing dissatisfaction with the inadequate representation of children and the lack of direction given to the guardians ad litem.See footnote 24 Marie Walton & Donna Schmalberger, Standards of Practice for Guardians ad Litem, 12 ABA Juv. & Ch. Wel'f L. Rptr. pp. 13-16 (March 1993). The goals and requirements of the standards adopted by Colorado's Joint Guardian Ad Litem Committee substantially reflect those of the guidelines proposed in other jurisdictions. Those goals and requirements are succinctly stated under the "Guardian ad Litem Mission Statement" included at the beginning of the standards, where the Committee summarized the role of the guardian ad litem and outlined the categories under which the standards are set forth:See footnote 25 The guardian ad litem [GAL] plays an important role in legal outcomes affecting children . . . . The GAL should take an active role in presenting evidence regarding the child's well-being. Therefore, it is appropriate to describe generally the rights and responsibilities of the attorney who assumes this office. The GAL does not necessarily represent a child's desires but should formulate an independent position regarding relevant issues. To safeguard a child's well being, a GAL must render recommendations. 1. Attorney of Record : The GAL assumes a pivotal professional role in litigation. As an attorney of record in the case, the GAL is entitled to be treated professionally with respect and courtesy. 2. Litigation : The GAL shall have the right to and should actively participate and be included in all aspects of litigation including, but not limited to, discovery, motions practice, settlement negotiations, court appearances, jury selection, presentation of evidence and appeals. 3. Education : GAL practice is unique and complex and, as such, requires special education, training and experience with regard to the needs of children. 4. Investigation : The GAL shall conduct a thorough and independent investigation. The GAL shall meet with the child. Relevant evidence should be developed and presented to the court. The GAL may conduct interview[s] with other relevant persons and review exhibits as the GAL deems appropriate. Other parties should fully cooperate with the GAL as the investigation is conducted. 5. Recommendations : The GAL should render informed and independent recommendations which serve the child's best interests. The child's wishes should be considered by the GAL, but need not be adopted by the GAL unless doing so serves the child's best interests. 6. Compensation : The GAL shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered. The court, in recognition of the important role of the GAL, shall encourage timely payment of the fees and costs to the GAL. All of the guidelines we have reviewed attempt to provide guardians ad litem with comprehensive standards, like those in Colorado, so that there is little question as to the attorney's responsibilities in representing children. To begin with, the guidelines issued by the Departmental Advisory Committee of the Fourth Department Law Guardian Program set forth the role of the guardian, and set forth the guardian's responsibilities prior to the guardian's initial appearance, prior to and during the fact-finding hearing, at the predispositional and dispositional hearing, and after disposition. Next, the guidelines suggested by the National Association of Counsel for Children provide standards for an independent investigation by the guardian ad litem, preparation for hearings, and "helpful hints" to assist guardians ad litem. The standards developed as part of the New York study, Knitzer & Sobie, supra, set forth guidelines to be followed by the guardian ad litem prior to and during the fact-finding hearing, prior to and during the dispositional hearing, and after disposition. While the standards recommended in the case before us by the Juvenile Justice Committee conform with the standards discussed above, it is also important to ascertain whether these rules are in accord with applicable rules of practice and case law in West Virginia. In West Virginia, the role of guardian ad litem is generally stated in Rule XIII of the West Virginia Trial Court Rules for Trial Courts of Record, which provides, in pertinent part: In any proceeding in which a guardian ad litem is appointed, such guardian ad litem shall be selected independently of any nomination by the parties or counsel. Any guardian ad litem shall make a full and independent investigation of the facts involved in the proceeding; and either by his testimony made of record, or by full and complete answer therein, make known to the court his [or her] recommendations, concerning the action sought in the proceedings unless otherwise ordered or instructed by the court. Although this Court has not previously adopted guidelines for guardians ad litem, we have addressed a child's right to independent counsel in child abuse and neglect cases in State v. Scritchfield, 167 W. Va. 683, 280 S.E.2d 315 (1981),See footnote 26 and the role of guardians ad litem in child abuse and neglect cases in In re Scottie D., 185 W. Va. 191, 406 S.E.2d 214 (1991). We recognized in In re Scottie D., that the guardian ad litem is responsible for securing the infant's rights, and that "[s]ecuring the infant's rights includes taking an assertive role and, if in the judgment of the guardian ad litem, a case so warrants, prosecuting an appeal." 185 W. Va. at 198, 406 S.E.2d at 221. We summarized the guardian ad litem's role in child abuse and neglect cases in syllabus point 3 of In re Scottie D.: In a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to W. Va. Code, 49-6-1 to 49-6-10, as amended, a guardian ad litem, appointed pursuant to W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a), as amended, must exercise reasonable diligence in carrying out the responsibility of protecting the rights of the children. This duty includes exercising the appellate rights of the children, if, in the reasonable judgment of the guardian ad litem, an appeal is necessary. We further elaborated in syllabus point 5 of James M. v. Maynard, 185 W. Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991), that "[t]he guardian ad litem's role in abuse and neglect proceedings does not actually cease until such time as the child is placed in a permanent home." Finally, the proposed guidelines encompass some of the basic principles found under our Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, Rule 1.1 requires an attorney to "provide competent representation to a client" which "requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." Furthermore, Rule 1.3 requires a lawyer to "act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." We believe the guidelines proposed for guardians ad litem essentially reflect these basic rules of practice by which each attorney is bound. In summary, each child in an abuse and neglect case is entitled to effective representation of counsel. To further that goal, W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a) [1992] mandates that a child has a right to be represented by counsel in every stage of abuse and neglect proceedings. Furthermore, Rule XIII of the West Virginia Rules for Trial Courts of Record provides that a guardian ad litem shall make a full and independent investigation of the facts involved in the proceeding, and shall make his or her recommendations known to the court. Rules 1.1 and 1.3 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, respectively, require an attorney to provide competent representation to a client, and to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. The Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem in Abuse and Neglect cases, which are adopted in this opinion and attached as Appendix A, are in harmony with the applicable provisions of the West Virginia Code, the West Virginia Rules for Trial Courts of Record, and the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, and provide attorneys who serve as guardians ad litem with direction as to their duties in representing the best interests of the children for whom they are appointed. Therefore, this Court adopts these guidelines, effective within sixty days of the date of this opinion, to further ensure the adequate representation of children in abuse and neglect cases by court-appointed guardians ad litem.See footnote 27 By adopting the proposed guidelines in this case, we are providing guardians ad litem with fairly comprehensive standards which they can follow so that they may conduct an independent investigation of the case and present the child's position to the court. The guardians ad litem may use their discretion in acting under the guidelines because the applicability of each of the guidelines is dependent upon the facts of each case. In addition to the guidelines adopted herein, we believe attorneys who act as guardians ad litem should participate in special continuing legal education relating to the representation. The attorneys in this State are required under Chapter VII, section 5.2 of the Constitution, By-Laws and Rules and Regulations of the West Virginia State Bar to satisfy the following requirements: ¶ 5.2. After the above two year phase-in period, each active member of the state bar shall complete a minimum of twenty-four hours of continuing legal education, as approved by these rules or accredited by the Commission, every two fiscal years. At least three of such twenty-four hours shall be taken in courses on legal ethics or office management. On or before July 31, 1990, and every other July 31 thereafter, each attorney must file a report of completion of such activities. The commission recommends that such report be completed on Form C --- Certification of Completion of Approved MCLE Activity. Furthermore, W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a) [1992] provides that attorneys who represent children in abuse and neglect proceedings should complete a minimum of three hours of continuing legal education on representation of children in child abuse and neglect cases per year. Those three hours are merely included in the 24 hours of continuing legal education already required by the West Virginia State Bar. W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a) [1992] further provides that "where no attorney who has completed this training is available for such appointment, the court shall appoint a competent attorney with demonstrated knowledge of child welfare law to represent the child." We believe that, because the practice of guardians ad litem is rather unique, and at times complex, guardians ad litem need specialized education and training to fulfill their responsibilities. While this Court, rather than the legislature, controls the practice of law in this State,See footnote 28 we find that the three hour per year requirement of specialized continuing legal education under W. Va. Code, 49-6-2 [1992] is in accord with what this Court intends to be the practice for guardians ad litem. Therefore, we find that a minimum of three hours of continuing legal education per year, relating to representation of children, for guardians ad litem to complete is necessary to ensure the effective representation of children. IV Thus, for the reasons stated herein, we reverse the order of the Circuit Court of Mineral County returning custody of Jeffrey R.L. to his mother, Gail L., and terminate the parental rights of Gail L. and Jeffrey L. Furthermore, we adopt the Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem in Abuse and Neglect Cases, set forth in Appendix A, within sixty days of the date of this opinion. Reversed. APPENDIX A GUIDELINES FOR GUARDIANS AD LITEM IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES Initial Stages of Representation 1. Notify promptly the child and any caretaker of the child of the appointment of counsel and the means by which counsel can be contacted. 2. Contact the caseworker and review the caseworker's file and all relevant information. 3. Contact and interview persons such as older children, caseworkers, and caretakers who may have information with respect to the child and obtain names and addresses of hospital personnel, physicians, teachers, law enforcement, and other persons who may have pertinent information regarding the child and interview them. 4. Absent extraordinary circumstances and the child is three or under: a. If the child is in the care of someone other than the respondent(s), conduct interviews with the child's caretakers concerning the type of services the child is now receiving and the type of services the child needs and visit the child in the caretaker's home, making observations of the child or b. If the child is in the care of the respondent(s), request from the respondent(s)' attorney interviews with the respondent(s) concerning the child's care and the type of services the child needs and visit the child in his/her home, making observations of the child. If refused, ask for assistance of the court. 5. Absent extraordinary circumstances and the client is over three: a. If the child is in the care of someone other than respondent(s), conduct interviews with the child's caretakers concerning the type of services the child is now receiving and the type of services the child needs. b. If the child is in the care of someone other than the respondent(s), conduct interviews with the child in a manner and environment appropriate to the child's age and maturity to obtain facts concerning the alleged abuse or neglect and to determine the child's wishes and needs regarding temporary visitation and/or placement. c. If the child is in the care of the respondent(s), request from the respondent(s)' attorney interviews with the child out of the presence of the respondent(s) in a manner and environment appropriate to the child's age and maturity. It is essential that the guardian ad litem understand that the interview is for the purpose of gathering information not influencing information. If refused, ask the assistance of the court. 6. Provide to the child, his or her parents, and any caretaker notice of the petition and all subsequent motions. 7. Maintain contact with the child throughout the case and assure that s/he is receiving counseling, tutoring, or any other services needed to provide as much stability and continuity as possible under the circumstances. Preparation for and Representation at Adjudicatory and Dispositional Hearing 8. Pursue the discovery of evidence, formal and informal. 9. File timely and appropriate written motions such as motions for status conference, prompt hearing, evidentiary purpose, psychological examination, home study, and development and neurological study. 10. Evaluate any available improvement periods and actively assist in the formulation of an improvement period, where appropriate, and service plans. 11. Monitor the status of the child and progress of the parent(s) in satisfying the conditions of the improvement period by requiring monthly updates or status reports from agencies involved with the family. 12. Participate in any discussions regarding the proposed testimony of the child and, if it is determined that the child's testimony is necessary, strongly advocate for the testimony to be taken in a legally acceptable and emotionally neutral setting. 13. Maintain adequate records of documents filed in the case and of conversations with the client and potential witnesses. 14. Ensure that the child is not exposed to excessive interviews with the potential dangers inherent therein. Before multiple physical or psychological examinations are conducted, the requesting party must present to the judge evidence of a compelling need or reason considering: (1) the nature of the examination requested and the intrusiveness; (2) the victim's age; (3) the resulting physical and/or emotional effects of the examination on the victim; (4) the probative value of the examination to the issue before the court; (5) the remoteness in time of the examination; and (6) the evidence already available for the defendant's use. 15. Ensure that a child who is court ordered to be interviewed by a psychologist or psychiatrist is interviewed in the presence of the guardian ad litem attorney unless the court, after consulting the child's guardian ad litem, believes that the interview is best conducted without the guardian ad litem. 16. Subpoena witnesses for hearings or otherwise prepare testimony or cross-examination of witnesses and ensure that relevant material is introduced. 17. Review any predispositional report prepared for the court prior to the dispositional hearing and be prepared to submit another if the report is not consistent with all other appropriate evidence. 18. Apprise the court of the child's wishes. 19. Explain to the child, in terms the child can understand, the disposition. 20. Advocate a gradual transition period, in a manner intended to foster emotional adjustment whenever a child is to be removed from the custody of anyone with whom s/he has formed an important attachment. 21. Ensure that the court considers whether continued association with siblings in other placements is in the child's best interests and an appropriate order is entitled to preserve the rights of siblings to continued contact. 22. Ensure that the dispositional order contains provisions that direct the child protective agency to provide periodic reviews and reports. Post-Dispositional Representation 23. Inform the child of his/her right to appeal. 24. Exercise the appellate rights of the child, if under the reasonable judgment of the guardian ad litem, an appeal is necessary. 25. File a motion for modification of the dispositional order if a change of circumstances occurs for the child which warrants a modification or represent the child if said motion for modification is filed by any other party. 26. Continue to represent the child until such time as the child is adopted, placed in a permanent home, or the case is dismissed after an improvement period. Footnote: 1We follow our traditional practice in cases involving sensitive facts and use initials to identify the parties rather than their full names. See In re Scottie D., 185 W. Va. 191, 406 S.E.2d 214 (1991). Footnote: 2The x-ray report dated May 24, 1991, found a "[n]ormal newborn chest." The x-ray report dated July 26, 1991, stated that "[t]he organs, soft tissues, and bones appear normal as visualized. There is no evidence of fecal retention or bowel dilatation." Footnote: 3Jeffrey L. has represented to this Court that "he desires to remain mute" on the issue of whether the circuit court erred in returning Jeffrey R.L. to his mother, and requests that this Court decide this issue based upon the best interests of the child and the evidence presented to the circuit court. Footnote: 4The ophthalmologist was consulted because a symptom of osteogenesis imperfecta, a congenital bone disease causing the bones to fracture easily, is a thin cornea. Jeffrey R.L.'s cornea, however, showed normal thickness. Footnote: 5Dr. Corder testified that he placed a "ninety-six hour hold" on Jeffrey R.L. until the courts could decide where to place the child because he felt that "it would not be appropriate to send him . . . back into the environment where he had sustained the injuries." Footnote: 6Dr. Corder further testified that he went over Jeffrey R.L.'s x-rays with the radiologist, and that they were able to determine that the fractures were at different stages of healing. While there was a question raised as to when the various fractures were inflicted, the record shows that x-rays taken of Jeffrey R.L. on May 24, 1991, and July 26, 1991, revealed no fractures. Thus, it appears that these fractures were sustained between July 26, 1991, and the date Jeffrey R.L. was examined by Dr. Itani on August 30, 1991. Footnote: 7Dr. Corder gave the following response when asked whether there were any other indications that Jeffrey's development was not normal up until this point: A. Several people had noted something that concerned me from a developmental aspect. When a child, well when you examine a child of three months of age, they like to look at a face. In fact if I were examining a child, if this microphone was a child and a three month old I wouldn't hold up a toy. They wouldn't regard that at all. What they like is to look at a face. And the way you look at the extraocular movements would be to actually get down and have a child close to your face. They just love to look at faces. When I walked into the room the first time he didn't regard me at all, no regard at all, and at first I thought the child was blind so I checked him for light reflexes. It was like literally walking up to someone who is staring a hole through you and that concerned me. Several other people had also found that too. Over the next couple of days and, you know, I noticed when the nurses were feeding him and so forth he started regarding faces, following them and so forth. You know, he had much more normal appearance in interaction. Footnote: 8In reports submitted by Gregory Trainor, M.A., another explanation given by his parents for Jeffrey R.L.'s injuries was that he had rolled off his father's chest while he was sleeping with him and that his father may have rolled over onto him. Footnote: 9Mr. Trainor also reported that Jeffrey L. told him he usually takes his anger out on himself and that Jeffrey L. described an incident where Gail L. was physically abusive to him: [Jeffrey L.] reported that he tends to take his anger out on himself, particularly hitting his head on things. He reported the last time he did this was three months ago after an argument with his wife where he struck his head against the wall with enough force to put a hole in it. He reported an incident again with his wife where she had kicked him in the groin and scratched him and he responded by holding her by the wrists so as to obtain her attention to try to talk this disagreement out. She had complained that he was hurting her when doing this. He acknowledged that his 'wife has a temper on her.' Footnote: 10Mr. Trainor also observed that Gail L. showed "no emotionality about the loss of her child or apparent concern over [his] injuries except for some resentment over the way they felt they had been treated by the physicians and by the Department of Human Services." Footnote: 11Gail L. also related to Mr. Trainor some "physical struggles" she had with her husband. Mr. Trainor reported that: [Jeffrey L.] will grab her by the wrists rather forcefully and keep her from going off to herself. She reported his grabbing her hard enough to leave bruises. She also said he will sit on her to restrain her. These actions were reported to keep her from walking away. She reports that these interactions occur as a result of her being upset with him. She felt that his feelings get hurt rather easily. She reported that he has never struck her but does engage in some self injurious behavior himself. Gail L. also gave similar testimony regarding these incidents with her husband at the hearing held on March 25, 1992. Footnote: 12Jeffrey L. has denied that he abused his son. Furthermore, in a letter dated October 28, 1992, R. L. Catlett, a polygraph examiner, stated that after testing the grandfather concerning Jeffrey L.'s alleged confession, Mr. Catlett believed the grandfather's allegations were not true. Mr. Catlett also stated that, after testing Gail L. and Jeffrey L., he did not believe that either one of them had caused the child's injuries. We further note, however, that polygraph test results are not admissible in evidence in a criminal trial in this State. Syl. pt. 2, State v. Frazier, 162 W. Va. 602, 252 S.E.2d 39 (1979). Footnote: 13Thomas E. Stein, Ed.D., performed a psychological examination of Jeffrey R.L.'s parents and maternal grandparents. He found that Gail L's grandparents had "good knowledge" about appropriate child behavior management strategies. Although he diagnosed Gail L. as suffering from "[r]eactive depression" and "[r]elationship problems," he stated that her prognosis was good. With respect to Jeffrey L., Dr. Stein found that he too suffered from "[r]elationship problems" and found that his prognosis was "[f]air with appropriate intervention." Footnote: 14There is nothing in the record which indicates that Gail L. was aware of Jeffrey R.L.'s injuries before her grandparents showed her that he was not moving his right arm. The Court questions how a mother could be oblivious to her son's extreme injuries. Footnote: 15As we stated above, Dr. Corder testified that great force would be necessary to fracture Jeffrey R.L.'s ribs, and that the other fractures he sustained were consistent with a "twisting, torsion, shaking of limbs[.]" Footnote: 16Dr. Corder testified that the grandfather's medical records made no mention that he suffered from osteogenesis imperfecta. Footnote: 17As we have previously noted, polygraph test results are inadmissible in a criminal trial. Curiously, however, Gail L. attached as an exhibit to her brief the report of the polygraph examiner, Mr. Catlett, dated March 4, 1993. In that report, Mr. Catlett stated that "[d]uring the interview, [Gail L.], mother of the infant stated 'she felt the baby was injured at the hospital.'" Gail L.'s statement to the polygraph examiner in March of 1993 suggests that Gail L. continues to offer explanations for Jeffrey R.L.'s fifteen fractures that are inconsistent with the documented medical evidence. Footnote: 18As previously noted, n. 12 supra, the reader of the polygraph concluded that the grandfather's statement regarding the alleged confession was not true, and Ms. Mosier testified that Jeffrey L. never stated that he physically abused Jeffrey R.L. Even more troubling to this Court is the fact that Gail L. testified at the March 25, 1992, hearing that she heard Jeffrey L. confess to her grandfather that he abused Jeffrey R.L.; yet, the report of the polygraph examiner, Mr. Catlett, dated March 4, 1993, attached as an exhibit to Gail L.'s brief, states that Gail L. "stated she never actually heard her husband say he injured their infant son." Footnote: 19We note that Gail L., who completed her parenting classes, contends she was cooperative with the DHHR. However, she refused to sign the treatment plan. Footnote: 20The guardian ad litem before this Court asserts that Jeffrey R.L.'s interests were not adequately represented before the circuit court. She points out that the attorney representing the child did not call any witnesses, did not place any exhibits into evidence, and did not confer with the treating physician or with the foster parents until this petition was filed with this Court. She also asserts that at the hearing in December of 1992, the attorney represented to the circuit court that he had yet to decide whether the child should be placed back with his family. However, because we are terminating parental rights in this case and adopting standards for guardians ad litem to adhere to in the future, we need not further address this issue. Footnote: 21See Robert Kelly & Sarah Ramsey, Do Attorneys for Children in Protection Proceedings Make a Difference? -- A Study of the Impact of Representation Under Conditions of High Judicial Intervention, 21 J. Fam. L. 405 (1983). Footnote: 22See Jane Knitzer & Merrill Sobie, Law Guardians In New York State--A Study of the Legal Representation of Children (1984). Footnote: 23Several useful lessons were learned from the North Carolina study: That attorneys had little effect overall is understandable if circumstances surrounding the guardian's role are considered. First, there was much confusion about the role of the guardian ad litem . . . . This confusion not only prevented the guardian ad litem from having a clear goal, but it was also a source of confusion to the judge who may have resented, criticized, or ignored a guardian ad litem who was taking on responsibilities that the judge felt were inappropriate . . . . The attorney survey showed that 53% felt that judges expected them to assume an adversarial role in representing their client's position, while 41% felt that judges did not have this expectation, at best an ambivalent situation ... . The condition of ambivalence with respect to the expectations of the attorney was not aided by the fact that guardians typically had received no specialized training relevant to abuse and neglect cases, either during law school or thereafter. Another, and perhaps more critical, factor in limiting attorney effectiveness was that both guardians and judges seemed to assume that the guardian should play only a minor role. Court records from our sample indicated that attorneys spent a median of only five hours per case. Since this figure includes all court time, the time left for investigation, negotiation, or consultation is negligible. Not surprisingly, guardians indicated that they concurred with the department of social services recommendations in 88% of their cases. Additionally, attorneys usually did not follow their cases after the dispositional hearing to see if treatment plans were being carried out. Attorneys, it appears, were a presence rather than an influence in the court's handling of the cases. Kelly & Ramsey, 21 J. Fam. L. at 451-52 (footnote omitted). Footnote: 24The Colorado Committee's standards are for representation of children generally, and are not limited to child abuse and neglect cases. Furthermore, in some states, such as Minnesota, the guidelines are established for lay people who represent children in a variety of proceedings. See Minnesota Judges Association, Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem (June 1986). W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a) [1992] provides children the right to be represented by an attorney, but makes no provision for children to be represented by lay persons. Footnote: 25In order to be concise, we are not listing each of the standards provided under the categories. The categories effectively summarize and reflect the purpose of the standards listed under them. Footnote: 26See W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a) [1992]. Footnote: 27The compensation and expenses for those attorneys who are appointed to represent children in abuse and neglect cases pursuant to W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(a) [1992] fall under the provisions of article 21, chapter 29 of the West Virginia Code. W. Va. Code, 29-21-2(2) [1990] provides, in relevant part, that "Eligible proceedings" include "child abuse and neglect proceedings which may result in a termination of parental rights[.]" An "Eligible client" is defined under W. Va. Code, 29-21-2(1) [1990] as "[a]ny person who meets the requirements established by this article to receive publicly funded legal representation in an eligible proceeding as defined herein[.]" Thus, abuse and neglect proceedings where parental rights may be terminated are eligible proceedings under the provisions of article 21, chapter 29 of the Code. Moreover, a child in an abuse and neglect proceeding is an eligible client under W. Va. Code, 29-21-2(1) [1990]. Attorneys, therefore, who are appointed to represent children in abuse and neglect proceedings will submit claims for fees and expense reimbursements to the appointing court in accordance with the provisions of article 21, chapter 29 of the West Virginia Code. See W. Va. Code, 29-21-13a [1990]. Footnote: 28"The exclusive authority to define, regulate and control the practice of law in West Virginia is vested in the Supreme Court of Appeals." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Askin v. Dostert, 170 W.Va. 562, 295 S.E.2d 271 (1982).

ca04df9f83aba3922ca132c801eeac9cc6fe71e10766cf4174e59bd20f63951f

1993-06-14 00:00:00

482ca492-085f-400d-8d8f-554cdc2cac9c

ESTATE OF BAYLISS BY BOWLES v. Lee

315 S.E.2d 406

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

ESTATE OF BAYLISS BY BOWLES v. Lee Annotate this Case 315 S.E.2d 406 (1984) ESTATE OF J.M.H. BAYLISS by Paul N. BOWLES, Ancillary Administrator v. Rolfe LEE. No. 15816. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted January 18, 1984. Decided February 8, 1984. Rehearing Denied April 11, 1984. *408 Paul E. Frampton, J. Thomas Lane, Bowles, McDavid, Graff & Love, Charleston, for appellant. Charles W. Yeager, Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, for appellee. *407 MILLER, Justice: In this case, we are asked to apply either the doctrine of res judicata or principles of collateral estoppel to reverse the circuit court's judgment. The Estate of J.M.H. Bayliss brought a civil action based on contribution to recover on what it claimed was a joint indebtedness owed by the plaintiff's decedent Bayliss and the defendant, Rolfe Lee, which totaled $94,846.22. Bayliss had during his lifetime paid the entire amount. The underlying obligation arose as a result of Bayliss and Lee being shareholders and directors in a corporation which developed a motel complex near Point Pleasant, West Virginia. The project was financed in part with a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan. The project was not successful and the corporation was placed in bankruptcy in September of 1966 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. *409 As a part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the trustee in bankruptcy sought to recover against Bayliss and Lee the amount of $150,000 based on a prior obligation they had made with the SBA and the bankrupt corporation to provide this amount of money for additional working capital for the corporation. The referee in bankruptcy found that Bayliss and Lee were jointly obligated on a $150,000 note to the corporation, which enured to the benefit of the trustee in bankruptcy. Both Bayliss and Lee asserted certain offsets against the obligation which the referee found to be proper. This ruling was reviewed in the federal district court, which essentially concurred with the referee's order. Thereafter, Bayliss made a further appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the district court. Bayliss v. Rood, 424 F.2d 142 (4th Cir.1970). On remand, the referee in bankruptcy entered a joint judgment against Bayliss and Lee in the amount of $76,570.61, together with interest in the amount of $17,955.71 and costs totaling $319.90, for a total of $94,846.22. As previously noted, this entire amount was paid by Bayliss, whose estate then brought this action in the Circuit Court of Mason County to recover contribution. In the circuit court, both parties filed a joint stipulation of facts and each moved for summary judgment. Lee argued that equal contribution was inappropriate because after the corporation had been formed Bayliss and Lee had advanced $95,000 and $55,000, respectively, to the corporation. Subsequently, they had withdrawn $125,000 from the corporation, of which $95,000 was kept by Bayliss and $30,000 was received by Lee. Thus, Lee argues, Bayliss was made whole on his original contribution of $95,000, but he only received $30,000 of the original $55,000 contributed, leaving him $25,000 short. Consequently, Lee asserts that equal contribution is not appropriate. However, Lee's argument falls short factually in that the proceedings in federal court show that while permission by the SBA had been given to withdraw their $150,000 capital contribution, the SBA required both Bayliss and Lee to execute a joint demand note to the corporation. The purpose of the note was to guarantee a contribution of capital to the corporation in the amount of $150,000, as indicated by this statement in Bayliss, 424 F.2d at 145: "Subsequently, Bayliss and Lee obtained an agreement from SBA that they might temporarily withdraw the $150,000 provided that Bayliss and Lee would restore any withdrawn funds upon demand by Development or by SBA. This agreement as to temporary withdrawal was evidenced in part by a letter agreement executed by Bayliss, Lee and Development dated December 14, 1964, and in part by a demand note of the same date executed by Bayliss and Lee payable to the corporation in the amount of $150,000." (Emphasis in original) The Circuit Court of Appeals in the course of addressing the argument that the $150,000 demand note and the SBA agreement were executory and unenforceable, characterized the nature of the obligation owed by Bayliss and Lee: "These agreements certainly created more than a mere executory contract; they created a clear and simple debt from Bayliss and Lee to the corporation, evidenced by the $150,000 note payable upon demand. Bayliss and Lee may not escape their liability for this debt simply by refusing to pay it." Bayliss, 424 F.2d at 146-47. Thus, it appears that the joint obligation found in the federal bankruptcy court arises by virtue of the $150,000 note executed by Bayliss and Lee in compliance with their SBA commitments. This note obligation was entirely independent of their initial capital contributions. There is no doubt that the federal bankruptcy court did give Bayliss and Lee credit for any capital contributions made to the corporation, as summarized in note 1 of Bayliss, 424 F.2d at 144: *410 "The total amount due the bankrupt corporation, $77,266.50, was determined from calculations based upon evidence that Lee had paid to the corporation a total of $56,449.83, that Bayliss had paid to the corporation a total of $13,000 and that he was entitled to accrued interest of $1,283.67. Consequently, Bayliss and Lee have paid a total of $70,733.50 of the $150,000, which they were obligated to pay, leaving a balance due of $79,266.50."[1] The Bayliss Estate does not demand that Lee share equally on the net judgment of $94,846.22 that Bayliss paid. It is acknowledged that prior to the payment of the net judgment, Lee had been credited with a higher share of payments on the $150,000 note, i.e. $59,145.72 to $14,483.67. The Bayliss Estate is willing to give Lee credit for the $59,145.72 paid as against the total obligation.[2] The parties recognize that a right of contribution is basically derived from equitable principles, a point which we addressed in Sydenstricker v. Unipunch Products, Inc., W.Va., 288 S.E.2d 511 , 516 (1982): "The doctrine of contribution also has its roots in equitable principles. The right to contribution arises when persons having a common obligation, either in contract or tort, are sued on that obligation and one party is forced to pay more than his pro tanto share of the obligation. Tennant v. Craig, 156 W.Va. 632, 195 S.E.2d 727 (1973); Hardin v. New York Central Railroad Company, 145 W.Va. 676, 116 S.E.2d 697 (1960); Brewer v. Appalachian Construction, Inc., 135 W.Va. 739, 65 S.E.2d 87 (1951); 18 Am.Jur.2d Contribution § 1, et seq. (1965)."[3] Ordinarily, where two parties are co-obligors on a note and one party pays a disproportionate share of the joint obligation, he is entitled to contribution from his co-obligor. We spoke to this rule in Newton v. Dailey, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 91 , 94 (1981): "Under our law, co-obligors on a note are jointly and severally liable. If one co-obligor is required to pay the entire obligation, he may seek contribution or reimbursement from his co-obligor for fifty per centum of the amount paid. Cost v. MacGregor, 124 W.Va. 204, 19 S.E.2d 599 (1942); Bringardner v. Rollins, 102 W.Va. 584, 135 S.E. 665 (1926); McKown v. Silver, 99 W.Va. 78, 128 S.E. 134 (1925); Huffman v. Manley, 83 W.Va. 503, 98 S.E. 613 (1919)." This rule of equal or pro tanto contribution, however, is not absolute if it can be shown that the co-obligors have by agreement made a different allocation as to their liability inter se or one or more of the co-obligors have received a disproportionate benefit from the transaction, then disproportionate contribution may be allowed. Betts v. Brown, 219 Ga. 782, 136 S.E.2d 365 (1964); Adamson v. McKeon, 208 Iowa 949, 225 N.W. 414, 65 A.L.R. 817 (1929); Fithian v. Jamar, 286 Md. 161, 410 A.2d 569 (1979); Brown v. Goldsmith, 437 P.2d 247 (Okl.1968); Ruckdeschel v. Howell, 337 Pa. 517, 12 A.2d 62 (1940); Dittberner v. *411 Bell, 558 S.W.2d 527 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); Cooper v. Greenberg, 191 Va. 495, 61 S.E.2d 875 (1950); 18 Am.Jur.2d Contribution §§ 23 & 24 (1965); Annot., 64 A.L.R. 213 (1929). We spoke to this issue in McKown v. Silver, 99 W.Va. 78, 128 S.E. 134 (1925), where a joint accommodation endorser sought to defeat a contribution suit, brought by a co-obligor who had paid off the entire obligation, by claiming that the other endorsers had agreed to save him harmless. We rejected his claim on the basis that he had failed to prove this special agreement.[4] In another contribution case, Huffman v. Manley, 83 W.Va. 503, 98 S.E. 613 (1919), we found that an accommodation maker of a note could escape contribution since he had proven that he had a separate understanding not to be liable in contribution. We expressed this general rule: "It is very well settled that where parties execute a note like this they are prima facie joint makers, but as between them they may show what the real understanding was, and what their real relation is. Of course, so far as the holder of the note is concerned, unless he discounts it with full knowledge and with the understanding that some are sureties for the others, they are all joint makers and equally liable." 83 W.Va. at 505-06, 98 S.E. at 614.[5] See also Davis v. Davis, 128 W.Va. 257, 36 S.E.2d 417 (1945). It is apparent that Lee sought to alter his contribution liability in the circuit court by attempting to assert that there was a disproportionate benefit received by Bayliss when the $125,000 had been withdrawn from the corporation. As previously stated, the disproportionality arose when Bayliss received $95,000, thus totally reimbursing him for his capital contribution. Whereas, Lee received only $30,000, which left him $25,000 unreimbursed on his $55,000 initial contribution. However, as we have also previously noted, this $25,000 deficiency was credited to Lee by the bankruptcy court in that it became a part of the $59,145.72, which was offset on the $150,000 obligation. See note 1, supra. Moreover, it is this same offset of $59,145.72 that the Bayliss Estate is willing to utilize in determining the net contribution owed by Lee. Finally, and most importantly, the $150,000 joint note obligation arose after the initial capital contribution of Bayliss and Lee and superceded the initial capital contributions. Lee does not assert now, nor did he below, that he had some special agreement with Bayliss as to contribution inter se with regard to the $150,000 note. These offsets were ascertained and settled in the federal bankruptcy action along with the threshold question of the Bayliss-Lee joint obligation of $150,000. Both Bayliss and Lee were parties to the federal action. We, therefore, conclude that further relitigation of these issues is foreclosed under principles of collateral estoppel as set out in Syllabus Point 2 of Conley v. Spillers, W.Va., 301 S.E.2d 216 (1983): "Collateral estoppel is designed to foreclose relitigation of issues in a second suit which have actually been litigated in the earlier suit even though there may be a difference in the cause of action between the parties of the first and second suit. We have made this summary of the doctrine of collateral estoppel: *412 "`But where the causes of action are not the same, the parties being identical or in privity, the bar extends to only those matters which were actually litigated in the former proceeding, as distinguished from those matters that might or could have been litigated therein, and arises by way of estoppel rather than by way of strict res adjudicata.' Lane v. Williams, 150 W.Va. 96, 100, 144 S.E.2d 234 , 236 (1965)."[6] Again, we stress that neither party disputes the basic facts since they are contained in the factual stipulation filed in the circuit court. The federal court's conclusion that the $150,000 note was a joint obligation is not assailable in our courts under principles of collateral estoppel.[7] Finally, Lee did not advance any facts below that would show a special agreement relating to contribution inter se and his credits for capital contribution have been properly taken into account on the net joint liability. We, therefore, believe that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to Lee and should have awarded summary judgment to the Bayliss Estate for $24,992.08, together with interest from the date that the joint payment of $94,846.22 was paid by Bayliss. We have held that in an appropriate case where the facts preponderate against the findings of a trial court sitting in lieu of a jury that this court will enter such judgment on the evidence as the trial court should have done. We stated this principle in Syllabus Point 9 of Bluefield Supply Co. v. Frankel's Appliances, Inc., 149 W.Va. 622, 142 S.E.2d 898 (1965), where we concluded that a supply company was entitled to a judgment against an appliance dealer: "When, upon the trial of a case, the evidence decidedly preponderates against the verdict of a jury or the finding of a trial court upon the evidence, this Court will, upon review, reverse the judgment; and, if the case was tried by the court in lieu of a jury, this Court will make such finding and render such judgment on the evidence as the trial court should have made and rendered." See also Huntington Development & Gas Co. v. Topping, 115 W.Va. 364, 176 S.E. 424 (1934); McKown v. Citizens State Bank of Ripley, 91 W.Va. 716, 114 S.E. 271 (1922). We, therefore, conclude that in view of the foregoing principles, the Bayliss Estate is entitled to recover the sum of $24,992.08 from Lee, together with interest thereon from the date that Bayliss paid the $94,846.22 judgment in the bankruptcy action, together with costs. Accordingly, judgment is rendered here in such amount and the decision of the Circuit Court of Mason County is reversed. Reversed and Rendered.

d2ce6fece88d3bfa65e12477f9e486dab6a835f9a44b9d9511bc6f5fac95666b

1984-02-08 00:00:00

c67b0b86-68b4-43a4-a304-57632ff36127

Sharon B.W. v. George B.W.

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Sharon B.W. v. George B.W. Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1999 Term _____________ No. 25441 _____________ SHARON B.W., Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. GEORGE B.W., Defendant Below, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County Honorable Tod J. Kaufman, Judge Case No. 95-D-1685 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED ________________________________________________________________ Submitted: April 14, 1999 Filed: July 14, 1999 Thomas J. Gillooly Michael T. Clifford Charleston, West Virginia Clifford, Mann & Swisher Beverly S. Selby Charleston, West Virginia Charleston, West Virginia James T. Cooper Attorneys for Appellee Cooper & Glass Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellant The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1."W.Va. Code, 48-2-1(e)(1) (1986), defining all property acquired during the marriage as marital property except for certain limited categories of property which are considered separate or nonmarital, expresses a marked preference for characterizing the property of the parties to a divorce action as marital property." Whiting v. Whiting, 183 W.Va. 452, 396 S.E.2d 413 (1990). 2."In the absence of a valid agreement, the trial court in a divorce case shall presume that all marital property is to be divided equally between the parties, but may alter this distribution, without regard to fault, based on consideration of certain statutorily enumerated factors, including: (1) monetary contributions to marital property such as employment income, other earnings, and funds which were separate property; (2) non-monetary contributions to marital property, such as homemaker services, child care services, labor performed without compensation, labor performed in the actual maintenance or improvement of tangible marital property, or labor performed in the management or investment of assets which are marital property; (3) the effect of the marriage on the income-earning abilities of the parties, such as contributions by either party to the education or training of the other party, or foregoing by either party of employment or education; or (4) conduct by either party that lessened the value of marital property. W.Va. Code Sec. 48-2-32(c) (1986)." Syllabus Point 1, Somerville v. Somerville, 179 W.Va. 386, 369 S.E.2d 459 (1988). 3."Questions relating to alimony and to the maintenance and custody of the children are within the sound discretion of the court and its action with respect to such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused." Syllabus, Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W.Va. 514, 236 S.E.2d 36 (1977). Per Curiam: This is an appeal by George B.W., appellant/defendant, from an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County resolving the financial issues in a divorce proceeding. In the present appeal George B.W. assigns as error: (1) that the circuit judge rendered his decision without having read the record developed before the family law master and overruled portions of the recommended decision to which neither party had objected; (2) that the circuit judge committed error in failing to adopt the family law master's recommendation regarding stocks; and (3) that the circuit judge erred in requiring him to pay certain attorney fees. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties to this proceeding, Sharon B.W. and George B.W., were married on May 21, 1988. They had one child born on May 3, 1991. During their marriage they acquired substantial assets. George B.W., is a radiologist. Sharon B.W. has assets acquired from her family. Sharon B.W. filed for divorce on August 10, 1995. The circuit court granted the divorce on June 8, 1998.See footnote 1 1 On November 25, 1997, a family law master conducted hearings on the parties' financial matters. The family law master found that the parties were separated on April 7, 1995, and concluded that George B.W. was entitled to the stock which he held in Kanawha Valley Radiologists, Inc. (KVR) as his separate property because he had received the stock only after the parties were "separated." In concluding that George B.W. was entitled to the KVR stock as his separate property, the family law master rejected the argument of Sharon B.W. that the parties were actually separated after George B.W. received the stock. The Family Law Master stated: That Defendant owns one hundred shares of stock in Kanawha Valley Radiologists ("KVR") which has a value of One Dollar ($1.00) per share. The stock was acquired after the parties separated, after the plaintiff moved to Memphis, and after the divorce action was filed by the plaintiff. In the conclusions of law section of the family law master's recommended decision he stated: The interest of the Defendant in the KVR stock was acquired after the separation of the parties and is not marital property. The Plaintiff relied on a theory of an "expectation interest" in the KVR stock as constituting marital property. No convincing precedent was cited by Plaintiff's counsel to support his position. The only cases in this jurisdiction in which an "expectation interest" has been found to have a value involved cases in which the "property" was acquired during the marriage. See Metzner v. Metzner, 191 W.Va. 378, 446 S.E.2d 165 (1994) (contingent fee contracts executed during the marriage). Hardy v. Hardy, 186 W.Va. 496, 413 S.E.2d 151 (1991) (personal injury claim for injuries incurred during the marriage) and Smith v. Smith, 190 W.Va. 402, 438 S.E.2d 582 (1993) (Pensions to be received upon retirement from contributions made during the marriage). The evidence in this case on this issue was clear and convincing that the property was not acquired during the marriage and that not every employee was made a shareholder. The family law master also recommended that Sharon B.W. receive $50,000.00 as rehabilitative alimony. In making the alimony recommendation, the family law master noted that George B.W. was 44 years of age and earned a gross income of approximately $50,000.00 per month. Sharon B.W. was 36 years of age and was a college graduate. Except for one brief period of time, Sharon B.W. had sought no full time employment. The family law master stated: The standard of living enjoyed by the Plaintiff has been long established by and provided by her parents. During most of her married life she earned at least as much income as her husband. Only at the end of the marriage did the defendant begin to earn substantial sums of money (as an employee of KVR his wages were approximately Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per month). While the defendant is earning in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) per month, he never approached that level of earnings during the marriage. After considering the factors relating to alimony, the family law master found: The parties lived together as man and wife for only three and one half years. Thus, it was by any measure a marriage of short duration. The plaintiff is only 36 years of age. She is in excellent health and she is a college graduate. While she has limited job experience, she is fully capable of employment, although it appears that she does not want to work. While the child is only six years old, he is enrolled in a first class private school and his days will be spent in class . . . . Additionally, the plaintiff has a stable family support unit in Memphis. Lastly, she has received many thousands of dollars from the defendant in the way of temporary support payments, some of which he made voluntarily, and other court ordered advances, some of which, admittedly, have been used to pay her attorneys . . . . Based upon these factors, upon her ability to earn both earned and investment income, and based upon the prior finding of abandonment . . . it would be unfair, inequitable, and unjust to award permanent alimony to the plaintiff, despite the gross disparity of their current incomes. Additionally, this family law master makes a specific finding that the plaintiff failed to prove any level of need. The only evidence concerning her monthly expenses reveals that the child support award greatly exceeds plaintiff's expenses, even when considering unnecessary expenses such as manicures, massages, etc. Any award of alimony should be rehabilitative in nature to afford the opportunity to improve her own financial condition . . . . This family law master, therefore, finds that alimony should be of a limited duration and rehabilitative in nature. Given the income disparity of the parties and the amount of child support to be paid by the defendant, the defendant should pay rehabilitative alimony to the plaintiff in a lump sum in order to allow the plaintiff the opportunity to obtain suitable housing for herself. Defendant should pay the plaintiff the lump sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) as and for rehabilitative alimony. This sum should be nonmodifiable in order to sever as much of the relationship as possible between the parties. In addressing the question of attorney fees, the family law master found that Sharon B.W.'s pursuit of an interest in George B.W.'s stock in KVR violated Rule 20 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Law in W.Va. Code 48-2-13(6)(b). The family law master reasoned that her pursuit of the stock required George B.W. to incur unnecessary legal expenses, the cost of an economic expert, and to miss considerable amounts of time from work. The family law master noted that under Rule 20 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Law, when it appeared that a party had incurred unnecessary expenses because an opposing party had raised unfounded claims or defenses, it was appropriate to award attorney fees and costs to the innocent party. The family law master, therefore, ruled that George B.W. was entitled to complete reimbursement of his attorney fees and expenses as they related to defending the claim against his stock in KVR, as well as reimbursement for the cost of his economic expert and for replacement physician fees he incurred as a result of his attending hearings on the stock question. After the family law master submitted his recommended decision, Sharon B.W. filed a petition challenging certain recommendations by the family law master. Sharon B.W. specifically took exception to the family law master's recommendations relating to George B.W.'s stock in KVR, alimony, and attorney fees. Relating to the stock in KVR, Sharon B.W.'s petition excepting to the recommendation of the family law master stated: The findings and conclusions of the Recommended Order with respect to the Defendant's ownership interest in his medical practice are unsupported by and contrary to the evidence, erroneous as a matter of law, and constitute an abuse of discretion. Her challenge to the amount of alimony stated: The amount of alimony awarded in the Recommended Order is grossly inadequate under the facts of the case, is unsupported by the evidence, and constitutes an abuse of discretion. The Recommended Order's factual findings are inadequate to support the award of a mere $50,000 in alimony. Sharon B.W. also challenged the family law master's recommendations regarding attorney fees: The Law Master's attempt to make an award of attorney fees in connection with the litigation of the status of Defendant's interest in his medical practice, in addition to exceeding the Law Master's jurisdiction and the limits placed on the Circuit Court's referral to the Law Master, is unsupported by the evidence, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion. The status of this asset as marital or non-marital was a legitimate issue, on which Plaintiff's expert, conceded in the Recommended Order (¶22, p. 8) to have been well qualified, rendered an opinion supporting the marital conclusion, and on which Plaintiff submitted persuasive legal authority. The fact that the Law Master concluded otherwise after the question was presented and briefed does not establish a basis for penalizing Plaintiff for litigating it. The additional proposed penalty, in the form of reimbursement to Defendant for expenses other than his attorney fees, is likewise contrary to the evidence, erroneous as a matter of law, and an abuse of discretion. After reviewing the family law master's recommended order, the circuit court refused to adopt key portions of the recommended order. The circuit court found that the parties stayed overnight with each other and continued to have sexual relations after April 1995. Specifically, the circuit court ruled that the date of separation was August 10, 1995. The circuit court further ruled that George B.W.'s stock in KVR was a marital asset. Accordingly, the circuit court held that Sharon B.W. was entitled to one-half the value of George B.W.'s interest in KVR.See footnote 2 2 Lastly, the circuit court indicated that without the zealous advocacy of counsel, Sharon B.W. would not have gotten her "due." As a consequence, the circuit court rejected the family law master's recommendations relating to attorney fees and ordered that George B.W. pay all of Sharon B.W.'s attorney fees and litigation costs. Here, George B.W. claims that the circuit court committed certain procedural errors in reversing the decision of the family law master. He also claims that the circuit court should have adopted the family law master's recommendations relating to the KVR stock, relating to alimony, and relating to attorney fees. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing challenges to findings to circuit court's order in a divorce proceeding, a three-pronged standard of review is applied. Under these circumstances, a final equitable distribution order is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and statutory interpretations are subject to a de novo review. See Syl. P.1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263, 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995); Hillberry v. Hillberry, 195 W.Va. 600, 466 S.E.2d 451 (1995). III. DISCUSSION A. The Question of Whether George B.W.'s Stock in Kanawha Valley Radiologists, Inc. was Marital Property George B.W. contends that the circuit court committed error by failing to adopt the family law master's recommendation that his ownership of stock in his employer's company, Kanawha Valley Radiologists, Inc. (KVR), was nonmarital property. As a general proposition, this Court has noted that the Legislature, by enacting W.Va. Code 48-2-1(e)(1), has indicated that, with certain specified exceptions, all property acquired during marriage is marital property.See footnote 3 3 As stated in Syllabus point 3 of Whiting v. Whiting, 183 W.Va. 452, 396 S.E.2d 413 (1990): W.Va. Code, 48-2-1(e)(1) (1986), defining all property acquired during the marriage as marital property except for certain limited categories of property which are considered separate or nonmarital, expresses a marked preference for characterizing the property of the parties to a divorce action as marital property. Further, under our marital distribution law, unless certain factors are present, marital property should be divided equally between the parties to the marriage: In the absence of a valid agreement, the trial court in a divorce case shall presume that all marital property is to be divided equally between the parties, but may alter this distribution, without regard to fault, based on consideration of certain statutorily enumerated factors, including: (1) monetary contributions to marital property such as employment income, other earnings, and funds which were separate property; (2) non-monetary contributions to marital property, such as homemaker services, child care services, labor performed without compensation, labor performed in the actual maintenance or improvement of tangible marital property, or labor performed in the management or investment of assets which are marital property; (3) the effect of the marriage on the income-earning abilities of the parties, such as contributions by either party to the education or training of the other party, or foregoing by either party of employment or education; or (4) conduct by either party that lessened the value of marital property. W.Va. Code Sec. 48-2-32(c) (1986). Syl. Pt. 1, Somerville v. Somerville, 179 W.Va. 386, 369 S.E.2d 459 (1988). George B.W. contends that he was offered and purchased stock in KVR after the parties separated and after the filing of the divorce in this case. Therefore, the stock is separate, nonmarital property. We have recognized that "[o]ne of the statutorily enumerated definitions of separate property is: '[p]roperty acquired by a party during a marriage but after the separation of the parties and before the granting of a divorce....'" White v. Williamson, 192 W.Va. 683, 689, 453 S.E.2d 666, 672 (1994), quoting W.Va. Code § 48-2-1(f)(5). The stock at issue here was purchased for $100.00 on September 19, 1995. The circuit court found that the parties were separated on August 10, 1995.See footnote 4 4 Based upon the latter two dates, the stock purchase was made after the parties separated. Therefore, the KVR stock is presumptively by statute, separate property. The family law master found and recommended that the stock was separate, nonmarital property because it was purchased after the parties separated. The circuit court rejected this finding and concluded that the stock was marital property because "it was KVR's regular practice to offer newly hired radiologists the opportunity to become co-owners, generally after a three-year period." We find that in view of the lack of any evidence whatsoever to support this conclusion, the circuit court abused its discretion by rejecting the family law master's finding that the stock was separate, nonmarital property. We have previously held that if during the marriage a contingency to acquire property is obtained, once such contingency is obtained it is marital property. In Syl. Pt. 3 of Metzner v. Metzner, 191 W.Va. 378, 446 S.E.2d 165 (1994), we held that: "When a contingent fee contract is acquired during marriage, it is 'marital property' within the meaning contemplated by West Virginia Code Sec. 48-2-1(e)(1)." See Cross v. Cross, 178 W.Va. 563, 363 S.E.2d 449 (1987)( this Court recognized that contingent pension benefits should be classified as marital property). A critical requirement of the Metzner line of cases is that a party must have acquired an enforceable contingency during the marriage. That is, the contingency must be such that, if a person fulfills the requirements to obtain that which underlies the contingency, he or she can seek legal redress to enforce execution of the contingency. However, this Court has never ruled that an "unenforceable expectation" is sufficient to constitute marital property. In reviewing the employment contract between George B.W. and KVR, there is absolutely no language or reference of any nature whatsoever regarding George B.W.'s ability to purchase stock in KVR. In fact, the employment contract was for a term of three (3) years with George B.W.'s salary set forth for each year. Sharon B.W. contends that "[i]t is irrelevant that there is no writing to commemorate the agreement between the Defendant and KVR, to the effect that a successful period of employment would lead to an offer of partnership."See footnote 5 5 Unfortunately, the lack of such a contingency to acquire property is a key factor in this case. Although asserted in her brief, Sharon B.W. presents no evidence either orally or in writing to support her contention that during the marriage KVR promised George B.W. it would offer him stock in the corporation, once he met certain requirements. The parties may have hoped such an offer would be made; but, there was no evidence of such a commitment by KVR to George B.W. In fact, the family law master specifically found that not all employees of KVR were offered stock purchases after their employment contract expired. Therefore, consistent with our statutes and case law, George B.W. had no interest in KVR until he was actually offered a stock option. The offer was made to George B.W., in writing, on September 19, 1995. Only on that date, did George B.W. acquire an interest in KVR. Since the parties separated on August 10, 1995, and Sharon B.W. filed her complaint for divorce on August 10, 1995, the stock in KVR is the separate, nonmarital property of George B.W. B. The Alimony Question As has been previously indicated, the family law master recommended that George B.W. pay Sharon B.W. a lump sum of $50,000.00, as rehabilitative alimony. The circuit court refused to follow that recommendation and instead ordered that George B.W. pay to Sharon B.W. $7,000.00 per month as alimony for three years. In overruling the family law master's recommendation, the circuit court noted that in 1997 George B.W. was earning money at the rate of $665,000.00 per year. In contrast, Sharon B.W. had not been regularly employed outside the home. The circuit court noted that the alimony award of $7,000.00 per month was less than 13 percent of George B.W.'s earnings. The circuit court further concluded that an amount less than $7,000.00 per month would be inappropriate given the lifestyle that Sharon B.W. enjoyed prior to the breakup of the marriage. This Court has recognized that "[q]uestions relating to alimony and to the maintenance and custody of the children are within the sound discretion of the court and its action with respect to such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused." Syllabus, Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W.Va. 514, 236 S.E.2d 36 (1977). In the present case where there was evidence that George B.W. has an income exceeding $600,000.00 a year and where the circuit court awarded Sharon B.W. less than 13 percent of that income as alimony for a limited period of three years, this Court cannot conclude that such an award constituted an abuse of discretion. C. Attorney Fees The family law master recommended that George B.W. receive complete reimbursement of the attorney fees and expenses which he incurred in "defending" his claim that the KVR stock was his separate property. He was also awarded replacement physician fees which he incurred as a result of his attending hearings on the stock issue. The circuit court rejected this recommendation and ordered that George B.W. pay all of Sharon B.W.'s attorney fees and litigation costs. This Court has recognized that, in divorce proceedings, a trial court's rulings as to attorney fees should not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears that the trial court abused its discretion. Rogers v. Rogers, 197 W.Va. 365, 475 S.E.2d 457 (1996); Hinerman v. Hinerman, 194 W.Va. 256, 460 S.E.2d 71 (1995); Cummings v. Cummings, 170 W.Va. 712, 296 S.E.2d 542 (1982). Further, in Hillberry v. Hillberry, 195 W.Va. 600, 466 S.E.2d 451 (1995), this Court indicated that the principal inquiry in determining whether to compel one party in a divorce action to pay attorney fees and costs to the other party was whether the financial circumstances of the parties suggested that such an award was necessary. It appears that the family law master in the present case concluded that Sharon B.W.'s claim to a share of George B.W.'s interest in KVR was meritless. As a result of that claim, George B.W. had to incur unnecessary attorney fees and expenses. Citing Rule 20 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Law, the family law master concluded that George B.W. was entitled to an award of these fees and expenses.See footnote 6 6 As has already been discussed, the circuit court did not conclude that Sharon B.W.'s claims relating to the KVR stock were meritless. In fact, the circuit court rejected the family law master's recommendation. Although we find that the circuit court committed error in ruling that the KVR stock was marital property, we are not prepared to say that litigating the claim was meritless ab initio. We, therefore, do not believe that Rule 20 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Law supports the recommendation of the family law master. Additionally, it is apparent that George B.W.'s capacity to earn a living, and his current income, are vastly greater than those of Sharon B.W. Under the overall circumstances, the circuit judge did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the family law master's recommendation relating to attorney fees and in rendering the award which he made regarding the payment of fees.See footnote 7 7 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, this Court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands this case for entry of an order consistent with this opinion. Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part; and Remanded. Footnote: 1 1The child custody questions presented in this case were previously addressed in Sharon B. W. v. George B. W., 203 W.Va. 300, 507 S.E.2d 401 (1998). Footnote: 2 2In placing a value on George B.W.'s stock in KVR, the family law master had found that it was subject to a buy-sell agreement and could not be sold on the open market and that its value was only $100. The circuit court rejected this recommendation stating: . . . Ross Dionne, C.P.A., analyzed the financial records of KVR, including records showing its gross revenues, its billings by physician, and its receivables. . . . Mr. Dionne distinguished medical practices by areas of specialization, and Mr. Dionne used the data for sales of radiology practices. . . . Mr. Dionne presented a sound evaluation of the market value of KVR, using generally accepted criteria for the valuation of a business, and adopting a moderate position on estimate market value, in the mid-range of the spectrum of values which this data would support. Consistent with his testimony, the market value of defendant's 20% share of KVR is found to be $385,597.00. Footnote: 3 3W.Va. Code 48-2-1(e)(1), provides: (e)"Marital property" means: (1)All property and earnings acquired by either spouse during a marriage, including every valuable right and interest, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, real or personal, regardless of the form of ownership, whether legal or beneficial, whether individually held, held in trust by a third party, or whether held by the parties to the marriage in some form of co- ownership such as joint tenancy or tenancy in common, joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, or any other form of shared ownership recognized in other jurisdictions without this state, except that marital property shall not include separate property as defined in subsection (f) of this section. . . . Separate property as set forth in W.Va. Code 48-2-1(f) is defined as: (f)"Separate property" means: (1)Property acquired by a person before marriage; or (2)Property acquired by a person during marriage in exchange for separate property which was acquired before the marriage; or (3)Property acquired by a person during marriage, but excluded from treatment as marital property by a valid agreement of the parties entered into before or during the marriage; or (4)Property acquired by a party during marriage by gift, bequest, devise, descent or distribution; or (5)Property acquired by a party during a marriage but after the separation of the parties and before the granting of a divorce, annulment or decree of separate maintenance; or (6)Any increase in the value of separate property as defined in subdivision (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) of this subsection which is due to inflation or to a change in market value resulting from conditions outside the control of the parties. Footnote: 4 4In making this ruling the circuit court rejected the family law master's recommended finding that the parties separated on April 7, 1995, when Sharon B.W. moved out of the family residence. However, the complaint filed by Sharon B.W. stated that the parties separated on April 7, 1995. Footnote: 5 5Sharon B.W.'s brief also stated the following: "Although the Defendant did not formally acquire KVR stock until after the parties separated, he had a contingent interest from the date he was hired, similar to an interest in non-vested pension benefits, which are includable in equitable distribution." Footnote: 6 6Rule 20 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Law provides, in relevant part: When it appears that a party has incurred unnecessary expenses in a proceeding for temporary relief because the opposing party has raised unfounded claims or defenses, the family law master may recommend and the circuit court may grant an award of attorney fees and costs to the innocent party . . . . Footnote: 7 7George B.W. also claimed on appeal that the trial court was required to review the family law master's findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard and that the court did not apply such a standard in overturning certain of the family law master's findings. This Court previously held that factual findings made by a family law master were to be reviewed by a circuit court under a clearly erroneous standard. See Syl. Pt. 1 Stephen L.H. v. Sherry L.H., 195 W. Va. 384, 465 S.E.2d 841 (1995) ("A circuit court should review findings of fact made by a family law master only under a clearly erroneous standard, and it should review the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard"). That standard, however, was expressly modified by the West Virginia Legislature when it adopted W.Va. Code § 48A-4-20(c) (1997). That statute, as adopted, now specifically provides, in relevant part, that: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize a de novo review of the facts; however, the circuit court shall not be held to the clearly erroneous standard in reviewing findings of fact. The changes brought about by this Code section became effective 90 days after April 12, 1997. The circuit court's review was conducted and a decision was rendered in the present case in 1998. Therefore, this Court believes that contrary to George B.W.'s contention, the circuit court in this case was not obligated to apply a clearly erroneous standard in reviewing a family law master's recommendations. Also, George B.W.'s claims that the trial court did not review the factual record made before the family law master before setting aside certain of the family law master's findings of fact. We find no merit to support this argument. A circuit court is not required in every instance to review the entire record in a case before ruling upon a family law master's recommendations. For instance, W.Va. Code § 48A-4-20 recognizes that in making its recommendations, a circuit court may review the parts of the record cited by the parties. Finally, George B.W. contends that the circuit court overruled portions of the family law master's recommended decision to which neither party objected. This Court cannot precisely determine what George B.W. is challenging. Therefore, we decline to address those issues. See State v. Honaker, 193 W.Va. 51, 56 n.4, 454 S.E.2d 96, 101 n.4 (1994) ("In this context, counsel must observe the admonition of the Fourth Circuit that '' [j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs''"), quoting Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 985 n. 5 (4th Cir.1994), quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991).

ff113cd00e80655689d4d4d885f67c93b07fde76b2c49cad96a20882ffee8558

1999-07-14 00:00:00

2c8757b5-f996-4146-b16b-6458568d2255

Myers v. Frazier

319 S.E.2d 782

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Myers v. Frazier Annotate this Case 319 S.E.2d 782 (1984) Annetta MYERS v. The Hon. John R. FRAZIER, etc. Annetta MYERS v. Larry E. LOSCH, etc., et al. Nos. 16114, 16111. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. June 27, 1984. *787 Dan L. Hardway, Charleston, for appellant. Jesser & Harrington, Keenan, Gallaher & Keenan, Fayetteville, Jack Thompson, Oak Hill, John W. Swisher, Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen., and Greg W. Bailey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellees. *783 *784 *785 *786 MILLER, Justice: Annetta Myers, as a concerned citizen and resident of Fayette County, West Virginia, seeks to have three Fayette County deputy sheriffs tried on charges of sexual assault, false swearing, and related offenses. She has filed separate petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus before this Court,[1] which we have consolidated for purposes of argument and this opinion. The writ of prohibition sought by the petitioner is directed at Special Judge John Frazier[2] to prohibit him from entering a final order accepting separate agreements presented by Deputies Leland Dempsey and Dave Brown, which recommended a resolution of the charges filed against them. Further relief is sought to prohibit the entry of any order granting immunity to Deputy Rick Pennington. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against Special Prosecutor Larry Losch[3] requiring him to withdraw his promise of immunity to Pennington and to have Pennington indicted and prosecuted on sexual assault and false swearing-related charges. On October 13, 1982, Pennington, Dempsey, and Brown allegedly forced a 24-year-old woman to perform oral sex on each of them in the bedroom of her trailer.[4] At the time of the alleged offense, the three deputies were on duty, in uniform, and armed with guns. At some time during the ensuing *788 investigation, Special Prosecutor Losch orally agreed to grant immunity to Pennington if he would cooperate in the prosecution of Dempsey and Brown. Pennington agreed to cooperate and was never indicted for any crime. No order approved by a court has been entered granting Pennington immunity. On March 3, 1983, Dempsey and Brown were indicted for first degree sexual assault, false swearing, and conspiracy to commit false swearing, but this indictment was later found to be defective and was dismissed upon Brown's motion. On September 14, 1983, Dempsey and Brown were again indicted for first degree sexual assault. Special Prosecutor Losch also filed a five-count information against Dempsey and Brown on October 12, 1983, charging each with conspiring to commit false swearing and additionally charging Brown with procuring false swearing and Dempsey with three counts of committing false swearing. These false swearing charges arose out of proceedings before the Fayette County Grand Jury in February, 1983, in which Pennington and Dempsey denied ever having sexual intercourse with the 24-year-old woman. Brown asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Prior to trial, Dempsey and Brown were able, through their respective attorneys, to negotiate agreements with Special Prosecutor Losch. In the written plea agreement presented to Special Judge Frazier, Dempsey agreed to plead nolo contendere to one count of false swearing in return for the dismissal with prejudice of the remaining counts in the information and the sexual assault indictment. The agreement further stated that the prosecutor and Dempsey agreed that probation for a period of not more than five years would be appropriate, with the imposition of any possible fine left up to the court. Brown's agreement indicated that in return for the dismissal with prejudice of the sexual assault indictment and all relevant counts of the misdemeanor information, Brown agreed not to be a county or city police officer in Fayette County, West Virginia for a period of five years. Special Judge Frazier examined Dempsey, pursuant to Rule 11 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, and determined that the nolo contendere plea was voluntarily and intelligently made. He orally accepted both of the proposed agreements, sentenced Dempsey to five years probation and fined him $1,000. Ms. Myers filed her petitions with this Court prior to the entry of any final written judgment by Special Judge Frazier. I. THE PLEA PROCEDURE We have sanctioned plea bargain concepts in a number of cases and have stated in State ex rel. Gray v. McClure, W.Va., 242 S.E.2d 704 , 705 (1978), that "[p]lea bargaining has been a part of West Virginia law for at least forty-six years. State v. Ward, 112 W.Va. 552, 165 S.E. 803 (1932)." Until the adoption of Rule 11 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective October 1, 1981, the procedures surrounding the plea bargaining process were largely developed through case law. E.g., Blackburn v. State, W.Va., 290 S.E.2d 22 (1982); State ex rel. Morris v. Mohn, W.Va., 267 S.E.2d 443 (1980); State v. Olish, W.Va., 2 66 S.E.2d 1 34 (1980); State v. Wayne, W.Va., 245 S.E.2d 838 (1978); Brooks v. Narick, W.Va., 243 S.E.2d 841 (1978); Call v. McKenzie, 159 W.Va. 191, 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975); State ex rel. Clancy v. Coiner, 154 W.Va. 857, 179 S.E.2d 726 (1971). With the advent of Rule 11, which is modeled after Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a detailed set of standards and procedures now exists governing the plea bargaining process. For example, we have held that: "West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11, gives a trial court discretion to refuse a plea bargain." Syllabus Point 5, W.Va., State v. Guthrie, 315 S.E.2d 397 (1984).[5] *789 We need not for the purposes of this opinion make a comprehensive analysis of Rule 11. It will be sufficient to examine those provisions of Rule 11 that have a bearing on Dempsey's plea agreement.[6] First, Rule 11(b) makes it clear that a defendant has no absolute right to enter a nolo contendere plea: "Nolo Contendere.A defendant may plead nolo contendere only with the consent of the court. Such a plea shall be accepted by the court only after due consideration of the views of the parties and the interest of the public in the effective administration of justice." Second, under Rule 11(e)(2), the power is vested in the circuit court to accept or reject a plea agreement or to defer acting on it[7] until the court obtains a presentence report under Rule 32(c).[8] Furthermore, Rule 11(e)(4) spells out the procedure to be used when a court rejects a plea bargain.[9] Obviously, one purpose for the presentence report is to enable the court to obtain information with regard to the defendant's background in order to make an informed decision as to whether to accept or reject the guilty or nolo contendere plea. Many jurisdictions have concluded generally that a court, in exercising its discretion to accept or reject a plea agreement, should consider whether the plea agreement is consistent with the public interest or, stated in a slightly different form, whether it promotes the ends or interests of justice. See, e.g., United States v. Bean, 564 F.2d 700, 704 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Gallington, 488 F.2d 637, 640, 27 A.L.R.Fed. 582, 588 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 907, 94 S. Ct. 1613, 40 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1974); United States v. Miller, 722 F.2d 562, 563 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. Barker, 681 F.2d 589, 592 (9th Cir.1982); State v. Superior Court, 125 Ariz. 575, 577, 611 P.2d 928 , 930 (1980) (in banc); Blinken v. State, 291 Md. 297, 308, 435 A.2d 86, 91 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 973, 102 S. Ct. 2235, 72 L. Ed. 2d 846 (1982); State v. Thomas, 61 N.J. 314, 322, 294 A.2d 57 , 61 (1972); State v. Haner, 95 Wash. 2d 858 , 865, 631 P.2d 381 , 385 (1981) (en banc). *790 We conclude that a court's ultimate discretion in accepting or rejecting a plea agreement is whether it is consistent with the public interest in the fair administration of justice. This general standard is not markedly different from the language in Rule 11(b), which states that a court should not accept a nolo contendere plea[10] until "after due consideration of the views of the parties and the interest of the public in the effective administration of justice." Furthermore, as we discuss in more detail in Part II, courts have utilized a similar standard in connection with the dismissal of criminal charges under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and related statutes. As to what is meant by a plea bargain being in the public interest in the fair administration of justice, there is the initial consideration that the plea bargain must be found to have been voluntarily and intelligently entered into by the defendant and that there is a factual basis for his guilty plea. Rule 11(d) and (f). In addition to these factors, which inure to the defendant's benefit, we believe that consideration must be given not only to the general public's perception that crimes should be prosecuted, but to the interests of the victim as well.[11] Similar thoughts were expressed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Kenyon, 85 Wis.2d 36, 47, 270 N.W.2d 160 , 165 (1978): "While the concerns expressed by the court for the defendant were legitimate and proper and go to the public interest to a limited degree, there must also be some concern with the public's right to have the crimes actually committed fairly prosecuted and to the protection of the rights of third persons. The court should consider the various elements as they appear and then exercise its discretion." A review of cases suggests some of the more obvious guidelines that a trial court should use in determining whether a plea agreement should be accepted or rejected. A primary test is in light of the entire criminal event and given the defendant's *791 prior criminal record, whether the plea bargain enables the court to dispose of the case in a manner commensurate with the seriousness of the criminal charges and the character and background of the defendant. One of the leading cases in this area is United States v. Bean, 564 F.2d 700 (5th Cir.1977), in which the defendant appealed the district court's refusal to accept his guilty plea to auto theft, pursuant to a plea bargain that would have required the dismissal of one count of burglary also charged in the indictment. The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court, noting that "since the counts dismissed pursuant to plea bargains often carry heavier penalties than the counts for which a guilty plea is entered, a plea bargain to dismiss charges is an indirect effort to limit the sentencing power of the judge." 564 F.2d at 704. The court also noted that the defendant had a prior burglary and theft conviction, for which he had served four years, and had also served time for unlawfully carrying a weapon. It affirmed the district judge's conclusion "that the plea bargain did not provide for imposition of a sentence commensurate with the offense and the dangerous character of the offender." 564 F.2d at 704. See also United States v. Escobar Noble, 653 F.2d 34 (1st Cir.1981); United States v. Adams, 634 F.2d 830, 56 A.L.R.Fed. 510 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Ocanas, 628 F.2d 353 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984, 101 S. Ct. 2316, 68 L. Ed. 2d 840 (1981); United States v. Munroe, 493 F. Supp. 134 (E.D.Tenn.1980); State v. Todd, 654 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn.1983). It has also been recognized that a plea agreement may be both reasonable and necessary when it is designed to secure a legitimate and important prosecutorial interest. A typical illustration is where the prosecutor enters into a favorable plea bargain with the defendant in order to obtain critical testimony needed to convict an accomplice. E.g., United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624 (5th Cir.1981). Some courts have also considered Standard 14-1.8(a) of the American Bar Association's Standards for Criminal Justice (2d ed.1982), which provides that "[i]t is proper for the court to grant charge and sentence concessions to defendants who enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere when consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the needs of the defendant." The following factors, if established by substantial evidence, are listed as being relevant to whether a plea bargain should be approved: (i) the genuine contriteness of the defendant and his willingness to assume responsibility for his conduct; (ii) the possibility that the plea bargain may make possible alternative correctional measures; and (iii) the avoidance of trial may spare the victims unseemly public scrutiny or embarrassment. To this list, we would also add that there may be cases where the public interest is best served by having the case tried so that public confidence in the criminal justice system is maintained.[12] To ensure that the trial court properly exercises its discretion in accepting or rejecting plea agreements, it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to inform the court of his reasons for proposing the plea agreement. The Eighth Circuit in Gallington, 488 F.2d at 640, mandated that in addition to the procedures specified in Rule 11, "[j]udges are to require the agreement to *792 be disclosed in open court at the time the plea is offered and require that the reasons for reaching the agreement be set forth in detail." (Footnotes omitted) See also United States v. Mack, 655 F.2d 843, 847 (8th Cir.1981); American Bar Association's Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 14-3.3(a) (2d ed.1982). Requiring a prosecutor to state his reasons for entering into a plea agreement with a defendant is as essential as requiring a statement of reasons supporting a motion for the dismissal of criminal charges, as discussed in Part II of this opinion. We, therefore, conclude that a prosecutor has a duty to inform the trial court of his specific reasons for entering into a plea agreement with a defendant. The trial court also has the right to be informed not only of the terms of the agreement, but also of the circumstances surrounding the criminal episode which is covered by the plea bargain. Additionally, the court is entitled to secure all relevant information surrounding the background, prior criminal record, and the degree of criminal involvement of the defendant to assist it in determining whether to accept or reject the tendered plea bargain. II. DISMISSAL OF CHARGES The two written agreements made between the defendants, Dempsey and Brown, and Special Prosecutor Losch recommend the dismissal or nolle prosequi of all the criminal charges, except for the count of false swearing to which Dempsey pled nolo contendere. We held in Syllabus Point 1 of Denham v. Robinson, 72 W.Va. 243, 77 S.E. 970 (1913), that a prosecutor cannot dismiss criminal charges without the prior approval of the court: "The entry of a nolle prosequi by the prosecuting attorney, though the attorney general joins therein, without the consent of the court, is ineffective to discontinue a prosecution upon an indictment by a grand jury." We also stated in Syllabus Point 2 of Denham that while at common law the prosecutor had complete discretion to enter a nolle prosequi, this was not the law in the Virginias: "Though the rule at common law is otherwise, the practice long followed in Virginia, before the separation, and since then in trial courts of this state has become crystalized into our law, and a nolle prosequi entered without the consent of the court will be unavailing to discharge the accused from prosecution."[13] See also State v. Ward, 112 W.Va. 552, 165 S.E. 803, 85 A.L.R. 1175 (1932).[14] As a corollary to this rule and in order to guide the court in determining whether to consent to a nolle prosequi, we said in State ex rel. Skinner v. Dostert, W.Va., 278 S.E.2d 624 , 632 (1981), that the prosecutor must give the court his reasons for recommending a nolle prosequi: "[T]he prosecutor has a duty to support his action with reviewable reasons and since the court entertaining the motion to dismiss is entitled to have all of the relevant facts of the case before it rules on the motion, the prosecutor must have a knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding the case before he can legitimately move for a nolle prosequi." The requirement that a dismissal of criminal charges requires the consent of the court is incorporated into Rule 48(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure,[15]*793 which basically follows Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. There is ample federal and state authority for the proposition that under such rule, specific reasons must be given by the prosecutor for the dismissal so that the trial court judge can competently decide whether to consent to the dismissal. See, e.g., United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (D.C.Cir.1973); United States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 352 (5th Cir.1982); United States v. Derr, 726 F.2d 617, 619 (10th Cir.1984); United States v. Doe, 101 F. Supp. 609 , 611 (D.Conn.1951); United States v. Shanahan, 168 F. Supp. 225 , 229 (S.D.Ind.1958); United States v. Becker, 221 F. Supp. 950 , 953 (W.D.Mo.1963); United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Ass'n, 228 F. Supp. 483 , 486 (S.D.N.Y.1964); United States v. Butler, 486 F. Supp. 1285 , 1294 (E.D.Tex.1980), rev'd sub nom., United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc); Turner v. District Court, 188 Colo. 146, 150, 533 P.2d 498 , 500 (1975) (en banc); State v. Lloyd, 185 Conn. 199, 202, 440 A.2d 867, 869 (1981); Manning v. Engelkes, 281 N.W.2d 7 , 9 (Iowa 1979); Genesee County Prosecutor v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 391 Mich. 115, 120, 215 N.W.2d 145 , 147 (1974); State v. Aubol, 309 Minn. 323, 325, 244 N.W.2d 636 , 638 (1976); 8B J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 48.02[2] (2d ed.1983); 3A C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 812 (2d ed.1982); Annot., 48 A.L.R.Fed. 635 (1980). Moreover, most of the foregoing courts also hold that as a general rule, a trial court should not grant a motion to dismiss criminal charges unless the dismissal is consonant with the public interest in the fair administration of justice. See also United States v. Perate, 719 F.2d 706, 710 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 512 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2168, 48 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1976); United States v. Dupris, 664 F.2d 169, 174 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Weber, 721 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. Del Vecchio, 707 F.2d 1214, 1216 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Hastings, 447 F. Supp. 534 , 537 (E.D.Ark.1977); United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie, 428 F. Supp. 114 , 117 (S.D.N.Y.1977). This public interest standard is the same as the standard applied to the acceptance of plea agreements under Rule 11, discussed in Part I of this opinion. Absent some peculiar feature in the particular case, we believe the considerations that we have outlined in Part I for determining whether to accept or reject a plea bargain are equally applicable to the dismissal of criminal charges under Rule 48(a). In the majority of situations, most dismissals under Rule 48(a) arise in connection with a plea bargain.[16] *794 We have been provided the transcript of the hearing before the trial court on November 19, 1983. At this hearing, Special Prosecutor Losch argued in support of the Dempsey and Brown agreements.[17] In light of the foregoing law, we conclude that general statements by a prosecutor that a dismissal of criminal charges would effectuate the efficient and proper administration of justice are not specific enough to support the dismissal. Nor is it sufficient for a prosecutor to generally conclude that the case is difficult and might be lost, because uncertainty is inherent in any litigation. What is needed from a prosecutor is a statement of the salient facts and specific reasons that would provide a trial court with some basis for concluding that the dismissal of criminal charges is warranted, following the criteria which we have set out in Part I, infra. We again stress the primary test, as noted in Part I, is whether the plea bargain is too lenient when viewed in the light of the entire criminal event and the defendant's prior criminal record. It is possible that the special prosecutor had some valid reasons to support the agreements with Dempsey and Brown and, consequently, the proposed dismissal of charges under Rule 48(a) might possibly be warranted. These specific reasons, however, were not given to the special judge in any of the proceedings below. At this point, none of the criminal charges against either Dempsey or Brown have been dismissed. Rule 48(a) requires a prosecutor, following a court's approval of a dismissal, to "file a dismissal of an indictment, information, or complaint." We interpret *795 the requirement that a prosecutor "file a dismissal" to mean that a written order must be signed by a judge before prosecution terminates on the criminal charges dismissed in the written order. This interpretation is consistent with our view, discussed more fully in Part III, that the plea bargaining process necessitates that a court be given flexibility and the authority to change its earlier decisions as either new facts are discovered or previous oral rulings are reconsidered. The special judge in the present case has only orally approved of the dismissals proposed in the agreements, which does not in and of itself serve to formally dismiss the outstanding indictments and informations. Therefore, the dismissal of criminal charges is not completed until a written order approved by a judge has been entered of record dismissing criminal indictments or informations, pursuant to Rule 48(a) and the standards and procedures discussed herein. III. THE JEOPARDY BAR The defendant Dempsey urges that further reconsideration of his plea is foreclosed because jeopardy attached once the circuit court orally agreed to accept his nolo contendere plea, pursuant to the plea agreement, and orally pronounced sentence thereon. In his view, the lack of a written order accepting the plea and imposing a sentence is not material. We disagree. Although general language can be found to the effect that jeopardy attaches once a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is accepted by a trial court, see, e.g., United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603, 637 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 940, 100 S. Ct. 2163, 64 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1980); United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 606 (3d Cir.1973); United States v. Bullock, 579 F.2d 1116, 1118 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 967, 99 S. Ct. 456, 58 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1978); Nardone v. Mullen, 113 R.I. 415, 418, 322 A.2d 27 , 29 (1974); but see United States v. Combs, 634 F.2d 1295, 1298 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S. Ct. 1987, 68 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1981), this statement is usually made without any extended analysis of double jeopardy principles. We agree with the following remarks made in United States v. Cruz, 709 F.2d 111, 113-14 (1st Cir.1983), where the court reviewed a number of these cases which comment on the attachment of jeopardy in a plea bargaining situation: "None of these cases, however, analyze in depth the reasons for the application of the double jeopardy rule and all of them are factually distinguishable from the situation before us. For several reasons we do not think that jeopardy must attach automatically and irrevocably in all instances when a guilty plea is accepted. Acceptance of a guilty plea to a lesser offense carries no implied acquittal of the greater offense and for this reason is not the same as a verdict. See Klobuchir v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 639 F.2d 966 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1031, 102 S. Ct. 566, 70 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1981); Hawk v. Berkemer, 610 F.2d 445 (6th Cir.1979). Moreover, the `ordeal' of a Rule 11 proceeding is significantly different from the ordeal of trial: Rule 11 hearings are not trials, and the defendant here was never in jeopardy of conviction on any charge except the lesser offense to which his plea was offered." (Footnote omitted) We have generally followed the United States Supreme Court's holdings with regard to when jeopardy attaches, as summarized in United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 , 569, 97 S. Ct. 1349, 1353, 51 L. Ed. 2d 642, 650 (1977): "The protections afforded by the [Double Jeopardy] Clause are implicated only when the accused has actually been placed in jeopardy.... This state of jeopardy attaches when a jury is empaneled and sworn, or, in a bench trial, when the judge begins to receive evidence." (Citations omitted) See Syllabus Point 1, Adkins v. Leverette, W.Va., 264 S.E.2d 154 (1980);[18]*796 Syllabus Point 4, Manning v. Inge, W.Va., 288 S.E.2d 178 (1982).[19] We are not aware of any United States Supreme Court opinion which discusses when jeopardy attaches in a plea bargaining situation. The rules regarding the attachment of jeopardy at a jury or a nonjury trial[20] cannot be directly transposed to the plea bargain process because of the inherent differences between the plea bargain procedure and the formal adjudicatory process arising from a criminal trial. A plea agreement is proposed after a process of informal and off-the-record negotiations between a prosecutor and a defense attorney, who cooperate with each other in seeking to resolve the case in a way that is acceptable to both parties. As one commentator observed, "[P]lea bargaining commonly occurs in private where no victim, member of the public, or other watchdog is likely to see it and howl." Alschuler, Implementing the Criminal Defendant's Right to Trial: Alternatives to the Plea Bargaining System, 50 U.Chi.L.Rev. 931, 962 (1983). Once the parties have arrived at a plea bargain, there is no adversarial relationship between a prosecutor and a defense attorney in the traditional sense because both parties seek to have a court ratify and implement the agreement.[21] Plea agreements frequently contain multiple conditions which, besides sentencing recommendations, may cover a host of matters, such as agreements to allow pleas to lesser included offenses, to dismiss indictment counts or other indictments, to forego additional charges, or to forego recidivist proceedings. In some instances, the obligation of a prosecutor to recommend a sentence or a dismissal of charges under a plea agreement is predicated on a defendant agreeing to testify truthfully in later trials. In these circumstances, the plea will be accepted pursuant to the plea bargain with the agreed sentence either imposed or deferred. If the defendant materially violates a condition of his plea agreement, courts have uniformly permitted the *797 plea bargain to be set aside by the prosecutor, who may then pursue the charges previously covered by the plea agreement.[22]E.g., United States v. Nathan, 476 F.2d 456 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 823, 94 S. Ct. 171, 38 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1973); United States v. Simmons, 537 F.2d 1260 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Donahey, 529 F.2d 831 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 828, 97 S. Ct. 85, 50 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976); United States v. Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379 (10th Cir.); cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S. Ct. 3008, 69 L. Ed. 2d 390, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 831, 102 S. Ct. 127, 70 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1981); State v. Nall, 379 So. 2d 731 (La.1980); Sweetwine v. State, 42 Md.App. 1, 398 A.2d 1262 (1979), aff'd, 288 Md. 199, 421 A.2d 60, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1017, 101 S. Ct. 579, 66 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1980); State v. Rivest, 106 Wis.2d 406, 316 N.W.2d 395 (1982); Annot., 16 A.L.R.4th 1089 (1982). Although these courts do not address the jeopardy consequences in this situation, these cases do suggest facets of the plea bargaining process that merit consideration in fashioning a double jeopardy rule. Plea bargaining is far removed from the traditional guilt-finding process attendant to a jury or nonjury trial. The primary purpose of a plea bargain arrangement is to avoid the factual guilt determination process, as well as to avoid the ordeal of multiple trials. The court's role is not to make a formal adjudication of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the charge to which the defendant is willing to plead,[23] nor does the court determine whether the defendant is innocent of the charges which the prosecutor is willing to dismiss. The central role of the court in a plea bargain, insofar as the defendant is concerned, is to ascertain that the plea is voluntarily and intelligently made and that the defendant understands its consequences and the constitutional rights he is waiving. As we have previously noted, there are courts which have stated that jeopardy attaches once a plea is accepted by the judge and have required the judge to be bound by the plea agreement, including the stipulated sentence. However, to hold that a court is bound to a sentence at the time a plea is accepted and before sentence is actually pronounced and executed is contrary to those cases which hold that a court may increase a previously imposed sentence prior to the time the defendant commences serving under it.[24] In Neidinger v. United States, 647 F.2d 408, 410 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 859, 102 S. Ct. 311, 70 *798 L. Ed. 2d 155 (1981), the Fourth Circuit explained in reference to the authority of a court to modify a sentence, that "[c]onstitutional protection against double jeopardy does not attach prior to the commencement of a sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Bynoe, 562 F.2d 126 (1st Cir.1977); Acme Poultry Corp. v. United States, 146 F.2d 738 (4th Cir.1944), cert. denied, 324 U.S. 860, 65 S. Ct. 865, 89 L. Ed. 2d 1417 (1945)." See also United States v. Ford, 632 F.2d 1354, 1380 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 934, 101 S. Ct. 1399, 67 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1981); United States v. Davidson, 597 F.2d 230, 233 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 861, 100 S. Ct. 127, 62 L. Ed. 2d 83 (1979); State v. Ryan, 86 N.J. 1, 8, 429 A.2d 332 , 336, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 880, 102 S. Ct. 363, 70 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1981).[25] We have adopted a similar rule, without, however, referring to jeopardy principles, in Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. Roberts v. Tucker, 143 W.Va. 114, 100 S.E.2d 550 (1957): "Where imprisonment has begun in satisfaction of a valid sentence, the trial court is without jurisdiction, even during the same term of court, to set aside such valid sentence and impose an additional or increased sentence." Roberts relied on State ex rel. Williams v. Riffe, 127 W.Va. 573, 578, 34 S.E.2d 21, 23 (1945), where we did refer to double jeopardy: "[I]n criminal cases where the judgment has been satisfied in whole or in part, [the rule] is limited to those cases in which the trial court reduces the penalty imposed. Cases in which the penalty is increased are treated as subjecting the accused to double jeopardy and therefore the second sentence is void, leaving in effect the original sentence."[26] We conclude that the entry of a nolo contendere or a guilty plea pursuant to a plea bargain and the oral pronouncement of a sentence by a circuit court does not impose a double jeopardy bar where the defendant has not served any portion of the sentence. We reject the idea that jeopardy attaches when a plea is accepted as being inconsistent with the complex and contingent nature of plea bargaining and as impeding the authority of a court to decide ultimately whether the plea agreement serves the public interest in the fair administration of justice. We therefore conclude that in the present case, the oral acceptance of Dempsey's nolo contendere plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, and the oral imposition of sentence does not impose a jeopardy bar that can be claimed by Dempsey where he has not served any portion of the sentence. IV. RULE 11(e)(2) & (3) Some courts appear to avoid the jeopardy issue by interpreting Rule 11(e)(2) & (3) as requiring a court to be permanently bound *799 to its initial oral acceptance of a plea agreement. E.g., United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325, 1338-39 (D.C.Cir.1982); Cruz, 709 F.2d at 115; United States v. Burruezo, 704 F.2d 33, 38 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Holman, 728 F.2d 809, 812 (6th Cir.1984);[27]United States v. Runck, 601 F.2d 968, 970 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1015, 100 S. Ct. 665, 62 L. Ed. 2d 644 (1980); Banks v. State, 56 Md.App. 38, 47, 466 A.2d 69 , 73 (1983).[28] Conversely, several jurisdictions have held, without any extensive discussion of the procedural rule involved, that a court may initially accept a plea agreement and then later reject it, provided the defendant is permitted to withdraw his plea. See Dolchok v. State, 639 P.2d 277 (Alaska 1982); Reaves v. State, 417 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.App.1982); Barker v. State, 259 So. 2d 200 (Fla.App.1972); State v. Wenzel, 306 N.W.2d 769 (Iowa 1981); People v. Dulin, 122 Mich.App. 382, 332 N.W.2d 492 (1983). Rule 11(e)(2) authorizes a court to accept, reject, or defer its acceptance of a plea agreement until the presentence report is considered. Rule 11(e)(3) provides: "If the court accepts the plea agreement, the court shall inform the defendant that it will embody in the judgment and sentence the disposition provided for in the plea agreement." The rationale generally given by those courts that bind a trial court to its initial oral acceptance of a plea agreement rests upon the premise that Rule 11(e)(2) permits a trial court to defer acceptance until the presentence report is considered. Consequently, a trial court that has not deferred accepting the plea agreement is bound.[29] However, this position is unduly semantic because it looks to the language that a court uses rather than to its actions. From a standpoint of judicial economy, a court may wish to conditionally accept the guilty plea and hold the voluntariness and factual basis hearing as required by Rule 11(d) and (f). Until the court is satisfied on these points, there would be no necessity for ordering a presentence report. Furthermore, we fail to see how a defendant suffers any harm if Rule 11(e)(2) and (3) are interpreted as not binding the trial court to its initial acceptance of the plea agreement. It is clear from Rule 11(e)(4),[30] that if the trial court ultimately rejects the plea bargain, it must "afford the defendant the opportunity to then withdraw his plea." Thus, the defendant is *800 placed back in the position he was in before the bargain was made. It may be argued that a defendant loses the benefit of his previously accepted bargain when it is later rejected by a trial court. However, a plea bargain is conditional until a trial court has reviewed it and has ascertained its acceptability in light of the criminal act, the defendant's criminal record and the interest of the public. To hold otherwise is to deny the trial court its legitimate role in deciding whether to accept or reject a plea bargain, which it is clearly authorized to do under Rule 11(e). A strict interpretation of Rule 11(e)(2) & (3) also ignores not only the well recognized principle, discussed more fully in Part III, supra, that a court may increase a sentence before a defendant commences serving under it, but also ignores the authority of a trial court to reconsider and rescind previously announced oral or interlocutory orders. See, e.g., United States v. Green, 414 F.2d 1174, 1175 (D.C.Cir.1969); United States v. LoRusso, 695 F.2d 45, 52 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1070, 103 S. Ct. 1525, 75 L. Ed. 2d 948 (1983); Jerry, 487 F.2d at 604; United States v. Farrah, 715 F.2d 1097, 1099 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Waite, 450 F. Supp. 1165, 1167 (W.D.Pa.1978). See also Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Kincaid v. Spillers, W.Va., 268 S.E.2d 137 (1980). We, therefore, conclude that under Rule 11, a trial court is not foreclosed from accepting a plea, which is made pursuant to a plea agreement, and conditioning its acceptance upon the receipt of a presentence report. After considering the presentence report, the trial court may reject the plea agreement, in which event it shall permit the defendant to withdraw his plea, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Rule 11(e)(4). In the present case, the special judge is not bound to his initial oral acceptance of the agreements presented by Dempsey and Brown. Should the special judge decide, upon further reflection or upon the receipt of additional information, that the agreements do not promote the public interest in the fair administration of justice, he has the authority to reject the agreements, provided Dempsey is given the opportunity to withdraw his nolo contendere plea. V. PROHIBITION The petitioner's status is that of a resident, taxpayer, and concerned citizen of Fayette County. The respondents challenge her standing to maintain a writ of prohibition. In reviewing our prohibition cases, we note that the general rule for standing is expressed in Syllabus Point 6 of State ex rel. Linger v. County Court of Upshur County, 150 W.Va. 207, 144 S.E.2d 689 (1965): "As a general rule any person who will be affected or injured by the proceeding which he seeks to prohibit is entitled to apply for a writ of prohibition; but a person who has no interest in such proceeding and whose rights will not be affected or injured by it can not do so." See also State ex rel. Glass Blowers Ass'n v. Silver, 151 W.Va. 749, 155 S.E.2d 564 (1967); State ex rel. Gordon Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. West Virginia State Board of Examiners for Registered Nurses, 136 W.Va. 88, 66 S.E.2d 1 (1951); Midland Investment Corp. v. Ballard, 101 W.Va. 591, 133 S.E. 316 (1926), overruled on other grounds, State ex rel. Blankenship v. McHugh, 158 W.Va. 986, 217 S.E.2d 49 (1975). We have also recognized that citizens and taxpayers may have standing in prohibition to challenge the constitutionality of a statute which affects not only the administration of justice, but also requires the payment of public funds. Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Goodwin v. Cook, W.Va., 248 S.E.2d 602 (1978); see also Howard v. Ferguson, 116 W.Va. 362, 180 S.E. 529 (1935). The prayer of the petition is that the special circuit judge should be prohibited from entering any orders carrying into effect the Dempsey and Brown agreements. As we have earlier noted, a circuit judge has the right to review a plea bargain agreement and a motion to dismiss or nolle *801 prosequi a criminal charge and to reject the same if it is contrary to the public interest or if the prosecutor has failed to give justifiable reasons for his actions in recommending the plea bargain or the motion to dismiss criminal charges. Ultimately, however, this action on the part of the circuit judge is discretionary and ordinarily prohibition does not lie for an abuse of discretion as we stated in Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver, 160 W.Va. 314, 233 S.E.2d 425 (1977): "A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. It will only issue where the trial court has no jurisdiction or having such jurisdiction exceeds its legitimate powers. W.Va.Code, 53-1-1." See also Conley v. Spillers, W.Va., 301 S.E.2d 216 , 224 (1983).[31] The special circuit judge should review the adequacy of the reasons advanced by the special prosecutor for his agreements with Brown and Dempsey and consider whether the agreements should be finally accepted under the guidelines set out herein. Because this review and decision is within his sound discretion, we decline to issue a writ of prohibition against the special circuit judge.[32] VI. MANDAMUS The petitioner seeks to have a writ of mandamus issued from this Court to compel the special prosecutor to do the following: (1) to withdraw his promise of immunity from prosecution to Pennington; (2) to seek an indictment against Pennington on sexual assault and false-swearing related charges; and (3) to nullify the agreements made with Dempsey and Brown and to proceed to prosecute them on the underlying charges. Although Special Prosecutor Losch asserts that he did not offer immunity to Pennington, the minutes of the March 3, *802 1983 grand jury do not bear this out.[33] The essence of their unwritten agreement is that in return for Pennington's cooperation in the prosecution of Dempsey and Brown, Special Prosecutor Losch agreed not to seek any criminal charges against Pennington, provided Pennington remained truthful. We begin by noting that our general immunity statute, W.Va.Code, 57-5-2,[34] authorizes only a court to grant immunity to a person when "the ends of justice may be promoted by compelling such testimony or evidence." In State v. Cox, W.Va., 253 S.E.2d 517 (1979), we held that law enforcement officers have no authority to give or promise immunity against prosecution[35] and also indicated that prosecutors possessed no such authority.[36] Most courts have held that in the absence of some express constitutional or statutory provision, a prosecutor has no inherent authority to grant immunity against prosecution. See Gipson v. State, 375 So. 2d 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1978), aff'd, 375 So. 2d 514 (Ala.1979); Hammers v. State, 261 Ark. 585, 550 S.W.2d 432 (1977) (in banc); Governmental Ethics Comm'n v. Cahill, 225 Kan. 772, 594 P.2d 1103 (1979); Commonwealth v. Brown, 619 S.W.2d 699 (Ky.1981), overruled on other grounds, Murphy v. Commonwealth, 652 S.W.2d 69 (Ky.1983); State v. McEachern, 431 A.2d 39 (Me.1981); In re Special Investigation No. 231, 295 Md. 366, 455 A.2d 442 (1983); Bowie v. State, 14 Md.App. 567, 287 A.2d 782 (1972); Grand Jurors for Middlesex County v. Wallace, 369 Mass. 876, 343 N.E.2d 844 (1976); Commonwealth v. Strickler, 481 Pa. 579, 393 A.2d 313 (1978); Annot., 4 A.L.R.4th 1221 (1981); contra Surina v. Buckalew, 629 P.2d 969 (Alaska 1981). In Bowie, 14 Md. App. at 575, 287 A.2d at 787, the court analyzed an asserted grant of immunity by a prosecutor and concluded: "There is no inherent, common law power in the State's Attorney or in the Grand Jury or in the judge or in anyone else to confer immunity from prosecution. Immunity is exclusively a creation of statute and can only exist where a statute has brought it into being.... It is universally recognized that, absent a statutory grant of power, the prosecuting attorney is not entitled, solely by virtue of his office, to confer immunity upon a witness." (Citations omitted) *803 Independent of any statutory grant of immunity, courts have considered whether a prosecutor's attempted grant of immunity from prosecution is enforceable in three general situations. First, the agreement not to prosecute is made in connection with a court-approved plea agreement. In this situation, most courts will enforce the agreement since it was court approved and the prosecutor was deemed to have pledged the public faith. Cf., Ward, 112 W.Va. at 554-55, 165 S.E. at 804-05, 85 A.L.R. at 1177; see generally Annot., 43 A.L.R.3d 281 (1972). Second, a witness refuses to testify in some proceeding, claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The prosecutor, although lacking any statutory authority, informs the witness that he will grant immunity from prosecution. E.g., Commonwealth v. Brown, supra; Grand Jurors of Middlesex County v. Wallace, supra; Commonwealth v. Strickler, supra. Third, the prosecutor without court approval initially agrees not to prosecute if the suspect will cooperate in the prosecution of other suspects. E.g., Gipson v. State, supra; Butler v. State, 55 Md.App. 409, 462 A.2d 1230 (1983); State v. Ward, 571 P.2d 1343 (Utah 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1005, 98 S. Ct. 1874, 56 L. Ed. 2d 386 (1978); see generally Comment, Judicial Supervision of Non-Statutory Immunity, 65 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 334 (1974). In these latter two situations, courts have generally followed the basic rule that absent some constitutional or statutory grant, a prosecutor possesses no inherent authority to grant immunity from prosecution.[37] Annot., 4 A.L.R. 4th 1221 (1981). We, therefore, conclude that there is no need to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to relief by way of mandamus on this point because the special prosecutor had no inherent authority to grant immunity to Pennington against prosecution nor did he have authority absent the trial court's consent to grant immunity under W.Va. Code, 57-5-2. The question of the petitioner's standing to compel, by way of mandamus, the special prosecutor to initiate criminal charges against Pennington is more complex. We have discussed the duties of the prosecuting attorney at some length in State ex rel. Skinner v. Dostert, 278 S.E.2d 624 , 631 (W.Va.1981), and recognized that he has some discretion in determining whether to prosecute: "The duty to prosecute is qualified, however, in that the prosecuting attorney is vested with discretion in the control of criminal causes, which is committed to him for the public good and for the vindication of the public interest. See State v. Doyle, 64 W.Va. 366, 62 S.E. 453 (1908); Ganger v. Peyton, 379 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1967); Macon v. Com., 187 Va. 363, 46 S.E.2d 396 (1948). Thus, the prosecutor in his discretion may decide which of several possible charges he will bring against an accused. State v. Doyle, supra; Hensley v. City of Norfolk, 216 Va. 369, 218 S.E.2d 735 (1975). The prosecuting attorney, in his sound discretion, may refrain from prosecuting a cause or, having commenced a prosecution, may move the dismissal of a cause, when in good faith and without corrupt *804 motivation or influence, he thinks that the guilt of the accused is doubtful or not capable of adequate proof. See generally, Annot., 155 A.L.R. 10; 63 Am.Jur.2d, Prosecuting Attorneys § 26 (1972). The responsibility of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. State v. Britton, [157 W.Va. 711, 203 S.E.2d 462 (1974)]." More recently in State ex rel. Hamstead v. Dostert, W.Va., 313 S.E.2d 409 (1984), we refined the critical distinction between prosecutorial discretion and duty in Syllabus Point 1: "With respect to the determination of whether to seek an indictment and what indictment will be sought in a particular case, the probable cause standard represents the line of demarcation between prosecutorial discretion and prosecutorial duty." We also indicated in Hamstead that if a citizen believes or knows that probable cause exists to charge an individual with the commission of a crime and the prosecutor has not acted, such citizen may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the prosecutor to act.[38] In Hamstead, we cited State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, W.Va., 285 S.E.2d 500 (1981), but did not discuss it in any detail. In Miller, we granted the right to the victim of a malicious assault to apply to a circuit court to present his complaint to a grand jury, after he had been refused access to the grand jury by the prosecuting attorney.[39] Hamstead and Miller exemplify our view that a prosecuting attorney does not have absolute and uncontrollable discretion in determining when criminal charges will be brought. It seems to us that if courts have the power to reject a plea bargain and the dismissal of charges as proposed by a prosecutor, it is an anomaly to find that courts are powerless to provide any control in his decision to initiate criminal proceedings.[40] *805 While we addressed the standing issue in Hamstead, we did so in broad terms utilizing cases[41] that followed Syllabus Point 3 of State ex rel. Greenbrier County Airport Authority v. Hanna, 151 W. Va. 479, 153 S.E.2d 284 (1967): "Mandamus lies to require the discharge by a public officer of a nondiscretionary duty." This principle, however, involved situations where it was found initially that the public official had a nondiscretionary duty. Here, we have a situation where the prosecutor initially has discretion and it is only when probable cause is shown that he has a duty to act. The question of probable cause is essentially one of fact. Cf. Syllabus Point 2, State v. Meadows, W.Va., 292 S.E.2d 50 (1982) (probable cause for warrantless arrest based on facts and circumstances within knowledge of arresting officers); see also Syllabus Point 7, State v. Craft, W.Va., 272 S.E.2d 46 (1980); State v. Duvernoy, 156 W.Va. 578, 195 S.E.2d 631 (1973); State v. Plantz, 155 W.Va. 24, 180 S.E.2d 614 (1971). This suggests two important conditions on the right of a person to maintain such an action: (1) A person who seeks a mandamus to compel prosecution must possess the necessary facts to establish probable cause or stand in some special position such as being the victim of the crime or a close relative of the victim if the victim is deceased or otherwise incapacitated from assisting in the prosecution of the crime,[42] and (2) the action must be filed in a circuit court, which can make the necessary findings of fact more efficiently than we can in this Court. Cf. Hinkle v. Black, W.Va., 262 S.E.2d 744 , 749 (1979) ("This Court is not engineered to be as efficient a finder of fact as a trial court because of the cumbersome procedures for taking depositions."); State ex rel. Booth v. Board of Ballot Comm'rs, 156 W.Va. 657, 196 S.E.2d 299 (1973) (election mandamus action where we held that the factual issues had to be decided by circuit court before we could rule on mandamus). The petitioner does not allege any facts that bring her into a special standing posture such that a right to require prosecution of Dempsey and Brown can be shown. Moreover, even if such a special standing could be shown, the decision as to further prosecution of Dempsey and Brown would first have to be determined by the special circuit judge's action on the agreements tendered to him by the special prosecutor. We decline to intervene by way of a mandamus from this Court on a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court under the guidelines set forth in Parts I and II. With regard to Pennington, where no charges are pending, even if the petitioner could demonstrate she has standing, the mandamus should not be brought originally in this Court as the existence of probable cause is a factual issue which is best presented and developed at the circuit court level. For the foregoing reasons, we decline to issue the writs of prohibition and mandamus. *806 We do not foreclose further review and action in and by the circuit court that is consonant with the principles expressed herein. Writs denied.

eaca4a2991d69a245e91aa1a37f902983097eddf46d90135ef8f0c270f227537

1984-06-27 00:00:00

19d78def-6a35-45ff-896a-41a0597b0bbf

Musgrove v. Hickory Inn, Inc.

281 S.E.2d 499

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Musgrove v. Hickory Inn, Inc. Annotate this Case 281 S.E.2d 499 (1981) John Robert MUSGROVE v. The HICKORY INN, INC., et al. No. 14470. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. September 8, 1981. *500 Brent E. Beveridge and Susan K. McLaughlin, Fairmont, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. MILLER, Justice: Plaintiff, John Robert Musgrove, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Taylor County dismissing his civil action in which he sought damages against Hickory Inn, Inc., and two of its alleged employees, Tom and Betty Bradley, for injuries received from an assault allegedly committed by them. Plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing the action. We agree and reverse the decision of the circuit court. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that on the evening of December 5, 1975, while he was a customer at the Hickory Inn, Inc., a corporation, the defendants Tom Bradley and Betty Bradley, "acting as agents, employees and/or officers of the Hickory Inn, Inc., without justification or adequate provocation, maliciously and wilfully committed an assault ... by striking [him] about the head, shoulders, back and other parts of his body with the butt of a gun and a baseball bat." Plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages. After the filing of the complaint, the defendants moved to dismiss "because there is no such corporation in the State of West Virginia doing business as `The Hickory Inn, Inc.,' ... and the complaint alleges Tom Bradley and Betty Bradley were ... `acting as agents, employees and/or officers of The Hickory Inn, Inc.'" This motion was argued before the circuit court on January 5, 1978. At the same time, the plaintiff submitted a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss and an amended complaint which deleted the references to the corporation as well as the defendants Bradleys' capacity as agents or employees of the corporation. On March 16, 1978, the trial court dismissed the action finding that "there is no such corporation as the Hickory Inn, Inc.," and "the complaint fails to state that the Bradleys were acting as individuals but in fact states they were acting as agents ... of the Hickory Inn, Inc...." Plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his suit against the Bradleys. The dismissal of the Hickory Inn, Inc., is not challenged. Plaintiff relies on Rule 9(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure (RCP), which basically provides that it is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party.[1] In Employers Fire Insurance Company v. Biser, W.Va., 242 S.E.2d 708 (1978), we specifically recognized the principles embodied in Rule 9(a): "Rule 9(a), R.C.P., provides that `It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued ...' That rule further provides that if capacity to sue is questioned, it must be done by `specific negative averment.' No such specific negative averment having been made by the defendant, the court's dismissal on this ground was reversible error." 242 S.E.2d at 711. In Biser, two insurance companies had paid for fire damage to the residence of their insureds. The companies obtained a right of subrogation and sued the defendant, *501 Biser, who was alleged to have negligently caused the fire loss. The companies failed to allege in their complaint in what legal capacity they sued, that is, they did not allege that they were individuals, partnerships or corporations. In Syllabus Point 1 of Biser, we stated that it is not necessary "to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued." We also said in Syllabus Points 1 and 2[2] that if an issue of capacity is to be raised by a party, it must be done by specific negative averment. The term "pleader" was used, but it is clear from the case that "pleader" means the party who desires to raise the capacity issue. See 2A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 9.02. Biser was concerned with the lack of necessity to aver capacity under Rule 9(a), RCP. Here, however, we actually have an averment by plaintiff of capacity of the individual defendants as agents, employees and/or officers of the corporation. It is clear, however, from the plaintiff's complaint that he sought damages from both the corporation and the defendants individually, as the latter had directly administered the beating which gave rise to his injuries. In State ex rel. Bumgarner v. Sims, 139 W.Va. 92, 79 S.E.2d 277 (1953), we stated: "In this jurisdiction a joint action of tort may be instituted against a master and servant in a case in which plaintiff's injuries were occasioned solely by the negligence of the servant, ... The relation of master and servant in those cases, in which the doctrine of respondeat superior applies, is joint, and the parties should be regarded as though they were joint tortfeasors. Wills v. Montfair Gas Coal Co., 97 W.Va. 476, 125 S.E. 367. In some respects, however, the relation may be regarded as joint, and several." 139 W.Va. at 111, 79 S.E.2d at 289-90. See also O'Dell v. Universal Credit Co., 118 W.Va. 678, 191 S.E. 568 (1937). Joint and several liability allows the plaintiff to sue either or both. Muldoon v. Kepner, 141 W.Va. 577, 91 S.E.2d 727 (1956); Massey v. Payne, 109 W.Va. 529, 155 S.E. 658 (1930); State ex rel. Bumgarner v. Sims, supra. We said in Fleming v. Nay, 120 W.Va. 625, 630, 200 S.E. 577, 579 (1938), that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not relieve the servant of his tort liability. This principle rests on the fact that an agent or employee can be held personally liable for his own torts against third parties and this personal liability is independent of his agency or employee relationship. This same rule is generally accepted elsewhere. Austin v. Fulton Insurance Company, 498 P.2d 702 (Alaska 1972); Holman v. State, 53 Cal. App. 3d 317 , 124 Cal. Rptr. 773 (1975); Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 146 N.W.2d 626 (1966); Coe v. Ware, 271 Mass. 570, 171 N.E. 732 (1930); Kuchar v. Bernstrauch, 192 Neb. 225, 219 N.W.2d 764 (1974); Russell v. Downing, 114 N.H. 837, 330 A.2d 454 (1974); Jones v. Archibald, 45 A.D.2d 532, 360 N.Y.S.2d 119 (1974); Lawlor v. Scheper, 232 S.C. 94, 101 S.E.2d 269 (1957); Johnson v. Harrigan-Peach Land Development Company, 79 Wash. 2d 745 , 489 P.2d 923 (1971). Of course, we also recognize that if the servant, agent or employee is acting within the scope of his employment, then his principal or employer may also be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Cremeans v. Maynard, W.Va., 246 S.E.2d 253 (1978); Griffith v. George Transfer & Rigging, Inc., 157 W.Va. 316, 201 S.E.2d 281 (1973); Porter v. South Penn Oil Company, 125 W.Va. 361, 24 S.E.2d 330 (1943). In the case before us, insofar as the individual liability of the Bradleys to the *502 plaintiff is concerned, the fact that they were acting individually or as agents is irrelevant. If they tortiously injured the plaintiff, they are liable. In effect, the question of their capacity as agents or employees is immaterial to the plaintiff's right to recover against them personally. Because Rule 9(a), RCP, does not consider averments of capacity necessary to maintain a civil action, and because the incorrect averments of agency regarding the defendants do not alter their liability to the plaintiff, we conclude that the action should not have been dismissed. Therefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Taylor County is reversed, and this case is remanded for further development. Reversed and Remanded.

b5327e348d7782b6b4d8df8fb2f15dafd66afb359ff6de7fd9ef8cfdaca39d11

1981-09-08 00:00:00

5a9fe0a3-6fb5-406e-b625-7c517003cf36

Javins v. WORKERS'COMPENSATION COM'R

320 S.E.2d 119

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Javins v. WORKERS'COMPENSATION COM'R Annotate this Case 320 S.E.2d 119 (1984) Cue D. JAVINS v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Armco, Inc. Cleophas H. HILL v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Westmoreland Coal Co. Ronnie E. BRITTON v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Eastern Associates. Carl E. KEENEY v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Big Mountain Coals, Inc. Charles T. LEWIS v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Eastern Associated Coal. David E.H. LAY v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Eastern Assoc., Inc. Norman J. BALDWIN v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Westmoreland Coal Co. Earnest R. BIRCHFIELD v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Western Assoc. Coal Co. James FRAZIER v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Eastern Assoc. Coal Co. Albert L. McCARTY v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Armco, Inc. Dennis RACER v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Armco, Inc. William D. BRYANT v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Eagle Coal & Dock Co. James E. ROBERTS v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Ottaway Mining Corp. Sidney BALL, Jr. v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and U.S. Steel Corporation. Othar BALL v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Omar Mining Company. Gene A. BOWEN v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Allied Chemical Corporation. Roy L. HENDRICKS v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Buffalo Mining Company. Johnny L. O'NEAL v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Imperial Colliery Company. Leland ESTEP v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Hobert Mining & Const. Co. Ronald BROWNING v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Amherst Coal Company. Van B. CURRY v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Island Creek Coal Company. John HUNT v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and National Coal Mining Company. John P. SIZEMORE v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Amherst Coal Company. John JUDE v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Eastern Associated Coal Corporation. Nos. 16156 through 16178 and 16185. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. June 27, 1984. Dissenting Opinion July 20, 1984. *122 Timothy G. Leach, UMWA, Charleston, for appellants. George D. Blizzard, II, Shaffer & Shaffer, Madison, for appellees. McGRAW, Justice: This consolidated appeal involves twenty-four separate occupational pneumoconiosis claims originally submitted to the Workers' Compensation Commissioner for disability awards. The claimants now appeal from orders of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, presenting two issues for this Court. First, whether the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence under the correct legal standards in its disability determinations. Second, whether the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred by splitting the difference between initial findings or awards and subsequent findings or awards. Finally, whether the claimants are liable for benefits received pending final disposition of protests when their initial awards were subsequently reduced. Because we are remanding each of these claims to the Commissioner, the issue of overpayment need not be addressed. In order to give some perspective to our discussion of the legal issues presented, we will first describe the status of each claimant. I. In all twenty-four of these cases, there exists a similar pattern of events. After the Commissioner's initial nonmedical ruling in each claim that the claimant met the statutory exposure criteria, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board submitted findings and recommendations based upon its own examinations and consideration of other medical evidence to the Commissioner. The Commissioner then made an award in accordance with these findings and recommendations. A protest to this award was subsequently made, usually by the employer. Following these protests, additional test results were submitted for consideration. Faced with conflicting medical evidence in each case, usually in the form of either ventilatory studies or blood gas studies, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board favored evidence in each case which indicated the lowest degree of pulmonary impairment under the theory that due to the irreversible and progressive nature of the disease, such evidence is a more reliable indicator of the claimant's maximum level of pulmonary function. Consequently, evidence indicating a higher degree of impairment was attributed by the Board to factors other than occupational pneumoconiosis. In accordance with the Board's second set of recommendations, the Commissioner then entered a new order either modifying or affirming her initial award.[1] Each claimant subsequently appealed. On December 13, 1983, the Workers' Compensation *123 Appeal Board issued separate but remarkably similar orders in each of these claims. In each case, the Appeal Board apparently calculated the claimant's award by splitting the difference between the Commissioner's initial award and subsequent reduced award, or between the Board's interpretation of test results which indicated a high degree of impairment and results indicating a low degree of impairment. Benefits were paid to each claimant based upon the initial award in each case, and continued during the protest period. The Commissioner's second order and the Appeal Board decisions have resulted in many of these claimants being deemed overpaid. The Commissioner is currently seeking reimbursement from these claimants under West Virginia Code § 23-4-1d (1981 Replacement Vol.). Cue D. Javins filed an application for occupational pneumoconiosis compensation on April 8, 1980. The claimant had been continuously employed by Armco, Inc. at Montcoal, West Virginia for almost sixteen years. Prior to that he had been periodically employed by the same company at various locations in the state since 1950. Resting ear oxymetry tests were performed in September 1981. Based upon these tests, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board recommended and the Commissioner granted a 10% award. Following his employer's protest, new tests were performed which indicated normal pulmonary function. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board then changed its opinion, stating that the claimant had pneumoconiosis with no measurable pulmonary impairment. Therefore, the Commissioner set aside the prior 10% award and granted the claimant a 5% permanent partial disability award.[2] Whereupon, the claimant appealed and the Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner's order and awarded 7%. C. Harvey Hill had previously been granted a 5% award. In March 1980, he filed a new application. At the time the application was filed, the claimant had been employed by the Hampton Division of Westmoreland Coal Company for over twenty years. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that ear oxymetry tests indicated a 10% disability. Therefore, in November 1981, the Commissioner ordered that the claimant be granted an additional 5% award above that already awarded. Following an employer protest, new ear oxymetry results were admitted into evidence which were within normal limits. In addition, two sets of blood gas studies were admitted, one offered by the claimant and one by the employer. Members of the Board testified that based upon these new test results, their recommendation was that no additional award beyond the original 5% disability in the previous claim be granted. Accordingly, the Commissioner set aside the November 1981 award and denied any award on this claim. Following the claimant's appeal, the Appeal Board reversed and ordered that an additional 2% disability be entered. Ronnie E. Britton worked in Bald Knob, West Virginia for Eastern Associated Coal Corporation from May 1969 through March 1981. Prior to that he had been periodically employed by the other colliery in the state since 1967. The claimant filed a pneumoconiosis disability claim on May 5, 1981. Based upon pulmonary function studies performed at the Charleston Area Medical Center, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that the claimant had pneumoconiosis with a 25% impairment. Therefore, the Commissioner granted a 25% award. The employer protested, and the claimant was retested at the Charleston Area Medical Center. The Board found that the new results indicated only a 20% impairment. The Commissioner then set aside her previous order and granted a new award based upon 20% disability. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner *124 and awarded 22% permanent disability. Carl E. Keeney was employed by Big Mountain Coals, Inc. from October 28, 1970, and was still working at the time his application for disability was filed on February 4, 1980. Prior to that date, he had worked for two other companies since 1960, one in West Virginia and the other in Texas. Based upon its own examination and tests, and blood gas studies performed at the Appalachian Pulmonary Laboratory in Beckley offered by the claimant, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board made a finding that the claimant had pneumoconiosis with a 15% impairment. At a protest hearing conducted on July 28, 1982, the employer offered results of blood gas studies obtained at the Charleston Area Medical Center. At this hearing, the claimant offered additional blood gas studies performed at the Appalachian Pulmonary Laboratory. The Board indicated that the studies offered by the employer showed that gas exchange was within normal limits and found that the claimant had pneumoconiosis, but with no impairment. The Commissioner then set aside the prior 15% award, and granted a 5% award for pneumoconiosis without impairment. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed, and ordered a 9% award. Charles T. Lewis has been retired since March 1977. In 1976, he was examined by the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board and was found to have pneumoconiosis with a 20% impairment of pulmonary function. Following an employer protest, this evaluation was changed to 15% impairment, and the Commissioner granted a 15% award. In late 1979, Mr. Lewis petitioned to reopen his claim. In support of this petition, he submitted test results indicating a progression in the disease. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board reviewed these findings, as well as tests performed at their request at the Charleston Area Medical Center. The Board found 20% impairment due to pneumoconiosis, or 5% over and above the extent of impairment ultimately found in 1976. Following an employer's protest, repeat blood gas studies were performed. On the basis of the most recent test, the Board changed their recommendation to a finding that the claimant was fully compensated by the 15% award in 1976. Therefore, the Commissioner denied any further award. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner's final order and granted a 2% increase. David E.H. Lay was employed by Eastern Associated Coal Corporation in April 1952, and was still working at the time he filed an application for pneumoconiosis disability benefits on November 11, 1979. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board, considering its own pulmonary function studies and those submitted by the claimant's physician, found that the claimant had occupational pneumoconiosis with 20% impairment. The Commissioner granted a 20% permanent partial disability award. The employer and claimant both protested. At a subsequent protest hearing, the employer offered repeat blood gas tests performed at the Charleston Area Medical Center. The Board indicated these tests showed pneumoconiosis without any impairment. The Commissioner set aside the previous 20% award and granted the statutory 5% without impairment award. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner and ordered a 10% award. Norman J. Baldwin was employed by the Hampton Division of Westmoreland Coal Company from April 11, 1972, and had worked there for over 6 years when he filed his application for disability benefits. Prior to that he had been employed by another West Virginia colliery. On the basis of ear oxymetry studies, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board recommended and the Commissioner granted a 10% permanent partial disability award. Following his employer's protest, repeat ear oxymetry tests were performed. Upon evaluation of the new studies, the Board found the claimant had pneumoconiosis with no impairment. Therefore, the Commissioner set aside the previous 10% award and ordered the 5% without impairment statutory award. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed *125 the Commissioner's final order and granted a 7% award. Earnest R. Birchfield had been working for Eastern Associated Coal Corporation since 1963 and filed for disability compensation in March 1979. He had also worked for one other colliery in the state from 1942 to 1960. Following examination and tests, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board determined that ear oxymetry tests indicated that the claimant had a 10% pulmonary impairment due to pneumoconiosis. At a hearing upon the employer's protest, the Board reviewed repeat ear oxymetry tests requested by the employer which indicated no impairment. Although blood gas studies performed by Appalachian Pulmonary Laboratory which were offered by the employee indicated substantial impairment, blood gas studies performed at the Charleston Area Medical Center which were offered by the employer showed no impairment. Thus, there were two ear oxymetry studies, one abnormal and one normal; and two blood gas studies, one abnormal and one normal. The Board changed its recommendation to pneumoconiosis without impairment and the Commissioner accordingly entered a 5% statutory award. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed and entered a 7% award. James Frazier filed for disability compensation due to occupational pneumoconiosis on September 28, 1979. He had been employed by Eastern Associated Coal Corporation since 1948. Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board examination and tests revealed that Mr. Frazier had pneumoconiosis with a 10% functional impairment. Therefore, the Commissioner granted a 10% permanent disability award. The employer protested and subsequently submitted results from repeat ear oxymetry tests, which were performed in November 1981. Based upon this new evidence, the Board changed its findings to pneumoconiosis without any impairment. Consequently, the prior 10% award was set aside by the Commissioner and replaced with a 5% award. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed this final order and granted a 7% award. Albert L. McCarty had been working for Armco, Inc. for over 24 years when he petitioned to reopen his claim in 1979. He had previously been examined by the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board in 1975 and was found to have pneumoconiosis with 15% impairment of pulmonary function. Mr. McCarty's petition to reopen was granted based upon medical evidence of progression of the disease. Based upon its own evaluation and the most recent evaluation by the claimant's physician, the Board found a 5% increase in impairment. Therefore, the Commissioner granted an additional 5% compensation award. The employer protested and subsequently offered into evidence repeat blood gas studies which indicated that the claimant was fully compensated by the previous 15% award. The Commissioner set aside the recent 5% increase and denied any further award. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed and granted a 2% increase. Dennis Racer has been employed by Armco, Inc. for various intervals since 1944. At the time he filed an application for disability compensation in 1980, he had been working for Armco continuously since 1971. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board examined and tested Mr. Racer and found that he had pneumoconiosis with a functional impairment of 30%. Therefore, the Commissioner granted a 30% permanent partial disability award. The employer protested and submitted results of pulmonary function studies along with a report from their examining physician which indicated a degree of impairment of approximately 15%. The Board accepted the employer's studies as more accurate because they reflected a lower pulmonary impairment and were therefore, according to the Board, a better indicator of the claimant's disability due to occupational pneumoconiosis. Therefore, the Commissioner set aside the previous 30% award and granted a 15% award. On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner's final order and awarded 22%. William D. Bryant was employed by Eagle Coal and Dock Company from October *126 20, 1970 to February 26, 1979. Prior to that, he had been employed by several other collieries in the state since 1938. The claimant filed for pneumoconiosis compensation in April 1980. On July 21, 1981, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board submitted its findings, which concluded that the claimant had pneumoconiosis with 15% pulmonary function impairment. The Commissioner granted a 15% disability award. The claimant protested and underwent repeat testing at the Charleston Area Medical Center. The Board interpreted these tests to indicate 30% impairment. Also admitted into evidence were additional pulmonary function studies performed on the claimant and reported by the employer's physician. The Board interpreted this evidence as showing 20% impairment. The Commissioner set aside the previous 15% award and granted 20%. On the claimant's appeal, the Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner and awarded 24% (6% less than the Board's original findings and 4% greater than the Board's subsequent findings). James E. Roberts has been working for various collieries in West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania since 1947, and was employed by Ottaway Mining Corporation when he applied for disability compensation in 1977. On July 17, 1979, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board submitted its findings that the claimant had pneumoconiosis without measurable impairment. The claimant protested. There were a total of four additional sets of studies offered into evidence, two by the claimant and two by the employer. The Board rejected two earlier testings (one submitted by the claimant, the other submitted by the employer), because they were performed during periods of hospitalization for other reasons. Instead, the Board chose the employer's second tests over the claimant's second tests because the employer's were performed later. According to the Board, the employer's results indicated no functional impairment, while the claimant's results indicated between 20-25% impairment. On September 2, 1982, the Commissioner granted the claimant the 5% statutory award for pneumoconiosis without measurable impairment. The claimant appealed, and the Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner and awarded 10%. Sidney Ball had been employed for nearly ten years by United States Steel Corporation and was still working for that company when he filed his application for compensation on January 29, 1979. On the basis of its examination, performed in April 1981, the Board recommended a finding of 20% impairment. Following the employer's protest to the Commissioner's 20% award, new tests were performed in September 1981. After review of these tests the Board changed its recommendation to 15% impairment, and the Commissioner then modified the previous order awarding 20% to an award of 15%. On appeal, the Commissioner's award of 15% was reversed and the claimant was granted 17% by the Appeal Board. Othar Ball filed his application on March 7, 1979. He had ceased work in September 1978 after being employed by Omar Mining Company for nearly ten years, and having worked in other mines in West Virginia at various times since 1946. Based on the results of its own tests performed March 18, 1980, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that the claimant was suffering from pneumoconiosis with a 10% functional impairment. The employer protested this finding and submitted tests performed in November 1979, which, according to the employer's physician, showed no evidence of impairment due to pneumoconiosis. The Commissioner set aside the original 10% finding of the Board and granted a 5% statutory award. The results of tests performed in May 1980 were comparable to those performed in March, but were discounted by the Board. The Appeal Board subsequently granted the claimant a 7% permanent partial disability award. Gene A. Bowen had been continuously employed by the Semet-Solvay Division of Allied Chemical Corporation for over twenty-five years at the time his application was filed on December 14, 1979, and, in addition, had worked for the same company on various dates since 1950. Based on studies *127 performed in June 1976, the Board found a 25% impairment and the Commissioner granted a 25% award for disability. The employer protested the award, claiming that normal test results had been obtained in April 1978. The Board subsequently evaluated additional results submitted by both the claimant and his employer. The claimant's evidence indicated 15% impairment and the results submitted by the employer from May 1982 demonstrated no measurable impairment. The Board then changed its previous recommendation to a finding of no impairment. The Commissioner set aside the prior award and granted a 5% statutory award. The Appeal Board subsequently awarded the claimant a 10% permanent partial disability. Roy L. Hendricks was employed by Buffalo Mining Company at Lyburn, West Virginia for over ten years when his application for compensation was filed on April 7, 1981. The Board found a 10% impairment based on its studies performed in December 1981. The employer objected to the Board's findings and to the 10% award granted by the Commissioner. New tests performed in March 1982 at the employer's request persuaded the Board to change its opinion to a finding of no impairment, and the Commissioner then changed the amount awarded from 10% to the 5% indicated by statute. On appeal, the Appeal Board ordered a 7% award, reversing the Commissioner's 5% order. Johnny O'Neal was employed by Imperial Colliery Company when his application was filed on January 15, 1980, and had worked for the company for ten years. Based on its own medical evidence and that submitted by the claimant, the Board found that the claimant suffered from a 15% impairment of pulmonary function. The Commissioner granted an award in accordance with these findings. This award was protested by the employer, who requested further tests. The results of these additional tests were submitted at a protest hearing, and caused the Board to alter its earlier opinion to a finding of no impairment. The Commissioner then set aside the claimant's previous award and granted a 5% permanent partial disability. The Appeal Board subsequently reversed the Commissioner's order of 5% and granted 10% to the claimant as compensation. Ronald Browning received a previous permanent partial disability award of 20% in 1978. He had been employed by Amherst Coal Company for nearly thirty years at the time his application for reopening was filed on February 4, 1980. Upon the reopening of this claim, the Board evaluated the results obtained from its own examination along with several results from studies performed in 1980. The Board found a 25% impairment, entitling the claimant to a 5% increase in his previous award. The employer objected to this increase and requested additional testing which was performed in April 1981. The results of these tests indicated that the claimant had suffered no further impairment since his previous award. The Board therefore found that the claimant had been fully compensated by the previous 20% award and no increase was necessary. The Commissioner acted on these findings by denying any further award. The Appeal Board, however, granted the claimant a 2% increase, for a total award of 22%. Van B. Curry had been granted a 15% award for a claim filed in 1975. At the time he reopened his claim, on October 5, 1978, he had been employed for five continuous years by Island Creek Coal Company. He had also previously worked for the same company at various times since 1955. The Board submitted findings stating that the claimant had suffered no further impairment since his previous award of 15%. The claimant protested these findings. The Board then evaluated test results submitted by the claimant which indicated an impairment of 40% along with other, more recent, tests which were performed at the employer's request that indicated only a 15% impairment. The Board recommended that no further compensation be granted, and the Commissioner affirmed the previous order denying further compensation. Despite this finding, the Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner's order and granted *128 the claimant a 10% increase for a total award of 25%. John Hunt had been employed in the coal industry for about thirty-nine years, and for thirteen years consecutively by National Coal Mining Company, when he filed an application for compensation on April 2, 1979. The Board considered its own test results and those obtained from studies performed in March 1978, and found 25% functional impairment. Subsequently, the Commissioner granted a 25% award. The claimant's employer protested this award and requested new tests, which were performed in April 1981. The results of these tests were evaluated by the Board along with results of a previous blood gas study submitted by the claimant. The Board believed that the employer's test results demonstrated an impairment of only 10%. The Commissioner then set aside the previous order and modified the 25% award to 10%. The Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner's order, increasing the award to 15%. John P. Sizemore had been employed by Amherst Coal Company for over thirty years when his application for compensation was filed on November 14, 1980. The Board decided that, based on test results submitted by the claimant, a 25% functional impairment was present. The Commissioner then granted an award in accordance with the Board's findings. After the employer's objection, a protest hearing was held and new test results submitted by the employer were considered. The Board thereafter changed its finding to a lesser degree of impairment and the Commissioner subsequently reversed the earlier award and granted the claimant 20% as compensation. The Appeal Board later reversed the 20% award and ordered an award of 22%. John Jude had been employed by Eastern Associated Coal Corporation for over thirty years at the time his application was filed on August 31, 1979. Based on x-ray evidence and other test results, the Board found the existence of a 25% functional impairment. The claimant's employer protested the Commissioner's 25% award and submitted later studies illustrating an impairment of only 15% according to the Board. The Commissioner followed the Board's revised recommendation and reduced the previous award to 15%. The claimant appealed this order and was subsequently granted a 19% award by the Appeal Board. II. The first question presented is whether the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board has properly evaluated the medical evidence according to legal standards applicable in occupational pneumoconiosis cases. The appellants contend that the Appeal Board failed to properly apply these standards, particularly the liberality rule as articulated in Persiani v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 248 S.E.2d 844 (W.Va. 1978). The appellees, on the other hand, maintain that the Appeal Board complied fully with the Persiani evidentiary standards since it "considered" all the medical evidence in calculating its awards. In the single syllabus point of Persiani, supra, this Court stated: In claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, W.Va.Code, 23-1-1 [1971] et seq. for disability resulting from occupational pneumoconiosis where conflicting results from blood gas studies are introduced into evidence one of which is favorable to the claimant and one of which is unfavorable, the Commissioner is required to apply the liberality rule in the same manner as in other cases involving the evaluation of medical evidence, and while he is not required under the liberality rule to accept any particular result as dispositive of the case, he may not arbitrarily choose to disbelieve any competent medical testimony in its entirety or to exclude it from consideration altogether, absent credible evidence in the record that the suspect testimony is unreliable. According to medical experts, occupational pneumoconiosis is a permanent and progressive disease that does not improve over *129 time.[3] Based upon this premise, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board has concluded that, when presented with two or more sets of pulmonary function studies, if subsequent studies produce results indicating a lesser degree of impairment, previous studies, to the extent they show a higher degree of impairment, indicate something other than occupational pneumoconiosis.[4] Given this analysis, the same conclusion is also reached where the results indicating less impairment are obtained immediately prior to those indicating a higher degree of impairment, thereby eliminating the normal progression of occupational pneumoconiosis as the cause of the higher impairment results. In either case, the Board is precluded from accepting any test result other than that least favorable to the claimant in order to remain consistent with their own reasoning. The appellees contend that the liberality rule is in unavoidable conflict with the generally accepted medical proposition that pneumoconiosis is a progressive disease. We disagree. When initial pulmonary function studies indicate a certain degree of impairment and subsequent studies produce results indicating less or no impairment, the most acceptable medical inference may very well be that the extent of higher impairment indicated in the prior studies is attributable to factors other than occupational pneumoconiosis. To say, however, that this medical presumption precludes application of the liberality rule misses the point made in Persiani: All tests are performed by men and women who are subject to human error, philosophical predisposition, and even, occasionally, unimaginative cupidity. While the people administering these tests, evaluating the tests, and entering orders based upon the tests perform those routine functions scores of times every month, the claimant is possessed of only one set of lungs and one limited life expectancy. 248 S.E.2d at 848. Each method of testing for pulmonary impairment involves a combination of human skill and medical technology. Associated with this combination is not only the possibility of accuracy, but also the possibility of inaccuracy due to technician error, faulty equipment, or any number of other potential problems. As the records of these cases before us illustrate, there are often two or more sets of test results on a particular claimant. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board's function is to determine, based upon their own examinations and any evidence from examinations produced by physicians on behalf of the claimant and employer, whether there is medical evidence of occupational pneumoconiosis. West Virginia Code § 23-4-8a (1981 Replacement Vol.). The Board must then submit its findings to the Commissioner in a written report. The Board's opinions as to the extent of occupational pneumoconiosis are, in the final analysis, a judgment based not only on objective factors, but also on subjective factors such as the presumption in favor of the results showing the least impairment. It is still for the Commissioner to review their findings, as well as all other evidence, to determine what percentage of disability exists.[5]*130 The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board assists the Commissioner by interpreting its own test and examination results and those presented by employers and claimants from other laboratories and physicians. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board, the Commissioner, and the Appeal Board, as finders of fact, are not entitled to disbelieve evidence based exclusively upon subjective evaluation of credibility. Persiani, 248 S.E.2d at 848. The issue of the credibility of particular medical evidence primarily arises when there are different test results, each medically valid, which conflict as to the degree of pulmonary impairment. To give peculiar weight to one set of results solely because it indicates the lowest degree of impairment does not give due recognition to the fact that results indicating a higher degree of impairment may very well be a technically more accurate indicator of the actual degree of impairment caused by occupational pneumoconiosis. While it may be a medical fact that occupational pneumoconiosis does not improve over time, this does not give rise to any legal presumption that subsequent results showing lower impairment are a more accurate indicator of the extent of impairment actually attributable to pneumoconiosis. Under the State's Worker's Compensation Act, occupational pneumoconiosis is considered on equal standing with more traditionally recognized sorts of work-related injuries. See West Virginia Code § 23-4-1 (1981 Replacement Vol.). And, "[i]t has long been held in this jurisdiction that a disability which cannot with some degree of certainty be attributed to a cause other than the subject injury must be presumed to have resulted from such injury." Sisk v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 153 W.Va. 461, 469, 170 S.E.2d 20 , 25 (1969). Given two or more pulmonary impairment findings, the ultimate legal question to be resolved is the extent of impairment attributable to occupational pneumoconiosis. In all types of compensation cases, conflicts in evidence, medical or otherwise, are to be construed in favor of the claimant. The time-honored liberality rule is not only a rule of statutory construction, but is also an evidentiary rule. Workman v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 160 W.Va. 656, 236 S.E.2d 236 , 238 (1977); Pennington v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 154 W.Va. 378, 387, 175 S.E.2d 440 , 445 (1970); Pripich v. State Compensation Commissioner, 112 W.Va. 540, 543, 166 S.E. 4, 5 (1932). It should be clear that in evidentiary matters the law dictates that the claimant be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences the record will allow; and any conflicts must be resolved in favor of the claimant. Persiani, 248 S.E.2d at 846; Myers v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 160 W.Va. 766, 239 S.E.2d 124 , 126 (1977); McGeary v. State Compensation Director, 148 W.Va. 436, 438-39, 135 S.E.2d 345 , 347 (1964). As stated in Persiani, that is not to say the Commissioner or Appeal Board is automatically required to accept as dispositive the most favorable evidence as the degree of functional impairment due to pneumoconiosis. For example, proof that the higher impairment results are unreliable due to medically inadequate testing, incorrect due to technical error, the product of intentional misrepresentation, or clearly attributable to an identified medical problem of the claimant other than pneumoconiosis, would establish proper evidentiary ground upon which to exclude or partially discount these findings. If the legal rule of liberality is ignored in occupational pneumoconiosis claims, given the previously mentioned medical position and its accompanying "attributable to some other factors" factual presumption, the regularly occurring conflicts in evidence would automatically and invariably be resolved in favor of the figures indicative of the lowest degree of impairment. *131 This directly conflicts with the remedial purposes of the State's workers' compensation system and its legal standards of proof. Employers are shielded from common law liability by the Workers' Compensation Act. The quid pro quo for the employees is the guarantee that they will be afforded due process, and proper restitution for injuries they receive in their line of work. As stated in Pripich v. State Compensation Commissioner, 112 W.Va. at 543, 166 S.E. at 5, "[where] only probable or conjectural reasons or causes are assigned by physicians in an effort to explain the disabilities on grounds other than the injury, the presumptions should be resolved in favor of the employee rather than against him." Therefore, the legal standards by which the Commissioner and Appeal Board are bound preclude reliance upon a inference derived by merely juxtaposing separate results of medical tests. When conflicting medical evidence is presented concerning the degree of impairment in an occupational pneumoconiosis claim, that medical evidence indicating the highest degree of impairment, which is not otherwise shown, through explicit findings of fact by the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board, to be unreliable, incorrect, or clearly attributable to some other identifiable disease or illness, is presumed to accurately represent the level of pulmonary impairment attributable to occupational pneumoconiosis. Policy considerations underlying the liberality rule dictate this legal standard. Accuracy and reliability are at the core of the evidentiary issues presented in these cases. We note that the highly respected Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board, in its own examinations and tests, reports that it employs an extensive multi-component procedure.[6] The American Medical Association also attempts to promote such uniform procedures and evaluation criteria to obtain reasonably accurate and consistent assessments of pulmonary impairment.[7] It should be noted that in addition to its own evaluations,[8] the Occupational Pneumoconiosis *132 Board must also interpret medical test results submitted by employers and claimants. In the interest of all parties involved in compensation claims, the Legislature has specifically mandated that; "The Commissioner shall adopt reasonable rules of procedure, regulate and provide for ... the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence, the method of taking and furnishing the same to establish the rights to benefits or compensation ... and the method of making ... physical examinations...." West Virginia Code § 23-1-13 (1981 Replacement Vol.). In order to assure the utilization of proper examination and evaluation techniques for the measurement of pulmonary impairment attributable to occupational pneumoconiosis, the Workers' Compensation Commissioner is required under West Virginia Code § 23-1-13 (1981 Replacement Vol.) to promulgate rules and regulations specifying examination and evaluation criteria to guide the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board in its own examination and evaluation of occupational pneumoconiosis claimants, and to guide other physicians who conduct examinations and evaluations of occupational pneumoconiosis claimants on behalf of those claimants and their employers. These regulations should permit claimants and employers to meet the accuracy and reliability requirements of the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board; and give notice of the evaluation criteria employed by this medical body which assists the Commissioner by interpreting the medical evidence in each case. III. It is apparent from the pattern of awards in the cases at hand that the Board of Appeal has attempted to reconcile the previously discussed medical proposition and its resulting factual inference with the legally recognized evidentiary standards under the liberality rule. The end result in each claim has generally been an arbitrary "splitting of the difference" between the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board's and Commissioner's initial findings and award, and their post-protest findings and award. An injured employee's claim that is arrived at by resort to a simple mathematical compromise is wholly improper and will be reversed as it is clearly not based on the evidence. Such procedure is something akin to quotient and compromise verdicts and their attendant evils and will not be sanctioned. See Kimball v. Walden, 301 S.E.2d 210 , 213-15 (W.Va.1983); England v. Shufflebarger, 152 W.Va. 662, 666, 166 S.E.2d 126 , 129 (1969). This Court has in the past and today states again that whatever the findings are, the factors and reasons for reaching such a finding must be clearly stated in the order of the Appeal Board.[9]See Cardwell v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 301 S.E.2d 790 , 797 (W.Va. 1983); Posey v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 157 W.Va. 285, 296, 201 S.E.2d 102 , 108 (1973); Kamensky v. State Compensation Commissioner, 148 W.Va. 258, 262, 134 S.E.2d 582 , 584 (1964). A duty to find the facts carries with it a duty to give all parties proper notice as to how and why those facts were found. If there were proper evidentiary grounds in some or all of these cases to discount or exclude the most favorable evidence, they were not set out in the orders of the Commissioner or Appeal Board. We therefore hold that an occupational pneumoconiosis *133 award may not be calculated by splitting the difference between initial findings or awards and subsequent findings or awards. Rather, when conflicting findings or awards are presented to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, those findings or awards indicating the highest degree of impairment, which are not otherwise shown, through explicit findings of fact by the Appeal Board, to be unreliable, incorrect, or clearly attributable to some other indentifiable disease or illness, are presumed to correctly represent the level of pulmonary impairment attributable to occupational pneumoconiosis. IV. The claimants also present a motion seeking reimbursement of attorney fees and other expenses under Meadows v. Lewis, 307 S.E.2d 625 (W.Va.1983). In Meadows, the issue of fees and expenses was properly before this Court in a mandamus action seeking to compel Commissioner compliance with her statutory duties. In the present action, however, the issue of fees and expenses was not raised in the claimants' petitions for appeal, and is not properly presented on appeal. Subsequent to Meadows, the Commissioner has promulgated rules and regulations governing the award of attorney fees and expenses. See West Virginia Administrative Regulations, Workers' Compensation Commissioner, Chapter 23-5, Series IV (1984). Therefore, we remand this issue to the Commissioner for determination under those rules. Accordingly, the orders of the Appeal Board are reversed and all cases are remanded to the Commissioner with directions (1) to review the medical evidence and enter an appropriate order in each case in light of our holding that medical evidence indicating the highest degree of impairment is presumed to accurately represent the level of pulmonary impairment attributable to occupational pneumoconiosis unless otherwise shown to be unreliable, incorrect, or clearly attributable to some other disease or illness; (2) to promulgate rules and regulations specifying examination and evaluation criteria to guide the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board in its own examination and evaluation and evaluation of occupational pneumoconiosis claimants, and to guide other physicians who conduct examinations and evaluations of occupational pneumoconiosis claimants on behalf of those claimants and their employers; and (3) to consider the appellants' motions for fees and expenses under her rules and regulations. Reversed and remanded. NEELY, Justice, dissenting: I dissent to the majority opinion in these consolidated cases on the grounds that the majority opinion in Syllabus Point 3 has made a travesty of the fact-finding function of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner and the Appeal Board. By requiring either the Commissioner or the Appeal Board to find specifically that testimony introduced by a claimant is "unreliable, incorrect, or clearly attributable to some other identifiable disease or illness," this Court has now said that it will dispense with even the appearance of even-handed justice. The majority opinion takes the final step in the extension of the liberality rule. It is no longer sufficient for employers to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence in the face of the added weight that the liberality order gives to the claimant's case. It is now necessary for the employer, after proving his own case, to disprove the claimant's case! I have never been very enthusiastic about the statutory scheme for adjudicating workers' compensation claims and I expressed those reservations in Persiani v. S.W.C.C., W.Va., 248 S.E.2d 844 (1978). Nonetheless, until the Legislature changes our procedures I would prefer not to make a joke out of the process. I stand, therefore, upon the liberal, but not entirely absurd rules concerning proof of occupational pneumoconiosis claims set forth in Persiani, supra, and for that reason dissent.

df6fe116f128d583b29597e95f4a550e8a714bd9d04785828d22a214fb762ed0

1984-07-20 00:00:00

f4c25aee-6a6f-4650-9512-5d0da298066c

State ex rel. WV Citizens Action v. WV Grant Comm.

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

WV Economic Dev. SER WV Citizens Action Group v. WV Economic Dev. Annotate this Case Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2003 Term FILED December 4, 2003 No. 31125 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. WEST VIRGINIA CITIZENS ACTION GROUP, AN INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF STATE CITIZENS TAXPAYERS, Petitioner Below, Appellant v. WEST VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT COMMITTEE; CITY OF WHEELING, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; AND CENTURY EQUITIES - WHEELING VICTORIAN OUTLET MALL, INC., A PRIVATE CORPORATION, Respondents Below, Appellees KANAWHA COUNTY COMMISSION, Intervenor Hearing on Motion MOTION GRANTED, IN PART Submitted: November 18, 2003 Filed: December 4, 2003 Larry Harless, Esq. Cottageville, West Virginia Attorney for West Virginia Citizens Action Group Darrell V. McGraw, Esq. Attorney General Katherine A. Schultz, Esq. Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for West Virginia Economic Development Grant Committee JUSTICE MAYNARD delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Costs and attorney s fees may be awarded in mandamus proceedings involving public officials because citizens should not have to resort to lawsuits to force government officials to perform their legally prescribed nondiscretionary duties. Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 193 W.Va. 650, 458 S.E.2d 88 (1995). 2. Attorney s fees may be awarded to a prevailing petitioner in a mandamus proceeding when the petitioner makes a constitutional challenge to a statute and that statute is found and declared to be unconstitutional. 3. Where a public official has failed to exercise a clear legal duty, although the failure was not the result of a decision to knowingly disregard a legal command, there is no presumption in favor of an award of attorney s fees. Rather, the court will weigh the following factors to determine whether it would be fairer to leave the costs of litigation with the private litigant or impose them on the taxpayers: (a) the relative clarity by which the legal duty was established; (b) whether the ruling promoted the general public interest or merely protected the private interest of the petitioner or a small group of individuals; and (c) whether the petitioner has adequate financial resources such that petitioner can afford to protect his or her own interests in court and as between the government and petitioner. i Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 193 W.Va. 650, 458 S.E.2d 88 (1995). 4. Apportionment of attorney s fees is appropriate where some of the claims and efforts of the claimant were unsuccessful. Where part of the attorney s fees sought was expended on discrete efforts that achieved no appreciable advantage in the litigation, or where the claim for attorney s fees rests partly on a result to which the claimant made no significant contribution, a court may consider these circumstances and apportion the attorney s fees accordingly. Syllabus Point 5, State ex rel. West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 193 W.Va. 650, 458 S.E.2d 88 (1995). ii Maynard, Justice: On May 16, 2003, this Court rendered its decision in State ex rel. West Virginia Citizens Action Group v. West Virginia Economic Development Grant Committee, 213 W.Va. 255, 580 S.E.2d 869 (2003). Following the issuance of the opinion, the relators, West Virginia Citizens Action Group (hereinafter CAG ), filed a motion with this Court seeking an award of attorney s fees. Because CAG prevailed on some of its claims in the underlying case, we grant its request, in part, and award attorney s fees in the amount of $28,977.00.1 I. FACTS The underlying case involved a constitutional challenge of portions of W.Va. Code § 29-22-18a(d)(3) (Supp. 2002). The statute created the West Virginia Economic Development Grant Committee (hereinafter Grant Committee ) and granted it authority to select and approve applicants for grants to finance economic development projects through the issuance of revenue bonds to be repaid from an account within the West Virginia Lottery 1 At this juncture, we note that the City of Wheeling and Kanawha County Commission did not participate in this matter. CAG only sought payment of attorney s fees from the West Virginia Economic Development Grant Committee. 1 Fund designated as the state excess lottery revenue fund. 213 W.Va. at 260, 580 S.E.2d 874. The case originated in this Court on September 3, 2002, when CAG filed a petition seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition concerning the Grant Committee s approval of the Wheeling Project which involved the renovation of various buildings in downtown Wheeling, West Virginia, for the purpose of constructing a Victorian-themed outlet retail center. This Court issued a rule returnable in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to permit development of the record. Thereafter, the circuit court held various hearings and then ruled that the Grant Committee s singular consideration of the Wheeling Project was flawed because there was an implied statutory requirement that the various grant applications should be comparatively evaluated. However, the circuit court found no constitutional infirmities with regard to the manner in which the Grant Committee members were selected or the legislation authorizing the Grant Committee s actions. 213 W.Va. at 261, 580 S.E.2d at 875. CAG appealed this decision. On appeal, this Court determined that the statutory provision governing the selection of the citizen members of the Grant Committee, W.Va. Code § 29-22-18a(d)(3), was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers provision of Article V, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution and the appointments provision found in Article VII, Section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution. We, likewise, found W.Va. Code § 29-222 18a (d)(3) unconstitutional because it failed to provide sufficient standards to guide the Grant Committee in selecting the projects to be awarded funding from the State and thus, wrongfully delegated powers of the Legislature in violation of Article VI, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution. This Court, however, found that the funding mechanism for the economic development grants did not violate Article X, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution. Also, we determined that the statute did not wrongfully extend public aid for the benefit of private interests in violation of Article X, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. Based on the foregoing, we affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the circuit court s order. We further advised the Legislature that should it desire to proceed with the statutory approach of encouraging economic development in this State, it was required to amend the subject legislation to provide for the executive appointment of the members of the Grant Committee without use of a submitted list of nominees from the presiding officers of the two houses of the Legislature and to further provide the necessary guidance in the form of legislative standards that will enable the Committee to perform its statutory task of reviewing and selecting among the submitted project applications in accord with the announced legislative objective of economic development. 213 W.Va. at 280, 580 S.E.2d at 894.2 2 In July 2003, the West Virginia Legislature amended the statute in accordance with this Court s directive. See W.Va. Code § 29-22-18a (Special Supp. 2003). 3 II. DISCUSSION As set forth above, CAG argues it is entitled to an award of attorney s fees because it substantially prevailed on the merits of this case. We agree. Generally, each litigant bears his or her own attorney s fees. See Syllabus Point 9, Helmick v. Potomac Edison Co., 185 W.Va. 269, 406 S.E.2d 700 (1991). However, there are well-established exceptions to this rule, one of which is mandamus proceedings involving public officers who have failed to obey the law. In that regard, this Court first held in Syllabus Point 4 of Nelson v. West Virginia Public Employees Ins. Bd., 171 W.Va. 445, 300 S.E.2d 86 (1982), that, [i]n mandamus proceedings where a public officer willfully fails to obey the law, attorney fees will be awarded. Cf. State ex rel. West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 193 W.Va. 650, 653, 458 S.E.2d 88, 91 (1995) ( A public official s lack of intent to disregard a mandatory duty is insufficient to avoid such awards[.] ). In State ex rel. West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 193 W.Va. 650, 458 S.E.2d 88 (1995) (hereinafter Highlands II ), this Court expanded upon Nelson and awarded attorney s fees to various environmental groups which were granted a writ of mandamus to compel the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection to use monies from the Special Reclamation Fund to 4 treat acid mine drainage at bond forfeiture sites. We explained in Syllabus Point 1 of Highlands II that, Costs and attorney s fees may be awarded in mandamus proceedings involving public officials because citizens should not have to resort to lawsuits to force government officials to perform their legally prescribed nondiscretionary duties. In this vein, we find that it is also unjust to require litigants, such as CAG, to assume the burden of prosecuting a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of a statutory enactment, the validity of which was questionable from its inception. As a logical extension of our prior case law permitting awards of attorney s fees in mandamus proceedings against governmental officials, then, we hold that attorney s fees may be awarded to a prevailing petitioner in a mandamus proceeding when the petitioner makes a constitutional challenge to a statute and that statute is found and declared to be unconstitutional. Based upon this Court s holding and our prior decision in Highlands II, we believe an award of attorney s fees is appropriate in the case sub judice. Such an award is also consistent with our holding in Syllabus Point 4 of Highlands II: Where a public official has failed to exercise a clear legal duty, although the failure was not the result of a decision to knowingly disregard a legal command, there is no presumption in favor of an award of attorney s fees. Rather, the court will weigh the following factors to determine whether it would be fairer to leave the costs of litigation with the private litigant or impose them on the taxpayers: (a) the relative clarity by which the legal duty was established; (b) whether the ruling promoted the general public interest or merely protected the private interest of the petitioner or a small group of individuals; and (c) 5 whether the petitioner has adequate financial resources such that petitioner can afford to protect his or her own interests in court and as between the government and petitioner. When the factors enumerated above are considered, we believe they weigh in favor of an award of attorney s fees. In particular, we believe that the vast public interests the underlying lawsuit sought to protect and the sparse resources of CAG, which consist mostly of public and private contributions, warrant an award of attorney s fees in this case. Moreover, we are compelled to consider the fact that this action was not filed to merely force a government official to perform his or her legally prescribed duty. Rather, CAG sought a determination of whether the subject legislation was constitutional. We reiterate that we do not believe that citizens should have to resort to lawsuits to prevent government officials from violating our state constitution. While we have determined CAG is entitled to an award of attorney s fees, we must consider the fact that it did not prevail on all of the issues. In Syllabus Point 5 of Highlands II this Court explained that, Apportionment of attorney s fees is appropriate where some of the claims and efforts of the claimant were unsuccessful. Where part of the attorney s fees sought was expended on discrete efforts that achieved no appreciable advantage in the litigation, or where the claim for attorney s fees rests partly on a result to which the claimant made no significant contribution, a court may consider these circumstances and apportion the attorney s fees accordingly. 6 In this case, CAG has submitted a statement indicating that its attorney spent a total of 321.4 hours working on the underlying case. As set forth above, CAG prevailed on two of its constitutional challenges to the statute as determined by this Court and was unsuccessful on three other claims. Also, CAG prevailed before the circuit court on its challenge to the Wheeling Project.3 In sum, CAG s success rate was slightly less than 50%. Therefore, we find that CAG is entitled to attorney s fees for 148.6 hours of work expended in prosecuting this case. We further find that an hourly rate of $195.00 is appropriate given the experience of counsel and the nature of the case. See Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. West Virginia Development Office, 206 W.Va. 51, 521 S.E.2d 543 (1999) (approving attorney s fees at an hourly rate of $195.00 for successful prosecution of an action filed under the Freedom of Information Act). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, CAG s motion for attorney s fees is granted, in part, and the Grant Committee is ordered to pay CAG attorney s fees in the amount of $28,977.00. Motion granted, in part. 3 The Grant Committee did not appeal the circuit court s decision regarding the Wheeling Project and, thus, that issue was not presented to this Court. 7

e5870bfe5b0071289b9ba8218dff80bd84cafc209d6a0967e954628dd246d29d

2003-05-16 00:00:00

6e77e10f-5749-44c5-a11b-31623b9b1316

W. Va. Hr Com'n v. United Transp., Etc.

280 S.E.2d 653

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

W. Va. Hr Com'n v. United Transp., Etc. Annotate this Case 280 S.E.2d 653 (1981) WEST VIRGINIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION etc., et al. and Wendell English, et al. v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, LOCAL NO. 655, et al. WEST VIRGINIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, etc. v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, LOCAL NO. 655, et al. Nos. 14212, 14213. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. July 2, 1981. Dissenting Opinion July 27, 1981. *654 Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen., and Gail Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for W. Va. Human Rights Commission. Henderson & Redd and Herbert H. Henderson, Huntington, for Wendell English, et al. Preiser & Wilson, Donald R. Wilson and Fanny L. Haslebacher, Charleston, for appellees. HARSHBARGER, Chief Justice: Plaintiffs, seventeen black railway yardmen or former yardmen of the Norfolk and Western Railroad Company, charged their employer and United Transportation Union and its Local No. 655, their union, with racial discrimination. Their seniority system put blacks in inferior positions with lesser benefits. A complaint was filed with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission on April 3, 1971, and subsequent complaints by other plaintiffs were consolidated for hearing. The railroad settled out, and James B. McIntyre, Hearing Examiner, heard the case against the unions in 1975. McIntyre filed elaborate "Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law", in which he recognized violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act and recommended certain remedies. The Commission decided facts (see Appendix), legal conclusions, and ordered remedies on August 27, 1976, but at defendants' request the Kanawha County Circuit Court vacated that order, relying on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 , 97 S. Ct. 1843, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1977), and United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553 , 97 S. Ct. 1885, 52 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1977). The appeal was submitted for our decision on March 10, 1981. Did the trial court err, finding that employment policies or practices that freeze employees into a status of prior discrimination but are neutral on their face, are lawful; that Section 703(h) of the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. was imported into the West Virginia Human Rights Act, Code, 5-11-1 et seq.; and that defendants' acts are not continuing violations of our Act? I. Our Human Rights Commission is an administrative agency, its practices and procedures subject to judicial review. Code, 29A-1-1, et seq., Administrative Procedures Act; Currey v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, W.Va., 273 S.E.2d 77 (1980). "As a general rule administrative findings of fact are conclusive upon a reviewing court, and not within the scope of its power to review, if the findings are supported by substantial evidence or are based upon conflicting evidence." City of Huntington v. State Water Commission, 137 W.Va. 786, 73 S.E.2d 833 , 839 (1953). The substantial evidence rule for findings of fact applies to review of administrative agency decisions, and neither the parties nor the trial court have disagreed with the Commission's findings of fact. We find them supported by substantial evidence, and sustain them. (See Appendix.) *655 II. W.Va.Code, 5-11-1, et seq., The West Virginia Human Rights Act, enacted in 1967, [D]eclares it "the public policy of the State of West Virginia to provide all of its citizens equal opportunity for employment" and "[e]qual opportunity in the areas of employment ... is hereby declared to be a human right or civil right of all persons without regard to ... [race]", Code, 5-11-2; State Human Rights Commission v. Pauley, W.Va., 212 S.E.2d 77 , 79 (1975). The commission is responsible for "eliminat[ing] all discrimination in employment ... by virtue of... [race]". Code, 5-11-4. Currey v. W.Va. Human Rights Commission, W.Va., 273 S.E.2d 77 , 79 (1980). Unlawful discriminatory practices are defined in Code, 5-11-9: It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of West Virginia or its agencies or political subdivisions: (a) For any employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment if the individual is able and competent to perform the services required even if such individual is blind: Provided, that it shall not be unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to observe the provisions of any bona fide pension, retirement, group or employee insurance, or welfare benefit plan or system not adopted as a subterfuge to evade the provisions of this subdivision; ..... (c) For any labor organization because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or blindness of any individual to deny full and equal membership rights to any individual or otherwise to discriminate against such individuals with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment or any other matter, directly or indirectly, related to employment. The Legislature included a mandate that the Act "be liberally construed to accomplish its objectives and purposes", Code, 5-11-5. Labor union liability is, therefore, defined in Code, 5-11-9(c), supra, forbidding unions from negotiating and signing racially discriminatory collective bargaining agreements having seniority systems that affect "tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, or any other matter, directly or indirectly, related to employment." Seniority plans affect promotions, pay scales, vacations, preferential shifts, days off, retirement, pensions, layoffs, and recalls, all of which are "terms, conditions or privileges of employment." They are conceptually divided into two kinds: "benefit seniority" and "competitive-status seniority." W. Gould, Black Workers in White UnionsJob Discrimination in the United States, 67-92 (1977); J. Myers, The Scope and Implementation of Retroactive Competitive-Status Seniority Awards Under Title VII, 9 Seton Hall L.Rev. 655 (1978); Comment, Seniority Systems and the Duty of Fair Representation: Union Liability in the Teamsters Context, 14 Harvard Civil RightsCivil Liberties L.Rev. 711 (1979). A union becomes responsible for any discrimination against individuals caused by prohibited classifications within a plan,[1] by *656 participating with an employer in negotiating and implementing such a seniority system. The United States Supreme Court recognized union liability for discrimination as early as 1944 in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 , 65 S. Ct. 226, 89 L. Ed. 173, for exclusive bargaining representatives of a craft or class of railway employees under the Railway Labor Act; and in its per curiam reversal in Syres v. Oil Workers International Union, 350 U.S. 892, 76 S. Ct. 152, 100 L. Ed. 785 (1955), reh. denied, 350 U.S. 943, 76 S. Ct. 299, 100 L. Ed. 822 for National Labor Relations Act exclusive bargaining representatives. III. We get guidance about what causes a seniority system to be discriminatory from federal cases; and Title VII cases, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq., provide persuasive reasoning. In 1970, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Local 189, United Papermakers & Paperworkers v. United States, 397 U.S. 919, 90 S. Ct. 926, 25 L. Ed. 2d 100. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 416 F.2d 980 (1969), had found an employer liable under Title VII because its policies renewed or exaggerated effects of past discrimination. Then the Court recognized that seniority systems can violate Title VII by perpetuating discriminatory practices even if there was no proof of intent and the practices were facially neutral. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 , 91 S. Ct. 849, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1971). See also Franks v. Bowman Trucking Co., 424 U.S. 747 , 96 S. Ct. 1251, 47 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1976). The Griggs rationale is consistent with the purpose of our State act to eliminate employment discrimination.[2] Current practices, regardless of intent, that operate to lock employees into a status fixed by prior discrimination by perpetuating its effects, violate the West Virginia Human Rights Act. In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, supra, the Court reiterated its rule that facially neutral seniority systems can be unlawful if they continue past discrimination. But because Title VII contained a special provision immunizing *657 "bona fide" seniority systems, § 703(h),[3] the system was found not illegal. Our Act does not immunize bona fide seniority systems, but only and specifically "bona fide pension, retirement, group or employee insurance, or welfare benefit plan[s]." Code, 5-11-9(a). Our Legislature had access to, and awareness of, the language and exemptions provided in Title VII when it adopted our Act, but although it chose to immunize bona fide "benefit" systems, it did not embrace in its list of exemptions "competitive-status" seniority systems that sustain discrimination. It chose to omit § 703(h) language. One kind of practice "fair in form, but discriminatory in operation" is that which perpetuates the effects of prior discrimination. As the Court held in Griggs: "Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to `freeze' the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices." 401 U.S., at 430, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158, 91 S. Ct. 849 [853].Were it not for § 703(h), the seniority system in this case would seem to fall under the Griggs rationale. The heart of the system is its allocation of the choicest jobs, the greatest protection against layoffs, and other advantages to those employees who have been line drivers for the longest time. Where, because of the employer's prior intentional discrimination, the line drivers with the longest tenure are without exception white, the advantages of the seniority system flow disproportionately to them and away from Negro and Spanish-surnamed employees who might by now have enjoyed those advantages had not the employer discriminated before the passage of the Act. This disproportionate distribution of advantages does in a very real sense "operate to `freeze' the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices." (Emphasis added.) Teamsters v. United States, supra, 431 U.S., at 349-50, 97 S. Ct. at 1861-62 (footnote omitted). See also California Brewers Assn. v. Bryant, 444 U.S. 598 , 100 S. Ct. 814, 63 L. Ed. 2d 55, 60 (1980). These plaintiffs are in similar "frozen positions" as were those in Teamsters. They were denied promotions and consequently the same seniority as their white counterparts, because of their race. Their inferior rank persisted. No matter how neutral the seniority system appeared, it was not neutral because the discriminatory base into which employees originally were cast was thereafter always perpetuated. After Teamsters, Federal District Court Judge Brown wrote that seniority systems in a UTU collective bargaining agreement with The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, nearly identical to ones challenged here, violated Title VII because they froze black employees "into the positions to which they were assigned by pre-Act discrimination, and ... operate[d] to deprive them of the `allocation of the choicest jobs, the greatest protection against layoffs, and other advantages ...' [citing Teamsters]." Sears v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 454 F. Supp. 158 , 176-77 (D.Kan.1978). The seniority system was held not bona fide under the 703(h) exemption because it had its genesis in racial discrimination. It was "adopted and maintained during a period when segregation was standard operating procedure on the Santa Fe." Id., at 180. See Swint v. Pullman-Standard, 624 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S. Ct. 1972, 68 L. Ed. 2d 293. Sears would find a violation here even if we had a *658 703(h)-type exemption in our statute for competitive-status seniority systems. We support its rationale wholeheartedly. We are satisfied that the discriminatory status that prejudiced these plaintiffs does not exist for new black employees; but plaintiffs (some now retired) had rights to equal employment status with whites, Code, 5-11-2, denied; and only when they are allotted their rightful places on seniority rosters, will our human rights act requirements be satisfied. Whites who throughout this process have gained unlawful advantage cannot complain because, as wrote the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (about N & W employees represented by this same union!): "The Norfolk and Western brakemen, whether black or white have no vested interest in their seniority that precludes the application of laws designed to eradicate racial discrimination." Williams v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 530 F.2d 539, 542 (1975). IV. "Any complaint filed pursuant to this article must be filed within ninety days after the alleged act of discrimination." Code, 5-11-10. This is a jurisdictional prerequisite. It measures one's ability to gain the act's protections, and is nonwaivable. Our commission cannot hear complaints filed more than ninety days after an alleged discriminatory act.[4] But a seniority system superimposed on a "locked-in" status of discriminatory policies is a continuing violation of the Act. There is no evidence that these black employees are still classified "nonpromotable"; but they continuously suffer because their seniority system has never compensated them for initially putting them in inferior positions.[5] At the same time Teamsters was decided, the Supreme Court, defining continuous violations, found that termination of employment was not an act that was a continuing violation. United Air Lines v. Evans, supra. The termination date started the filing time period. Our definition of continuing violations[6] is similar to that in Montgomery Ward v. Fair Employment Practices Commission, 49 Ill.App.3d 796, 8 Ill.Dec. 297, 365 N.E.2d 535, 541-42 (1977), reh. denied, 365 N.E.2d 542. *659 The court listed three factors to identify a continuing violation: (1) Showing that the employee was an actual victim of the discriminatory act. (2) This discrimination placed the employee in an inferior status due to subsequent application of an employment policy such as seniority, and (3) That the effects of the past discrimination continued at least to a date within the limitation period before the filing of the charge. So, there has been a continuing violation by the United Transportation Union: (1) each black plaintiff was hired and worked in a nonpromotable job classification; (2) later-hired white employees were promoted before plaintiffs, and have achieved higher seniority, giving them greater competitive-based privileges of employment; and (3) plaintiffs' seniority ratings, derived from a period when they were prohibited by their skin color from equal employment opportunities, existed at the time these charges were filed, and exist even today. We find that (1) present effects of past, pre-Act discrimination that freeze employees into positions, are unlawful employment practices; (2) unions can be as responsible as employers for collective bargaining agreements that perpetuate past discriminatory effects; (3) our human rights act has no provision immunizing "bona fide competitive-status based" seniority systems from proscriptions against unlawful practices; (4) prior discriminatory policies or practices, the effects of which are maintained by a seniority system, are a continuous violation of the Act; and (5) courts should not interfere with Human Rights Commission's findings of fact if neither party challenges them or they are supported by substantial evidence. No other issue was properly raised to this Court for adjudication. We reverse the trial court, and affirm the judgment and order of the West Virginia Human Rights Commission. Reversed. McHUGH, J., not participating. APPENDIX WEST VIRGINIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT ON COMPLAINANT NOS. E-157-71, E-159-71, E-161-71, ET SEQ. 1. The Complainants herein are seventeen black employees of the Norfolk & Western Railway (N & W), namely: Wendell English, Calbe Lilly, Harold G. R. Hobson, P. H. Wilson, J. W. French, R. N. Witten, E. D. Campbell, M. Lilly, A. L. Palmer, G. O. Baumgardner, R. H. Scruggs, N. E. Baumgardner, G. A. Saunders, Jr., F. Trigg, Jr., H. T. Alexander, T. H. Mack, and W. B. Person. All Complainants work in the "yard" classification of the N & W at its Bluefield, West Virginia yard, and are commonly known as "yardmen." The first of the Complainants, Wendell English, was hired as a yardman by the N & W and established seniority on the yard brakeman roster in 1941; the last, W. B. Person, was hired as a yard brakeman in 1948. The seniority dates of all Complainants are shown on the Seniority Roster attached hereto as Attachment `A'. All Complainants are presently members of Respondent United Transportation Union, Local No. 655. 2. The Respondent United Transportation Union (UTU) is a national labor union and is the collective bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq., of the yardmen classification of the N & W and the classification of conductors and brakemen employed by N & W in the road service. The UTU is the successor to, and stands in the place of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen (BRT) which merged with other railroad unions to form the UTU in 1970. The BRT was the former collective bargaining representative of the classification of yardmen, road conductors and road brakemen employed by N & W, holding such status at the time all Complainants herein were hired. 3. Respondent United Transportation Union, Local No. 655, to which the Complainants *660 herein belong, is the successor to, and stands in place of BRT, Pocahontas Lodge No. 533, to which Complainants belonged prior to the union merger. 4. "Yard" employees and "road" employees are the two basic classifications of employees of the N & W Railroad at the Bluefield yard. The collective bargaining agreement between the N & W Railroad and Respondents UTU and UTU, Local No. 655, govern the employment terms and conditions of all yardmen in the Bluefield yard, and all road conductors and brakemen working out of the Bluefield yard (among others). Classifications for promotion levels within the yard classification include, in order of ascending seniority and qualification requirements: brakeman, conductor, and car retarder; within the road classification: brakeman, conductor, and fireman. (There are also engineers in this classification, but they are not included in UTU). The lowest levels of both the yard and the road classifications are entry-level classifications, that it, no previous experience is required by the company or the collective bargaining agreement for hire into those classifications. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements in effect since at least 1954 between the N & W and either BRT or UTU, promotions within the yard classification to the higher paying positions of yard conductor or car retarder depend upon seniority established on the yard brakeman seniority roster. 5. The present and past collective bargaining agreements between the N & W and BRT or UTU provide that an employee maintains seniority within either the yard classification or the road classification, but not both. In other words, a yard man has no seniority on the road, and a road man has no seniority in the yard. A move or a transfer by an employee from one classification to another (e. g. from the yard to the road) results in a loss of all seniority accumulated in the former classification. 6. The Union constitutions of BRT before 1960 contained provisions restricting membership in the BRT to "white males, sober and industrious." Prior to 1956, the collective bargaining agreements between the N & W and BRT designated blacks as "nonpromotable" yard men, that is, as the name implies, blacks could not be promoted out of the yard brakeman classification no matter how much seniority they had accumulated. 7. At the time all of the Complainants were hired, the N & W policy, acquised (sic) in and sanctioned by the Respondents, was that blacks were not to be hired on the road, i. e., in the road classification. When an emergency need for road men arose, senior black employees were bypassed and junior white employees were given the privilege of going on the road, usually a higher paying job. When black employees complained about this practice, all yard men, black or white, were bypassed for road service. Instead, section hands, operators and clerks, all-white classifications, were utilized for emergency road service to avoid putting blacks on the road. Several Complainants herein were told by N & W officials that blacks were not being hired on the road. Respondents herein made no attempt to correct or discontinue this form of discrimination. 8. Although employed as yard brakemen, a job classification regulated by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreements then in force between the N & W and the Respondents, the Complainants herein were systematically excluded from membership in the BRT, Pocahontas Lodge No. 533, by the provisions of section 110 of the 1950 BRT constitution and by the policies and actions of BRT, Pocahontas Lodge No. 533. 9. On December 22, 1955, at least three white yard brakemen, namely: E. H. Townley, F. W. Gott, and E. C. Perdue, were promoted to the position of yard conductor, the next highest classification within the yard, such higher classification carrying with it a commensurate higher rate of pay as set out in the collective bargaining agreement. All three white employees were junior in yard brakeman seniority to at least one of the Complainants herein. On February 27, 1956, at least ten more *661 white yard brakemen, namely: T. A. Taylor, Jr., J. E. Morris, J. D. Clark, W. H. Francis, F. F. Beaman, G. D. Hayes, J. Davis, L. E. Hoops, R. L. Townley, and R. D. Stevens, were also promoted to the position of yard conductor. All thirteen white yard brakemen promoted in 1955 and 1956, were in fact junior in seniority to at least one and usually more of the Complainants. 10. The white yard brakemen who were promoted were notified in advance by sealed envelopes that they were being considered for promotion to the position of yard conductor, whereas not one black yard brakeman ever received notice that he would be considered for such promotion. These promotions were made without notice being posted on a company bulletin board as was and is required by the collective bargaining agreement. 11. All the white yard brakemen in question knew at the time of their promotion that they were being promoted over at least one and usually more of the Complainants herein, even though said Complainant(s) had more seniority on the yard brakeman seniority roster. From this it is fair to conclude that officials of Pocahontas Lodge No. 533 were made aware of the contract violation embodied in these promotions, especially in light of the fact that Complainant Harold G. R. Hobson, three months after being permitted to join the union in July, 1956, proposed that the local union forward a grievance letter to the terminal yard master requesting him to reconsider the promotions made a year earlier in December, 1955, and February, 1956. 12. The Respondent local permitted its first blacks, including all seventeen of the Complainants herein, to join its membership on July 22, 1956. However, the Respondent local failed to supply the Complainants herein with copies of the union constitution and collective bargaining agreement, and failed to instruct or guide them regarding their rights as union members after the Complainants herein had been admitted into membership. 13. After being admitted into membership, the Complainants herein attempted to appeal to the union the aforesaid promotions of the thirteen white yard brakeman of 1954 and 1955, on the basis that said promotions were in contravention of the collective bargaining agreement in that the thirteen white yard brakemen were junior in seniority to at least one and usually more of the seventeen black yard brakemen, concerned herein. Harold G. R. Hobson, a Complainant herein, three months after being permitted to join the union, proposed that the local union forward a grievance letter to the terminal yard master requesting him to reconsider these discriminatory promotions. Even though the motion was carried, no action was taken. Hobson complained to the terminal yard master in 1956 about the promotions, and ultimately brought the grievance before the general grievance committee of the N & W system while he was president of the local. The other Complainants had communicated with Hobson with respect to their mutual grievance, and considered Mr. Hobson's grievance to be on behalf of all the Complainants herein. 14. BRT, and BRT Pocahontas Lodge No. 533, through inaction and passivism, gave its tacit support and active consent to the promotions in question. 15. On April 4, 1966, nine of the Complainants herein, namely: W. L. English, P. H. Wilson, H. G. Hobson, J. W. French, R. N. Witten, E. D. Campbell, C. Lilly, M. Lilly and A. L. Palmer, were promoted to the position of yard conductor and established seniority on that roster behind the thirteen white employees promoted in 1955 and 1956. On April 25, 1968, seven additional Complainants, namely: G. O. Baumgardner, R. H. Scruggs, N. E. Baumgardner, G. A. Saunders, Jr., F. Triggs, Jr., H. T. Alexander and T. H. Mack, were promoted to the position of yard conductor. On June 16, 1969, one other Complainant, W. B. Person, was promoted to the position of yard conductor. All seventeen Complainants established seniority in the yard conductor roster behind all thirteen of the white yard conductors previously promoted in 1955 and 1956. *662 16. Those of the Complainants who are still working for the N & W are still locked into an inferior seniority position on the yard conductor seniority roster behind those white yard conductors promoted in 1955 and 1956 who are still working for the N & W, even though the Complainants herein are senior to at least one and usually more of these employees on the yard brakeman seniority roster. 17. Because the Complainants have less seniority than the white yard conductors who were promoted around them, they have been, and presently still are, subject to being "bumped" from jobs or outbid for jobs by these white yard conductors. This has resulted in the Complainants having to take lesser paying yard brakeman jobs or less desirable shifts as yard conductors. 18. The Complainants herein have suffered and continued to suffer, monetary loss because of the actions of the Respondents herein in refusing to put them in their proper place on the yard conductors seniority roster. 19. Having failed to gain remedy or corrective action of any kind from the Respondents herein to their grievance or complaint about the promotions of 1955 and 1956, Wendell English filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in September, 1970, relating to the matters subject herein. Three of the Complainants, Wendell English, Caleb Lilly and Harold Hobson, filed complaints with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission on April 3, 1971, on their behalf and on behalf of all seventeen affected black yardmen, charging the N & W and the Respondents herein with a continuing practice of racial discrimination. 20. After a staff investigation, the Commission issued a finding of Probable Cause to credit the allegations of the complaints. The complaints then proceeded to conciliation in an attempt to settle the case. As a part of a conciliation proposal approved by the N & W, a new seniority roster was drawn up for yard conductors whereby the Complainants would be put in their rightful place according to their yard brakeman seniority. However, as a result of a vote taken at a meeting of UTU Local No. 655 on September 29, 1972, the proposed settlement concerning the seniority rosters was rejected. This decision of Local No. 655 was acquiesed in and supported by the international union. As a result, the case proceeded to the present public hearing. 21. On March 13, 1975, prior to the beginning of this proceeding, Respondent N & W announced settlement on its part with Complainants and mutual assent to the signing of a conciliation agreement, a portion of which reads as follows: `ITEM NO. 3 A. The company agrees that the names of the Complainants will be put on the seniority roster for conductors-Pocahontas division, Bluefield yard in positions as identified by red underlining on the attached "schedule A," at such time as such placements may be lawfully carried out and effectuated, it being understood, however, that company shall take no such action until proceeding involving claims of discrimination in said seniority roster by Complainants against the United Transportation Union as disclosed by the records of the aforesaid cases, as consolidated, pending before the Commission, wherein the United Transportation Union is named as Respondent, are finally adjudicated.' This portion of the conciliation agreement was the same as that approved by N & W in September, 1972, and subsequently rejected by the Respondents herein on September 29, 1972. Thus, since September 29, 1972, the only obstacle to the Complainants herein being put in their proper place on the yard conductors seniority roster has been the opposition of Respondents herein.... NEELY, Justice, dissenting: The majority opinion in this case causes me to reflect upon H. L. Mencken's comment that "judges are law students who grade their own examinations." It is always possible to make a metaphysical argument relating to statutes of limitations; the fact that a particular transaction can be *663 characterized in such a way as to avoid the application of a plain and unambiguous statute is hardly a triumph of either legal craftsmanship or judicial sagacity. In the case before us the plaintiffs have obviously been the object of untold cumulative injustice over their lifetimes by virtue of being Negroes who enjoyed their youth and prime of life in segregated America. Nonetheless, not only is the technical letter of the law entirely against the plaintiffs in this case, but the equity of the matter as well. The ramifications of today's decision in terms of completely upending issues in industrial government which were thought long settled is entirely awe inspiring, and its effect upon well established seniority systems which are the foundation of equitable union government is entirely disastrous. In order to understand the catastrophic nature of the majority's opinion it is necessary to look carefully at the facts as they appear in the record. Before September 8, 1954, black employees were designated as non-promotable in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Norfolk and Western Railroad. In 1954 the agreement was amended to delete "race" as a qualification for promotion. According to article 41, Seniority and Promotion Regulation 2(1) of the 1954 Norfolk and Western rates of pay and regulations contract, "Yardmen will be considered in line of promotion in accordance with seniority, ability and fitness." By the very terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which resulted in the seniority and promotion regulations, there was a two-year statute of limitations within which yard men could appeal a rating or standing on the seniority roster by filing a written protest. The 1954 Constitution of The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen provided in rules 5 through 7 that employees could invoke a grievance procedure to protest employment practices of the Norfolk and Western. In February 1956, white brakemen were given notice by the Norfolk and Western of their opportunity and eligibility for promotion to Conductor. These men were subsequently promoted over black brakemen and at least two white brakemen who possessed greater seniority than those promoted. In July 1956, blacks were admitted as members of Local No. 655 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (BRT). Upon joining the Union all members were either provided with copies of the Constitution and Rate and Regulation Agreements, had copies made available to them, or received instruction on their contents from a fellow-union member. Neither the protest procedure provided for in the Rate and Regulation Agreement nor the grievance and appeal procedure provided for in the BRT's Constitution was ever used by the black or white employees passed over for promotion. In 1964 the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the applicable part of which is Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), known as the Equal Employment Opportunities Act. No brakemen, white or black, were promoted to conductors after February 1956 until sometime in 1966. Starting in 1966, and continuing through the time during which the hearings in this case were held, the N & W has posted notices of available promotions and made those promotions according to seniority established by the brakemen's seniority roster and in compliance with the seniority and promotion regulations. The seventeen black appellants were all promoted in order of seniority from 1966 to 1969. In 1967 the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W.Va.Code, 5-11-1 [1967] et seq., was passed by the West Virginia Legislature and provided a 90 day filing period for complaints alleging employment discrimination. W.Va.Code, 5-11-10 [1967]. In 1969 the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen merged into the United Transportation Union by virtue of the Unification Agreement. By 1970, however, no complaints had been filed regarding the alleged discriminatory promotions which occurred in 1956 under either the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1870, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the grievance procedure provided in the BRT's 1954 and successor *664 constitutions, the protest procedure of the N & W rate and pay regulations, or in any court alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation. The union had a duty to hear such grievances under Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 , 65 S. Ct. 226, 89 L. Ed. 173 (1944). On March 27, 1971, Caleb Lilly filed a complaint with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission alleging current injury from discrimination based upon acts which occurred in 1956. On March 30, 1971, Harold Hobson filed a complaint with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission on the same basis and was followed on April 3, 1971 by Wendell English. On February 24, 1975, two weeks before the hearing on the complaints filed by Mr. Lilly, Mr. Hobson, and Mr. English, the remaining fourteen appellants filed individual complaints with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission alleging substantially the same cause of action. I initially characterized the majority's manipulation of the statute of limitations as metaphysical and there is little more that one can say on the subject other than to show its inherent absurdity by reference to traditional tort and contract statutes of limitation. If a person negligently causes an automobile accident with another person who as a result of the collision is forced to have an arm amputated, there is obviously a cause of action in tort. The statute of limitations governing that cause of action is two years, and the computation of the limitation period is measured from the date of the collision. It is obvious that a one-armed man suffers an injury which will continue through the rest of his life; however, no one has ever seriously argued that a man with one arm who has failed to sue for his damages within two years of the accident may bring an action against the tort-feasor fifteen years later because he is suffering a "continuing injury." In the field of contracts, if a person enters into an oral contract with another for the delivery of five carloads of copper tubing and the other defaults and fails to deliver the tubing thereby causing a $100,000 loss of profits, there is a cause of action in contract measured by our five year statute of limitations. The time period under that statute begins on the day of default notwithstanding that the person who lost the profits can demonstrate that his balance sheet may be reduced by $100,000 into the indefinite future. Can any reasonable person seriously argue that twenty years after the default in the delivery of the copper the person who lost the profits may bring an action because he can conclusively prove that his balance sheet would include $100,000 more in business assets had he not suffered the loss from the default twenty years earlier? The primary purposes of all statutes of limitations are the same: to insure that actions will be brought in a sufficiently timely manner to enable the defendant to marshal relevant evidence, and to permit people after a certain time to assume that stale claims will no longer be litigated so that they may arrange their future affairs with some certainty. Note, "Developments in the LawStatutes of Limitations" 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177, 1185 (1950). Statutes of limitations for employee claims against an employer have the added purpose of contributing to employer-employee harmony. When claims are brought quickly, chances of amicable and immediate settlement are greater than when claims are allowed to be brought after several years. When liability is extended, the damages sought will often be so large that the employer will want to fight it in court, particularly when the action depends on metaphysical gymnastics in the first place. Note, "Continuing Violations of Title VII: A Suggested Approach," 63 Minn.L.Rev. 119, 144 (1978). Obviously all of these goals are confounded when a court deliberately manipulates a clear and unambiguous statute of limitations. This Court should apply the statute of limitations as written. Engaging in metaphysical craftsmanship to circumvent the statute of limitations can only lead to needless confusion in future cases as circuit courts try to divine whether and when this Court will find a continuing violation. A *665 possible alternative is that, once having found a continuing violation, a court should then balance the needs of plaintiff against the prejudice to the defendant of having to defend a stale claim before permitting the case to continue. See, e. g., Kennan v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 721 (N.D.Cal.1976). I find such a balancing to be too subjective for efficient and meaningful application. Given the validity and importance of the purposes of the clear and unambiguous statute of limitations in this case, we achieve only mischief by contriving to get around it. In the long run, economic, social, and political justice will be best served by applying the statute as written. The West Virginia Human Rights Act, W.Va.Code, 5-11-10 [1967] provides: Any complaint filed pursuant to this article must be filed within ninety days after the alleged act of discrimination. In the present case, no complaints were filed until at least fifteen years after the alleged unlawful promotions occurred and at least three years after the West Virginia Legislature provided a means of redress for the discrimination the appellant employees allegedly suffered. The majority has adopted the "continuing violation" theory which, as the majority has pointed out at length, has been accepted by other courts under other circumstances in order to add some flexibility to an otherwise rigid jurisdictional filing requirement. While there may, indeed, be substantial precedent in this regard, it is certainly not good precedent in the year 1981 with regard to a case of far-reaching implications and concerning an act of discrimination which is now almost twenty-five years old. The continuing violation theory has been substantially limited by the United States Supreme Court in United Airlines v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553 , 97 S. Ct. 1885, 52 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1977), which involved an airline employee who was required to resign when she married because company policy prohibited married flight attendants. Mrs. Evans resigned in 1968 and after the company policy discriminating against married employees was determined to be illegal she was reinstated in her job in 1972. One year later Mrs. Evans sued her employer for reinstatement of prior seniority rights. The Supreme Court found her claim to be barred because it had not been filed within the statutory time following her initial separation from employment. The Court said: A discriminatory act which is not made the basis for a timely charge is ... merely an unfortunate event in history which has no present legal consequences. Respondent emphasizes the fact that she has alleged a continuing violation. United's seniority system does indeed have a continuing impact on her pay and fringe benefits. But the emphasis should not be placed on mere continuity; the critical question is whether any present violation exists. 431 U.S. at 558, 97 S. Ct. at 1889 (emphasis in the original). If the majority had limited its decision to the narrow facts of this case, the decision would not be as disastrous as it is. In the case before us it is at least possible to say that the individuals ahead of the appellants on the seniority roster were the same individuals who benefited from the initial act of discrimination. Furthermore, in the case before us at least the action was brought only four years after the passage of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The way the majority opinion is written, however, it appears that an action could be brought in 1981 based upon an act of discrimination in 1956 which has had continuing repercusssions. Furthermore, in the countless thousands of cases which this opinion may precipitate, it is not possible to say that the persons who will be dislodged from their current position through the litigation of stale claims are in any regard culpable. While I still disagree with the majority's decision, in order to reduce the potential havoc that this decision will create, I propose that the majority's decision should be interpreted narrowly in three respects. First, findings of continuing violations should be limited to cases in which the facts are virtually identical to the facts of this case. Second, even when a continuing violation *666 is found, the action should not proceed until after the Human Rights Commission or the circuit court has weighed the plaintiff's interests for a judgment against the defendant's difficulties in defending against stale claims. Third, the remedy of awarding retroactive seniority rights should not be given until after a hearing with notice to all third-party employees who will be disadvantageously affected by such a remedy. I If, despite my protestations, this Court is going to recognize continuing violations under the Human Rights Act, we should at least define continuing violations in a manner consistent with Evans. In Evans, the Supreme Court refused to find a continuing violation because the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant differentiated between similarly situated employees within the statute of limitations time period. 431 U.S. at 558, 97 S. Ct. at 1889. The plaintiffs in the present case could conceivably meet the Supreme Court's test by arguing that they are currently ranked on the seniority list below white employees with similar or even less time with the company. Hence, we could rule that there is a continuing violation because the plaintiffs are being treated differently from the way in which similarly situated employees are being treated. This test is more satisfactory than the three-point test the majority has borrowed from an appellate court in Illinois. Under the majority's test the plaintiff in Evans would win, as would any other discrimination victim who can show that he still feels the effects of an ancient act of discrimination. There is no doubt that policies and practices in our nation's only too recent segregated past have had a lifelong effect on all black people who lived in those years. In response to their plight, the Legislature passed the Human Rights Acts of 1967. However, the Act has not atoned for all the suffering and injustice of the past. Nor was it meant to. Just as my one-armed accident victim still feels pain fifteen years after the accident, so will victims of segregated schools and employment opportunities suffer from lowered earning potential in their later years. However, to attempt to provide seniority and lost wages for every victim of racial or sexual discrimination would be to engage in gross speculation about whether the victim in question would have stayed on the job, been promoted, or been fired. In the present case, such speculation is minimal. The plaintiffs have all actually earned the seniority which they are seeking. Therefore, in order to reduce the number of cases in which the relief sought is speculative, this case should be read narrowly. Continuing violations should be found only when there is current illegal discrimination between similarly situated individuals. II Even if there is an instance of an actual continuing violation similar to the one in this case, the case should not proceed until after either the Commission or a circuit court has conducted a threshold inquiry about whether the gravity of the plaintiff's claim outweighs the defendant's interests in being protected against stale claims. Certainly if this case had been brought today in 1981, the defendants could validly argue that they were being prejudiced by the stale nature of the claim. The defendants would inevitably have difficulty in retrieving all of their potentially exculpatory records. Additionally, I am loath to see today's decision cast a shadow of continuing liability on businesses and unions as they prepare and plan for the future. For instance, with the knowledge that they may be sued at any time for acts occurring years ago, companies may be hesitant to commit their capital to necessary employee benefit plans. The traditional purposes behind any statute of limitations should be considered before granting the plaintiffs a hearing on the merits. While I voiced skepticism about such a balancing test earlier in this dissent and while I would still prefer that the statute of limitations be applied strictly, I find this balancing test to be preferable to the *667 blatant disregard of the purposes behind a statute of limitations implicit in the majority's opinion. III Just as I think there should be a balancing of interests before a plaintiff's stale cause of action is permitted to proceed, I think there should be a balancing of interests before the plaintiffs are given the remedy of retroactive seniority. This Court or any court should be reluctant to tamper with the seniority system within a union. Seniority systems serve to strengthen unions by shielding them from acrimonious and divisive questions about merit promotions. More importantly, the strength of the seniority system adds to the sense of security felt by the employees. When courts start handing out retroactive seniority on the basis of acts that took place ten or twenty years before, the courts will severely disrupt both the sense of security felt by other employees and the strength of the union itself. If a person works for a unionized West Virginia company governed by a seniority scheme in 1971, he is, under the continuing violation theory, susceptible to being dislodged from his current position as a result of union and/or company activities which may have occurred in the late 1950s. Furthermore, the hypothetical employee who entered the labor market in 1971 is wholly innocent: he was utterly unaware of past discriminatory practices; he did not participate in any current discriminatory practices; and he has foregone other options in terms of a career plan in reliance upon the fact that discriminatory practices prior to ninety days after the passage of the West Virginia Human Rights Act are no longer actionable. Under the American scheme of labor relations law, labor unions are charged with enormous responsibility in the management of industrial affairs and the securing of industrial justice. It is true that the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, operating under contemporary standards of morality in the 1950s, discriminated against the plaintiffs in this case in a most unjust way. Nonetheless, the position of a labor union within the industrial structure is not easy: the union is responsible for securing full employment; the union is responsible for securing high wages and benefits; the union is responsible for guaranteeing fair treatment to its members by the employer; and, the union is responsible for mitigating militant and irresponsible conduct on the part of employees which tends to cause disruption of the industrial process and a reduction in the overall community economic well-being. These goals are hardly entirely consistent with one another, and it requires the skillful application of political principles by the leadership of organized labor to reconcile the conflicting goals of a most divergent membership. The preeminent vehicle for establishing peace and certainty within the entire difficult area of hiring, promotion, and retention is the use of a union seniority system. It is for that reason that the United States Congress specifically included section 703(h) in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This section codifies Congress' intent that Title VII should not affect seniority rights even where the employer had discriminated before the Act's passage. Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 , 97 S. Ct. 1843, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1977) makes it clear that existing seniority systems are not to be entirely confounded as a result of past discrimination. The Supreme Court said: Although a seniority system inevitably tends to perpetuate the effects of pre-Act discrimination ... the congressional judgment was that Title VII should not outlaw the use of existing seniority lists and thereby destroy or water down the vested seniority rights of employees simply because their employer had engaged in discrimination prior to the passage of the Act. ... But our reading of the legislative history compels us to reject the Government's broad argument that no seniority system that tends to perpetuate pre-Act discrimination can be `bona fide'. To accept the argument would require us to *668 hold that a seniority system becomes illegal simply because it allows the full exercise of the pre-Act seniority rights of employees of a company that discriminated before Title VII was enacted. It would place an affirmative obligation on the parties to the seniority agreement to subordinate those rights in favor of the claims of pre-Act discriminatees without seniority. The consequence would be a perversion of the congressional purpose.... Accordingly, we hold that an otherwise neutral legitimate seniority system does not become unlawful under Title VII simply because it may perpetuate pre-Act discrimination. Congress did not intend to make it illegal for employees with vested seniority rights to continue to exercise those rights, even at the expense of pre-Act discriminatees. Id. at 352-54, 97 S. Ct. at 1863-64. The majority discusses at great length the fact that our West Virginia Human Rights Act does not include an equivalent of section 703(h) of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 which immunizes "bona fide" seniority systems from challenges for past discrimination. The majority infers that our Legislature's deliberate silence on bona fide seniority systems demonstrates that they are not exempt. I do not challenge that conclusion since it is based upon a plain reading of the statute. However, if one wishes to resort to plain readings of statutes, it is entirely obligatory to read plainly the entire statute. While our Human Rights Act does not have a specific exemption for bona fide seniority systems, it does have a specific statute of limitations which requires claims to be filed within ninety days. Most of the labor litigation in America proceeds in the courts of the United States, and accordingly the primary expertise in the judicial system concerning labor matters resides in those courts. It is obvious from the firm holding of Teamsters, supra, that the Supreme Court of the United States enjoys the same high regard for labor peace and good union management that I do when they go as far as they can to protect the integrity of seniority systems. While the West Virginia Human Rights Act may be more expansive in the type of discriminatory activity which it proscribes than the Federal Civil Rights Act, nonetheless, it certainly contemplates that there will be a rapid litigation of discrimination matters so that entirely innocent persons do not go on for decade after decade predicating their life's expectations upon a system which the continuing tort theory turns into a house of cards. In the present case the giving of retroactive seniority to the plaintiffs will adversely affect only those white employees who received an unfair advantage in the 1950's. However, the majority opinion does not limit that remedy to cases like the one before us. Under the words of the majority opinion such a remedy could be awarded in cases where other affected employees are wholly innocent, and where those innocent employees will lose their competitive seniority status upon which they may have relied in making personal and professional decisions. Before the Commission awards retroactive seniority, the Commission should hold a hearing at which it balances the interests of the plaintiffs in securing industrial justice against the interests of innocent non-party employees. E. g., Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir. 1975) cert. denied, 425 U.S. 998 , 96 S. Ct. 2215, 48 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1976). While the majority decision has given absolute protection to the interests of the plaintiffs, it has been totally blind to the real nature of continuing violations, to the purposes of a statute of limitations, to interests of innocent third-party employees. This is unnecessary and unjust. Our job here is not to bestow blanket rights on an interest group, no matter how sympathetic its cause; rather, our duty is to insure that all interested parties are provided a fair hearing. Our entire system of justice through adversarial representation is based on the theory that every person has a right not only to a fair hearing, but also to an individualized, principled, and equitable result. It has been our society's observation *669 that when the rights of all the parties are fully developed at a trial, the resolution of the trial will be the most just. To the extent that the majority's opinion diverges from that ideal, I most profoundly and sincerely dissent.

5dcc93802ad2db4dc8b2400fc6edc72bb274bf654faec103414958ebc6445fba

1981-07-27 00:00:00

209f0d92-2af3-4c5f-bdcc-31300e5e3887

Committee on Legal Ethics v. Gallaher

376 S.E.2d 346

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Committee on Legal Ethics v. Gallaher Annotate this Case 376 S.E.2d 346 (1988) COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ETHICS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR v. D. Clinton GALLAHER, IV. No. 18701. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 21, 1988. *347 Jack M. Marden, Cynthia Gustke, W.Va. State Bar, for appellant. Donald K. Bischoff, Summersville, for appellee. MILLER, Justice: This is a disciplinary case commenced by the Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar against D. Clinton Gallaher, IV, a Fayette County lawyer. The Committee, by its verified complaint, asserts that Mr. Gallaher collected a clearly excessive fee in violation of DR 2-106. We agree. I. On February 14, 1985, sixty-four year old Neva Dillon was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by her son, Junior M. Dillon. Mrs. Dillon was injured when her son's vehicle slid on icy roads and struck an approaching vehicle near Van, West Virginia. As a consequence of the collision, Mrs. Dillon incurred medical bills in excess of $2300. Junior Dillon was insured under a liability policy issued by Mountaineer Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. The parties represent that Mountaineer and its principal have a "poor reputation for dealing fairly with injured claimants" and that Mountaineer was having financial difficulty. For approximately one month, Mrs. Dillon dealt directly with Mountaineer and rejected Mountaineer's initial settlement offer of $726.25. On the recommendation of her son, Mrs. Dillon decided to retain a lawyer to represent her in further negotiations with Mountaineer. On March 25, 1985, she met with Mr. Gallaher at his office in Fayetteville to discuss her case. Mrs. Dillon was not well educated, lacked prior experience with lawyers, and was unable to read or write. Mr. Gallaher explained to Mrs. Dillon that it would be necessary to file a claim against Mountaineer, and possibly to file a civil suit against her son. Mrs. Dillon stated that she did not want to sue her son. Mr. Gallaher contends that he informed her that the possibility of recovery in the case was rather slim, but stated he would see what he could do. No written fee contract was executed at that time and fees were not discussed. Mr. Gallaher's position is that his activities in preparing the case included obtaining a written medical authorization from Mrs. Dillon, reviewing pertinent medical records and bills, and forwarding such information to Mountaineer.[1] By letter dated September 4, 1985, Mr. Gallaher made a formal settlement demand of $8,500. Almost three weeks later, Mountaineer responded with a settlement offer of $4,500. *348 Mr. Gallaher immediately accepted this offer. On September 26, 1985, Mr. Gallaher met with Mrs. Dillon at her home in Bob White, West Virginia. When her family inquired about Mountaineer's offer, Mr. Gallaher stated that $4,500 was the best settlement available under the circumstances. Mrs. Dillon assented to the settlement and executed a release of all claims. Mr. Gallaher stated at this time that his fee would be 50 percent of the settlement, or $2,250. The Dillons claim that during this conference they understood Mr. Gallaher to say that future medical bills were to be submitted to Mountaineer for payment. Mr. Gallaher contends that he advised Mrs. Dillon to submit all bills to her own insurance company. It is the Committee's position that the misunderstanding made the settlement appear more attractive to the Dillons than it actually was. Subsequent to the settlement, a bill of $569.25 was submitted to Mountaineer by Mrs. Dillon and rejected. Members of the Dillon family met with Mr. Gallaher to discuss Mountaineer's rejection of the bill and the amount of his fee. Mr. Gallaher informed them that the case was "closed" and that no further sums were recoverable from Mountaineer. When asked about the excessiveness of the fee, Mr. Gallaher became angered and said that the Dillons could sue him or report his activities to the State Bar. In justifying his 50 percent fee, Mr. Gallaher presented to the Committee an itemized time sheet showing 16.6 hours of work in the case. Two lawyers who practice in Fayette County were called by Mr. Gallaher to testify. One of the lawyers stated that the normal contingent fee in the vicinity was 33 1/3 percent for cases settled prior to trial, and 40 percent for cases actually tried. Testimony by the other lawyer tended to show that the normal fee was 33 1/3 percent for cases settled without suit, and 40 percent for cases in which suit was filed. There was also testimony that Mr. Gallaher's fee, the equivalent of $140 per hour, was not clearly excessive. The Committee asserts that Mr. Gallaher's 50 percent contingent fee was clearly excessive in violation of DR 2-106. It recommends a public reprimand and restitution to Mrs. Dillon of $450. For the reasons that follow, we adopt the Committee's recommendation of a public reprimand, but order restitution of $750. II. DR 2-106 provides, in pertinent part: "Fees for Legal Services.(A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee. "(B) A fee is clearly excessive when, after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a definite and firm conviction that the fee is in excess of a reasonable fee. Factors to be considered as guides in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: "(1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly. "(2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer. "(3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services. "(4) The amount involved and the results obtained. "(5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances. "(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. "(7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services. "(8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent."[2] *349 We recently discussed the contours of DR 2-106 in Committee on Legal Ethics v. Tatterson, ___ W.Va. ___, 352 S.E.2d 107 (1986). Mr. Tatterson was hired by the beneficiary of a life insurance policy to complete the papers necessary to obtain the policy proceeds. These papers were quite routine and Mr. Tatterson committed minimal time to their completion. While Mr. Tatterson represented that the insured's death by suicide might pose a liability problem, liability was fixed by the policy's incontestability clause. Within one month, the insurance company transmitted a check for $60,000, the full amount of the policy. Mr. Tatterson's contingent fee was one-third of the recovery. We stated in Tatterson that contingent fee contracts "hav[e] a greater potential for overreaching," and so must be closely scrutinized.[3] ___ W.Va. at ___, 352 S.E.2d at 114. Two points were relevant to our inquiry. First, a contingent fee is permissible "only if the representation [by the lawyer] ... involves a significant degree of risk." ___ W.Va. at ___, 352 S.E.2d at 114. Second, the fee received by the lawyer must be commensurate with the services actually performed. We summarized these principles in Syllabus Points 2 and 3: "2. If an attorney's fee is grossly disproportionate to the services rendered and is charged to a client who lacks full information about all of the relevant circumstances, the fee is `clearly excessive' within the meaning of Disciplinary Rule 2-106(A), even though the client has consented to such fee. The burden of proof is upon the attorney to show the reasonableness and fairness of the contract for the attorney's fee. "3. In the absence of any real risk, an attorney's purportedly contingent fee which is grossly disproportionate to the amount of work required is a `clearly excessive fee' within the meaning of Disciplinary Rule 2-106(A)."[4] Many cases, like Tatterson, hold that a contingent fee is clearly excessive if the skill and labor required of the lawyer are grossly disproportionate to the fee. E.g., Matter of Swartz, 141 Ariz. 266, 686 P.2d 1236 (1984) (en banc); Anderson v. Kenelly, 37 Colo.App. 217, 547 P.2d 260 (1975); In re Kennedy, 472 A.2d 1317 (Del.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1205, 104 S. Ct. 2388, 81 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1984); The Florida Bar v. Moriber, 314 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1975); Horton v. Butler, 387 So. 2d 1315 (La.App.1980); see generally Annot., 11 A.L.R. 4th 133 (1982) (disciplinary sanctions for excessive lawyer fees). Most analogous of these cases is Matter of Swartz, supra, where the plaintiff was injured in a work-related mishap. The defendant was insured up to $150,000. The state compensation fund made workmen's compensation payments of $100,000 to the plaintiff and, by statute, possessed a lien against any tort recovery. Mr. Swartz, the plaintiff's lawyer, devoted only thirty hours to the case, prepared no suit papers, and participated in nominal settlement negotiations. The Arizona Supreme Court determined on these facts that the lawyer's contingent *350 fee, equal to $50,000, was clearly excessive. Applying these principles, we conclude that Mr. Gallaher's fee violated DR 2-106. There was never any anticipation that suit would be filed due to the family relationship. It was also clear that Mrs. Dillon was prepared to accept a modest settlement. This was confirmed by Mr. Gallaher's ability to accept Mountaineer's first offer of $4,500 without discussing the same with Mrs. Dillon.[5] Furthermore, the lawyer's investment of time and skill was de minimus. Mr. Gallaher attempts to distinguish Tatterson. As he correctly points out, Mrs. Dillon's case involved tortious injury, and was thus the classic case justifying a contingent fee. Beyond this, all parties appear to concede that the liability of the insurer Mountaineer was doubtful. We readily acknowledge that the risk involved in Mrs. Dillon's case was substantial, and that a contingent fee was warranted. Nevertheless, we find the fee to be grossly disproportionate under Tatterson. Mr. Gallaher expended, at most, 16.6 hours in all aspects of the case. This time consisted principally of review of medical records, telephone conferences, and routine correspondence. No specialized skills were required and no novel questions were presented. We find another fact to be of critical importance to the outcome of this case. As in Swartz, the lawyer's fee was so great that the plaintiff was not made whole. It is significant that, after deduction of Mr. Gallaher's fee, the sum received by Mrs. Dillon was less than her uncontested special damages. We, therefore, conclude that the fee was clearly excessive in violation of DR 2-106. III. We next consider what disciplinary sanction is appropriate. As we have repeatedly stated, this Court is the "final arbiter" in disciplinary cases and "must make the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions or annulments of attorneys' licenses to practice law." Committee on Legal Ethics v. Thompson, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 356 S.E.2d 623 , 626 (1987); see also Committee on Legal Ethics v. Lilly, ___ W.Va. ___, 328 S.E.2d 695 (1985); Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, ___ W.Va. ___, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028, 105 S. Ct. 1395, 84 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1985). The Committee recommends that Mr. Gallaher be publicly reprimanded. We concur. While Mr. Gallaher's 50 percent contingent fee was a clear violation of DR 2-106, we note that there are mitigating factors. We find reflected in the record efforts by Mr. Gallaher to resolve the fee dispute amicably. We also find no prior disciplinary sanctions against Mr. Gallaher. We, therefore, conclude that a public reprimand is a fit and proper sanction in view of the circumstances of the case. It is also recommended by the Committee that Mr. Gallaher be required to make restitution to Mrs. Dillon in the sum of $450. The Committee determined that a 40 percent contingent fee was reasonable, and that all sums in excess of that fee should be refunded. We have not previously discussed the power of this Court to order the restitution of an excessive attorney's fee.[6] We have surveyed the disciplinary rules and decisions of other jurisdictions, and find that such power is widely accepted. In re Zang, 154 Ariz. 134, 741 P.2d 267 (1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 484 U.S. ___, 108 S. Ct. 1030, 98 L. Ed. 2d 994 (1988); The Florida Bar v. Moriber, supra; In re Burgess, 275 S.C. 315, 270 S.E.2d 436 (1980); In re Hansen, 586 P.2d 413 (Utah 1978); In re Guenther, 124 Wis.2d 476, 369 N.W.2d 700 (1985); see also Annot., 75 A.L.R.3d 307 (1977) (power of court to order restitution in disciplinary cases). We have remarked in our own cases that the primary purpose of the Committee, and *351 of the disciplinary rules, is to protect the public and to enhance public confidence in lawyers. E.g., Committee on Legal Ethics v. Mullins, 159 W.Va. 647, 226 S.E.2d 427 (1976). It is consistent with this public responsibility to require a lawyer to refund a fee that is unethically obtained. Furthermore, the power to order restitution of excessive attorney's fees flows from the inherent power of this Court to supervise the practice of law. Committee on Legal Ethics v. Douglas, ___ W.Va. ___, 370 S.E.2d 325 (1988); State ex rel. Askin v. Dostert, ___ W.Va. ___, 295 S.E.2d 271 (1982); Lane v. West Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, ___ W.Va. ___, 295 S.E.2d 670 (1982); West Virginia State Bar v. Earley, 144 W.Va. 504, 109 S.E.2d 420 (1959). We thus find, and so hold, that this Court has the authority, in a disciplinary case, to order an attorney to make restitution of a fee that is clearly excessive in violation of DR 2-106. We find, contrary to the Committee, that a contingent fee of 33 1/3 percent was reasonable. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to require Mr. Gallaher to refund all sums in excess of that fee, or $750. For the reasons discussed above, Mr. Gallaher is hereby publicly reprimanded and ordered to make restitution to Mrs. Dillon in the sum of $750. He is further ordered to reimburse the Committee for all actual and necessary expenses incurred, in accordance with State Bar By-Laws art. VI, § 20.[7] PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION.

a962655693feb7ee4d1ac00a86266c9fa4d2a004d6bddeae6ff8388417b4f76c

1988-12-21 00:00:00

6a66e7bf-2a5e-4e13-be79-8b535d6e0360

City of Fairmont v. RETAIL, WHOLESALE, ETC.

283 S.E.2d 589

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

City of Fairmont v. RETAIL, WHOLESALE, ETC. Annotate this Case 283 S.E.2d 589 (1980) CITY OF FAIRMONT, a municipal corporation, doing business as Fairmont General Hospital v. RETAIL, WHOLESALE, AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, AFL-CIO, et al. No. CC911. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. October 21, 1980. Concurring Opinion June 18, 1981. *590 Furbee, Amos, Webb & Critchfield and Stephen R. Brooks, Fairmont, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Charles R. Volk and Martin J. Saunders, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff. Grant F. Crandall, Bradley J. Pyles, Logan and Robert Poyourow, Charleston, for defendants. McIntyre, Haviland & Jordan, James B. McIntyre and James M. Haviland, Charleston, for amicus curiae W.Va. Labor Federation, AFL-CIO and Certain Locals of American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. MILLER, Justice. The Circuit Court of Marion County determined that upon the limited facts presented to it through pleadings, affidavits and a summary judgment hearing that a peaceful strike by employees of a municipal hospital did not give rise to a cause of action for damages against certain labor unions. It thereupon certified its rulings to this Court under the provisions of W.Va. Code, 58-5-2. The certified questions are set out in the margin.[1] For reasons more fully stated herein, we decline to address the certified questions in the precise manner in which they are formulated to us since we believe there is some redundancy in the legal questions posed. Two basic questions are posed. First, whether as a matter of law the facts present a substantive cause of action for damages. Second, whether a labor union may be sued as an entity. We have traditionally maintained that upon receiving certified questions we retain some flexibility in determining how and to what extent they will be answered. West Virginia *591 Water Service Co. v. Cunningham, 143 W.Va. 1, 98 S.E.2d 891 (1957). Because the issues involved in this case are matters of substantial public importance, and because in this area of labor law there is a critical necessity for precise delineation of the operative facts, it is important to summarize the key factual events upon which this opinion is predicated. I. The Operative Facts The City of Fairmont as a municipal corporation operates a hospital known as the Fairmont General Hospital. Prior to the filing of the complaint on September 11, 1978, the hospital had entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, and its Local 550. This collective bargaining agreement covered a three-year period from March 2, 1977, to March 2, 1980. The employees included in the bargaining unit were non-professional maintenance employees. Included within this collective bargaining agreement was a provision that: "The union agrees that for the duration of this contract it will not attempt to organize, admit to membership or represent any employees not currently included in the above bargaining unit." Sometime in August, 1978, the hospital learned that a number of its nursing staff, as well as certain other technical employees, desired to organize collectively and be represented by Local 1199 of the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, which is also a member of the AFL-CIO. There was apparently some confusion on the part of the hospital as to whether Local 1199 of the Hospital and Health Care Employees was in fact representing the nurses or whether it was Local 550 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which had agreed under the collective bargaining agreement not to expand its bargaining unit. Part of this confusion was engendered by the fact that both locals had utilized the same business agent, the defendant Tom Woodruff. Correspondence and telegrams were exchanged between the hospital and Mr. Woodruff, and it was the latter's position that the nurses were being represented by Local 1199 of the Hospital and Health Care Union. Several nurses, together with Mr. Woodruff, made abortive attempts to discuss the union's representation with the hospital administrative staff and to present to the hospital management a petition signed by 156 nurses affirming their desire to have Local 1199 act as their bargaining agent. When the hospital refused to meet with nursing representatives and Mr. Woodruff, it was advised that by vote of 145 to 9 the nurses and other technical employees would on September 11, 1978, refuse to work. The involved employees offered to set up an emergency care committee; however, the hospital management declined this offer and made arrangements to close the hospital facility except for emergency and out-patient services. The work stoppage occurred on September 11, 1978, and was accompanied by informational picketing at the situs of the hospital. The picketing was peaceful and nonobstructive to other hospital employees. The hospital initially sought a temporary injunction but this was declined by the Circuit Court of Marion County. Thereafter, the case proceeded on the question of whether the hospital could collect damages as a result of the work stoppage from the various defendants, who were the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO; Local 550, Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO; Local 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees; Tom Woodruff; Buhl Tennant; John Doe; and Jane Doe. The hospital asserted that it had a cause of action for damages based on the fact that the work stoppage constituted a tortious interference with its business relations or was a public nuisance in view of the fact that a public employees' strike is illegal. The trial court declined to give damages, holding as a matter of law that a peaceful strike by employees under the facts of this case did not give rise to a cause *592 of action for damages. It also concluded that from a procedural standpoint the various union defendants could not be sued as entities. II. The Common Law Right To Damages The hospital asserts the broad proposition that since it is generally held that public employees have no right to strike, that it follows that such a strike is illegal and as a consequence it may recover damages as a result of the strike.[2] We do not agree with this reasoning. Whether there is a right to sue for damages in this case will depend upon common law labor principles.[3] In Krystad v. Lau, 65 Wash. 2d 827 , 400 P.2d 72 (1965), the Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, made a rather exhaustive analysis of the common law surrounding labor unions and took particular pains to point out that in general American courts have not followed the English common law surrounding the suppression of labor unions: "American courts gave scant heed to the common-law rules for the suppression of labor unions. Only two states of the United States seem to have accepted the curious view that a combination of workmen to raise wages constituted a criminal conspiracy. People v. Melvin, 2 Wheeler's Crim.Cases 262 (New York, 1810); People v. Trequier, 1 Wheeler's Crim.Cases 142 (New York, 1823); Philadelphia's Cordwainers' Case (Pennsylvania, 1805), reported 41 Yale L.Jour. 165 (1931). Despite dicta to the contrary, the idea that a labor union is a criminal conspiracy seems not to have taken root in this country. Witte, Early American Labor Cases, 35 Yale L.Jour. 825 (1926); Nelles, The First American Labor Case, 41 Yale L.Jour. 165 (1931). Any lingering doubts that the roots of the idea were shallow indeed, if they can be said to have taken hold at all in American law, may be put to rest by a reading of Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. (4 Metcalf) 111, 38 Am.Dec. 346 (1842), a landmark in the field of labor law, and quite possibly the foundation upon which the American law of labor unions is built." (65 Wash. 2d at 835, 400 P.2d at 77)[4] Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 111, 134 (1842), cited in Krystad, contains these statements which in effect test the lawfulness of a union's conduct as reflected by its activities: "[A]ssociations may be entered into, the object of which is to adopt measures that may have a tendency to impoverish another, *593 that is, to diminish his gains and profits, and yet so far from being criminal or unlawful, the object may be highly meritorious and public spirited. The legality of such an association will therefore depend upon the means to be used for its accomplishment. If it is to be carried into effect by fair or honorable and lawful means, it is, to say the least, innocent; if by falsehood or force, it may be stamped with the character of conspiracy.... if criminal and indictable, it is so by reason of the criminal means intended to be employed for its accomplishment; and as a further legal consequence, ... those means must be stated in the indictment." We have made much the same point in Parker Paint & Wall Paper Co. v. Local Union No. 813, 87 W.Va. 631, 642, 105 S.E. 911, 915 (1921), where we quoted with approval the following statement from Pierce v. Stablemen's Union, 156 Cal. 70, 76, 103 P. 324, 327 (1909): "A body of workmen are dissatisfied with the terms of their employment. They seek to compel their employer to come to their terms by striking. They may legally do so. The loss and inconvenience he suffers he cannot complain of. But when they seek to compel third persons, who have no quarrel with their employer, to withdraw from all association with him by threats that unless such third persons do so the workmen will inflict similar injury on such third persons, the combination is oppressive, involves duress, and, if injury results, it is actionable."[5] In United Maintenance and Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, Inc., 157 W.Va. 788, 204 S.E.2d 76 (1974), and Ohio Valley Advertising Corp. v. Union Local 207, 138 W.Va. 355, 76 S.E.2d 113 (1953), we recognized that since Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S. Ct. 736, 84 L. Ed. 1093 (1940), there exists under the First Amendment a constitutionally protected right of association and free expression for employees who are in a union or desire to join one. Admittedly, the foregoing opinions involved union activity in the private sector. In Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 , 99 S. Ct. 1826, 60 L. Ed. 2d 360 (1979), however, the court recognized that public employees do enjoy some First Amendment rights in regard to their organizational attempts: "The public employee surely can associate and speak freely and petition openly, and he is protected by the First Amendment from retaliation for doing so. See Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 574-575, 88 S. Ct. 1731 [1737-1738], 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1968); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 , 81 S. Ct. 247, 5 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1960). But the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it." (441 U.S. at 465, 99 S. Ct. at 1828, 60 L.Ed.2d at 363) (footnote omitted) Thus, while some constitutional protection is extended under the First Amendment to public employees to organize, speak freely and petition, it is clear that a public employer is not required to recognize or bargain with a public employee association or union in the absence of a statutory requirement. These decisions, however, do not resolve the question presented in this case. Oddly enough there are few decisions that address the precise issue before us, whether a common law cause of action exists for damages arising from a peaceful work stoppage against the employer by *594 public employees. In the leading case of Lamphere Schools v. Lamphere Federation of Teachers, 400 Mich. 104, 252 N.W.2d 818 (1977), the Supreme Court of Michigan found no common law right and declined to create a common law remedy for damages against a teacher's union for a peaceful work stoppage: "The proposed remedies in tort which the School District asserts, in the case at bar, are heretofore unknown to the Michigan common law. Although couching its cause in such familiar tort terms as `causing a breach of a common law and statutory duty', `intentional interference with individual contractual relationships' and `civil conspiracy', the School District attempts to recover monetary damages from teacher federations for conduct not presently actionable, to wit: the withholding of services through peaceful concerted action of public employees. [footnote omitted] "Plaintiff School District fails to cite to this Court any prior case in this jurisdiction which has considered the instant question under any tort theory. Moreover, in other states which have statutes prohibiting public employee strikes, the principle permitting a cause of action in tort for damages has not been judicially adopted. [Citing Annot., 37 A.L.R.3d 1147 (1971), in a footnote.] * * * * * * "In no manner does the Detroit case or any known Michigan case even suggest that monetary damages can be obtained by a school district from the teachers or the teachers' federation under any theory, in the event of a peaceful strike. There has been no case which would support the contention that there is a common law tort of `public teacher strikes' with an attendant remedy. On the contrary, there is a total absence of any such preexistent common law remedy." (400 Mich. at 124-29, 252 N.W.2d at 827-29) The only other decision that has a bearing on this issue is Pasadena Unified School District v. Pasadena Federation of Teachers, 72 Cal. App. 3d 100 , 140 Cal. Rptr. 41 (1977), where the court reversed the dismissal of the School District's complaint which sought damages for breach of contract. The reversal was predicated on the existence of written employment contracts between the teachers and the school district. The teachers had engaged in a work stoppage during the school year while they were under contract. Here there are no written employment contracts which are alleged to have been breached. We have not been cited any case where a court has held that a peaceful strike by public employees under the conditions existing in this case gives rise to a damage action.[6] The assertion that the strike is "illegal" only serves to confuse the issue. The term "illegal" in the present case is much like the term "unfair," which concerned this Court in the Ohio Valley Advertising case, supra. Its meaning must be derived from the context in which it is used.[7] Here we consider the term "illegal" against the narrow band of common law *595 labor principles where damages are sought for a peaceful strike. We conclude that where public employees who have no employment contracts with their employer, engage in a work stoppage which is peaceful and directed only against the employer with no attempt to interfere with his customers or bar ingress to other employees there is no common law right to damages. In this context, the work stoppage is not "illegal" in the sense that it gives rise to a common law action for damages. We, also, adopt the view of the Michigan Supreme Court in Lamphere and decline to judicially extend under our common law powers a remedy for damages. See Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., W.Va., 253 S.E.2d 666 (1979). In so declining, we note that in most other states the legislature has made an effort to make some statutory accommodations to the labor relation problems that exist in the public sector. Indeed, it was the initial inability of the courts to judicially resolve the competing interests of private employees and private employers that led to federal legislation in the labor law field. Most if not all commentators in the labor law area agree that the complex issues in this field are ill suited to any comprehensive judicial solution.[8] III. Suability of Labor Union As An Entity A further issue raised by the certification is whether from a procedural standpoint an unincorporated labor association can be sued as an entity. Both parties recognize that this issue was addressed in State ex rel. Glass Blowers Association v. Silver, 151 W.Va. 749, 155 S.E.2d 564 (1967), where we made the following statement in Syllabus Point 2: "In the absence of a statute or rule of practice authorizing such procedure, an unincorporated society or association can not be sued as an entity by its name, nor can judgment be rendered against it merely by name; but to confer jurisdiction, the members composing the association, or some of them, must be named as parties and process served upon them individually." Much the same point has been made in our earlier decisions. West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission v. Wagner, 143 W.Va. 508, 102 S.E.2d 901 (1958); Milam v. Settle, 127 W.Va. 271, 32 S.E.2d 269 (1944); West v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 103 W.Va. 417, 137 S.E. 654 (1927). Some courts have adopted the extreme view that a voluntary organization cannot be sued unless all of its members are joined as parties. E. g. American Federation of Technical Engineers, Local 144 v. LaJeunesse, 63 Ill. 2d 263 , 347 N.E.2d 712 (1976); All Members of the AFL-CIO Building Trade Council v. Yost Construction Company, Inc., 144 Ind.App. 433, 246 N.E.2d 771 (1969). However, as we have stated in Silver, supra, we permit the suit against an unincorporated association by joining a representative group of its members. This appears to be the more enlightened rule. E. g. McCormack v. Labor Relations Commission, 358 Mass. 682, 266 N.E.2d 651 (1971); 6 Am.Jur.2d Associations and Clubs §§ 54 & 55 (1963); Annot., 92 A.L.R.2d 499 (1963).[9] *596 We recognize, as we did in Milam, supra, that United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344 , 42 S. Ct. 570, 66 L. Ed. 975 (1922) altered the federal procedural law to permit a suit against a labor union as an entity, where the suit seeks to enforce a federal substantive right. Milam noted that the federal alteration "is based largely, although not wholly, on the Federal statutes relating to subjects in which unincorporated associations such as labor unions play an important part." (127 W.Va. at 283, 32 S.E.2d at 274.) Based on Coronado Coal, supra, Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was enacted, which permits suits against an unincorporated association as an entity where the suit enforces a federal substantive right. 3A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 17.25.[10] However, we have no counterpart to Rule 17(b) in the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. This lack of a Rule 17(b) in our Rules of Procedure is a further indication that our case law remains intact. The hospital argues that as a result of the enactment in 1971 of W.Va.Code, 21-1A-1 et seq., entitled "Labor-Management Relations Act For The Private Sector" that the Legislature intended to permit labor unions to be sued as an entity. This argument is based on the language contained in W.Va. Code, 21-1A-7.[11] Particular emphasis is placed on W.Va.Code, 21-1A-7(c) which states that "any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents." It must be kept in mind that while this act was patterned from the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., as indicated by W.Va.Code, 21-1A-1(c),[12] but the National Labor Relations Act does not contain a provision similar to W.Va.Code, *597 21-1A-7.[13] Thus, cases decided under the National Labor Relations Act are of no help in construing W.Va.Code, 21-1A-7. There is no question that W.Va.Code, 21-1A-1 et seq., is limited to private sector labor disputes. Under W.Va.Code, 21-1A-2(a)(2), there is excluded from the term "employer" the following: "... [T]he State of West Virginia or any political subdivision or agency thereof, or any corporation or association operating a hospital, if no part of the net earnings innures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." The result of the foregoing provisions is to remove public labor disputes from the purview of the act. From this it must follow that the procedural changes brought about by W.Va.Code, 21-1A-7, are applicable only to parties and disputes covered by the act and cannot be construed to have changed our settled common law in regard to the suability of labor unions that are outside the ambit of the act. We have consistently held that statutes which alter the common law are narrowly construed and will not be extended beyond the clear legislative intent. Fruehauf Corporation v. Huntington Moving & Storage Co., W.Va., 217 S.E.2d 907 (1975). In Syllabus Point 3 of Bank of Weston v. Thomas, 75 W.Va. 321, 83 S.E. 985 (1914), we stated: "Statutes in derogation of the common law are allowed effect only to the extent clearly indicated by the terms used. Nothing can be added otherwise than by necessary implication arising from such terms." See also Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Linville, 142 W.Va. 160, 95 S.E.2d 54 (1956); Shifflette v. Lilly, 130 W.Va. 297, 43 S.E.2d 289 (1947). Returning to the certified questions set out in Note 1, we conclude that under the facts of this case, questions 1 through 4 must be answered in the negative since the strike was not "illegal" in the sense that it gave rise to a common law action for damages. Certified question number five is also answered in the negative. These answers are consistent with the trial court's rulings and, therefore, we affirm its rulings. Rulings On Certified Questions Affirmed NEELY, C. J., dissents. McGRAW, Justice, concurring: I concur with the majority in its conclusion that a peaceful strike by public employees is legal in West Virginia. My concern grows from the implication in syllabus point 2 that public employees' First Amendment rights are something less than the rights of other citizens, and that public officers have no duty to respond to the grievances of public employees. In syllabus point 2, the majority seems to confuse the rights of public employees with the duties of public employers. It says "[w]hile some constitutional protection is extended under the First Amendment to public employees, [public employers have no duty to recognize or bargain with a public employee union]." The implication is that public employers not only do not have to bargain with public employees, but that public employees have only an ill-defined, but somehow limited First Amendment protection. Both public and private employees derive their organizational rights from the First Amendment. For example, in defense of the constitutionality of the collective bargaining provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., the United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 , 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L. Ed. 893 (1937), stated: "the statute goes no further than to safeguard the right of employees to self-organization and to select representatives of *598 their own choosing for collective bargaining and other mutual protection without restraint or coercion by their employer. That is a fundamental right". 301 U.S. at 33, 57 S. Ct. at 622, 81 L. Ed. at 909. The rights to which the Court here alludes are in no sense "created" by federal labor legislation, but predate the NLRA proceeding from the Constitution itself. United States v. Bailes, 120 F. Supp. 614 (S.D.W.Va.1954). Thus, in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin, supra, the Court concluded that Congress had previously recognized the legality of collective action and was constitutionally empowered to safeguard it. In Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261 , 60 S. Ct. 561, 84 L. Ed. 738 (1940), the Court likewise stated: Neither [§ 7 of the NLRA], nor any other provision of the Act can properly be said to have "created" the right of self-organization or of collective bargaining through representatives of the employees own choosing. In NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 , 57 S. Ct. 615 [81 L. Ed. 893], we observed that this right is a fundamental one, that employees have as clear a right to organize and select their representatives for lawful purposes as the employer has to organize its business and select its own officers and agents. 309 U.S. at 263, 60 S. Ct. at 562-63, 84 L. Ed. at 741. Our United States Supreme Court has noted that Congress also recognized the strike to be an expression of the fundamental right to organize and engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection. Amalgamated Association of Street, Elec. Ry & Motor C. Employees v. Wisc. Empl. Relations Bd., Ftn. 8; 340 U.S. 383 , 389; 71 S. Ct. 359, 363, 95 L. Ed. 364, 373 (1951). Moreover, as our United States Supreme Court has held, public employment may not be "conditioned upon the surrender of constitutional rights which could not be abridged by direct government action". Keyishian v. The Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, 385 U.S. 589 , 605, 87 S. Ct. 675, 685, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629, 642 (1967). See also, Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 , 87 S. Ct. 616, 17 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1967). The Keyishian analysis was subsequently supported in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S. Ct. 2694, 33 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1972), where the government was prevented from denying a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests especially his interests in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech, or associations, his exercises of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and prohibited. This would allow the government to produce a result which [it] could not command directly.... Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible. (Citations omitted), 408 U.S. at 597, 92 S. Ct. at 2697, 33 L. Ed. 2d at 577. Reputable courts have clearly recognized that public employees, as a class, have a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as do other first class citizens, to associate with others in a labor organization whose purpose is to attempt to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with their employer. Lontine v. Van Cleave, 483 F.2d 966 (10th Cir. 1973); Orr v. Thorpe, 427 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1970); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Woodward, 406 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1969); McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1968); Melton v. City of Atlanta, 324 F. Supp. 315 (N.D.Ga.1971); Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corporation, 318 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ind.1970), aff'd, 457 F.2d 456 (7th Cir. 1972); Atkins v. City of Charlotte, 296 F. Supp. 1068 (W.D.N.C.1968). The case of Atkins v. City of Charlotte, supra, is often cited as one of the first public employee cases to fully recognize the associational protections accorded to public employees. In Atkins, the court stated at page 1075; "we think there is no valid State interest in denying firemen the right to organize a labor union. It is beyond argument that a *599 single individual can not negotiate on a equal basis with an employer who hires hundreds of people." The rights of speech, association, and assembly intertwine in the union context. If "membership" is the aggregate expression of those rights, then membership is likewise protected. "The guarantee of the `right of assembly' protects more than the right to attend a meeting, but includes the right to express one's attitude or philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by other lawful means." A.F.S.C. M.E., AFL-CIO v. Woodward, 406 F.2d 137, 139 (8th Cir. 1969). Freedom of speech is specifically protected. Citizens may engage in speech critical of their government employer or antagonistic to the sovereign generally. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S. Ct. 1731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1969); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 , 83 S. Ct. 680, 9 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1963). Leafletting and picketing are constitutionally protected speech. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , 58 S. Ct. 666, 82 L. Ed. 949 (1935); Consolidated Coal Co. v. Disabled Miners of Southern West Virginia, 442 F.2d 1261, 1266 (4th Cir. 1971); cert. denied 404 U.S. 911, 92 S. Ct. 228, 30 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1971); Blossom Dairy v. Teamsters, 125 W.Va. 165, 23 S.E.2d 645 (1942). W.Va.Const. art. 3, § 7. The right of the people to assemble and to apply for a redress of grievances is also specifically protected. Application for redress may be made to any level or agency of government. California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 , 510, 92 S. Ct. 609, 611, 30 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1972). W.Va.Const. art. 3, § 16. Thus, we see that the First Amendment rights of public employees are as great as the rights of employees in the private sector. The majority surely could not mean that public employees have only "some" First Amendment protection. More probably, they "really" mean to say that public employees have the same constitutional rights as private employees, but unlike private employers governed by the NLRA, public employers are not statutorily charged by legislative enactment with a duty to deal fairly with public workers. In West Virginia the right to protest against the policies of government and the right to seek redress from the government without fear of reprisal are as fundamental to our law and good sense as "cornbread and beans" are to our diet. The second part of the syllabus point is overly broad in suggesting that the public employer has no duty to listen to the grievances of its employees. The majority relies on Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463 , 99 S. Ct. 1826, 60 L. Ed. 2d 360 (1979), for the proposition that there is no duty to bargain imposed upon the state employer. In Arkansas, the Court held that the right of highway department employees to organize and petition their employer was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. However, the Court noted that the employer had the right to refuse to consider or act upon the request of the employees. While pointing out that the State's conduct in refusing to deal with the union, if done by a private employer, would likely violate federal labor law, the court stated that, "the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond, or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it." 441 U.S. at 465, 99 S. Ct. at 1828, 60 L. Ed. 2d at 363. See also, Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 574-75, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 1737-38, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1969); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 , 81 S. Ct. 247, 5 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1960). This statement from Arkansas may be the law there, but it is not the law in West Virginia. Our Bill of Rights, memorialized in our Constitution, not only guarantees the right of redress, it imposes upon public officers a duty to respond to public grievances. W.Va.Const. art. III, §§ 1, 2 and 3. Section two reads: "All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. Magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them." A dispute concerning the conditions of public *600 employment is clearly a public grievance cognizable by the government under our Bill of Rights. There is an even more compelling reason why the State should address the grievances of its employees: the concept of fair dealing between people. In the private sector, the government created the NLRA in an attempt to remove the coercive bargaining tactics used by employers in their pursuit of lucre. In so doing, it recognized the evils of a system based on the "take-it-or-leave-it" philosphy of management-labor relations. As part of the remedy, certain rules were laid down which have the effect of balancing the parties' positions and encouraging a free exchange between management and labor. To say that the State is exempt from fair dealing is to allow the State to practice labor tactics as unfair as the type of tactics Congress outlawed under the NLRA. The State should be an example of highest order in regard to dealing fairly with workers. Failure of the government to treat working people fairly is not only unseeming and reprehensible, it is, in the religious community, held to be immoral. The church, speaking from a Biblical and theological foundation, prayerfully and thoughtfully instructs that Christians, in their duty, should support the right of public employees and employers to organize into unions and support their right to protection in doing so. See, e. g., Social Principles of the United Methodist Church, adopted by the 1976 and 1980 General Conferences of the United Methodist Church. Board of Church and Society, 100 Maryland Ave. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002. I see no reason why a public employee should be treated differently from a private employee. To say that the difference is that public employees' jobs are essential to the maintenance of the State is to ignore the fact that the State is involved in myriad proprietory functions quite like the private sector's functions. In this jurisdiction, private enterprise manages energy and the State sells liquor. Which is more essential? The answer is obvious, but employees of one can bargain with their employer and employees of the other cannot. Reputable jurisprudence will not sanction such inequity. Finally, of course, neither will the majority. Chief Justice HARSHBARGER authorizes me to say that he joins in this concurrence.

6502cf74a83104125c4573ed376ef47a0426699e932b1564f3ed049b4fbedc39

1981-06-18 00:00:00

c4ab4a4d-1d3c-4328-aca5-7d93b27df081

Nc v. Wrc

317 S.E.2d 793

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Nc v. Wrc Annotate this Case 317 S.E.2d 793 (1984) N.C. v. W.R.C. No. 15850. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted September 13, 1983. Decided March 2, 1984. Rehearing Denied April 11, 1984. *794 W.H. Ballard, II, Ballard & Brumfield, Welch, for appellant. C. Thomas Seay, Camper & Seay, Welch, for appellee. McHUGH, Chief Justice: This action is before this Court upon the appeal of W.R.C., the appellant and petitioner below, from an order of the Circuit Court of McDowell County in which that court dismissed the appellant's petition seeking various relief from his second divorce from N.C., the appellee. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the appellee has moved this Court to dismiss the appellant's appeal upon the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the appellant relief.[1] The facts may be briefly stated: On February 20, 1980, the appellant and the appellee were married. In November, 1980, they were granted a divorce upon the ground of irreconcilable differences. However, after the divorce, the parties continued to have sexual relations and, upon learning that the appellee was pregnant, the parties were remarried in March, 1981, in Virginia. On November 16, 1981, the appellee once again filed for divorce upon the ground of irreconcilable differences and the next day gave birth to the child. During the second divorce proceeding between the parties, the appellant did not employ counsel nor did he answer the complaint, however, he appeared at the final hearing at which time he did not contest the paternity of the child. In a final order entered December 15, 1981, the Circuit Court of McDowell County granted a divorce to the parties, awarded the appellee custody of the child and ordered the appellant to pay alimony and child support. *795 On August 26, 1982, over eight months after the second divorce order was entered, the appellant petitioned the Circuit Court of McDowell County for relief from his second divorce because "said divorce was obtained by fraud and deceit and upon the fraudulent testimony of the plaintiff." The appellant sought relief from paying child support. He also sought an annulment of the second marriage between the parties upon the statutory ground that the appellee was pregnant with the child of another man at the time of the remarriage. See W.Va.Code, 48-2-1 et seq. The appellant further moved the trial court to join as a third party to the action the appellee's former employer whom the appellant alleges is the true father of the child; and that all parties be required to submit to blood grouping tests to determine the true paternity of the child. Without responsive pleadings, the trial court, in an order entered October 6, 1982, dismissed the appellant's petition for relief from his second divorce and held (1) that the appellee's former employer could not be joined as a third party to the action because that would be "tantamount to a bastardy proceeding" by the appellant against the third-party defendant and under the provisions of W.Va.Code, 48-7-1 [1969][2], only an unmarried woman or a married woman who delivers a child after living separate and apart from her husband for the space of one year or more may initiate such an action; and (2) that the appellant was not entitled to an annulment through the use of blood grouping tests to determine the paternity of the child because there is no statutory authority for a trial court to order such tests in a divorce proceeding. The trial court further held that an alleged lack of physical resemblance between the child and the appellant was not sufficient ground to warrant an annulment because the appellant had admitted access to the appellee prior to their remarriage and, in fact, had admitted having sexual intercourse with her. In another order entered October 6, 1982, the trial court found the appellant to be in contempt of court for his failure to pay arrearages of alimony and child support and ordered the appellant to pay such arrearages in reasonable monthly installments when he became gainfully employed. In the meantime, the trial court reduced the appellant's total monthly alimony and child support obligations. In support of her motion to dismiss this appeal, the appellee argues that although it was not designated as such, the appellant's petition for relief from his second divorce, filed August 26, 1982, was, in substance, a motion for relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.[3] The appellee asserts, therefore, that inasmuch as the appellant failed to file his motion for relief from the final divorce order of December 15, 1981 within the time limitations prescribed by Rule 60(b), the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear the motion. The appellant responds by arguing that the petition to reopen his second divorce was not a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) but an independent action addressed to the trial court's inherent powers as it maintains continuing jurisdiction over child custody and child support. The primary vehicle by which a party may seek relief from a judgment or order in a circuit court is contained in Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.[4]See Parsons v. Consolidated Gas *796 Supply Corp., W.Va., 256 S.E.2d 758 (1979); Toler v. Shelton, 157 W.Va. 778, 204 S.E.2d 85 (1974); Intercity Realty Co. v. Gibson, 154 W.Va. 369, 175 S.E.2d 452 (1970). Interpreting the same provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,[5] the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73, 77 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927, 90 S. Ct. 2242, 26 L. Ed. 2d 793 (1970), stated: The purpose of Rule 60(b) is to define the circumstances under which a party may obtain relief from a final judgment. The provisions of this rule must be carefully interpreted to preserve the delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments, expressed in the doctrine of res judicata, and the incessant command of the court's conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts. In its present form, 60(b) is a response to the plaintive cries of parties who have for centuries floundered, and often succumbed, among the snares and pitfalls of the ancillary common law and equitable remedies. It is designed to remove the uncertainties and historical limitations of the ancient remedies but to preserve all of the various kinds of relief which they offered. (emphasis in original). W.Va.R.Civ.P. 60(b) clearly sets forth the specific reasons for which relief may be granted. For certain reasons a time limitation of eight months is imposed. However, in addition to a motion for relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding pursuant to the reasons set forth in W.Va.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) through (5), the rule specifically provides that a party may obtain relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding through an independent action. See Winfield Associates, Inc. v. Stonecipher, 429 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1970); Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, supra; Hadden v. Rumsey Products, 196 F.2d 92 (2d Cir.1952); Chrysler Corp. v. Superior Dodge, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 179 (D.Md.1979); Anderson v. State Department of Highways, 584 P.2d 537 (Alaska 1978); See generally 7 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.31 (2d ed. Cum.Supp. 1983-84); 11 C. Wright, A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2868 (Supp.1982). The definition of an independent action, as contemplated by W.Va.R.Civ.P. 60(b), is an equitable action that does not relitigate the issues of the final judgment, order or proceeding from which relief is sought and is one that is limited to special circumstances. See Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 463 F.2d 268 (D.C.Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 950, 92 S. Ct. 2042, 32 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1972); Winfield Associates, Inc. v. Stonecipher, supra; Smith v. Fitzsimmons, 264 F. Supp. 728 (S.D.N.Y.1967), aff'd, 394 F.2d 381 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 939, 89 S. Ct. 300, 21 L. Ed. 2d 276 (1968); Johnson v. St. Paul Insurance Companies, 305 *797 N.W.2d 571 (Minn.1981); Anderson v. State Department of Highways, supra. In order to obtain relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding through an independent action, the independent action must contain the following elements: (1) the final judgment, order or proceeding from which relief is sought must be one that, in equity and good conscience, should not be enforced; (2) the party seeking relief should have a good defense to the cause of action upon which the final judgment, order or proceeding is based; (3) there must have been fraud, accident or mistake that prevented the party seeking relief from obtaining the benefit of his defense; (4) there must be absence of fault or negligence on the part of the party seeking relief; and (5) there must be no adequate legal remedy. Addington v. Farmer's Elevator Mutual Insurance Co., 650 F.2d 663 (5th Cir.1981); Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, supra. Inasmuch as the appellee asserts that his action in the circuit court was an independent action, and because such action was beyond the applicable time limitations under Rule 60(b), we shall treat his petition for relief from his second divorce as an independent action. However, based upon the record in this case, the appellant's petition for relief from his second divorce does not meet the above definition of an independent action as contemplated by Rule 60(b). The dilemma in which the appellant now finds himself resulted from his fault or negligence in not raising the issue of paternity through appropriate proceedings prior to the final disposition of his second divorce. See W.Va.Code, 48-2-1 et seq. The record indicates that the appellant failed to answer the appellee's second divorce complaint, filed November 16, 1981. The appellant did appear at the final hearing, held December 15, 1981, at which time he admitted that irreconcilable differences existed between the parties but otherwise did not contest the paternity of the child. The principal assertion upon which the appellant based his petition, namely, the lack of resemblance between the child and the appellant, was available to him prior to the final disposition of his second divorce. In any event, the record is clear that all facts asserted in the petition were available to the appellant prior to the expiration of the time limitations imposed by Rule 60(b). Therefore, the appellant is precluded from challenging the paternity of the child through an independent action. As noted above, the appellee has moved this Court to dismiss this appeal under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. However, we find it unnecessary to dispose of this appeal upon that basis. Although the lower court's dismissal of the appellant's petition for relief is not based upon the same reasons we use, "[t]his Court may, on appeal, affirm the judgment of the lower court when it appears that such judgment is correct on any legal ground disclosed by the record, regardless of the ground, reason or theory assigned by the lower court as the basis for its judgment." Syl. pt. 3, Barnett v. Wolfolk, 149 W.Va. 246, 140 S.E.2d 466 (1965). See also Chambers v. Sovereign Coal Co., W.Va., 295 S.E.2d 28 , 30 (1982); syl. pt. 2, Environmental Products Co., Inc. v. Duncan, W.Va., 285 S.E.2d 889 (1981); syl. pt. 2, Work v. Rogerson, 149 W.Va. 493, 142 S.E.2d 188 (1965). For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Circuit Court of McDowell County in which that court dismissed the appellant's petition for relief from his second divorce is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.

e2a896c0a4f86ed487b4643f105e1d8834373de6d6d6cd3fbad03da261810d6f

1984-03-02 00:00:00

eead7d2f-612b-4362-ba68-68d6a977164b

Gibson v. Rutledge

298 S.E.2d 137

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Gibson v. Rutledge Annotate this Case 298 S.E.2d 137 (1982) Scott GIBSON v. Phyllis J. RUTLEDGE. No. 15276. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. November 24, 1982. *138 Robert J. Lamont, Charleston, for petitioner. Richard H. Talbott, Jr., Brown, Harner & Busch, Elkins, for respondents. McGRAW, Justice: The appellant, Scott Gibson, appeals from a final order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, which affirmed the ruling of the Board of Review of the West Virginia Department of Employment Security, holding that the appellant is disqualified from receiving six weeks of unemployment benefits because he quit his previous job voluntarily without good cause involving fault on the part of the employer, within the meaning of W.Va.Code § 21A-6-3(1) [1978]. The appellant's sole contention on appeal is that an employee who is injured and is forced to quit work to recuperate has not voluntarily quit within the meaning of the statute, and therefore should not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when he is again able and willing to work. We agree. The appellant was hired as a laborer by New Era Resources, Inc. on February 21, 1977. When he was first hired, his primary work assignment was to drive trucks, but he was later assigned to load coal. On March 8, 1979, the appellant fell from an icy embankment into a truck he was loading and sustained a serious back injury. Under orders from his physician, the appellant was forced to miss work for seven months. After requesting and receiving his physician's approval to return to work, the appellant attempted to return to his job in November, 1979. When he arrived at his place of employment, he was informed for the first time that his position had been filled by a new employee. On December 18, 1979, the appellant, having attempted unsuccessfully to obtain another job, applied for unemployment compensation. Although his claim was held to be compensable, the appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits for six weeks because he was found to have voluntarily quit his work without good cause involving some fault on the part of the employer. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged *139 this initial ruling before the Board of Review of the West Virginia Department of Employment Security and then to the circuit court. The applicable portion of W.Va.Code § 21A-6-3(1) [1978], under which appellant was disqualified, provides: "Upon the determination of the facts by the commissioner, an individual shall be disqualified for benefits: (1) For the week in which he left his most recent work voluntarily without good cause involving fault on the part of the employer and the six weeks immediately following such week." The key word "voluntarily" is not defined in the statute and it is upon the meaning of this word that the present case rests. The leading West Virginia case in which this Court has attempted to explain the meaning of W.Va.Code § 21A-6-3(1) is State v. Hix, 132 W.Va. 516, 54 S.E.2d 198 (1949). In Hix, three claimants ceased work as the result of health conditions. One claimant had a bladder condition, another claimant suffered from hypertension, and the third claimant was advised by her physician to quit work so that she would not contract tuberculosis from the dust in the work place. This Court held that all three claimants had quit work voluntarily. The first two claimants were ineligible for unemployment compensation because they were not able to work. The third claimant, while eligible for unemployment compensation, was disqualified because she quit voluntarily. Syllabus point two of Hix provides, in part: [A]n employee who ceases work on account of illness, or fear of illness, or for any cause not involving fault on the part of his employer, is not entitled to unemployment benefits for the week following his cessation of work, and the six weeks immediately following such week. If unable to work during such period, he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits; and if eligible therefor, he is disqualified under said section to receive such benefits. In reaching its decision in Hix the Court defined the word "voluntarily" to mean "the free exercise of the will." State v. Hix, supra, at 522, 54 S.E.2d at 201, and rejected the argument that when an employee ceases work as a result of a health problem that prevents that employee from being physically or mentally capable of performing his job duties, he has not done so voluntarily with the free exercise of his will.[*] We agree with the definition of "voluntarily" stated in State v. Hix, supra. However, we do not agree with the Court's application of W.Va.Code § 21A-6-3(1). Almost every state has a disqualification statute similar to W.Va.Code § 21A-6-3(1) included in its unemployment compensation law, and with few exceptions, claimants who quit work are to some extent disqualified from receiving benefits under these statutes. See 1B Unemply.Ins.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 3000 for a summary of the unemployment compensation laws in effect throughout the United States. In interpreting such statutes courts in other jurisdictions focus on whether the claimant had good cause for quitting his employment which was attributable to the employer. This was the approach we followed in State v. Hix, supra. In such cases little or no weight is placed on *140 the meaning or effect of the word "voluntarily." See, e.g., DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, 100 N.J.Super. 473, 242 A.2d 640 (1968); Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Missouri, 327 S.W.2d 487 (Mo.App. 1959). However, this approach ignores one of the primary purposes of the West Virginia Unemployment Compensation Act, which is to compensate individuals who are involuntarily unemployed. Lee-Norse Co. v. Rutledge, W.Va., 291 S.E.2d 477 , 482 (1982); Miners in General Group v. Hix, 123 W.Va. 637, 646, 17 S.E.2d 810, 815 (1941). W.Va. Code § 21A-6-3(1) is included in the Act to disqualify those employees who are voluntarily unemployed and who therefore should not be entitled to the same benefits and treatment as involuntarily unemployed individuals. We therefore believe that a consideration of the meaning of the term "voluntarily" as used in W.Va.Code § 21A-6-3(1) is necessary to a proper interpretation of the legislative intent. A trenchant analysis of the meaning of the word "voluntarily" as it is used in unemployment compensation statutes was made in Bliley Electric Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 158 Pa.Super. 548, 556, 45 A.2d 898, 903 (1946): "Voluntarily" and "involuntarily" are antonymous and therefore irreconcilable words, but the words are merely symbols of ideas, and the ideas can be readily reconciled. Willingness, wilfulness, volition, intention reside in "voluntarily," but the mere fact that a worker wills and intends to leave a job does not necessarily and always mean that the leaving is voluntary. Extraneous factors, the surrounding circumstances, must be taken into the account, and when they are examined it may be found that the seemingly voluntary, the apparently intentional, act was in fact involuntary. A worker's physical and mental condition, his personal and family problems, the authoritative demand of legal dutiesthese are circumstances that exert pressure upon him and imperiously call for decision and action. When therefore the pressure of real not imaginary, substantial not trifling, reasonable not whimsical, circumstances compel the decision to leave employment, the decision is voluntary in the sense that the worker has willed it, but involuntary because outward pressures have compelled it. [Footnote omitted] Or to state it differently, if a worker leaves his employment when he is compelled to do so by necessitous circumstances or because of legal or family obligations, his leaving is voluntary with good cause, and under the act he is entitled to benefits. The pressure of necessity, of legal duty, or family obligations, or other overpowering circumstances and his capitulation to them transform what is ostensibly voluntary unemployment into involuntary unemployment. The analysis employed by the court in Bliley Electric Co., supra, is particularly relevant where an employee is forced to quit work as a result of a health-related problem which prevents him from continuing work. In one sense, such an employee has quit voluntarily because he was not fired or suspended by his employer. However, it is also clear that the employee did not freely choose to quit his job, but rather was forced to do so for the good of his health. In Fannon v. Federal Cartridge Corporation, 219 Minn. 306, 311, 18 N.W.2d 249, 252 (1945), the Minnesota Supreme Court analyzed the problem of the health-related termination of employment and concluded: While [the claimant] intended to terminate her employment, and to this extent it may be argued that such termination was voluntary, on the other hand, it is clear that her health and personal welfare made it imperative for her to stop without further delay; in fact, the evidence indicates that had she not left her work after her collapse in May 1943 she would in all probability have been carried out of the plant on a stretcher. An act of necessity may not be a voluntary act. [Citations omitted] We cannot escape *141 the conclusion that where, as here, an employee is impelled because of sickness and disease to terminate employment because continuance thereof would endanger his health and personal welfare, such termination is an involuntary rather than a voluntary act on the part of the employee within the meaning of [the Minnesota Unemployment Compensation Act]. We agree with the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Minnesota that an employee who has been compelled to terminate his employment for reasons of health cannot be said to have voluntarily quit his job. We have previously held in syllabus point six of Davis v. Hix, 140 W.Va. 398, 84 S.E.2d 404 (1954), that "[u]nemployment compensation statutes, being remedial in nature, should be liberally construed to achieve the benign purposes intended to the full extent thereof." See also London v. Board of Review, W.Va., 244 S.E.2d 331 (1978). The beneficent purposes of the West Virginia Unemployment Compensation Act are set out in W.Va.Code § 21A-1-1 [1978]. These purposes include to: [P]rovide reasonable and effective means for the promotion of social and economic security by reducing as far as practicable the hazards of unemployment. In the furtherance of this objective, the legislature establishes a compulsory system of unemployment reserves in order to: (1) Provide a measure of security to the families of unemployed persons. (2) Guard against the menace to health, morals and welfare arising from unemployment. (3) Maintain as great purchasing power as possible, with a view to sustaining the economic system during periods of economic depression. (4) Stimulate stability of employment as a requisite of social and economic security. (5) Allay and prevent the debilitating consequences of poor relief assistance. In interpreting the unemployment compensation statutes, we must liberally construe the various provisions to achieve these benign purposes. An example of a liberal interpretation of the Act, in circumstances analagous to those presented here, is our recent case involving disqualification resulting from misconduct that was health related. Kirk v. Cole, W.Va., 288 S.E.2d 547 (1982). We held in the syllabus of Kirk: "Absence from work due to illness does not constitute misconduct within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 21A-6-3(2) [1981] and a claimant for unemployment compensation will not be disqualified from receiving benefits for the six-week statutory period because he or she was discharged for excessive absenteeism due to illness." We further note that under W.Va.Code § 21A-6-5 [1963] the commissioner must consider the degree of risk involved to the individual's health, safety and morals, and the individual's physical fitness and prior training, in deciding if work is suitable for an unemployed individual. It would be inconsistent for the Unemployment Compensation Act to be read to allow an unemployed individual to refuse suitable work because he is suffering from some health-related problem and not be disqualified, while an unemployed individual who is forced to quit his job because of a health problem is disqualified from receiving benefits when he is once again able and willing to work. In order to remove this inconsistency, we must hold that when an employee is forced to quit his job because of a health problem, he has not done so voluntarily. In accordance with the beneficent purposes of the Unemployment Compensation Act, we therefore conclude that when an employee ceases work as a result of an injury or other health-related problem and later attempts to return to work after recovering from the health problem, only to find that his employment has been terminated during his absence, such employee has not "voluntarily" left his work within the meaning of W.Va.Code § 21A-6-3(1) [1978]. Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is reversed and this case is remanded with directions to *142 enter judgment for the appellant. To the extent that syllabus point two of State v. Hix, supra, is inconsistent with today's holding, it is hereby overruled. Reversed and remanded.

6fec7f567bc826596de7ecf6536803465af5c38d97911f224dd9ae2ed636a55f

1982-11-24 00:00:00

f6b2fcaf-08f7-4766-a7e0-c1a5331ad3e6

W. VA. EDUC. ASS'N v. Legislature

369 S.E.2d 454

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

W. VA. EDUC. ASS'N v. Legislature Annotate this Case 369 S.E.2d 454 (1988) The WEST VIRGINIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, etc.; Thomas J. Vogel, as President of the WVEA, and as a Citizen and Taxpayer of the State of West Virginia v. The LEGISLATURE OF the STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; Robert C. Chambers, as Speaker of the House of Delegates, etc.; Dan Tonkovich, as President of the Senate, etc.; and Arch A. Moore, Jr., Governor of the State of West Virginia. No. 17950. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. February 23, 1988. Dissenting Opinion March 7, 1988. Rehearing Filed April 25, 1988. Refused May 18, 1988. William B. McGinley, W.V.E.A., Charleston, for WVEA etc. Thomas J. Vogel. Charles G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Silas B. Taylor, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. Bradley Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Leg. Chambers & Tonkovich. Marianne K. Stonestreet, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paul Richard Hull, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for Governor. McGRAW, Justice: In this mandamus proceeding, the West Virginia Education Association (WVEA) challenges as unconstitutional the cuts in state expenditures for education made in the fiscal year 1987-88 state budget. The WVEA seeks writs of mandamus requiring the Governor to call a special session of the Legislature and requiring the Legislature to supplement the budgetary appropriation for education, or such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. Having considered the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the fiscal year 1987-88 state budget is unconstitutional. As an act of comity, we presume the Governor and Legislature will do their duties. Therefore, the writ prayed for is deferred. The petitioners are correct in their representation that the provisions of Article XII, Section 1 et seq. and Article X, *455 Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, give a constitutionally preferred status to public education in this State. Syl.Pt. 1, State ex rel. Board of Education v. Rockefeller, 167 W.Va. 72, 281 S.E.2d 131 (1981). We have also held that the mandate of article twelve, section one that the Legislature provide for a thorough and efficient public school system requires that body to develop high standards for educational quality statewide. Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979). Further, we have disapproved of reducing state expenditures for public education as part of a pro rata reduction in the overall budget due to an anticipated revenue shortfall. Board v. Rockefeller, 167 W.Va. 72, 281 S.E.2d 131 . Indeed, in this commonwealth, education is an essential constitutional right. The financing of education is, among mandated public services, the first constitutional priority. Cooper v. Gwinn, ___ W.Va. ___, 298 S.E.2d 781 (1981); see Board v. Rockefeller, 167 W.Va. 72, 281 S.E.2d 131 . This case vividly illustrates the concept of "rule of law". Rule of law implies subordination of the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) to principles of law enunciated in the constitution. The thorough and efficient system of free schools required by our constitutional law is to be provided for through enactment of general law by the Legislature. W.Va. Const. art. XII, § 1. Article nine A of chapter eighteen of the West Virginia Code sets forth a comprehensive plan for financial support of public schools. State ex rel. Raese v. Battle, 149 W.Va. 761, 143 S.E.2d 328 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 . As such, Code § 18-9A-1 to -22 is an integral part of the fundamental constitutional command that the Legislature provide for a thorough and efficient system of public education.[1] The Legislature, in enacting and specifying the basic foundation program contained in article nine A has established public policy which is presumed to vindicate the constitution. That body has made a determination that presumes this basic foundation program is a necessary part of fulfilling the constitutional obligation. Consistent with the assertion of the petitioners, the respondent Governor admits "that the appropriations made by the Legislature for public education are incorrect." The Legislative respondents verify that the current budget, as approved by two-thirds of the members of each house of the Legislature, fails to appropriate sufficient dollars to fund the basic foundation program. Thus, the petitioners are correct in their premise that the fiscal year 1987-88 budget does not comport with the legislatively established public policy, which is presumed to vindicate the constitutional mandate for a thorough and efficient public school system.[2] The Governor, by answer, claims and avers, "The Legislature by appropriating $1,490,215,893.00, an amount which exceeds *456 the ... revenue estimate[3] by $25,815,893.00, has created an unconstitutional budget." He further avers, "The Budget Bill enacted by the Legislature creates a deficit and is seriously out-of-balance." The respondent Speaker and President do not controvert the Governor's verification. It is clear that the Governor and the Legislature have the responsibility for preparing and enacting a proper budget bill in accordance with Article VI, § 51 of the West Virginia Constitution. See generally, State ex rel. Moore v. Blankenship, 158 W.Va. 939, 217 S.E.2d 232 (1975); State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 158 W.Va. 390, 214 S.E.2d 467 (1975); State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 157 W.Va. 100, 207 S.E.2d 421 (1973). Provisions contained in article six, section fifty-one of the Constitution of West Virginia require that the estimate of revenues and the budgeted appropriations be in balance so as not to create a deficit. Thus, we hold the budget for fiscal 1987-88 to be unconstitutional under Article VI, § 51 of the West Virginia Constitution. While we have determined that the budget is unconstitutional,[4] as an act of comity, we decline today to issue extraordinary writs prayed for by WVEA. Comity is "mutual consideration between ... equals." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 455 (1970). Comity, as a principle of law, is a courtesy extended in deference from equals who are mindful of their duty to equals who are mindful of their duty. See W. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 197 (1890). Because the concept of comity is based in mutual deference accorded to equals, it is applicable among co-equal departments (branches) of a single sovereign government. We do not today order the Governor to do any act. We do not today order the Legislature to do any act. The law presumes the Governor to know his duty when faced with an unconstitutional budget.[5] The law presumes the Legislature to know its duty[6] too.[7] BROTHERTON and NEELY, JJ., dissent and reserve the right to file dissenting opinions. BROTHERTON, Justice, dissenting: I dissent to the majority opinion in this mandamus action because the ruling is based on an issue not properly before the Court. The petitioners asserted that they *457 were aggrieved by the amount provided for public education in the budget that went into effect July 1, 1987. They asked this Court to compel the Governor to reconvene the Legislature in special session and provide a revised revenue estimate, and to order the Legislature to pass supplemental appropriations bills restoring funds provided for public education in the budget vetoed by the Governor on March 31, 1987. The petitioners, however, did not allege that the State budget for the year 1987-88 was unconstitutional or pray that it be declared unconstitutional. The only issues, therefore, before this Court were (1) whether the Governor had a duty to reconvene the Legislature to revise the budget (and whether the Legislature had a duty to do so); (2) whether the WVEA had a right to such relief; and (3) whether any other adequate remedy existed.[1] Yet, ignoring both the grievance alleged and the relief requested by the petitioners, the majority declared: "[W]e hold the budget for fiscal 1987-88 to be unconstitutional under Article VI, § 51 of the West Virginia Constitution." The only "hint" of any question concerning the constitutionality of the 1987-88 budget of the West Virginia Legislature was in the Governor's response to the WVEA's petition. The Governor, in his response, pointed to the fact that the budget appropriations exceeded the revised revenue estimate he submitted to the Legislature on April 6, 1987. The majority opinion states that the respondent Speaker and President did not controvert the Governor's verification that the Legislature appropriated more money than was contained in one of his many estimates, thereby creating an unconstitutional budget. Certainly it was uncontroverted, because it was mentioned only in the answer of a co-respondent. Moreover, this being a proceeding to compel a public official to discharge a legal duty, the constitutionality of the budget was not relevant. Even the Governor, after noting that the budget was out of balance, made clear that he was not requesting any action from this Court with respect to that issue: At this time, the cost of convening an extraordinary session of the Legislature far exceeds any benefits which might be derived from said session. The Legislature was in session virtually from January to June, 1987. During that time, it made no progress towards adequate funding of education, thereby, leaving the Governor no reason to believe another special session would help. ..... Respondent Moore avers that the appropriations made by the Legislature for public education are incorrect and substantially lower than his recommendations. However, considering the cost of a special session and the fact that the Legislature will regularly convene in January, 1988, respondent Moore avers that the problems raised by the petitioners can best be resolved during the regular session of the Legislature. Answer, ¶ ¶ 20 & 24. Similarly, the constitutionality of the budget was not even mentioned in the Governor's Memorandum of Law filed in this case. It is hard to understand why a chief executive in a responsive pleading would even raise the question of the constitutionality *458 of the budget three months after it had taken effect and some four-and-one-half months after the Legislature overrode his veto of the budget. The Governor's concern for the budget's constitutionality was not so overwhelming as to discourage his authorizing the spending of the money. The majority opinion reviews this Court's position regarding the constitutional priority of education in this State by citing various decisions of this Court over the past five years. On page 455 of the majority opinion it states: "Indeed, in this commonwealth, education is an essential constitutional right. The financing of education is, among mandated public services, the first constitutional priority." Yet, after saying all of that, the majority opinion did nothing to effectuate any plan to make that a fact. It is the long-standing practice of this Court in a mandamus proceeding to set forth in detail the measures to be undertaken by the respondents to bring about relief granted. See, e.g., Allen v. State Human Rights Comm'n, ___ W.Va. ___, 324 S.E.2d 99 , 127 (1984); United Mine Workers of America v. Scott, ___ W.Va. ___, 315 S.E.2d 614 , 633 (1984), United Mine Workers of America v. Miller, ___ W.Va. ___, 291 S.E.2d 673 , 684 (1982). However, rather than guiding the respondents as to how to remedy the unconstitutionality of the budget, the majority merely states: "We do not today order the Governor to do any act. We do not today order the Legislature to do any act. The law presumes the Governor to know his duty when faced with an unconstitutional budget. The law presumes the Legislature to know its duty too." (footnotes omitted). Because the majority opinion fails to order the Governor or the Legislature to take any action, the opinion serves no purpose and corrects no wrongs. No action is prescribed, because this Court has adopted a new principle of law, the doctrine of comity, which is totally foreign to this writer as applied by the majority to the three branches of government in this State.[2] The majority defines comity as "a courtesy extended in deference from equals who are mindful of their duty to equals who are mindful of their duty." I assume that the majority is adopting the doctrine of comity as a principle of law to be used by this Court in the future when petitions are filed by one branch of government seeking redress for inaction or improper action on the part of the other two branches of government. Under the doctrine of comity as articulated by the majority, this Court should issue opinions which, in deference to the other two branches of government, require no action by the respondent branch of government. I doubt that this is the intent of the majority, and will wait to see if the doctrine of comity applies in an action brought by a different petitioner and in a year that is not divisible by twelve. Finally, with regard to the majority's failure to prescribe a course of action to remedy the budget, this writer notes that this petition was filed in September, 1987, and briefed and argued in the first part of October, 1987. At that time, one fourth of the 1987-88 fiscal year had elapsed. A decision was not handed down until the last part of February, 1988, which was eight months into the fiscal year. The judgment of the unconstitutionality of the budget would not take effect for another sixty-day period in the event a petition for rehearing is filed. If such a petition is filed near the end of that sixty-day period, ten months of the fiscal year will have expired. By the time the case is heard again and a change in the majority opinion, if warranted, is issued, another month, or a total of eleven twelfths of the fiscal year will have expired, and little or no money will be available to rearrange the budget for the year 1987-88 because eleven twelfths of it will have been spent. Therefore, no benefit can possibly inure to education for the year 1987-88. *459 The majority opinion reads as if its purpose were to make educators believe that this Court embraces education as an essential constitutional right, and believes financing education is among the mandated public services entitled to constitutional priority. This much may be true. It also reads, however, as if it were improving the budget appropriation for education. In fact, the majority opinion is like fool's goldall glitter and no money in the bank. It gives a false sense of security, like a town crier shouting, "Educators sleep soundly. The 1987-88 budget of this State is invalid and ye shall reap great bounty therefrom. All is well." But when morning comes the educators will awake to find that eleven twelfths of the fiscal year has passed. Alas, they will realize that the carriage which carried them to the great ball has turned into a pumpkin. Because the constitutionality of the budget was not raised by the petitioners, this Court should not have addressed it. Further, because the petition did not allege facts warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the Court should have declined to resolve the issue and dismissed the petition. Instead of dismissing the petition, the majority extrapolates from the petition and response a hybrid allegation on which relief was not sought, and thereby creates a sensation by issuing an opinion not based on logic or sound principles of law. It is unfortunate that this Court at times sees fit to issue opinions which, in fact, are more appropriately characterized "position papers," which merely reflect the mind set of the majority but have little or no relation to the facts set forth in the case before the Court. For these reasons, I dissent. I am authorized to state that Justice NEELY joins in this dissent.

ee41cf5c297cc68b31c7e02e937d60c1593f07d1da9509681acdadfe910b4a00

1988-05-18 00:00:00

53864e67-dfd0-444c-a90d-d55095e6e980

Cox v. Amick

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Cox v. Amick Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1995 Term ___________ No. 22799 ___________ GLENNA GRIFFITH COX AND JAMES F. COX, ADMINISTRATOR AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF JOHN CARL COX, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees v. BRIAN KEITH AMICK, SHANE WILKINSON, CHAD WINES, CLIFFORD REED, RAYMOND K. AMICK, ESTA AMICK, BRETT PATTON, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND MUNICIPAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INSURER LICENSED TO WRITE LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICIES IN THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendants Below, Appellees NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INSURER LICENSED TO WRITE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICIES IN THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant Below, Appellant v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Interpleader Below, Appellee ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County Honorable Tod J. Kaufman, Judge Civil Action No. 92-C-5288 REVERSED ___________________________________________________ Submitted: October 3, 1995 Filed: December 11, 1995 Mary H. Sanders James C. Stebbins Huddleston, Bolen, Beatty, Porter & Copen Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellant Phillip D. Gaujot Morgantown, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellee, Glenna Griffith Cox John R. Hoblitzell Kevin A. Nelson Crystal S. Stump Kay, Casto, Chaney, Love & Wise Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellee, James F. Cox CHIEF JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE CLECKLEY concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "'A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.' Syl. pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994)." Syl. pt. 1, Davis v. Foley, ___ W. Va. ___, 457 S.E.2d 532 (1995). 2. "'"Summary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove." Syl. pt. 4, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).' Syl. pt. 3, Cannelton Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. of America, ___ W. Va. ___, 460 S.E.2d 18 (1994)." Syl. pt. 3, Davis v. Foley, ___ W. Va. ___, 457 S.E.2d 532 (1995). 3. A circuit court's entry of a declaratory judgment is reviewed de novo. 4. "'"Where the provisions of an insurance policy contract are clear and unambiguous they are not subject to judicial construction or interpretation, but full effect will be given to the plain meaning intended." Syllabus, Keffer v. Prudential Ins. Co., 153 W. Va. 813, 172 S.E.2d 714 (1970).' Syl. pt. 1, Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 188 W. Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (1992)." Syl. pt. 1, Miller v. Lemon, ___ W. Va. ___, 459 S.E.2d 406 (1995). 5. "'"Language in an insurance policy should be given its plain, ordinary meaning." Syl. Pt. 1, Soliva v. Shand, Morahan & Co., 176 W. Va. 430, 345 S.E.2d 33 (1986).' Syl. pt. 2, Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 188 W. Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (1992)." Syl. pt. 2, Miller v. Lemon, ___ W. Va. ___, 459 S.E.2d 406 (1995). 6. "'"Insurers may incorporate such terms, conditions and exclusions in an automobile insurance policy as may be consistent with the premium charged, so long as any such exclusions do not conflict with the spirit and intent of the uninsured and underinsured motorists statutes." Syl. Pt. 3, Deel v. Sweeney, 181 W. Va. 460, 383 S.E.2d 92 (1989).' Syl. pt. 4, Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 188 W. Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (1992)." Syl. pt. 3, Miller v. Lemon, ___ W. Va. ___, 459 S.E.2d 406 (1995). 7. "Where an offer of optional coverage is required by statute, the insurer has the burden of proving that an effective offer was made, and that any rejection of said offer by the insured was knowing and informed." Syl. pt. 1, Bias v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 179 W. Va. 125, 365 S.E.2d 789 (1987). 8. "When an insurer is required by statute to offer optional coverage, it is included in the policy by operation of law when the insurer fails to prove an effective offer and a knowing and intelligent rejection by the insured." Syl. pt. 2, Bias v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 179 W. Va. 125, 365 S.E.2d 789 (1987). 9. "W. Va. Code 33-6-31(b) [1988], mandates that when an insurer fails to prove an effective offer and a knowing and intelligent waiver by the insured, the insurer must provide the minimum coverage required to be offered under the statute." Syl. pt. 2, Riffle v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 186 W. Va. 54, 410 S.E.2d 413 (1991). 10. "'A statute that is ambiguous must be construed before it can be applied.' Syl. pt. 1, Farley v. Buckalew, 186 W. Va. 693, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992)." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Water Development Authority v. Northern Wayne County Public Service District, No. 22965, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (Oct. 27, 1995). 11. "'"The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Syllabus Point 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).' Syl. pt. 2, Farley v. Buckalew, 186 W. Va. 693, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992)." Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Water Development Authority v. Northern Wayne County Public Service District, No. 22965, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (Oct. 27, 1995). 12. "'Statutes which relate to the same persons or things, or to the same class of persons or things, or statutes which have a common purpose will be regarded in pari materia to assure recognition and implementation of the legislative intent. Accordingly, a court should not limit its consideration to any single part, provision, section, sentence, phrase or word, but rather review the act or statute in its entirety to ascertain legislative intent properly.' Syl. pt. 5, Fruehauf Corp. v. Huntington Moving & Storage Co., 159 W. Va. 14, 217 S.E.2d 907 (1975)." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Lambert v. County Commission of Boone County, 192 W. Va. 448, 452 S.E.2d 906 (1994). 13. Under W. Va. Code, 33-6-31d [1993] a knowing and intelligent rejection of optional uninsured and underinsured motorists coverages by any named insured under an insurance policy creates a presumption that all named insureds under the policy received an effective offer of the optional coverages and that such person exercised a knowing and intelligent rejection of such offer. The named insured's rejection is binding on all persons insured under the policy. 14. When an insurance policy clearly and unambiguously provides uninsured motorists coverage for damages suffered by the insured or a relative from the "owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle" if such damages have resulted from an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle, the insured or relative may not recover damages pursuant to his or her uninsured motorists coverage from a person who was not occupying an uninsured motor vehicle involved in the accident when it occurred and who was not the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle involved in the accident even though such person may be liable to the insured or relative under other appropriate causes of action. McHugh, Chief Justice: The appellant, Nationwide Insurance Company (hereinafter "Nationwide"), appeals the December 8, 1994 order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County which resolved two insurance coverage issues in favor of the appellees, Glenna Griffith Cox and James F. Cox, the administrator and personal representative for the estate of John Carl Cox. For reasons explained below, we reverse the order of the circuit court. I. This action arose out of an automobile accident which occurred on March 27, 1992, on U.S. Route 21 in Kanawha County when a vehicle driven by Brian Amick crossed the center line of the highway and struck a vehicle driven by John Carl Cox head on. John Carl Cox was killed and his wife, Glenna Griffith Cox, who was a passenger in the car, was seriously injured. The facts leading up to the accident are in dispute; however, it is not necessary for us to resolve the disputed issues of fact as they will be resolved at trial. For purposes of this opinion, we will briefly discuss what is alleged to have occurred. Evidently, Brian Amick and three other Sissonville High School students, Shane Wilkinson, Chad Wines, and Clifford Reed, decided to skip school before the first period class began on the day of the accident. Allegedly, the four boys shared two or three marihuana joints and drank a liter of vodka while driving around in Amick's car that morning. The four boys also allegedly broke into a motor vehicle and robbed items which were within the motor vehicle. Subsequently, the four boys took the stolen items to a pawn shop in Charleston. After receiving money for the pawned items, Amick drove his car to a gas station. At the gas station Reed got out of Amick's car and allegedly was to take the money received from the pawn shop and buy concert tickets. Amick drove off with Wilkinson and Wines in the car. The accident occurred within minutes after Amick left Reed at the gas station. The two insurance coverage issues relating to the car accident arose in a declaratory judgment action filed by the appellees in order to enforce uninsured and underinsured motorists coverage in a policy issued by Nationwide to John Carl Cox, the decedent. The declaratory judgment action had been filed as a third amended complaint in a pending tort action which sought recovery for the death of John Carl Cox and the personal injuries of Glenna Griffith Cox. In the December 8, 1994 order which Nationwide appeals, the circuit court resolved one of the insurance coverage issues by entering a declaratory judgment that Nationwide must provide underinsured motorists coverage to Glenna Cox because Nationwide failed to show that Glenna Cox, as an "insured" under Nationwide's policy, was offered and rejected underinsured motorists coverage. In that same order the circuit court resolved the other insurance coverage issue by granting summary judgment against Nationwide upon determining that Clifford Reed met the definition of an uninsured motorist pursuant to the Nationwide policy even though he was not the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident nor a driver or passenger in a vehicle involved in the accident at the time of the accident. II. At the outset, we note that "'[a] circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.' Syl. pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994)." Syl. pt. 1, Davis v. Foley, ___ W. Va. ___, 457 S.E.2d 532 (1995). Furthermore, "'"[s]ummary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove." Syl. pt. 4, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).' Syl. pt. 3, Cannelton Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. of America, ___ W. Va. ___, 460 S.E.2d 18 (1994)." Syl. pt. 3, Davis, supra. On the other hand, the purpose of a declaratory judgment 'is to avoid the expense and delay which might otherwise result, and in securing in advance a determination of legal questions which, if pursued, can be given the force and effect of a judgment or decree without the long and tedious delay which might accompany other types of litigation.' Harrison v. Town of Eleanor, 191 W. Va. 611, 615, 447 S.E.2d 546, 550 (1994) (quoting Crank v. McLaughlin, 125 W. Va. 126, 133, 23 S.E.2d 56, 60 (1942)) (emphasis provided). See W. Va. Code, 55-13-1 [1941] ("Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations[.]"). This Court has stated that "[i]t is generally within the discretion of the court as to whether it will take jurisdiction to enter or decline to enter a declaratory judgment, and also the manner in which it is done, but such discretion cannot be abused." Hall v. Hartley, 146 W.Va. 328, 332, 119 S.E.2d 759 , 762 (1961) (citations omitted). Furthermore, the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act provides that "[a]ll orders, judgments and decrees under this article may be reviewed as other orders, judgments and decrees." W. Va. Code, 55-13-7 [1941]. This Court has previously stated that when it reviews orders, judgments or decrees entered by a circuit court the findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. However, questions of law are reviewed de novo. See Phillips v. Fox, ___ W. Va. ___, ___, 458 S.E.2d 327, 331 (1995). See also, Burnside v. Burnside, ___ W. Va. ___, ___, 460 S.E.2d 264, 266 (1995) and W. Va. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Therefore, because the purpose of a declaratory judgment action is to resolve legal questions, a circuit court's ultimate resolution in a declaratory judgment action is reviewed de novo; however, any determinations of fact made by the circuit court in reaching its ultimate resolution are reviewed pursuant to a clearly erroneous standard. Accordingly, we hold that a circuit court's entry of a declaratory judgment is reviewed de novo.See footnote 1 See Continental Casualty Co. v. Coastal Savings Bank, 977 F.2d 734, 736-37 (2d Cir. 1992) (The entry of a declaratory judgment is reviewed de novo on appeal); Mitcheson v. Harris, 955 F.2d 235, 237 (4th Cir. 1992) ("[T]he appellate court must exercise its own judgment in reviewing" the entry of a declaratory judgment); Manley, Bennett, McDonald & Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 460, 462 (6th Cir. 1986); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 372 F.2d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1967). See also 22A Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments § 245 (1988) ("Although the entertainment of a declaratory judgment action is discretionary with the trial court, the exercise of such discretion is reviewable on a de novo basis by the Court of Appeals . . .") and 6A James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 57.08[2] at 57-36 (2d ed. 1995) (The majority rule, which is the better rule, is that the "appellate court may substitute its judgment for that of the lower court[]" when reviewing a declaratory judgment).See footnote 2 A. The first issue raised by Nationwide on appeal is whether the circuit court erred by holding that Glenna Cox was entitled to underinsured motorists coverage in spite of the signed rejection of said coverage for all vehicles under the policy by the named policyholder, John Cox. The trial judge concluded that Nationwide was required to offer not only to John Cox, but also to Glenna Cox, the option of purchasing underinsured motorists coverage simply because she met the definition of an "insured" under the policy. Before addressing this issue, an understanding of the facts regarding the rejection of underinsured motorists coverage by John Cox is important. When John Cox became a policyholder with Nationwide he had coverage on only one automobile. On December 1, 1987, John Cox married Glenna Cox. At the time of their marriage, Glenna Cox owned a 1986 Chevrolet Cavalier which was insured by Kentucky Central Insurance Company. On January 3, 1992, John Cox added Glenna Cox's 1986 Chevrolet Cavalier to the Nationwide policy which he had prior to the marriage. On that day John Cox completed an insurance form requesting uninsured motorists coverage in the amount of $100,000.00 per person, $300,000.00 per accident and rejected underinsured motorists coverage. Glenna Cox was not asked whether she waived underinsured motorists coverage. Moreover, Glenna Cox did not become a named policyholder on the declarations sheet, nor did she submit an application when her vehicle was added to the policy. The Nationwide policy at issue provides: "For the payment of premiums in amounts we require and subject to all of the terms and conditions of this policy, we agree to provide the coverages selected by the policyholder." (emphasis added). Moreover, the Nationwide policy at issue defines "policyholder" as "the first person named in the declarations. The policyholder is the named insured under this policy and does not include the policyholder's spouse." Clearly, the insurance policy issued to John Cox, the decedent, specifically and unambiguously addresses the issue before us: John Cox, as the policyholder, could elect not to select underinsured motorists coverage for every person, including his spouse, who would be an insured under the policy. We are mindful that "'"[w]here the provisions of an insurance policy contract are clear and unambiguous they are not subject to judicial construction or interpretation, but full effect will be given to the plain meaning intended." Syllabus, Keffer v. Prudential Ins. Co., 153 W. Va. 813, 172 S.E.2d 714 (1970).' Syl. pt. 1, Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 188 W. Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (1992)." Syl. pt. 1, Miller v. Lemon, ___ W. Va. ___, 459 S.E.2d 406 (1995). Furthermore, "'"[l]anguage in an insurance policy should be given its plain, ordinary meaning." Syl. Pt. 1, Soliva v. Shand, Morahan & Co., 176 W. Va. 430, 345 S.E.2d 33 (1986).' Syl. pt. 2, Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 188 W. Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (1992)." Syl. pt. 2, Miller, supra. However, this Court will not give effect to language in an insurance policy which conflicts with the intent of the uninsured and underinsured motorists statutes: "'"Insurers may incorporate such terms, conditions and exclusions in an automobile insurance policy as may be consistent with the premium charged, so long as any such exclusions do not conflict with the spirit and intent of the uninsured and underinsured motorists statutes." Syl. Pt. 3, Deel v. Sweeney, 181 W. Va. 460, 383 S.E.2d 92 (1989).' Syl. pt. 4, Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 188 W. Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (1992)." Syl. pt. 3, Miller, supra. The appellees argue, in effect, that the provisions of Nationwide's policy at issue conflict with the spirit and intent of W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988] which details when and how an insurer shall offer the optional uninsured and underinsured motorists coverages.See footnote 3 We note that while uninsured motorists coverage is mandatory up to certain minimum limits, W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988] requires the insurer to provide to the insured the option of selecting limits which are above the mandatory uninsured coverage requirement. In the case before us we are concerned with the proviso of W. Va. Code, 33-6- 31(b) [1988] which mandates that each policy "shall provide an option to the insured . . . of [underinsured motorists coverages and uninsured motorists coverage with limits which are above the mandatory uninsured coverage requirement]." (emphasis added). In syllabus points 1 and 2 of Bias v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 179 W. Va. 125, 365 S.E.2d 789 (1987), this Court explained the insurer's obligation pursuant to W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988]: 1. Where an offer of optional coverage is required by statute, the insurer has the burden of proving that an effective offer was made, and that any rejection of said offer by the insured was knowing and informed. 2. When an insurer is required by statute to offer optional coverage, it is included in the policy by operation of law when the insurer fails to prove an effective offer and a knowing and intelligent rejection by the insured. More recently, this Court held that "W. Va. Code 33-6-31(b) [1988], mandates that when an insurer fails to prove an effective offer and a knowing and intelligent waiver by the insured, the insurer must provide the minimum coverage required to be offered under the statute." Syl. pt. 2, Riffle v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 186 W. Va. 54, 410 S.E.2d 413 (1991). The appellees focus on the use of the term "insured" by the legislature in W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988] and by this Court in the above syllabus points and conclude that the spirit and intent of W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988] mandates that every insured covered by a certain insurance policy must be offered the optional coverages provided under that policy. If the insurer fails to prove that an effective offer was made to every insured and fails to prove that such offer was knowingly and intelligently rejected by every insured, then the insurer must provide the minimum coverage required to be offered pursuant to W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988] to those insureds who did not reject the optional coverage. We disagree with the appellees' contention. We acknowledge that the legislature and, thus, this Court, use the term "insured" when discussing the insurer's duty to offer the optional coverages pursuant to W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988]. However, the legislature left unanswered in W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988] the question of whether one insured could reject the optional coverages for all insureds covered under the policy.See footnote 4 This Court has held that "'[a] statute that is ambiguous must be construed before it can be applied.' Syl. pt. 1, Farley v. Buckalew, 186 W. Va. 693, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992)." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Water Development Authority v. Northern Wayne County Public Service District, No. 22965, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (Oct. 27, 1995). Furthermore, "'"[t]he primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Syllabus Point 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).' Syl. pt. 2, Farley v. Buckalew, 186 W. Va. 693, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992)." Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Water Development Authority, supra. In 1993 the legislature clarified its intent when it enacted W. Va. Code, 33-6- 31d which outlines how the insurer must offer the optional uninsured and underinsured coverages.See footnote 5 The legislature explained that [t]he contents of the form described in this section which has been signed by any named insured shall create a presumption that all named insureds under the policy received such an effective offer of the optional coverages described in this section and that all such named insureds exercised a knowing and intelligent election or rejection, as the case may be, of such offer as specified in the form. Such election or rejection is binding on all persons insured under the policy. W. Va. Code, 33-6-31d(c) [1993]. We point out that because there is no question that both W. Va. Code, 33-6-31 [1988] and W. Va. Code, 33-6-31d [1993] relate to the provision of uninsured and underinsured motorists coverages, it is appropriate for this Court to review those code sections in pari materia in order to ascertain the legislature's intent: 'Statutes which relate to the same persons or things, or to the same class of persons or things, or statutes which have a common purpose will be regarded in pari materia to assure recognition and implementation of the legislative intent. Accordingly, a court should not limit its consideration to any single part, provision, section, sentence, phrase or word, but rather review the act or statute in its entirety to ascertain legislative intent properly.' Syl. pt. 5, Fruehauf Corp. v. Huntington Moving & Storage Co., 159 W. Va. 14, 217 S.E.2d 907 (1975). Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Lambert v. County Commission of Boone County, 192 W. Va. 448, 452 S.E.2d 906 (1994). The appellees acknowledge the above language in W. Va. Code, 33-6-31d(c) [1993], but argue that because it was enacted in 1993, one year after the accident occurred, it is new law which does not apply to them. We disagree. We believe the above quoted language from W. Va. Code, 33-6-31d(c) [1993] merely clarifies the legislature's original intent when it enacted W. Va. Code, 33-6-31 [1988]. Cf. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Youler, 183 W. Va. 556, 569, 396 S.E.2d 737 , 750 (1990) (This Court rejected a similar argument that a 1988 amendment to W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) was a change in the law rather than a clarification of existing law). Moreover, as a practical matter, it would be very time consuming and unreasonable to expect an insurer to offer every person who would be an insured under the policy the optional coverage and then ascertain whether the optional coverage was rejected. Accordingly, we hold that under W. Va. Code, 33-6-31d [1993] a knowing and intelligent rejection of optional uninsured and underinsured motorists coverages by any named insured under an insurance policy creates a presumption that all named insureds under the policy received an effective offer of the optional coverages and that such person exercised a knowing and intelligent rejection of such offer. The named insured's rejection is binding on all persons insured under the policy. Thus, in the case before us, John Cox's rejection of underinsured motorists coverage is binding on Glenna Cox. The circuit court, therefore, erred in entering a declaratory judgment that Nationwide must provide underinsured motorists coverage to Glenna Cox. B. The second issue raised by Nationwide on appeal is whether the circuit court erred by holding that the language of the policy issued by Nationwide provides uninsured motorists coverage to the appellees for the actions of Reed even though Reed did not own a vehicle involved in the accident nor was he in a vehicle involved in the accident when the accident occurred. As we previously stated, although allegedly Reed spent most of the day riding around in Amick's car, he got out of the car shortly before the accident occurred. The appellees maintain that Reed is liable for the damages they have sustained from the car accident under a joint enterprise theory and/or because he substantially assisted Amick in causing the car accident. See Price v. Halstead, 177 W. Va. 592, 355 S.E.2d 380 (1987). The Nationwide policy at issue provides for uninsured motorists coverage. More specifically, the coverage agreement states: We will pay compensatory damages as a result of bodily injury and/or property damage suffered by you or a relative and due by law from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle . Damages must result from an accident arising out of the: 1. ownership; 2. maintenance; or 3. use; of the uninsured motor vehicle . (bold indicates emphasis supplied and underlining indicates emphasis added). The above language clearly and unambiguously does not include a person such as Reed. See syl. pt. 1, Miller, supra, (Where provisions of an insurance policy are clear and unambiguous they are not subject to judicial interpretation). In fact, the language above clearly states that the uninsured motorists coverage compensates for damages sustained from the "owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle."See footnote 6 Reed was not the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle which was involved in the car accident.See footnote 7 The appellees make two arguments in support of their contention that Nationwide's policy is ambiguous, and thus, should be "strictly construed against the insurance company and in favor of the insured."See footnote 8 Syl. pt. 4, in part, National Mutual Ins. Co. v. McMahon & Sons, Inc., 177 W. Va. 734, 356 S.E.2d 488 (1987). First, the appellees rely on the following language found in Nationwide's "acknowledgement of coverage selection and rejection uninsured motorists and underinsured motorists coverage" form (hereinafter "acknowledgment form"): "Uninsured Motorists Coverage (UMC) is MANDATORY in West Virginia and must be written on every automobile policy. UMC provides financial protection for bodily injury of property damage caused by an at fault uninsured or at fault hit-and-run driver." (emphasis added). The appellees maintain that the above language is inconsistent with the language found in the policy regarding uninsured motorists coverage in that the above language could reasonably be construed as providing coverage for damages caused by an "at-fault uninsured" whereas the policy, as we have previously stated, provides coverage for damages caused by "the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle." See syl. pt. 4 of Soliva v. Shand, Morahan & Co., Inc., 176 W. Va. 430, 345 S.E.2d 33 (1986) ("'In ascertaining the intention of the parties to an insurance contract, the test is what a reasonable person in the insured's position would have understood the words of the policy to mean.'" (citation omitted)).See footnote 9 More specifically, the appellees focus on the phrase "at fault uninsured or at fault hit-and-run driver" found in the acknowledgement form. The appellees argue that the phrase "at fault uninsured" in the acknowledgement form is not immediately followed by the word "driver" or "owner" unlike the phrase "at fault hit-and-run driver"; therefore, the appellees conclude that uninsured motorists coverage exists when there is an at fault uninsured regardless of whether the uninsured is the owner or driver of a motor vehicle involved in the accident. We disagree with the appellees' contention. As stated by Nationwide, "[u]nder common [E]nglish construction, when two terms modify the same word and are separated by a conjunction, it is not necessary to repeat the modified word along with each term." Clearly, a reasonable person in an insured's position would understand that the word "driver" in the acknowledgement form is modified by both the phrase "at fault uninsured" and the phrase "at fault hit-and-run driver." Thus, we find the appellees' contention to be without merit. Second, the appellees contend that the Nationwide policy is ambiguous because the coverage is labeled "uninsured motorists coverage" on all forms which may reasonably be construed as providing coverage for damages caused by one other than a driver, owner, or even passenger of a motor vehicle. In other words, the appellees argue that Reed is a "motorist" under the insurance policy because he is a person who travels by automobile. The appellees rely upon Green v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 426 S.E.2d 3 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). In Green the issue was whether a Georgia statute, "which requires that no-fault benefits be provided to non-resident motorists involved in motor vehicle accidents in Georgia and insured by insurers doing business in Georgia, covers 'motorists' who are on foot rather than in their cars at the time of the accident." Green, 426 S.E.2d at 4. In arriving at its conclusion the Court of Appeals of Georgia relied upon a dictionary meaning which defines the term "motorist" as "'a person who travels by automobile.'" Id. at 5 (citing Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 745 (150th anniv. ed. 1981)). The Court of Appeals noted that "'[t]he dictionary does not specify 'at the moment of travelling' or 'while travelling' in defining motorist," and concluded that "the addition of such a restriction . . . would be contrary to common usage and understanding of the word." Id. Thus, the Court of Appeals found that the term "motorist" included a pedestrian who was struck by a car while walking back to her car after making a phone call. We decline to apply the reasoning in Green to the facts before us. As we previously stated, the language in the Nationwide policy before us explicitly states that uninsured motorists coverage compensates for damages caused by the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. Additionally, the policy explicitly states that the damages must result from an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Thus, the Nationwide policy clearly and unambiguously does not provide uninsured motorists coverage under the set of facts we have before us. Moreover, Green is distinguishable from the case before us. In Green the "motorist," who had an insurance policy, was seeking coverage under that policy for damages sustained as a pedestrian while walking back to her car after making a phone call. Reed, the pedestrian in the case before us, was not injured in the accident, and, therefore, is not seeking coverage under his own insurance policy. Accordingly, we hold that when an insurance policy clearly and unambiguously provides uninsured motorists coverage for damages suffered by the insured or a relative from the "owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle" if such damages have resulted from an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle, the insured or relative may not recover damages pursuant to his or her uninsured motorists coverage from a person who was not occupying an uninsured motor vehicle involved in the accident when it occurred and who was not the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle involved in the accident even though such person may be liable to the insured or relative under other appropriate causes of action. Thus, we conclude that the circuit court erred by holding that Reed met the definition of an uninsured motorist pursuant to the Nationwide policy at issue in the case before us even though he was not the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident nor was he in a vehicle involved in the accident at the time of the accident.See footnote 10 The circuit court, therefore, should not have entered summary judgment for the appellees on this issue. IV. Based on all of the above, we reverse the December 8, 1994 order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Reversed. Footnote: 1 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (1988), the federal statute regarding declaratory judgment actions, is similar to W. Va. Code, 55-13-7 [1941] in that its states, in relevant part: "Any such declaration shall be the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such." (28 U.S.C. § 2201 was amended in 1993; however, the amendment does not affect this discussion). Because the wording of the statutes is similar we found an examination of federal case law to be helpful in establishing our standard of review. Footnote: 2 We are unclear as to why the circuit court entered summary judgment to resolve one insurance coverage issue while entering a declaratory judgment to resolve the other insurance coverage issue. However, because there were no disputed issues of fact raised on this appeal and because this Court reviews both a summary judgment and a declaratory judgment on a de novo basis, our review of the two issues before us on appeal will be conducted in the same manner.Footnote: 3 W. Va. Code, 33-6-31 was amended in 1995; however, the amendments do not affect our discussion in this opinion. Footnote: 4 We note that although W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(c) [1988] defines the term "insured" as it is used in that code section, W. Va. Code, 33-6-31 [1988] does not explicitly state whether one insured may reject the optional coverage for all insureds covered under the policy.Footnote: 5 This Court noted in Foutty v. Porterfield, 192 W. Va. 105, 107 n. 5, 450 S.E.2d 802, 804 n. 5 (1994) that the enactment of W. Va. Code, 33-6-31d may affect the application of this Court's holding in Bias, supra.Footnote: 6 The language in Nationwide's policy tracks the following language found in W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) [1988]: A motor vehicle policy "shall provide an option to the insured with appropriately adjusted premiums to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle" up to certain limits as explained in that code section. (emphasis added).Footnote: 7 Nationwide maintains that the Amick vehicle had the mandatory liability insurance required by W. Va. Code, 17D-4-2 [1979]. Thus, Nationwide correctly points out that the Amick vehicle does not meet the definition of an "uninsured motor vehicle" under the Nationwide policy which defines the term as a vehicle "for which there is no bodily injury liability bond or insurance at the time of the accident in at least the amounts required by the West Virginia Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law [set forth in W. Va. Code, 17D-1-1, et seq.]." Thus, any argument by the appellees that Reed's use of Amick's vehicle implicates uninsured motorists coverage under the Nationwide policy is misplaced because the policy clearly and unambiguously states that the "[d]amages must result from an accident arising out of the . . . use[] of the uninsured motor vehicle ." (underlining indicates emphasis added and bold indicates emphasis supplied).Footnote: 8 In the December 8, 1994 order, the circuit court found that an ambiguity "exists in [John and Glenna Cox's] coverage with Nationwide when the Notice of Acknowledgement of Coverage Selection and Rejection form issued to [John Cox] is compared with the policy issued to [John Cox]." Footnote: 9 In National Mutual Ins. Co. v. McMahon & Sons, 177 W. Va. 734, 741 n. 6, 356 S.E.2d 488 , 495 n. 6 (1986) this Court rejected "that portion of the reasoning in Soliva which is based on the general rule that a party to a contract has a duty to read the instrument." This Court concluded that because an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion, an insured is not presumed to know the contents of an insurance contract. It is unnecessary to the resolution of this case for this Court to resolve any conflict which may exist between Soliva, supra, and McMahon & Sons, supra.Footnote: 10 Our holding that the appellees may not recover under the uninsured motorists provision of the Nationwide policy for any damages caused by Reed does not in any way resolve the issue of whether or not Reed is liable to the appellees under a joint enterprise theory and/or under the theory that Reed substantially assisted Amick in causing the accident.

dd30f1c69864cf7e16bde5177f4e2a17a16c86fcf5407c71589122b1e975b23a

1995-12-11 00:00:00

e2993caf-44ea-477a-94cd-27095dc3191f

Pa. and W. Va. Supply Corp. v. Rose

368 S.E.2d 101

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Pa. and W. Va. Supply Corp. v. Rose Annotate this Case 368 S.E.2d 101 (1988) PENNSYLVANIA AND WEST VIRGINIA SUPPLY CORP., a West Virginia Corporation, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Herschel H. ROSE, III, State Tax Commissioner, Defendant Below, Appellant. No. 17700. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. March 10, 1988. *102 Charles G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Lanicanes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Charleston, for Herschel H. Rose, III, State Tax Com'r. William D. Wilmoth, Donald J. Tennant, Schrader, Stamp, Byrd, Byrum & Campanion, Wheeling, for Pennsylvania and WV Supply Corp. McGRAW, Justice. In the case now before this Court, the State Tax Commissioner appeals and the taxpayer, Pennsylvania and West Virginia Supply Corporation, cross appeals from an order entered by the Circuit Court of Ohio County on November 25, 1986. The primary issues presented on appeal are as follows: (1) whether purchases of standardized computer software discs for use in the taxpayer's West Virginia business are taxable as "tangible personal property" under the use tax imposed by former West Virginia Code § 11-15A-2 (1983 Replacement Vol.); (2) whether persons involved in both wholesale and retail business transactions may apportion purchases for use in their business and claim an exemption from the use tax equal to the percentage of their sales attributable to retail transactions; and (3) whether reasonable cause exists in this case to waive the additions to tax and the penalty assessed against the taxpayer for failure to remit use tax on the purchases in question. As detailed below, this Court answers each of these questions in the affirmative. I. On October 25, 1983, the Tax Commissioner issued a use tax assessment against the taxpayer for the period April 1, 1978, to December 31, 1982, after an audit revealed that the taxpayer had failed to remit use tax during that period to the State of West Virginia on the purchase of various items subsequently used in the taxpayer's West Virginia business. The use tax assessment included: $12,758.09 tax owed; $2,255.76 interest; $293.23 additions to tax; and $2,516.42 penalty. The taxpayer is a West Virginia corporation primarily engaged in the business of selling supplies at wholesale to mines, construction firms, and other industries. Retail sales account for only about two percent of the taxpayer's gross receipts. The taxpayer performs virtually all of its wholesale and retail accounting using a computer and standardized software. On November 1, 1979, the taxpayer purchased its computer hardware from a New Jersey vendor. The taxpayer also purchased standardized computer software discs from the vendor during the assessment period. The vendor develops and mass markets the standardized software discs for use by purchasers with similar accounting needs. In this instance, the taxpayer used the discs purchased from the vendor to load instructions into the taxpayer's computer. Those instructions programmed the computer to perform the desired accounting functions. Periodic updates and modifications to the software were also purchased and used by the taxpayer during the assessment period. The taxpayer did not pay either sales tax in New Jersey or use tax in West Virginia on the computer hardware and software purchases. Following receipt of the October 25, 1983, assessment, the taxpayer filed a petition for reassessment, contending that: (1) the computer software purchases constituted purchases of intangible information and, *103 therefore, were not subject to the excise tax on the use of "tangible personal property" delivered to users in this state; (2) the taxpayer is entitled to fully exempt those tangible personal property purchases from the use tax which were used in the taxpayer's retail business; and (3) the additions to tax and penalty assessed should be waived because the taxpayer's failure to remit use tax was due to reasonable cause, not willful neglect. After a hearing on the petition for reassessment, the Tax Commissioner issued an administrative decision on November 14, 1984, wherein the Commissioner determined that: (1) the taxpayer's purchase and use of discs containing standardized computer software are subject to the excise tax imposed on the use of "tangible personal property" delivered to users in this state; (2) the taxpayer is not entitled to exempt any of its tangible personal property purchases from the use tax because the purchases were not used solely in the taxpayer's retail business and, in fact, would have been made for use in the taxpayer's wholesale business irrespective of the taxpayer's retail business; and (3) the additions to tax and penalty would be waived because the taxpayer's failure to remit the use tax, given the legal issues involved, was due to reasonable cause.[1] The taxpayer paid the assessment under protest and appealed to the Circuit Court of Ohio County. On November 25, 1986, the circuit court issued an order, ruling that: (1) the software purchases made by the taxpayer are not taxable as "tangible personal property" under former West Virginia Code § 11-15A-2 (1983 Replacement Vol.); (2) the taxpayer is entitled to an exemption from the use tax assessment on the computer hardware but only to the extent of the percentage of retail business engaged in by the taxpayer; and (3) the additions to tax and penalty would be waived for reasonable cause under the circumstances. II. We first address whether purchases of standardized computer software discs by the taxpayer for use in the taxpayer's West Virginia business are subject to taxation under the use tax statute in effect during the assessment period. Former West Virginia Code § 11-15A-2 (1983 Replacement Vol.) imposed "[a]n excise tax ... on the use in this State of tangible personal property furnished or delivered within this State to consumers or users within this State...." (emphasis added). "Tangible personal property" was defined under former West Virginia Code § 11-15A-1(5) (1983 Replacement Vol.) to mean "tangible goods, wares and merchandise when furnished or delivered within this State to consumers or users within this State." The Commissioner determined in his administrative decision, and contends an appeal, that standardized computer software discs are "tangible personal property" for use tax purposes. The circuit court, however, ruled that the statute must be construed in favor of the taxpayer and against the taxing authority because the meaning of "tangible personal property" is ambiguous. Therefore, the circuit court reversed the Commissioner's administrative decision. The circuit court is correct in saying that unclear tax laws must be construed in favor of the taxpayer, Consolidation Coal Co. v. Krupica, 163 W.Va. 74, 80, 254 S.E.2d 813 , 816 (1979); Wooddell v. Dailey, 160 W.Va. 65, 68, 230 S.E.2d 466 , 469 (1977); however, "[i]n the absence of any specific indication to the contrary, words used in a statute will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning." Syl. Pt. 1, Tug Valley Recovery Center, Inc. v. Mingo County Commission, 164 W.Va. 94, 261 S.E.2d 165 (1979). The consequence of purchasing and using "tangible personal property" in West Virginia is clear an excise tax is imposed on the purchase *104 price, see W.Va.Code § 11-15A-2 (1983 Replacement Vol.), see also W.Va. Code § 11-15A-2(a) (1987 Replacement Vol.). This Court agrees with the Commissioner that standardized computer software discs fall within the "common, ordinary and accepted meaning" of the phrase "tangible goods, wares, and merchandise" as included in former West Virginia Code § 11-15A-1(5) (1983 Replacement Vol.). "Tangible" is defined as: "Having or possessing physical form. Capable of being touched and seen; perceptible to the touch; tactile; palable; capable of being possessed or realized; readily apprehensible by the mind; real; substantial." Black's Law Dictionary 1305 (5th ed. 1979); see Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1182 (1979). Computer software discs possess physical form, are capable of being touched, seen, and possessed, are real and substantial, and, therefore, are "tangible personal property" for purposes of former West Virginia Code § 11-15A-2 (1983 Replacement Vol.). Accordingly, the Commissioner properly applied the former Code provision in making a use tax assessment against the taxpayer for the computer software discs. In its appellate brief, the taxpayer takes the position that the classification of the software purchases as tangible or intangible should be governed by the essence of the transactions, which, according to the taxpayer, was to purchase intangible computer instructions and to store those instructions in the computer's memory, not to purchase tangible discs. The taxpayer contends that the discs had little value absent the instructions contained on them and merely served as an incidental means of obtaining and loading instructions into the taxpayer's computer. Thus, the taxpayer argues that the Commissioner has erroneously assessed the taxpayer on the purchase and use of intangible computer instructions. We are not convinced by this argument. The taxability of the purchase and use of standardized computer software discs under former West Virginia Code § 11-15A-2 (1983 Replacement Vol.) does not depend upon the separability of the software instructions from the discs. To the contrary, this Court agrees with the South Carolina and Maryland courts that: "[T]he taxability of a sale of a canned program copy should not turn on whether the buyer stores the program in memory. A tax system cannot be administered dependent upon whether or not, at the time of the transaction, the buyer's intent is to store the program continuously in memory." We do not think the taxability of a sale of computer software depends upon the separability of the program from the tape [disc]. Citizens and Southern Systems, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 280 S.C. 138, 141, 311 S.E.2d 717 , 718 (1984) (quoting Comptroller of the Treasury v. Equitable Trust, 296 Md. 459, 472, 464 A.2d 248, 255 (1983)). We are also not persuaded by the other theories presented by the taxpayer. The taxpayer attempts to minimize the extent to which it used the software discs. The taxpayer does not deny that it used the discs in its West Virginia business, but instead represents that each version of the discs was only used once to load instructions into the taxpayer's computer. This Court, however, is not persuaded to determine tangibility by the extent of use. Equitable Trust, 296 Md. at 473, 464 A.2d at 255. Furthermore, former West Virginia Code § 11-15A-1(4) (1983 Replacement Vol.) defined the "purchase price" upon which the excise tax was imposed as "the total amount for which tangible personal property is sold...." (emphasis added). This Court believes, as did the Maryland Court of Appeals in Equitable Trust, that "the legislative policy embraced in the definition of price runs contrary to the conceptual severing of the insignificant blank tape [disc] from the valuable program copy superimposed thereon...." Equitable Trust, 296 Md. at 470, 464 A.2d at 254. Finally, this Court agrees with the Maryland court that "[a] purchase of any ... information conveying media is within the imposition of the ... tax as tangible personal property" unless "there is an applicable statutory exclusion or exemption." Equitable *105 Trust, 296 Md. at 471, 464 A.2d at 254. At the time of the assessment now under protest, the purchase and use of computer software discs, unquestionably information conveying media, were not exempt from taxation.[2] Because we find that standardized computer software discs were properly classified as "tangible personal property" as defined by the former Code provision, we reverse the circuit court's order reversing the Commissioner's use tax assessment on the taxpayer's use in West Virginia of tangible computer software discs. III. The next issue which we address concerns the extent to which the taxpayer is entitled to exempt from the use tax those tangible personal property purchases made for use in the taxpayer's retail business. West Virginia Code § 11-15A-3(5) (1983 Replacement Vol.) exempted from the use tax "[t]angible personal property the sale of which in this State is not subject to the West Virginia consumer sales tax." One of the exemptions to the consumer sales tax included "[s]ales of tangible personal property and services for use of consumption in connection with the conduct of the business of selling tangible personal property to consumers...." W.Va.Code § 11-15-9(9) (1983 Replacement Vol.). Even though only two percent of its sales were made at retail to consumers, the taxpayer wants a blanket exemption from the use tax on those tangible personal property purchases, including the computer hardware, software, and related items, which the taxpayer used in both its wholesale and retail businesses. The Commissioner initially rejected the taxpayer's position outright and determined that the taxpayer was not entitled to exempt any of its tangible personal property purchases, because none of the items purchased were used solely in the taxpayer's retail business. On appeal to the circuit court, the taxpayer asked for entry of an order reversing the Commissioner's determination and declaring a blanket exemption in the taxpayer's favor. The circuit court declined to grant a blanket exemption, but did reverse the Commissioner's determination, in part, by ruling that the taxpayer is entitled to an exemption from the use tax assessment to the extent that its tangible personal property purchases were used in the taxpayer's retail business. In so ruling, the circuit court was influenced by a prior administrative decision rendered by the Commissioner, which states, in relevant part, that "[p]ersons who are involved in multiple business activities may apportion purchases for use in the business and may claim an exemption equal to the percentage of their sales attributable to retail transactions...." Administrative Decision 82-18-C [1983 Transfer Binder] St.Tax.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 200-205, at 10,304 (W.Va. Jan.1983). The circuit court also cited the recordkeeping requirement of West Virginia Code § 11-15-14 (1983 Replacement Vol.) as being consistent with an interpretation allowing apportionment under the exemption provision. That Code section requires taxpayers who engage in a business subject to the consumer sales tax, as well as in a business that is not subject to the consumer sales tax, to keep separate records for tax purposes. The Commissioner has abandoned the determination initially made in this case and now agrees with the circuit court that apportionment is proper where a taxpayer purchases tangible personal property for use in both the taxpayer's retail and wholesale businesses. The taxpayer, on the other hand, argues that, for use tax purposes, it is a retailer; that the retailer exemption of West Virginia Code § 11-15-9(9) (1983 Replacement Vol.) is not limited to persons *106 engaged solely in a retail business; that apportionment is not specifically provided for by statute; and, therefore, that the taxpayer is entitled to fully exempt all tangible personal property purchases made for use in connection with its retail business. In resolving this exemption issue, we are guided by several principles of statutory construction. "Where the language of the statute is of doubtful meaning or ambiguous, rules of construction may be resorted to and the construction of such statute by the person charged with the duty of executing the same is accorded great weight." State By Davis v. Hix, 141 W.Va. 385, 389, 90 S.E.2d 357, 359-60 (1955); see Syl.Pt. 1, Dillon v. Board of Education of County of Mingo, ___ W.Va. ___, 301 S.E.2d 588 (1983); Syl.Pt. 4, Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc., 166 W.Va. 775, 277 S.E.2d 613 (1981), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1131 , 102 S. Ct. 986, 71 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1982). "Where a person claims an exemption from a law imposing a license or tax, such law is strictly construed against the person claiming the exemption." Syl.Pt. 2, State ex rel. Lambert v. Carman, State Tax Commissioner, 145 W.Va. 635, 116 S.E.2d 265 (1960); see also State ex rel. Cook v. Rose, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 299 S.E.2d 3 , 5 (1982); Ballard's Farm Sausage, Inc. v. Dailey, 162 W.Va. 10, 17, 246 S.E.2d 265 , 269 (1978) (Miller, J., concurring); Wooddell v. Dailey, 160 W.Va. 65, 68, 230 S.E.2d 466 , 469. "Where an exemption statute is subject to interpretation, the Court may give effect to the spirit, purpose and intent of the lawmakers, and will not so limit its interpretation as to defeat the underlying purpose of the statute." Syl.Pt. 3, State ex rel. Hardesty v. Aracoma-Chief Logan No. 4523, V.F.W., 147 W.Va. 645, 129 S.E.2d 921 (1963); see Syl.Pt. 6, State ex rel. Cohen v. Manchin, ___ W.Va. ___, 336 S.E.2d 171 (1984); Wooddell v. Dailey, 100 W.Va. 65, 68, 230 S.E.2d 466 , 469. Based on an application of these principles to the present case, this Court affirms the circuit court's opinion that apportionment is necessary where a taxpayer purchases tangible personal property for use in both the taxpayer's retail and wholesale businesses. The legislature intended that the use tax and consumer sales tax "be complementary laws and wherever possible be construed and applied to accomplish such intent as to the imposition, administration and collection of such taxes." W.Va.Code § 11-15-1a (1983 Replacement Vol.). The Commissioner is charged with the administration and enforcement of the use tax, W.Va.Code § 11-10-5 (1987 Replacement Vol.); see W.Va.Code § 11-10-5(a) (1983 Replacement Vol.), and, if he believes the use tax has been insufficiently remitted by a taxpayer, the Commissioner may determine the tax liability and make an assessment therefor. W.Va.Code § 11-10-7(a) (1987 Replacement Vol.); see W.Va.Code § 11-15A-28 (1987 Replacement Vol.). When a petition for reassessment is filed, the burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to prove that the assessment is incorrect and contrary to law. W.Va.Code § 11-10-9 (1987 Replacement Vol.). We believe that the taxpayer has failed to carry that burden or to overcome the strict construction which this Court must apply to the exemption statute. The lawmakers must have contemplated that the exemption statute would have to operate under conditions and circumstances like those now presented. In this regard, we agree with the circuit court that the recordkeeping requirement imposed by the legislature under West Virginia Code § 11-15-14 is instructive. Clearly, the recordkeeping required by the legislature is consistent with its intent that a taxpayer could engage in separate businesses, one subject to sales and use taxation and the other not. So, too, is the circuit court's ruling that apportionment is proper under such circumstances. For this Court to hold otherwise would allow taxpayers who purchase and use tangible personal property to circumvent imposition of the use tax by *107 merely engaging in incidental retail sales.[3] Therefore, this Court holds that taxpayers who are involved in both wholesale and retail business activity may claim an exemption from the use tax on tangible personal property purchases used in their retail business equal to the percentage of their sales attributable to retail transactions. IV. The final issue which we address concerns the assessment of additions to tax and penalty against the taxpayer. We agree with the circuit court that reasonable cause exists to waive the additions to tax and penalty assessed in this case. Cf. United Fuel Gas Co. v. Battle, 153 W.Va. at 274-75, 167 S.E.2d at 918-19. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's ruling on this issue. W.Va.Code §§ 11-10-18(a), -19(a) (1983 Replacement Vol.). Based on all of the foregoing, this Court hereby reverses the circuit court's ruling that the taxpayer's purchase of standardized computer software discs for use in the taxpayer's West Virginia business is not subject to the use tax in effect during the assessment period; affirms the circuit court's ruling that the taxpayer is entitled to an exemption from such use tax only to the extent that its tangible personal property purchases may be apportioned for use in the taxpayer's retail business; and affirms the circuit court's ruling that the assessment of additions to tax and penalty be waived for reasonable cause. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the circuit court for entry of an order which shall, in a manner consistent with this opinion, affix use tax liability against the taxpayer for the period April 1, 1978, to December 31, 1982. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

5d51bf86755f592ef14b1d3e7e1c9c9690775fa90df3900ff2fddcd17deceac3

1988-03-10 00:00:00

2d19421d-1ca3-4c31-a7f6-b5bcbd06e6e2

Meadows v. Daniels

286 S.E.2d 423

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Meadows v. Daniels Annotate this Case 286 S.E.2d 423 (1982) Nancy Lou MEADOWS v. James Gary DANIELS. No. 14644. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. February 2, 1982. E. Dennis White, Jr., Huntington, for appellant. Robert K. Means, Huntington, for appellee. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court granting a judgment. Appellant, Daniels, asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside that judgment. We are presented with a rather limited record and appellee has filed no brief in this appeal. It appears that suit was instituted in December, 1974 to collect on a loan made to the defendant. A timely answer was filed and some discovery was undertaken. On September 14, 1978, the case was set for trial but the defendant did not appear and judgment was taken against him. The defendant made a post-trial motion under Rule 60(b) filing affidavits that generally assert that prior to trial a settlement had been agreed upon between the plaintiff and defense counsel. It was further asserted by the defense that plaintiff's counsel would inform the court as to the fact of settlement. The defense attorney and a paralegal employee signed the affidavits. The only affidavit filed by the plaintiff's side was by the plaintiff herself who stated that while she was aware that settlement negotiations were conducted, she never approved of any settlement. The trial court rejected the defense motion by order dated March 9, 1979. The order does not reflect whether an evidentiary hearing was held on the issue nor does it contain findings of fact in regard to whether *424 there was a settlement. It is apparent that where a Rule 60(b) motion is made to set aside a judgment and there is a conflict as to the facts on whether there is a ground to set aside the judgment, the trial court should hold a hearing to resolve the disputed facts and make some findings relative thereto. Cf., Parsons v. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp., W.Va., 256 S.E.2d 758 (1979); 7 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.28[3] (2nd ed. 1979). In the absence of such findings, we do not pass upon the merits of the Rule 60(b) motion but remand this case to the trial court for such hearing and findings. Remanded.

0dfdbb90caa6c04fb914ef2e35d400f8c1778c2d307b3e833ff8afeb74f23f6a

1982-02-02 00:00:00

fc969d76-3258-4bad-8f28-ba4340c2ea67

Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout

373 S.E.2d 489

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout Annotate this Case 373 S.E.2d 489 (1988) IMPERIAL COLLIERY COMPANY v. Danny H. FOUT. No. 17428. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. September 16, 1988. *490 Charles F. Donnelly, United Mine Workers of America, Charleston, for Danny H. Fout. Larry W. Blalock, Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, Charleston, for Imperial Colliery Co. MILLER, Justice: Danny H. Fout, the defendant below, appeals a summary judgment dismissing his claim of retaliatory eviction based on the provisions of W.Va.Code, 55-3A-3(g),[1] which is our summary eviction statute. Imperial Colliery had instituted an eviction proceeding and Fout sought to defend against it, claiming that his eviction was in retaliation for his participation in a labor strike. This case presents two issues: (1) whether a residential tenant who is sued for possession of rental property under W.Va. Code, 55-3A-1, et seq., may assert retaliation by the landlord as a defense, and (2) whether the retaliation motive must relate to the tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy. Fout is presently employed by Milburn Colliery Company as a coal miner. For six years, he has leased a small house trailer lot in Burnwell, West Virginia, from Imperial Colliery Company. It is alleged that Milburn and Imperial are interrelated companies.[2] A written lease was signed by Fout and an agent of Imperial in June, 1983. This lease was for a primary period of one month, and was terminable by either party upon one month's notice. An annual rental of $1.00 was payable in advance on January 1 of each year. No subsequent written leases were signed by the parties. On February 14, 1986, Imperial advised Fout by certified letter that his lease would be terminated as of March 31, 1986. Fout's attorney corresponded with Imperial before the scheduled termination date. He *491 advised that due to various family and monetary problems, Fout would be unable to timely vacate the property. Imperial voluntarily agreed to a two-month extension of the lease. A second letter from Fout's attorney, dated May 27, 1986, recited Fout's personal problems and requested that Imperial's attempts to oust Fout be held "in abeyance" until they were resolved. A check for $1.00 was enclosed to cover the proposed extension. Imperial did not reply. On June 11, 1986, Imperial sued for possession of the property, pursuant to W.Va. Code, 55-3A-1, et seq., in the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County. Fout answered and removed the suit to the circuit court on June 23, 1986. He asserted as a defense that Imperial's suit was brought in retaliation for his involvement in the United Mine Workers of America and, more particularly, in a selective strike against Milburn. Imperial's retaliatory motive was alleged to be in violation of the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, and of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. Fout also counter-claimed, seeking an injunction against Imperial and damages for annoyance and inconvenience. After minimal discovery, Imperial moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted Imperial's motion in an amended judgment order dated October 8, 1986, relying principally upon Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, ___ W.Va. ___, 319 S.E.2d 403 (1984). The court concluded that the retaliation defense "must derive from, or in some respect be related to, exercise by the tenant of rights incident to his capacity as a `tenant'." Since Fout's participation in the labor strike was admittedly unrelated to his tenancy, the defense was dismissed and possession of the property was awarded to Imperial. It is from this order that Fout appeals. Our initial inquiry is whether retaliation by the landlord may be asserted by the tenant as a defense in a suit under W.Va. Code, 55-3A-3(g). We addressed this issue in Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, supra, and stated without any extended discussion that this section "specifically provides for the defense of retaliation." ___ W.Va. at ___, 319 S.E.2d at 409. We did not have occasion in Criss to trace the development of the retaliatory eviction defense. It appears that the first case that recognized retaliatory eviction as a defense to a landlord's eviction proceeding was Edwards v. Habib, 397 F.2d 687 (D.C.Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1016, 89 S. Ct. 618, 21 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1969). There, a month-to-month tenant who resided in a District of Columbia apartment complex reported to a local health agency a number of sanitary code violations existing in her apartment. The agency investigated and ordered that remedial steps be taken by the landlord, who then advised Edwards that her lease was terminated. When the landlord sued for possession of the premises, Edwards alleged the suit was brought in retaliation for her reporting of the violations. A verdict was directed for the landlord and Edwards appealed. On appeal, the court reviewed at length the goals sought to be advanced by local sanitary and safety codes. It concluded that to allow retaliatory evictions by landlords would seriously jeopardize the efficacy of the codes. A prohibition against such retaliatory conduct was therefore to be implied, even though the regulations were silent on the matter.[3] *492 Many states have protected tenant rights either on the Edwards theory[4] or have implied such rights from the tenant's right of habitability.[5] Others have utilized statutes analogous to section 5.101 of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, 7B U.L.A. 503 (1985),[6] which is now adopted in fifteen jurisdictions.[7] Similar landlord and tenant reform statutes in seventeen other states also provide protection for tenancy-related activities.[8] Under W.Va.Code, 37-6-30, a tenant is, with respect to residential property, entitled to certain rights to a fit and habitable dwelling.[9] In Teller v. McCoy, 162 *493 W.Va. 367, 253 S.E.2d 114 (1978), we spoke at some length of the common law right of habitability which a number of courts had developed to afford protection to the residential tenant. We concluded that these rights paralleled and were spelled out in more detail in W.Va.Code, 37-6-30. In Teller, we also fashioned remedies for the tenant where there had been a breach of the warranty of habitability.[10] However, we had no occasion to discuss the retaliatory eviction issue in Teller. The central theme underlying the retaliatory eviction defense is that a tenant should not be punished for claiming the benefits afforded by health and safety statutes passed for his protection. These statutory benefits become a part of his right of habitability. If the right to habitability is to have any meaning, it must enable the tenant to exercise that right by complaining about unfit conditions without fear of reprisal by his landlord. See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 753 (1971).[11] After the seminal decision in Edwards, other categories of tenant activity were deemed to be protected. Such activity was protected against retaliation where it bore a relationship to some legitimate aspect of the tenancy. For example, some cases provided protection for attempts by tenants to organize to protect their rights as tenants. Others recognized the right to press complaints directly against the landlord via oral communications, petitions, and "repair and deduct" remedies. E.g., Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corp., 463 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir.1972); Schweiger v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 3d 507 , 476 P.2d 97, 90 Cal. Rptr. 729 (1970); Engler v. Capital Management Corp., 112 N.J.Super. 445, 271 A.2d 615 (Ch.Div.1970); E. & E. Newman, Inc. v. Hallock, 116 N.J.Super. 220, 281 A.2d 544 (App.Div.1971); Toms Point Apartments v. Goudzward, 72 Misc.2d 629, 339 N.Y.S.2d 281 (1972), aff'd, 79 Misc.2d 206, 360 N.Y.S.2d 366 (1973); Portnoy v. Hill, 57 Misc.2d 1097, 294 N.Y.S.2d 278 (1968); Powell, Real Property ¶ 260.6 (1986); Restatement (Second) of Property § 14.8 (1977). A few courts recognize that even where a tenant's activity is only indirectly related to the tenancy relationship, it may be protected against retaliatory conduct if such conduct would undermine the tenancy relationship. Typical of these cases is Windward Partners v. Delos Santos, 59 Haw. 104, 577 P.2d 326 (1978). There a group of month-to-month tenants gave testimony before a state land use commission in opposition to a proposal to redesignate their farm *494 property from "agricultural" to "urban" uses. The proposal was sponsored by the landlord, a land developer. As a result of coordinated activity by the tenants, the proposal was defeated. Within six months, the landlord ordered the tenants to vacate the property and brought suit for possession. The Hawaii Supreme Court noted that statutory law provided for public hearings on proposals to redesignate property, and specifically invited the views of the affected tenants. The court determined that the legislative policy encouraging such input would be jeopardized "if ... [landlords] were permitted to retaliate against ... tenants for opposing land use changes in a public forum." 59 Haw. at 116, 577 P.2d at 333. It relied on Pohlman v. Metropolitan Trailer Park, Inc., 126 N.J.Super. 114, 312 A.2d 888 (Ch.Div.1973), which involved a similar fact pattern where tenants' intervention in zoning matters to protect their tenancy was sufficiently germane to the landlord-tenant relationship to support the defense of retaliatory eviction. See also S.P. Growers Ass'n v. Rodriguez, 17 Cal. 3d 719 , 552 P.2d 721, 131 Cal. Rptr. 761 (1976) (retaliation for suit by tenant charging violation of Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2041, et seq.).[12] The Legislature, in giving approval to the retaliation defense, must have intended to bring our State into line with the clear weight of case law and statutory authority outlined above. We accordingly hold that retaliation may be asserted as a defense to a summary eviction proceeding under W.Va.Code, 55-3A-1, et seq., if the landlord's conduct is in retaliation for the tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy. Fout seeks to bring this case within the Windward line of authority. He argues principally that Imperial's conduct violated a public policy which promotes the rights of association and free speech by tenants.[13] We do not agree, simply because the activity that Fout points to as triggering his eviction was unrelated to the habitability of his premises. From the foregoing survey of law, we are led to the conclusion that the retaliatory eviction defense must relate to activities of the tenant incidental to the tenancy. First Amendment rights of speech and association unrelated to the tenant's property interest are not protected under a retaliatory eviction defense in that they do not arise from the tenancy relationship. Such rights may, of course, be vindicated on other independent grounds. For the reasons discussed above, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is affirmed. AFFIRMED.

700d484eda011746c0a0e9288b768dd8d0cdc5d771d9fe5e6effc332d3da6e8d

1988-09-16 00:00:00

5229a32b-b8f0-4a59-abd5-6785334f0ef3

Moore v. Goode

375 S.E.2d 549

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Moore v. Goode Annotate this Case 375 S.E.2d 549 (1988) Avis S. MOORE, etc. v. Sarah GOODE, Appellant Harry Morris, et al., Appellees. No. 17299. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. November 10, 1988. *552 A.L. Emch, Thomas Freeman, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, for Avis S. Moore. Benjamin N. Snyder, Charleston, for Goode. Orton A. Jones, Hedges, Jones, Whittier & Hedges, Spencer, for Morris, et al. MILLER, Justice: Sarah Goode appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Clay County granting a summary judgment against her in a proceeding to establish whether she is a beneficiary under the terms of the last will and testament of Custer Waldo Morris. On appeal, she asserts that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment when the evidence was sufficient to allow the issue to go to a jury. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court. I. Custer Waldo Morris, a widower without issue, died on September 13, 1981. He was seventy-six years old. His last will and testament gave all his property, real and personal, in equal shares, to his surviving brothers and sisters. On September 14, 1981, Avis S. Moore, the executrix of the will and the County Clerk of Clay County, listed as the beneficiaries Harry Morris, Goldie I. Douglas, Merle Rogers, Hallie Talley, and Ruie Robertson. They are the surviving brother and sisters of Mr. Morris, born to Isaac N. Morris in lawful wedlock. Approximately one year later, Sarah Goode claimed to be a half-blood sister of the decedent and entitled to share in his estate. She alleged that she had been born out of wedlock to the late Isaac N. Morris, the father of Custer Waldo Morris. Ms. Moore, as executrix, instituted this action for a determination of the beneficiaries under the will. Sarah Goode filed a counterclaim against Ms. Moore and cross-claimed. The codefendants are the listed beneficiaries (hereinafter referred to as "beneficiaries") who were acknowledged to be the real parties in interest. Depositions were taken and various documents produced by the parties. In October, 1983, the parties submitted stipulations and exhibits to the court and requested a preliminary determination of two legal issues: (1) who has the burden of going forward with the evidence and the burden of proof with respect to the paternity of Sarah Goode, and (2) what is the standard of proof with respect to that issue. *553 A third issue was whether the relevant and admissible evidence as represented by the stipulations, including the depositions, would be sufficient to prove that Sarah Goode is the daughter of Isaac N. Morris. The court after due consideration entered an order on June 27, 1984, that Sarah Goode had the burden of proof with respect to her paternity, that she must establish it by clear and convincing evidence, and that the relevant and admissible evidence submitted to the court would not be sufficient as a matter of law to establish paternity. On the day this case was called for trial, May 6, 1985, counsel for Sarah Goode announced that she had no additional evidence. The beneficiaries moved the court for summary judgment upon all the pleadings, papers, deposed testimony, stipulations, and affidavits that had been filed in the action. The court granted the summary judgment, holding that Ms. Goode was not a sibling of Custer Waldo Morris and, therefore, was not a member of the class taking under his last will and testament. II. Despite the appellant's assertion that the circuit court should not have granted summary judgment, we do not view this case as one decided on that basis. It is clear that on the day of trial the appellant had concluded that all of the relevant evidence had been developed through discovery and evidentiary depositions, documents, and a factual stipulation. The appellant elected to submit the matter to the court for a final decision. This decision was taken with full knowledge of the court's preliminary ruling of June 27, 1974. Viewing the record as a whole, it is clear that the parties submitted the case to the judge to decide the matter without a jury, as authorized by Rule 52(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Under this rule when the court makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as was done here, the judgment is given the same weight as a jury verdict. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conley, 156 W.Va. 391, 194 S.E.2d 170 (1972). The weight accorded to such fact findings on appeal is succinctly stated in Syllabus Point 1 of McDaniel v. Romano, 155 W.Va. 875, 190 S.E.2d 8 (1972): "Findings of fact by a trial court without a jury will not be set aside unless they are clearly wrong." Thus, we reject the appellant's argument that summary judgment rules apply to this case. Consequently, we proceed to review the various rulings made by the trial court to determine if they were clearly wrong. III. As the parties have framed the case, Ms. Goode's paternity is determinative of all the issues between the parties. Custer Waldo Morris, the testator, left a will in which the beneficiaries were his brother and sisters.[1] Ms. Goode claims as a child born out of wedlock. In Adkins v. McEldowney, 167 W.Va. 469, 280 S.E.2d 231 (1981), we extended such a person's right to inherit from his natural father by establishing an equal protection component to W.Va.Code, 42-1-5,[2] stating in Syllabus Point 3: *554 "Our legislature has manifested its intent to abrogate common law prohibitions against inheritance by [children born out of wedlock], and has given them rights of inheritance from and through their mothers. This, however, creates an impermissible discrimination that we, applying the doctrine of neutral extension, must remedy by requiring that Code, 42-1-5 be applied to permit [children born out of wedlock] to inherit from both mother and father." This decision was mandated by Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 , 97 S. Ct. 1459, 52 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1977), where the United States Supreme Court held that equal protection under the United States Constitution requires that a statute not deny to a person born out of wedlock intestacy rights in his or her father's estate.[3]See also Williamson v. Gane, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 318 (1986). The circuit court found that Ms. Goode must establish her paternity by clear and convincing evidence. This was the statutory standard for a paternity suit at the time of trial. W.Va.Code, 48-7-4(c) (1983).[4] This same standard has been carried into W.Va.Code, 48A-6-4 (1986).[5] This section is a part of the Enforcement of Family Obligations Act, W.Va.Code, 48A-1-1, et seq. (1986), which supplanted W.Va.Code, 48-7-1, et seq. (1983). This statutory standard of clear and convincing evidence changes the court formulated rule developed in State ex rel. Toryak v. Spagnuolo, ___ W.Va. ___, 292 S.E.2d 654 (1982), which was decided under an older version of W.Va.Code, 48-7-1. This earlier statute was quasi-criminal and provided no standard of proof. W.Va.Code, 48-7-4 (1969). In Toryak, we held that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was required. Obviously, the legislative enactment of a clear and convincing proof standard to establish paternity in W.Va.Code, 48-7-4(c) (1983), and carried into W.Va. Code, 48A-6-4 (1986), overrules the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard set out in Toryak.[6] We have defined what is meant by clear and convincing evidence in Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. v. Singer, 162 W.Va. 502, 510, 250 S.E.2d 369 , 374 (1978): "[It] is the highest possible standard of civil proof defined as `that measure or *555 degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.' Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118 at 123 (1954). See also Fred C. Walker Agency, Inc. v. Lucas, 215 Va. 535, 211 S.E.2d 88 (1975)." We recognize that this suit is not a paternity action because Isaac N. Morris is deceased. However, there appears no good reason why this same standard should not apply to the present case. Other courts have fashioned an analogous standard in cases involving children born out of wedlock trying to establish a claim based on proof of paternity. Cotton v. Terry, 495 So. 2d 1077 (Ala.1986); Ivy v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co., 510 So. 2d 520 (Miss.1987); Sondra S. v. Jay O., 126 Misc.2d 322, 482 N.Y.S.2d 660 (1984); In Re Estate of Cherkas, 506 A.2d 1029 (R.I.1986); Uniform Probate Code § 2-109, 8 Uniform Laws Annot. 67 (1983). IV. In Adkins we suggested that "[o]ur legislature may want to provide a statutory scheme compatible with our holding today, outlining how illegitimate children may prove entitlement to inherit from their fathers." 167 W.Va. at 473, 280 S.E.2d at 233. See generally, Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 , 99 S. Ct. 518, 58 L. Ed. 2d 503 (1978); Trimble v. Gordon, supra; Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 , 91 S. Ct. 1017, 28 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1971). We went on to state in Adkins that in the absence of any statutory standard, the trial courts would have to resolve the matter on a case by case basis. The codefendants urge us to adopt the "determined father" definition as contained in W.Va.Code, 48-4-1(a) (1976),[7] which is a part of our adoption statute. We decline to hold that the legislature intended the determined father language in the adoption statute to be the means by which paternity is established for purpose of intestate succession. If anything, it would appear that the determined father definition is designed to separate him from the category of "unknown father" who is also the biological father. W.Va.Code, 48-4-1(c) (1985). This is done to follow the statutory adoption plan which requires consent from the "determined father", but not the "unknown father." These statutory distinctions may have evolved in order to meet the due process and equal protection problems that can occur in adoption cases. See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 , 103 S. Ct. 2985, 77 L. Ed. 2d 614 (1983); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 , 98 S. Ct. 549, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, reh. den. 435 U.S. 918, 98 S. Ct. 1477, 55 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1978); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 , 92 S. Ct. 1208, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1972).[8] Finally, we would observe that the determined father statutory definition is basically limited to those situations where the father's paternity has been established during *556 his lifetime. This would obviously exclude cases like the present one where the inheritance rights come into play after the putative father's death. While the United States Supreme Court has recognized in Reed v. Campbell, 476 U.S. 852 , 106 S. Ct. 2234, 90 L. Ed. 2d 858, reh. denied, 478 U.S. 1031, 107 S. Ct. 11, 92 L. Ed. 2d 766 (1986), that the state may impose some statutory restrictions on the right of a child born out of wedlock to inherit from her father,[9] they cannot be unjustifiably discriminatory. "The state interest in the orderly disposition of decedents' estates may justify the imposition of special requirements upon an illegitimate child who asserts a right to inherit from her father, and, of course, it justifies the enforcement of generally applicable limitations on the time and the manner in which claims may be asserted. After an estate has been finally distributed, the interest in finality may provide an additional, valid justification for barring the belated assertion of claims, even though they may be meritorious...." 476 U.S. at 855, 106 S. Ct. at 2237, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 863. In Reed, the child sought to claim a share of his father's estate some eighteen years after he was born and two years after his father had died intestate. The putative father died and the child's claim was filed before Trimble v. Gordon, supra, was decided. The Texas court held that Trimble was not retroactive and, therefore, its principle was not applicable to the case. This was rejected by a unanimous Supreme Court which concluded: "The interest in equal treatment protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitutionmore specifically, the interest in avoiding unjustified discrimination against children born out of wedlock, see Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 , 505, 49 L. Ed. 2d 651, 96 S. Ct. 2755, 2762 (1976)should therefore have been given controlling effect. That interest requires that appellant's claim to a share in her father's estate be protected by the full applicability of Trimble to her claim." (Footnote omitted.) 476 U.S. at 856, 106 S. Ct. at 2238, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 863. Thus, in the absence of any relevant statute on this subject, we are left with a case-to-case analysis as indicated in Adkins. V. A number of evidentiary rulings were made which require our consideration. A. The record does not include any documentation or testimony that during his lifetime Isaac N. Morris ever acknowledged Sarah Goode as his daughter. He paid no support for her to Vesta Bishop, Sarah Goode's mother. The record does contain documents reflecting that Vesta Bishop instituted a paternity suit in 1936 in a Justice of the Peace Court of Clay County alleging that Isaac N. Morris was the father of Sarah Goode. These documents consisted of the complaint and warrant on the original paternity charge made by Vesta Bishop and also the bond posted by Isaac N. Morris. The court held that these documents were admissible as official records of the justice of the peace court. Under the procedure existing in 1936, the initial complaint was made before a justice of the peace, who issued a warrant to have the putative father brought before him. Upon his appearance, he was required to execute a bond to secure his attendance at further proceedings which were held in the circuit court. W.Va.Code, 48-7-1 (1931). *557 We allowed the introduction of a similar complaint affidavit in Farley v. Farley, 136 W.Va. 598, 68 S.E.2d 353 (1951), stating only that "such paper was a part of the proceeding before the justice [of the peace]." 136 W.Va. at 607, 68 S.E.2d at 359. However, it is doubtful that pleadings, even if verified, can be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted as against a third party. See McCormick on Evidence § 317 (3rd ed.1984). The trial court in this case determined that, at best, the documents were nothing but an assertion of paternity. We spoke to the question of statements made in pleadings in Lotz v. Atamaniuk, ___ W.Va. ___, 304 S.E.2d 20 , 24 (1983), terming them "judicial admissions", citing 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence §§ 597 and 614, and said that "[a]lthough they are not conclusive in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties (or as here, their representatives), they are admissible and may be given whatever weight the trier of fact deems appropriate." It is clear, however, that the theory by which such admissions are received is that they are made against the pleader. McCormick on Evidence § 265 (3rd ed.1984)); F. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 8.5(c) at 471-74 (2d ed.1986). Here, there was nothing filed by Isaac N. Morris that constituted any admission of paternity. Consequently, we believe the complaint and the appearance bond cannot be considered as evidence. B. The trial court refused the entry from the justice of the peace court showing that Isaac N. Morris had been found guilty. This was done on the basis that under W.Va.Code, 48-7-1, the justice of the peace lacked jurisdiction as the paternity issue had to be tried in the circuit court. Farley v. Farley, supra; Holmes v. Clegg, 131 W.Va. 449, 48 S.E.2d 438 (1948). We find this ruling to be correct as a judgment from a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is a nullity. Syllabus Point 5, Rakes v. Ferguson, 147 W.Va. 660, 130 S.E.2d 102 (1963); Cobb v. Cobb, 145 W.Va. 107, 113 S.E.2d 193 (1960). Consequently, it cannot be admitted into evidence to prove the facts contained therein. The order of the Circuit Court of Clay County dated June 9, 1938, showing that the paternity suit was compromised, would also not be admissible simply because it was not an adjudication of paternity. Consequently, we need not determine its admissibility had there been an adjudication on the merits in circuit court.[10] C. Another document identified as C-1 was a typed compromise agreement which referred to the paternity suit between Vesta Bishop and Isaac N. Morris. It indicated that for the payment of $50.00 the suit would be dismissed. The date above the signature line was March 29, 1938, but it was not signed. There was an affidavit given by a Vergie Morris which stated that she had found this among the possessions of Custer Waldo Morris in July, 1982 after his death. She was his sister-in-law. The *558 trial court believed this document to be admissible as an ancient document, but we hold otherwise. There is some confusion surrounding the ancient document rule at common law. Several commentators suggest that it was primarily a rule to enable authentication of a document. See 4 J. Weinstein and M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 803(16)[01] (1987); McCormick on Evidence § 323 at 903-05 (3d ed.1984). However, McCormick also notes that "[n]early all courts will apply the hearsay exception to recitals in an ancient deed ... [to prove] heirship and of consideration ... especially where possession is taken under the deed." Id. at 904. See, e.g., Furbee v. Underwood, 107 W.Va. 85, 147 S.E. 472 (1929); Webb v. Ritter, 60 W.Va. 193, 54 S.E. 484 (1906); Wilson v. Braden, 56 W.Va. 372, 49 S.E. 409 (1904). Both Weinstein and McCormick offer some of the same reasons to support the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule, i.e., (1) dangers of mistransmission will be minimal since the rule only applies to written documents; (2) the age requirement assures that the recitals will have occurred before the present controversyhence there is little motive to falsify; (3) recitals are more reliable than a declarant's oral testimony based on his memory of the distant event; and (4) reliability is enhanced if the declarant has actual firsthand knowledge of the facts asserted. There is little question that, whatever its common law status, the ancient documents exception has been broadened under our Rules of Evidence. The admissibility of recitals in ancient deeds is covered in Rule 803(15). The remainder of the ancient document rule is contained in Rule 803(16), which provides: "Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established" are admissible. However, this rule carries the qualification that the document itself or its contents not be suspicious with regard to its genuineness and reliability. Stewart Oil Co. v. SOHIO Petroleum Co., 315 F.2d 759 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 828, 84 S. Ct. 71, 11 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1963); Town of Ninety-six v. Southern Ry. Co., 267 F.2d 579 (4th Cir.1959); In Re Hall's Estate, 466 F.2d 340 (D.C.Cir.1972); Russell v. Emerson, 108 N.H. 518, 240 A.2d 52 (1968); Budlong v. Budlong, 48 R.I. 144, 136 A. 308 (1927); Muehrcke v. Behrens, 43 Wis. 2d 1, 169 N.W.2d 86 (1969); see generally, 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 357 (1967); F. Cleckley, supra at 533-34. We do not believe that the document in question can qualify as an ancient document. The threshold question as to its authenticity raises suspicions. First, the document is not signed nor is there any evidence that it had ever been signed. Moreover, the content of the document is not a recital of facts that may be assumed to have been true at the time the document was made. Instead, the document purports to compromise a lawsuit which involved disputed facts about the paternity of a child. There is nothing in this document that indicates Isaac N. Morris acknowledged paternity, and nothing to show by way of signature that he acceded to it. We decline to accept it as within the ancient document hearsay exception. D. Other documents were also considered by the trial court. Exhibit D-1, the original birth certificate of Sarah Goode, was admitted under the vital statistics exception to the hearsay rule. This is contained in Rule 803(9).[11] This rule ordinarily pertains to those facts or events contained in a report which a public official had a duty to record. See generally, McCormick on Evidence § 317 at 892-93 (3d ed.1984); F. Cleckley, supra at 529. We also have statutes which bear upon the vital statistics rule.[12] Under W.Va.Code, 16-5-27(b) "[a] *559 certified copy of a certificate [issued by the state registrar of vital statistics] or any part thereof ... shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated."[13] In Dorsey v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 124 W.Va. 100, 19 S.E.2d 152 (1942), we considered the forerunner to the above quoted section and made this statement in Syllabus Point 1: "Under the provisions of Chapter 32, Acts 1939, a properly certified copy of a death certificate is prima facie evidence only of such facts as are stated therein without contradiction or equivocation." Dorsey involved a claim for double indemnity benefits where the death certificate stated the individual died from peritonitis from a ruptured duodenal ulcer. It also contained some equivocal statements that indicated the rupture might have occurred while lifting boxes. The court concluded these statements were too contradictory to be given prima facie effect. In this case, there were two birth certificates offered. The first was the original, showing the mother to be Vesta Bishop, the father's name "not given," and no name listed for the child. This was filed on May 16, 1936, giving a birthdate of April 1, 1936. A subsequent birth certificate showing a file date of September 13, 1940, and a year earlier birth date of April 1, 1935, was also tendered. It did not contain the names of either the mother or father, but listed the child's name as "Sara Lou Morris." We note that the birth certificate statute, W.Va.Code, 16-5-12(e), contains a legislative policy not to identify the name of the father if the mother is not married, unless his written consent is obtained or paternity has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.[14] In the absence of a showing in the record of either of these two conditions, we do not believe the name "Morris" on the second birth certificate can be given any evidentiary weight. The first birth certificate contains no facts that link the child to Isaac N. Morris. A final exhibit is the marriage license of Sarah Lou Shamblin and Homer Goode, dated December 1, 1953. In the application, "Isaac Morris and Vesta Shamblin" are listed as her parents. Again, we believe the legislative policy against identifying a putative father in vital statistics records, unless he consents, or has been judicially determined to be the parent, precludes utilization of this information. *560 E. Other key evidentiary rulings were with regard to depositions offered by Sarah Goode to support her paternity claim. The court rejected deposition testimony of her mother, Vesta Bishop Shamblin, as well as the deposition testimony of Sarah Goode and James Douglas, her former attorney. Mrs. Shamblin stated that Isaac N. Morris was the father of Sarah Goode. The testimony of Sarah Goode was rejected as hearsay since she stated her mother had told her that Isaac N. Morris was her father. Mr. Douglas' testimony to the effect that Custer Waldo Emerson had told him that Mr. Morris admitted paternity and that he had arranged a settlement of the paternity suit for his father. Both the mother's and Douglas' testimony was rejected under the Dead Man's Act, W.Va.Code, 57-3-1. The Dead Man's Act, W.Va.Code, 57-3-1, states that no "party ... or interested person [who] derives any interest or title ... shall be examined as a witness in regard to any personal transaction or communication between such witness and a person [who] at the time of such examination [is] deceased...."[15] Initially it should be remembered, as our earlier cases have stated, that this statute was designed to alleviate the harsh common law rule that foreclosed any witness who had an interest in the suit from testifying. E.g., In re: Fox' Estate, 131 W.Va. 429, 48 S.E.2d 1 (1948); Charleston Nat'l Bank v. Hulme, 117 W.Va. 790, 188 S.E. 225 (1936); Board of Educ. v. Harvey, 70 W.Va. 480, 74 S.E. 507 (1912); Crothers' Adm'rs v. Crothers, 40 W.Va. 169, 20 S.E. 927 (1895).[16] As McCormick observes, the common law rule was ameliorated by removing the disqualification except where one of the parties to the transaction had died or become insane, in which event the possibility of fraudulent testimony from the surviving witness was of concern: "In this country, however, a compromise was forced upon reformers. The objection was raised that in controversies over contracts or other transactions where one party to the transaction had died and the other survived, hardship and fraud would result if the surviving parties or interested persons were permitted to testify to the transactions. The survivor could testify though the adverse party's lips would be sealed in death."[17] We spoke to the potential for fraud and undue advantage in Miami Coal Co., Inc. v. Hudson, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 332 S.E.2d 114 , 119 (1985): "[T]he decedent is unable to confront the survivor, give his version of the affair, and expose the possible omissions, mistakes or perhaps even outright falsehoods of the survivor." See generally, F. Cleckley, supra at 40-44. It is important to keep in mind the framework of the Dead Man's statute. By express terms, it applies only to a "civil action, suit or proceeding." The statute begins with a broad testimonial grant: "No person offered as a witness ... shall be *561 excluded by reason of his interest in the event of the action, suit or proceeding, or because he is a party thereto...." This is followed by an exception that narrows the scope of testimonial qualification, but it requires the concurrence of three conditions in order to bar the testimony: (1) A witness' testimony is excluded if it relates to a personal transaction or communication with the deceased, insane or lunatic person,[18] and (2) The witness is either a party to the suit or a person interested in its event or is a person through or under whom such party or interested person derives any interest or title by assignment,[19] and (3) The testimony offered must be against the executor, administrator, heir at law, next of kin, assignee, legatee, devisee or survivor of such [deceased] person or the assignee or committee of such insane person or lunatic.[20] Thus, to summarize the basic operation of the Dead Man's Act, a concurrence of three general conditions must be met in order to bar the witness's testimony. First, the testimony must relate to a personal transaction with a deceased or insane person. Second, the witness must be a party to the suit or interested in its event or outcome. Third, the testimony must be against the deceased's personal representative, heir at law, or beneficiaries or the assignee or committee of an insane person.[21]See generally, F. Cleckley, supra at 40-44. As to the testimony of Mrs. Shamblin, Sarah Goode's mother, relating to Isaac N. Morris' paternity of Sarah Goode, we do not believe it is barred by the Dead Man's Act. She was not a party to the litigation against the estate of Custer Waldo Morris. It is clear that having a family relationship to a party to the litigation will not in itself disqualify the witness. Woodrum v. Price, 104 W.Va. 382, 140 S.E. 346 (1927); Hollen v. Crim, 62 W.Va. 451, 59 S.E. 172 (1907). Thus, Sarah Goode's mother was not disqualified because of her relationship to Sarah. We dealt with a somewhat related problem in Pickens v. O'Hara, 120 W.Va. 751, 200 S.E. 746 (1938), where several plaintiffs sought to inherit under the will of W.E. Arnold which had created a trust in favor of the children of his son. The plaintiffs were children of his son's common law wife.[22] The central issue in Pickens was whether the common law wife's testimony with regard to her relationship with the *562 son, who was dead, was admissible under the Dead Man's statute. The Court, without a great deal of discussion, found that the testimony was not banned as the suit was not against the son's estate but his father's. The personal transaction was to establish paternity to the son which did not involve a communication against the deceased father. First, as previously noted, she was not a party and was not an interested person under the statute. Moreover, her testimony was not a personal transaction or communication against Custer Waldo Morris, deceased, since it related to his father. One of the practical evidentiary tests involved to determine if the evidence constitutes a personal transaction is stated in Kuhn v. Shreeve, 141 W.Va. at 177, 89 S.E.2d at 690: "The test generally accepted is to the effect that if a deceased were alive and testifying, or an insane person were sane and testifying, could the testimony of a witness testifying in opposition to a transaction or communication be disputed by the testimony of the absent witness." If the deceased, Custer Waldo Morris, were alive, he would not be able to refute the testimony of Mrs. Shamblin as to her communications with his father since he was not present when these occurred. The question of excluding the testimony of Sarah Goode concerning statements by Mr. Douglas, her former attorney, centered on the fact that he had retained a pecuniary interest by way of fees for services rendered. It appears Mr. Douglas initially filed the suit, but withdrew after some preliminary discovery was undertaken. He retained a pecuniary interest in the sense that he obtained a promissory note from Sarah Goode for his services, the payment of which was contingent upon her recovery in this action. It is generally recognized that where an attorney who no longer represents the interested party retains a fee interest in the outcome of the litigation, his testimony on behalf of his former client which involves a personal transaction with the deceased is barred by the Dead Man's Act. Suber v. Black, 168 Ga. 439, 148 S.E. 81 (1929); Garnett v. Walton, 242 S.W.2d 107 (Ky. 1951); see generally Annot., 67 A.L.R.3d 924 (1975). There appears to be some confusion as to the exact nature of the fee arrangements. However, we need not decide the issue on this ground. Mr. Douglas's testimony that Waldo related to him several statements made by Isaac N. Morris with regard to having gotten a "Bishop girl" in trouble would be hearsay. It was clearly an out-of-court statement made by another and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Syllabus Point 9, State v. Richey, ___ W.Va. ___, 298 S.E.2d 879 (1982); Salerno v. Manchin, 158 W.Va. 220, 213 S.E.2d 805 (1974). Additionally, for the reasons discussed in the next subsection, we do not believe Mr. Douglas's statements would come under the family pedigree exception to the hearsay rule. F. Sarah Goode's testimony was essentially that both her mother and her grandmother, Sarah Fitzwater, who was deceased, had informed her when she was a young girl that Isaac N. Morris was her father. She also testified that her original attorney, Mr. Douglas, who was distantly related to the Morris family, had indicated that her father was Isaac N. Morris. She also spoke of a visit with one of the beneficiaries of the will, Harry Morris, after the suit had been filed. He gave her a photograph of Isaac N. Morris and said that he was her father. The court ruled that Sarah Goode's testimony concerning the remarks of her mother and grandmother were inadmissible as hearsay. The court did not consider her testimony about Mr. Douglas and the statements of Harry Morris as to her paternity. This testimony related to family history, which is one of the exceptions at common law to the hearsay rule. This exception is based on a recognition that it is often impossible to establish by independent means the facts of family relationships *563 where several generations are involved and the members are dead or scattered in other jurisdictions. At common law, family history or pedigree could be proved in one of two ways: by general reputation evidence or by specific extrajudicial statements from family members who were unavailable at trial. Where specific statements are sought to be introduced, several restrictions had to be met, i.e., the declaration had to be made by family members, the declarant had to be unavailable, the statements had to have been made prior to the litigation in which it is offered (ante litem motam), and there had to be no apparent motive for the declarant to misrepresent the facts. See generally McCormick, supra at § 322; F. Cleckley, supra at 535; 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence §§ 508-515 (1967); Annot., 15 A.L.R.2d 1415 (1951). We have in general followed the common law distinction between general reputation of family history and specific statement testimony. In Peterson v. Ankrom, 25 W.Va. 56 (1884), two affidavits were sought to be introduced in which the affiants stated they were intimately acquainted with a John Phillips and his family and that he died intestate leaving a widow who was now deceased and one child, William Phillips, now living. We made this statement as to the general reputation rule: "Facts of this character may be proved by general reputation in the family by the testimony of witnesses whose knowledge of that repute and of the conduct of members toward each other, is that which usually exists among intimate acquaintances." 25 W.Va. at 62. In Butcher v. Sommerville, 67 W.Va. 261, 67 S.E. 726 (1910), we acknowledged as to specific declarations of pedigree that the "declarant must be unavailable by death or otherwise." 67 W.Va. at 263, 67 S.E. at 727. Finally, in Prickett v. Frum, 101 W.Va. 217, 132 S.E. 501 (1926), we held that a family geneology prepared and introduced by a relative from facts obtained from family records and information obtained from older family members, since deceased, was admissible to prove the names of great-grandchildren. In the Rules of Evidence, the family history exception by reputation testimony is found in Rule 803(19).[23] Rule 804(b)(4) relates to specific statements concerning a person's family relationship and has altered the common law rule to some degree.[24] This section still retains the initial qualification that the declarant be unavailable as a witness.[25] It does not require that the statements be made in advance of the litigation. *564 The rule specifically provides that the declarant need not have "means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated." It is not necessary that the declarant be family related if "so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared." Rule 804(b)(4). We seemed to have accepted this point in Peterson, supra, since the affiants were intimately acquainted and not family members. As earlier pointed out, Sarah Goode's testimony involved specific statements made by family members. We believe the court erred in rejecting her testimony as to her grandmother's statement. Her grandmother was dead at the time of trial, and the statement came within Rule 804(b)(4), upon the showing of unavailability. For the same reason, however, the specific statements of Sarah Goode's mother, Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Morris were inadmissible simply because these individuals were all available. VI. In view of these evidentiary rulings, which have removed all of the documentation, we are brought to the conclusion that the trial court was correct in holding that the clear and convincing standard had not been met. The only admissible evidence that bore directly on the paternity issue was Mrs. Shamblin's testimony that Sarah Goode was the daughter of Isaac N. Morris, and Sarah Goode's testimony of a similar statement from her deceased grandmother. The deposition testimony from Orville Starcher, who was a friend of Waldo Morris, is somewhat equivocal. He stated that on one occasion, Waldo had told him that his father had gotten in trouble with a girl from around Ivydale. The evidence in this case is less substantial than that in Farley, where paternity was not established. In Farley, the mother had spent most of her time with the putative father for some five months before the baby was born and had no association with any other men. The mother was under sixteen at the time of the child's birth and her parents instigated a rape charge. This resulted in the putative father marrying the mother. There was also some evidence, oral and documentary, that indicated the decedent acknowledged paternity. In this case, there is a lack of any evidence as to how long the parties were together before the child was born or any evidence of acknowledgment. Courts in other jurisdictions have refused to disturb a trial court's finding that paternity was not proved based on facts of the relationship and the acknowledgment of paternity by the putative father more persuasive and more detailed than in this case. Morelli v. Battelli, 68 Ill.App.3d 410, 25 Ill.Dec. 57, 386 N.E.2d 328 (1979); Cobb v. Thomas, 615 S.W.2d 508 (Mo.App.1981); Estate of Hoffman, 320 Pa.Super. 113, 466 A.2d 1087 (1983). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County. AFFIRMED.

84942c391a98915a4b32a2d81930ca7f0a76f34bc15f6bfad3cd8d4d90eb3d7d

1988-11-10 00:00:00

00d1b40e-4956-434e-beed-b21239160a1f

Reed v. Wimmer

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Reed v. Wimmer Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1995 Term _________ No. 22705 _________ DANNY REED AND SONYA REED, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees V. KATHY L. WIMMER, Defendant Below, Appellant ____________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MERCER COUNTY HONORABLE JOHN R. FRAZIER, JUDGE CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-CV-1472-F AFFIRMED, IN PART; REVERSED, IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS ______________________________________________________________ Submitted: September 19, 1995 Filed: October 27, 1995 Derek Craig Swope William B. Flanigan Sanders, Austin, Swope & Flanigan Princeton, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellees Maria Marino Potter McQueen & Brown Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for Appellant JUSTICE CLECKLEY delivered the Opinion of the Court. RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER sitting by temporary assignment. JUSTICE ALBRIGHT did not participate. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1."The West Virginia Rules of Evidence remain the paramount authority in determining the admissibility of evidence in circuit courts. These rules constitute more than a mere refinement of common law evidentiary rules, they are a comprehensive reformulation of them." Syllabus Point 7, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994). 2.An insured is presumed to be protected from undue prejudice from the admission of evidence of insurance at trial if the following requirements are met: (1) the evidence of insurance was offered for a specific purpose other than to prove negligence or wrongful conduct; (2) the evidence was relevant; (3) the trial court made an on-the-record determination under Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice; and (4) the trial court delivered a limiting instruction advising the jury of the specific purpose(s) for which the evidence may be used. 3.Where evidence of insurance is wrongfully injected at a trial, its prejudicial effect will be determined by applying the standard set out in Rule 103(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. In addition to the possibility that the jurors are already aware of the existence of insurance, the trial court should consider the relative strength of each of the parties case or the lack of it, whether the jury was urged by counsel or the witness to consider insurance in deciding the issue of negligence or damages, whether the injection of insurance was designed to prejudice the jury, whether the mention of insurance was in disregard of a previous order, and whether a curative instruction can effectively dissipate any resulting prejudice. 4.Before a verdict may be reversed on the basis of excessiveness, the trial court must make a detailed appraisal of the evidence bearing on damages. Because the verdict below is entitled to considerable deference, an appellate court should decline to disturb a trial court's award of damages on appeal as long as that award is supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements of the award. 5."To warrant a recovery for future medical expenses, the proper measure of damages is not simply the expenses or liability which shall or may be incurred in the future but it is, rather, the reasonable value of medical services as will probably be necessarily incurred by reason of the permanent effects of a party's injuries." Syllabus Point 15, Jordan v. Bero, 158 W. Va. 28, 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974). Cleckley, Justice: In this personal injury action, Kathy L. Wimmer, the defendant below and appellant herein, appeals a jury verdict which awarded Danny Reed and Sonya Reed, his wife, the plaintiffs below and appellees herein, damages in excess of $270,000 for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. The defendant appeals the final order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County entered June 3, 1994, which denied her motion for a new trial. The defendant raises two assignments of error: (1) the trial court should have granted a mistrial when insurance coverage was mentioned in front of the jury; and (2) the issue of damages for future medical expenses was not support by the evidence and should never have been submitted to the jury. After reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, in part; reversed, in part; and remanded for entry of a remittitur order of $10,000 because the award for future medical expenses was not supported by the evidence. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The evidence shows Danny Reed suffered a back injury on November 29, 1990, when his car was struck by a car driven by the defendant. Over the course of the following weeks, Mr. Reed's back condition worsened to the point he could no longer work as a coal miner. He brought suit to recover damages for these injuries and Sonya Reed, his wife, brought suit for loss of consortium.See footnote 1 The defendant's insurer, Dairyland Insurance Company, settled with the plaintiff for the policy limit of $20,000. The suit proceeded under W. Va. Code, 33-6-31 (1988), as the plaintiff sought to recover damages pursuant to the underinsured motorist carrier provision of the policy with his insurer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide).See footnote 2 The liability of Kathy L. Wimmer was admitted prior to trial, and she did not appear at trial. Nationwide chose to defend in the name of the defendant. The sole issue at trial was the calculation of damages. Several medical experts were called at trial. The videotaped deposition of J. Gordon Burch, M.D., a neurologist, was presented. It was Dr. Burch's opinion that the plaintiff suffered lumbosacral and cervical sprain injuries in the accident. He suggested the back pain that extended down the plaintiff's left leg was the result of a "pinched nerve." Dr. Burch found the plaintiff's complaints of pain to be credible. Clifford H. Carlson, M.D., a physiatrist, was called to testify. Dr. Carlson explained that as a physiatrist his role was to work with persons suffering from orthopedic or neurologic impairments to help them reach their maximum functioning level. It was the opinion of Dr. Carlson that the plaintiff suffered a permanent back injury in the car accident that would limit him to performing only light physical work throughout his life. Upon reviewing the plaintiff's records, Dr. Carlson identified a preexisting back problem. The plaintiff had undergone surgery when he was six months old to correct a congenital malformation in his low back. When asked about the plaintiff's future care relating to the injury, Dr. Carlson stated the plaintiff may require medication or physical therapy if his back condition should exacerbate. Michael D. Schinnick, Ph.D., a vocational evaluator, a work adjustment specialist who deals with work injury management, testified he found the plaintiff to be totally vocationally disabled. Dr. Schinnick noted the plaintiff was unsuccessful in his attempts to continue working in lieu of his back problems even though he enrolled in a vocational program to attain employment. The plaintiff's next witness was Michael L. Brookshire, a professor of economics at the West Virginia Graduate College in Charleston. He calculated the plaintiff's lost wages at present value, assuming total vocational disability, at somewhere between $350,753, focusing on the years the plaintiff earned the most money, and $178,302, averaging his high and low income years. Yogesh Chand, M.D., a neurosurgeon, was unavailable for trial and, by agreement of the parties, his deposition was read to the jury. After reviewing the evidence and examining the plaintiff, it was Dr. Chand's opinion that the plaintiff suffered from a herniated disc even though the results of the MRI test on him indicated a bulging disc instead of a disc herniation. When questioned about possible surgery to correct a herniated disc, Dr. Chand stated the operation has a success rate in the neighborhood of 70 percent and may cost between $7,500 to $10,000. Dr. Chand did not state, however, that the plaintiff would require such surgery. Edward M. Litz, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, testified on behalf of the defendant. Upon examining the plaintiff, Dr. Litz found two preexisting back conditions. He found the birth defect which required surgery and also noted a defect on the spine due to constant stress on his backbone. He did not find a neurological or nerve-based problem. Dr. Litz stated that the plaintiff was not totally disabled from employment although he admitted the plaintiff could never return to work in the coal mines. The defendant also called Errol Sadlon, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, to testify. He stated the plaintiff could return to the work force performing "light work" without much difficulty. After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff $3,000 for past and present pain, suffering, and emotional distress; $4,711.33 for past and present medical expenses; $3,000 for past and present loss of physical function and loss of enjoyment of life; $1,380 for past lost wages; $16,000 for future pain, suffering, and emotional distress; $10,000 for future medical expenses; $16,000 for future loss of physical function and loss of enjoyment of life; and $178,302 for future lost wages. Sonya Reed received $38,000 for loss of consortium. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied by order entered June 3, 1994. This appeal ensued. II. DISCUSSION A. Evidence of Liability Insurance The defendant argues the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial when, during cross-examination, the plaintiff intentionally mentioned the word "insurance."See footnote 3 An immediate objection to the plaintiff's comment was not made, but during a recess and out of the presence of the jury, defense counsel approached the bench and moved for a mistrial. The defendant asserts argument on this matter was held out of the presence of the jury in an attempt to prevent reinforcement of the plaintiff's mention of insurance. The defendant contends the plaintiff's comments constitute reversible error, particularly in light of the fact he deliberately placed the matter before the jury. The plaintiff responds the trial court was correct in not granting a mistrial considering the fact defense counsel did not make a timely objection to the testimony.See footnote 4 The plaintiff argues the testimony was not prejudicial to the defendant, but was elicited only after repeated questioning during cross-examination in which the defendant tried to characterize the plaintiff as litigious.See footnote 5 Furthermore, the plaintiff contends the questioned remarks are admissible under the exceptions to Rule 411 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. The plaintiff suggests insurance was mentioned to explain why he sought the advice of an attorney so soon after the accident--because the insurance company would not repair his car. Finally, a cautionary instruction advising the jury to disregard the issue of insurance during deliberations was read by the trial court. Reduced to its essence, the defendant contends the evidence offered in this case was directly in defiance of our earlier cases and, because the evidence was introduced by a party, the error cannot be harmless. See Atkins v. Barlett, 101 W.Va. 263, 132 S.E. 885 (1926) (finding that it was reversible error for a party to mention insurance). We disagree. The cases that preexisted Rule 411 have been impliedly repealed unless the prior decisional admissibility rules were codified as part of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. As we stated at Syllabus Point 7 in State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994): "The West Virginia Rules of Evidence remain the paramount authority in determining the admissibility of evidence in circuit courts. These rules constitute more than a mere refinement of common law evidentiary rules, they are a comprehensive reformulation of them." Under the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, no common law of evidence remains. See United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 , 51-52, 105 S.Ct. 465, 469, 83 L. Ed. 2d 450, 457 (1984) ("[i]n reality, of course, the body of common law knowledge continues to exist, though in the somewhat altered form of a source of guidance in the exercise of delegated powers"). Thus, to the extent that our prior cases have carved out per se exclusionary rules that have not been codified in the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, their precedential value has been reduced to a "source of guidance" only; and, to the extent our prior cases are inconsistent or incompatible with the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, they have been implicitly overruled by Rule 402.See footnote 6 This case presents the opportunity to clarify the contours and scope of Rule 411 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. Rule 411 is simple and straightforward. It provides as follows: "Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, if controverted, or bias or prejudice of a witness." The prohibition in Rule 411 is based on the assumption that jurors who are informed about the insurance status of a party may find that party liable only because the liability will be cost-free to the party, or that jurors will increase the amount of damages in that only an insurance company will be affected adversely. By the adoption of this exclusionary language, Rule 411 forbids two inferences. First, the Rule does not permit the trier of fact to infer that an insured person is more likely than an uninsured person to be careless. Second, Rule 411 rejects the inference that the foresight to take out insurance is indicative of a responsible attitude, making negligence less likely. Although both the inferences and their probative force are highly questionable, under the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the doctrine is clear, and compliance with Rule 411 and the other rules discussed in this opinion is not a matter of judicial discretion. Like all the categorical exclusionary rules contained within Article IV of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, Rule 411 does not prohibit all possible uses of evidence regarding a party's insurance coverage.See footnote 7 Evidence of insurance may be listed for a variety of relevant purposes. In other words, if evidence of insurance coverage is introduced for purposes other than negligence and wrongful conduct, Rule 411 does not bar its admission. The second sentence of Rule 411 lists several examples for which insurance evidence is not prohibited. The list is not exhaustive and other purposes not listed in Rule 411 have been permitted. See 1 Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 4-11(B) at 431 (3rd ed. 1994) ("[t]he 'other purposes' listed in Rule 411 are illustrative and not exclusive"). Accordingly, the beginning inquiry must always be whether the evidence is offered for a purpose other than negligence or wrongful conduct. As noted above, ascertaining a legitimate purpose for which the evidence of insurance is offered merely begins the inquiry. The trial court must next determine whether the mention of insurance, while made for a stated purpose other than negligence or wrongful conduct, is in fact relevant to the criteria mentioned in Rule 411. In determining its relevancy, the trial court must find the evidence has sufficient probative value to meet the standard of Rule 401. If it does not, Rule 402 mandates its exclusion. The third step involved in the equation is Rule 403. This Rule requires the trial court to do the requisite balancing and determine whether the probative value of the insurance evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Similarly, trial courts retain discretion under Rule 403 to allow such proof only where less prejudicial evidence is unavailable.See footnote 8 See State v. Guthrie, ___ W. Va. ___, ___, 461 S.E.2d 168, 189 (1995) ("[i]n applying Rule 403, it is pertinent whether a litigant has some alternative way to deal with evidence that would involve a lesser risk of prejudice and confusion"). Finally, the trial court upon request must give a limiting instruction pursuant to Rule 105. Thus, under today's decision an insured is presumed to be protected from undue prejudice from the admission of evidence of insurance at trial if the following requirements are met: (1) the evidence of insurance was offered for a specific purpose other than to prove negligence or wrongful conduct; (2) the evidence was relevant; (3) the trial court made an on-the-record determination under Rule 403 that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice; and (4) the trial court delivered a limiting instruction advising the jury of the specific purpose(s) for which the evidence may be used. We now apply the standards of our Rules of Evidence to the facts of this case. In the course of the plaintiff's cross-examination testimony concerning when he first contacted an attorney, he referred to "the insurance company." On the basis of this reference, defense counsel moved for a mistrial because, as he argues, the jury was improperly invited to think of the availability of a deep pocket insurer footing the bill for any damages assessed. The trial court denied the motion, implicitly concluding the evidence was not introduced in violation of Rule 411, was relevant to rebut the inference suggested by the cross-examiner, and was unlikely to have been perceived by the jury as an indication that there was insurance coverage pertinent to this case.See footnote 9 Nevertheless, the trial court gave an instruction to disregard the reference to insurance.See footnote 10 Despite the defendant's characterization of the reference to insurance as highly prejudicial, we find the trial court did not commit error in refusing to grant a mistrial. First, and foremost, the decision to declare a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., State v. Davis, 182 W.Va. 482, 388 S.E.2d 508 (1989). It is reserved for the most egregious error that cannot be corrected by a curative instruction. "Mistrials in civil cases are generally regarded as the most drastic remedy and should be reserved for the most grievous error where prejudice cannot otherwise be removed." Pasquale v. Ohio Power Co., 187 W.Va. 292, 296, 418 S.E.2d 738, 742 (1992). See also Board of Educ. of McDowell County v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc., 182 W.Va. 597, 390 S.E.2d 796 (1990); State v. Bennett, 179 W.Va. 464, 370 S.E.2d 120 (1988). Second, the testimony at issue does not fall within the prohibition of Rule 411. The statement did not suggest the defendant was insured; only that the plaintiff went to a lawyer because "the insurance company" failed to fix the plaintiff's car. Indeed, Rule 411 contemplates that evidence of insurance may be admissible on issues other than negligence. The trial court found the reference to insurance was a reasonable and relevant invited response demonstrating the motivation of the plaintiff for contacting an attorney as quickly as he did. The prohibition of Rule 411 is not intended to override the equally positive and salutary principle that a party should have a reasonable opportunity to counter and rebut adverse inferences raised by the opposition. Furthermore, we find the comment was in response to interrogation by defense counsel, as found by the trial court, leaving him in a position where he cannot complain under our invited error doctrine. See Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 183 W.Va. 585, 599, 396 S.E.2d 766 , 780 (1990) ("the appellant cannot benefit from the consequences of error it invited"). Finally, we must determine whether Rule 403 was violated. As suggested above, in considering whether to admit or exclude evidence concerning insurance that is offered for a purpose other than to prove a party acted negligently, the trial court must apply the principles of Rule 403 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See 10 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶411.04 (2nd ed. 1988 & Supp. 1994-95). The trial court, after hearing arguments from both sides and taking some time to reflect on the issue, explicitly concluded that the evidence was probative and that given the context of the statement,See footnote 11 the danger of unfair prejudice was very small because the jury was unlikely to make any inference that "the insurance company" meant the defendant's insurance company. When evidence of insurance is elicited that is fairly conducive to the accomplishment of a relevant and legitimate end in the proceeding, if prejudice results therefrom to the adverse party, it should be deemed unavoidable. "Rule 403 was not designed to allow the blanket exclusion of evidence of insurance absent some indicia of [unfair] prejudice. Such a result would defeat the obvious purpose of Rule 411." Charter v. Chleborad, 551 F.2d 246, 249, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 856, 98 S. Ct. 176, 54 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1977). As we have said on numerous occasions, all relevant evidence has some prejudicial effect, but Rule 403 grants relief to a party only when unfair prejudice is demonstrated. See State v. Rector, 167 W. Va. 748, 280 S.E.2d 597 (1981); State v. Peacher, 167 W. Va. 540, 280 S.E.2d 559 (1981). The trial judge whose duty it is to be attuned to the trial as it progresses is in the most advantageous position to correctly rule whether unfair prejudice, or the lack of it, has emanated from the comments of the witness. State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. at 178, 451 S.E.2d at 744 ("[t]he Rule 403 balancing test is essentially a matter of trial conduct, and the trial court's discretion will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse"); accord State v. Dillon, 191 W.Va. 648, 447 S.E.2d 583 (1994). While it is not possible, or at least not practicable, to enunciate rigid rules concerning the latitude which a witness may refer to insurance to explain a legitimate concern, there is universal agreement that the matter is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Under the facts of this case, we cannot say that any material prejudice resulted from the reference made to insurance and we must also assume that the jury followed the curative instruction. See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 , 766 n.8, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 3109 n.8, 97 L. Ed. 2d 618, 630-31 n.8 (1987) (there is a presumption that curative instructions are effective); accord State v. Lusk, 177 W.Va. 517, 354 S.E.2d 613 (1987). If there was any possibility of error, which we cannot identify, it was cured by the instruction to disregard. In future cases, where feasible, counsel can avoid motions for mistrial by requesting a bench conference prior to the time that he or she feels insurance might be mentioned. In following this procedure, a trial court could require the necessary foundation to be established outside the presence of the jury so that it might determine the admissibility of the evidence without prejudice to the rights of the parties. To complete our analysis, we believe it is helpful to address the issue of when the mention of insurance in violation of Rule 411 constitutes reversible error. It is apodictic that a new trial is not to be granted absent the existence of error that affects substantial rights. See W.Va.R.Evid. 103(a); Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., ___ W.Va. ___, 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995). Thus, it beggars credulity to argue that mere mention of insurance by a party is per se reversible error. Apart from the fairly obvious conclusion that most jurors are aware of the law mandating insurance in West Virginia, there is no consensus among jurists as to which party evidence of insurance adversely affects. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 101 N.M. 148, 152, 679 P.2d 816 , 820 (1984) (trial courts should recognize that prejudicial tendencies of revealing insurance "can go in both directions"). Today with widespread insurance coverage and mandatory insurance laws in many of our states, most courts are reluctant to grant a mistrial or reverse a verdict merely because the issue of insurance was raised and especially when it was raised in ways that were likely to be harmless. The prevailing view among the commentators is that evidence of insurance is rarely prejudicial: "[T]he underlying soundness of the general rule forbidding disclosure of the fact of insurance has been the object of scathing criticism.... Its costs include extensive and unnecessary arguments, reversals, and retrials stemming from elusive questions of prejudice and good faith. This state of affairs might be tolerable if the revelation of insurance were truly fraught with prejudice. But,... most jurors probably presuppose the existence of liability insurance anyway, and the heart of the policy nondisclosure is surrendered when jurors are examined about their connection with insurance companies. Consequently, the extent to which evidence of coverage or its absence is prejudicial is unclear. Even the direction in which such prejudice might work is obscure." McCormick On Evidence § 210 at 597 (3rd ed. 1984). (Footnotes omitted). See also, 23 Charles A. Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 5369 (1980); 2 D. Louisell Evidence § 193 (Revised 1985). Indeed, the modern view is: "In general, the tendency now is to take a less serious view of the disclosure of the existence of liability insurance of the plaintiff, or conversely the absence of coverage of defendant, than formerly, and reversals are rare unless the disclosure is viewed as a deliberate invitation to the jury to base its decision on the presence or absence of insurance. As stated above, it is difficult to perceive how the mere mentioning of insurance could ever be reversible error." 1 Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 4-11(A) at 429-30 (3rd ed. 1994). McCormick's treatise suggests that rather than a mistrial or reversal, a limiting instruction will usually cure any possible prejudice: "If disclosure of the fact of insurance really is prejudicial, the corrective is not a futile effort at concealment, but the usual fulfillment by the court of its function of explaining to the jury its duty to decide according to the facts and the substantive law, rather than sympathy, ability to pay, or concern about proliferating litigation and rising insurance premiums." McCormick On Evidence, supra at 598. On the other hand, we refuse to adopt a per se rule that evidence of insurance is always harmless error. "If the Rule is to mean anything, it must have some teeth." 1 Stephen A. Saltzburg, Michael M. Martin, Daniel J. Capra, Federal Rules of Evidence Manual 554 (6th ed. 1994). Simply stated "there is no reason to treat erroneous admission of evidence of insurance differently from any other evidentiary error." Federal Rules of Evidence Manual at 554. Therefore, we hold that where evidence of insurance is wrongfully injected at a trial, its prejudicial effect will be determined by applying the standard set out in Rule 103(a) of the Rules of Evidence.See footnote 12 In addition to the possibility that the jurors are already aware of the existence of insurance, the trial court should consider the relative strength of each of the parties case or the lack of it, whether the jury was urged by counsel or the witness to consider insurance in deciding the issue of negligence or damages, whether the injection of insurance was designed to prejudice the jury, whether the mention of insurance was in disregard of a previous order, and whether a curative instruction can effectively dissipate any resulting prejudice. Under Rule 103(a), to warrant reversal, two elements must be shown: error and injury to the party appealing. Error is harmless when it is trivial, formal, or merely academic, and not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it, and where it in no ways affects the outcome of the trial. Stated conversely, error is prejudicial and ground for reversal only when it affects the final outcome and works adversely to a substantial right of the party assigning it. Obviously, in order for the rule of harmless error to be called into play in support of a judgment, the judgment must be otherwise supportable and will be reversed when there is no evidence to support it.See footnote 13 Instances in civil cases in which Rule 103(a) may be applied fall generally into two categories: (1) where the error is so slight that no one could have been mislead thereby even if the evidence is in substantial conflict; and (2) where the error is substantial, but from the record it is apparent that no impartial jury could have reached any other verdict. In conclusion, assuming that the mention of insurance was in violation of Rule 411, we are of the opinion that the situation exists here is covered by the first example set out above. Accordingly, we find the trial court substantially complied with the rules as we have discussed above and we find no reversible error. B. Future Medical Damages The defendant asserts it was error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the issue of damages for future medical expenses and to allow future medical damages on the jury verdict form in the absence of evidence establishing to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the plaintiff would incur those expenses. Before a verdict may be reversed on the basis of excessiveness, the trial court must make a detailed appraisal of the evidence bearing on damages. Because the verdict below is entitled to considerable deference, an appellate court should decline to disturb a trial court's award of damages on appeal as long as that award is supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements of the award. Syllabus Point 15 of Jordan v. Bero, 158 W. Va. 28, 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974), states: "To warrant a recovery for future medical expenses, the proper measure of damages is not simply the expenses or liability which shall or may be incurred in the future but it is, rather, the reasonable value of medical services as will probably be necessarily incurred by reason of the permanent effects of a party's injuries." None of the physicians who appeared at trial or whose depositions were read to the jury testified as to the plaintiff's need for future medical expenses. Dr. Chand, in answer to a hypothetical question, stated that surgery to repair a herniated disc would cost in the range of $7,500 to $10,000. However, Dr. Chand did not state the plaintiff required the surgery or would probably incur the expense of the surgery in the future. Accordingly, we find it was error to submit this issue to the jury in the absence of evidence supporting an award for future medical damages. The proper remedy for this error is for this Court to order a remittitur of that portion of the recovery and sustain the remainder of the judgment below. Syl. pt. 2, Earl T. Browder, Inc. v. County Court of Webster County, 145 W. Va. 696, 116 S.E.2d 867 (1960). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Mercer County is affirmed, in part; reversed, in part; and remanded to the circuit court with directions to enter a remittitur order of $10,000 for the portion of the verdict for future medical damages. Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part; and remanded with directions. Footnote: 1 For purposes of clarity, we will refer to Mr. Reed as the plaintiff and to Mrs. Reed by name. Footnote: 2 See generally Postlethwait v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 189 W. Va. 532, 432 S.E.2d 802 (1993).Footnote: 3 The record reflects the following exchange between Mr. Reed and defense counsel on cross-examination: "Q. Danny, when in relation to this accident did you employ counsel; how long after the accident was it before you went to a lawyer? "A. If I remember correctly, it was -- it was a few days after that. "Q. After the accident? "A. I mean after the accident, yes sir, because -- could I tell you why I employed a -- an attorney. "Q. I just want to know when you went. "A. Well, I'd like to tell you why. *** "Q. My question was the date that you went? *** "A. -- a few days after the accident, I don't know how many days. "Q. Okay, and did -- did you employ attorneys at that time? "A. Yes sir, 'cause the insurance company wouldn't fix my car, or I didn't know the -- or whatever. That's -- that's the main reason though. I'm sorry. "Q. But you went about two or three days after the accident occurred? "A. Yes sir." Footnote: 4 The defendant contends a contemporaneous "protest" was not made because it would have been an unwise tactic drawing the jury's attention to the comment and the very mention of insurance is so prejudicial that delicate judgment is required to determine the appropriate time to object. See Riggle v. Allied Chemical Corp., 180 W. Va. 561, 568, 378 S.E.2d 282 , 289 (1989) ("[c]omment to a jury concerning a party's insurance coverage usually constitutes reversible error"). A survey of our earlier cases reveals our jurisprudence has long favored the contemporaneous objection rule but has not addressed an objection and a motion to strike (or request for other curative relief) in identical terms. See Vale v. Suiter & Dunbar, 58 W.Va. 353, 52 S.E. 313 (1905). Rule 103(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, on the other hand, explicitly requires "a timely objection or motion to strike appear[] of record." Although we do not base our decision on this issue, we believe the plaintiff's position has merit. In Pasquale v. Ohio Power Co., 187 W.Va. 292, 309, 418 S.E.2d 738, 755 (1992), the appellant failed to make a timely objection but, instead, made a belated motion for a mistrial. This Court stated "[w]e disfavor the technique of not first making a timely objection to the error and instead waiting until a later time to move for a mistrial." Once it is believed that evidence of a prejudicial nature has been introduced, to satisfy the requirements of Rule 103(a) an objection must be interposed at the time the evidence has been offered and the trial court thus be given an opportunity to rule on the admissibility of the evidence. If the objecting party is of the opinion that the sustaining of the objection is not enough to remove from the minds of the jury the prejudice resulting from the inadmissible evidence, the trial court must then be requested to instruct the jury to disregard the inadmissible evidence: "If, the trial court having responded by so instructing the jury, the objector should still consider that the interests of his client have been irremediably prejudiced and that the actions of the trial court, although favorable, have not been effective in removing from the minds of the jury the prejudicial effect of the objectionable matter, then a motion must be made at the time for a mistrial.... Timely objections, followed by appropriate and timely motions, are necessary to preserve such points on appeal." Anderson v. Jaeger, 317 So. 2d 902 , 906-07 (Miss. 1975). We believe there exist better and more substantial reasons to reject this assignment of error; nevertheless, we offer the above observations as a reminder to future litigants that the procedural requirements of Rule 103(a) are mandatory. Footnote: 5 Although not known by the jury, the plaintiff's references to having trouble with the insurance company were directed not at Nationwide but at Dairyland Insurance. Footnote: 6 Rule 402 of the Rules of Evidence provides: "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia, by these rules, or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Appeals. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." Rule 402 impliedly repeals prior decisional admissibility rules that have not been codified. Even when explicit authority to resolve an evidentiary issue is absent, the clear mandate of Rule 402 is to make relevant evidence admissible and irrelevant evidence inadmissible. The absence of case or decisional law as part of the list of the type of laws in Rule 402 manifests the drafters' intent to repeal uncodified exclusionary rules of evidence. I Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers §4-2(c) at 215 (____). Simply stated, the West Virginia Rules of Evidence "occupy the field." Footnote: 7 See, for example, Rules 407 through 410 of the Rules of Evidence. Footnote: 8 As a general matter, the trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether the probative value "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice[.]" W.Va. R.Civ.P. 403. Only rarely--and in extraordinary compelling circumstances--will we, from the vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a trial court's on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect. We do not think the facts of this case present such an extraordinary circumstance. Footnote: 9 Because the reference to insurance was made in the course of explaining the plaintiff's reason for contacting an attorney as soon as he did, and was not made in connection with allegations of negligence or other wrongful conduct, it does not run afoul of Rule 411. Similarly, we agree with the trial court that it cannot be determined from the record that the plaintiff was referring to Nationwide. The explanation given by counsel in the sidebar conference suggests that the plaintiff was referring to Dairyland. Footnote: 10 The trial court gave an instruction to disregard the reference to insurance. However, we believe because the evidence was offered for a purpose other that negligence or wrongful conduct, the trial court was obligated pursuant to Rule 105 to give only a limiting instruction and not an instruction to disregard. Footnote: 11 The trial court stated: "I think from a general standpoint it's a logical explanation if--if somebody won't pay for your car and you don't have means of doin' it, [you] go to an attorney."Footnote: 12 Rule 103(a) of the Rules of Evidence provides, in pertinent part: "Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected[.]" Footnote: 13 We have repeatedly stated: "The appropriate test for harmlessness articulated by this Court in State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502, 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904, 100 S.Ct. 1081, 63 L. Ed. 2d 320 (1980), is whether we can say with fair assurance, after stripping the erroneous evidence from the whole, that the remaining evidence was independently sufficient to support the verdict and that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error. The outcome of the harmless error analysis is fact specific." McDougal v. McCammon, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 455 S.E.2d 788, 797-98 (1995).

072c179b829f16516b800d517e209e16a153f167b6ffee83961d6d6c1fd31f34

1995-10-27 00:00:00

1bd0416c-36a5-4a09-a1c0-9abfd7488682

Akers v. WV Dept of Tax

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Akers v. WV Dept of Tax Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1995 Term _____________ No. 22726 _____________ MARY AKERS AND CHARLENE BOGGS, Petitioners Below, Appellants v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND REVENUE, Respondent Below, Appellee ___________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County Honorable Lyne Ranson, Judge Civil Action No. 89-AA-203 AFFIRMED ___________________________________________________________ Submitted: May 10, 1995 Filed: July 11, 1995 James M. Haviland, Esq. Jeffrey G. Blaydes, Esq. Crandall, Pyles & Haviland Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellants Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq. Attorney General Barry L. Koerber, Esq. Scott E. Johnson, Esq. Assistant Attorneys General Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellee The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM. JUSTICE BROTHERTON AND JUSTICE RECHT did not participate. RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER and JUDGE FOX sitting by temporary assignment. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1."A valid written instrument which expresses the intent of the parties in plain and unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction or interpretation but will be applied and enforced according to such intent." Syllabus Point 1, Cotiga Development Co. v. United Fuel Gas Co., 147 W. Va. 484, 128 S.E.2d 626 (1962). 2. "A final order of the hearing examiner for the West Virginia Educational Employees Grievance Board, made pursuant to W.Va. Code, 18-29-1, et seq. (1985), and based upon findings of fact, should not be reversed unless clearly wrong." Syllabus Point 1, Randolph County Bd. of Ed. v. Scalia, 182 W.Va. 289, 387 S.E.2d 524 (1989). Per Curiam: This dispute concerns the civil service classifications of Mary Akers and Charlene Boggs, employees of the West Virginia Department of Tax and Revenue (Tax Department). Both Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs maintain that their positions should be classified as Audit Clerk III, a higher classification with more pay than their present classification. After the Circuit Court of Kanawha County upheld the level IV decisions of the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board (Board) refusing to upgrade the classifications of Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs to Audit Clerk III, they appealed to this Court.See footnote 1 On appeal, Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs maintain: (1) Because this Court in American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Civil Service Com'n of West Virginia, 181 W. Va. 8, 380 S.E.2d 43 (1989)(AFSCME IV) recognized Audit Clerk III as their proper classification, the only remaining issue is the amount of back pay; and (2) In the event the classification issue is not foreclosed, Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs allege that the record establishes that because they have performed the same work as others with the higher classification, they are entitled to be reclassified and to the resultant back pay. Because Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs entered a settlement agreement with the Tax Department, neither is entitled to the AFSCME IV acknowledgment that "the parties hereto have already been determined to have worked out of classification" (181 W. Va. at 14, 380 S.E.2d at 49), and they have not established that they performed the work of the higher classification, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. I During Ms. Akers' employment with the Tax Department from December 16, 1978 until December 31, 1988, she was, at various times, classified as a Clerk III, Audit Clerk I and Audit Clerk II. In a letter to the West Virginia Civil Service Commission (Civil Service Commission) dated May 5, 1986, Ms. Akers claimed she should be classified as an Audit Clerk III from December 16, 1978 until December 1, 1985.See footnote 2 Ms. Akers maintains that because she performed the same work as persons classified as Audit Clerk III, her position should be similarly classified. During the level IV hearing, Ms. Akers said that she "examined tax returns to determine if the proper amount of tax was paid. . . [by] reviewing the file, the taxpayers [sic] files, and auditing the returns." In addition to dealing with the necessary correspondence with taxpayers, accountants, public officials and city employees, Ms. Akers would issue "estimate assessments [sic] liens and distress warrants." Ms. Boggs, who began working for the Tax Department in October 1976, was classified as an Audit Clerk I from February 1, 1979 to December 1, 1985.See footnote 3 In a letter to the Civil Service Commission dated May 5, 1986, Ms. Boggs claimed she should have been classified as an Audit Clerk III from August 1, 1979 until December 1, 1985.See footnote 4 Ms. Boggs also maintains that because other workers classified as Audit Clerk III in the Tax Department performed the same work as she, she should be reclassified as a Audit Clerk III. At the level IV hearing, Ms. Boggs testified that as a Corporate Net Income Tax employee, she was "responsible for the internal audit of the return, issue and billing assessments of tax, liens and warrants." She noted that she had to be familiar with various other taxes, tax credits and accounting procedures and for out of state corporations the "allocation of their income and apportioning of income to domicile and. . . various factors that's determined by law; payroll, property, [sic] sales." Ms. Boggs computed the tax liability and handled the resultant correspondence and attempts to resolve the tax matter. The Tax Department maintains that neither Ms. Akers nor Ms. Boggs worked out-of-classification because neither performed the on-site work contained in the Civil Service Commission's job description for an Audit Clerk III. The job description for Audit Clerk III provides, in pertinent part: Nature of Work: This is responsible work in examining books and records of government units or private businesses subject to state regulations. Employees of this class are responsible for auditing subsidiary books and records maintained by individuals and private industry in enforcing special tax and regulatory laws. Work is subject to analysis and review while in progress and upon completion by a supervising auditor, and employees are given general instruction as to methods, procedures and objectives. (Emphasis added.) Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs were among the relators in AFSCME III)(a mandamus proceeding directing the Civil Service Commission to submit a plan to implement our decisions in American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees v. Civil Service Com'n of West Virginia, 174 W. Va. 221, 324 S.E.2d 363 (1984)(AFSCME I) (recognizing work performed out of classification is compensable) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees v. Civil Service Com'n of West Virginia, 176 W. Va. 73, 341 S.E.2d 693 (1985)(AFSCME II)(per curiam)(recognizing full back pay as the remedy for work performed out of classification)).See footnote 5 However, neither Ms. Akers nor Ms. Boggs was a petitioner in AFSCME I or AFSCME II; rather, their claims were not sent to the Civil Service Commission until May 5, 1986, which was after our decisions in AFSCME I and AFSCME II. Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs were among the petitioners in AFSCME IV, but before our decision in AFSCME IV, which was filed on March 28, 1989, Ms. Akers, Ms. Boggs and other Tax Department employees entered into a settlement agreement to resolve "the amount of back pay owing to the above-mentioned individual petitioners by December 27, 1988." The settlement agreement between AFSCME and the Civil Service Commission was filed in this Court on December 5, 1988 (the settlement agreement) and pertains to eleven AFSCME IV petitioners including Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs. As a result of the settlement agreement, the parties jointly moved this Court to "dismiss the existing Rule to Show Cause as to the Tax Department." The settlement agreement was approved in AFSCME IV, 181 W. Va. at 15 n. 22, 380 S.E.2d at 50 n. 22, which states: We approve of all settlements previously entered into by AFSCME and state employers as consistent with this opinion. According to the settlement agreement, the Tax Department and the settling employees, including Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs, will provide the other with information of their positions "on the period of time of misclassification and the amount of back pay owing."See footnote 6 Finally, the parties agreed that "whose claims not resolved by December 27, 1988" would be subject "to expedited arbitration at level four, West Virginia Code 29A-6A-4(d) for resolution by a hearing examiner," whose jurisdiction would not be objected to by the parties.See footnote 7 The settlement agreement also contains provisions for other pending cases, which are called "pipeline cases."See footnote 8 Because Ms. Akers, Ms. Boggs and the Tax Department did not agree by the deadline, December 27, 1988, the matter was considered by a Board's hearing examiner at a level IV hearing.See footnote 9 At the level IV hearing, Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs maintained that they had, in fact, performed the work of the higher classification. The Tax Department alleged that there had been no previous determination that either Ms. Akers or Ms. Boggs had performed the work of an Audit Clerk III. In both cases, the hearing examiner found that because neither Ms. Akers nor Ms. Boggs had performed the work of an Audit Clerk III, neither was entitled to back pay. After a consolidated appeal, the circuit court upheld the level IV decisions and both parties appealed to this Court.See footnote 10 II The threshold question concerns whether the level IV hearing examiner should have considered the merits of Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs' contention that they worked out of classification. Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs allege that AFSCME IV foreclosed the consideration of the merits of the out of classification question. The Tax Department alleges that the level IV hearing was the first and only determination of the merits of Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs' allegation that they worked out of classification. A Although Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs were petitioners in both AFSCME III and AFSCME IV, neither decision reached a conclusion concerning the merits of whether these two employees worked out of classification. In AFSCME III, we granted relief because the Civil Service Commission "failed to resolve promptly the job classification problems of the petitioners." Slip op. at 5. We also indicated that the merits of the petitioners' out of classification work contention were not clear, by stating: If each of the petitioners in this case worked in a job classification higher than the one to which each was assigned, each is entitled to back pay for the entire pay period which each worked in the higher job classification. AFSCME III, supra note 4, slip op. at 4. AFSCME IV primarily discussed the employees of the Department of Human Resources who were petitioners in the "cases traceable to the early 1980s," namely, the petitioners in AFSCME I and AFSCME II. 181 W. Va. at 9, 380 S.E.2d at 44. Thus our conclusion that "[o]ur review of the record reveals that the parties hereto have already been determined to have worked out of classification" (181 W. Va. at 14, 380 S.E.2d at 49) refers to these original AFSCME I and AFSCME II petitioners. We recognized that AFSCME also represented employees, whose back pay claims were filed after our decision in AFSCME I. In addition to the parties hereto, AFSCME represents other employees who filed back pay claims subsequent to our decision in AFSCME v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 174 W. Va. 221, 324 S.E.2d 363 (1984)(AFSCME I). These cases have not been finally determined. AFSCME IV, 181 W. Va. at 9 n. 1, 380 S.E.2d at 44 n. 1. Our conclusion that the merits of out of classification work had been determined, did not apply to the claims filed after our AFSCME I and AFSCME II decisions. In this case, Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs were not petitioners in either AFSCME I or AFSCME II and no determination had been made concerning the merits of their out of classification claims. Therefore, the claims of Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs involved more that the "issue of back pay." AFSCME IV, 181 W. Va. at 14, 380 S.E.2d at 49. We also note that Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs settled with the Tax Department before the AFSCME IV decision and therefore, were not parties to the decision.See footnote 11 Because of their settlement, the claims of Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs were dismissed. AFSCME IV, 181 W. Va. at 14-15, 380 S.E.2d at 49-50. Therefore, we reject the attempt by Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs to have the AFSCME IV conclusion that "the parties hereto have already been determined to have worked out of classification" apply to them. B The settlement agreement between the parties allows the Board's level IV hearing examiner to resolve any claims not settled by December 27, 1988. This Court has long held that a valid written agreement using plain and unambiguous language is to be enforced according to its plain intent and should not be construed. The rule is set forth in Syllabus pt. 1, Cotiga Development Co. v. United Fuel Gas Co., 147 W. Va. 484, 128 S.E.2d 626 (1962), which states: A valid written instrument which expresses the intent of the parties in plain and unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction or interpretation but will be applied and enforced according to such intent. See Syllabus pt. 2, Orteza v. Monongalia County General Hospital, 173 W. Va. 461, 318 S.E.2d 40 (1984)("[w]here the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, they must be applied and not construed"). The settlement agreement between the Tax Department and its employees including Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs, attempted "to resolve the back pay owing" through an exchange of information on their respective positions "on the period of time of misclassification and the amount of back pay owing." See supra note 6, for the complete text of the settlement agreement's first paragraph. For claims unresolved by December 27, 1988, "the settling parties agree[d] to submit the matter to expedited arbitration at level four" and to forbear from "assert[ing] any objections to the jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to consider this matter." See supra note 7, for the complete text of the settlement agreement's third paragraph. In this case, the parties agree that they did not reach a mutually agreeable resolution by the December 27, 1988 deadline and that the matter was submitted to a level IV hearing. The level IV hearing examiner concluded that because there was no "period of time of misclassification," no back pay was owed. Although Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs maintain that the settlement agreement recognized that they were owed back pay, by its plain and unambiguous terms, the settlement agreement allows the level IV hearing examiner to determine the "period of time of misclassification and the amount of back pay owing." The settlement agreement does not preclude the hearing examiner from determining that there was no period of misclassification and no back pay owing. Given the terms of the settlement agreement, we find that the hearing examiner properly considered the "period of time of misclassification and the amount of back pay owing." III During the level IV hearing, the primary evidence of misclassification presented by Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs was that they performed the same work as other Tax Department employees classified as Audit Clerk III. Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs concede that they did not do the work described in the written job description of Audit Clerk III. See supra p. 4, for the Audit Clerk III's written job description. The Tax Department maintains that neither presented any evidence that she examined "books and records of government units or private businesses" or audited "subsidiary books and records maintained by individuals or private industry," as specified in the Audit Clerk III's written job description. Rather Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs maintain that because others enjoyed a higher classification and performed the same work that they performed, they should be similarly misclassified. Both note that our AFSCME cases stand for the proposition of "equal pay for equal work,' as set forth in W.Va. Code, 29-6-10(2)." (Footnote omitted.) AFSCME IV, 181 W. Va. at 10, 380 S.E.2d at 45. However, when this principle was applied, we have considered the actual duties performed. Thus in AFSCME I, because the "petitioners had been performing the duties of an Economic Service Worker III," (AFSCME I, 174 W. Va. at 222, 324 S.E.2d at 365), we found the AFSCME I petitioners were entitled to a higher classification. AFSCME I, 174 W. Va. at 224-25, 324 S.E.2d at 367. The hearing examiner considered the written job descriptions for Audit Clerk I, II and III and concluded that Audit Clerk I and II were basically "tax review positions" and that an Audit Clerk III involves "review of other, more detailed records generally maintained on the premises of the subject 'government unit or private business.'" See footnote 12 The hearing examiner noted that June Sydenstricker, the Tax Department's Personnel Officer, explained that the Audit Clerk III classification had been used to promote deserving senior staff members without regard to work performed. Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs argue that because they perform the same work as the misclassified Audit Clerk III employees, they should be similarity misclassified. In rejecting this argument, the hearing examiner noted that many positions are misclassified and to legitimize such actions would "serve to undermine the basis of the classification plan and the principle of personnel and pay administration on which it is founded." The level IV hearing examiner concluded that because neither Ms. Akers nor Ms. Boggs had performed the duties of an Audit Clerk III, neither was entitled to the higher classification. The circuit court, in a consolidated appeal, affirmed the decisions of the hearing examiner and also found that AFSCME IV did not preclude the hearing examiner from considering whether Ms. Akers or Ms. Boggs had performed the work of a higher classification. Syllabus pt. 1, Randolph County Bd. of Educ. v. Scalia, 182 W. Va. 289, 387 S.E.2d 524 (1989) states: A final order of the hearing examiner for the West Virginia Educational Employees Grievance Board, made pursuant to W.Va. Code, 18-29-1, et seq. (1985), and based upon findings of fact, should not be reversed unless clearly wrong. See Syllabus, Billings v. Civil Service Com'n, 154 W. Va. 688, 178 S.E.2d 801 (1971)(findings of the Civil Service Commission will not be reversed "unless it is clearly wrong"); Syllabus pt. 3, Pockl v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., 185 W. Va. 256, 406 S.E.2d 687 (1991). In this case, the record shows that neither Ms. Akers nor Ms. Boggs performed the work of an Audit Clerk III. Neither reviewed the more detailed records generally maintained on the premises of government units or private businesses. Neither audited subsidiary books or records maintained by individual or private industry. Although the record shows that others were misclassified into the Audit Clerk III position, no justification was provided to continue this misclassification. Syl. pt. 1, Dillon v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Mingo, 171 W.Va. 631, 301 S.E.2d 588 (1983), states: "Interpretations of statutes by bodies charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous." Syllabus Point 4, Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. First W.Va. Bancorp., Inc., [166] W.Va. [775], 277 S.E.2d 613 (1981), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1131 , 102 S. Ct. 986, 71 L. Ed. 2d 284. See Syllabus pt. 2, Hardy County Bd. of Educ. v. W. Va. Division of Labor, 191 W. Va. 251, 445 S.E.2d 192 (1994); W. Va. Nonintoxicating Beer Com'r v. A & H Tavern, 181 W. Va. 364, 382 S.E.2d 558 (1989); State by Davis v. Hix, 141 W. Va. 385, 389, 90 S.E.2d 357, 359-60 (1955)("[w]here the language of the statute is of doubtful meaning or ambiguous, rules of construction may be resorted to and the construction of such statute by the person charged with the duty of executing the same is accorded great weight"). In this case, the parties agreed that neither Ms. Akers nor Ms. Boggs performed the work as described in the Audit Clerk III classification. The Tax Department presented evidence that the Audit Clerk III position described an employee who reviews detailed records generally maintained outside the Department by a governmental unit or private business or was involved with enforcing a special tax or regulatory law. The Tax Department alleged that except for the position of Field Agent, no one in the Department performed the detailed review. Although some Tax Department employees' positions were misclassified as Audit Clerk III, no justification for continuing the misclassification was presented. Indeed, the Tax Department's mid-1980s study and reclassification project should have eliminated the misclassifications. For the above stated reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is affirmed. Affirmed. Footnote: 1 Although the Board considered the cases separately, Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs presented a consolidated appeal to the circuit court from which they now appeal to this Court. Footnote: 2 Effective December 1, 1985, Ms. Akers was promoted to a Tax Audit Clerk II, which is in a new series established as a result of a Tax Department classification study in the mid-1980s. June Sydenstricker, the Tax Department's Personnel Officer, recommended in a January 28, 1985 memo that Ms. Akers' position be reclassified to a Tax Audit Clerk II. Ms. Sydenstricker also said: In the absence of this action taking place within the next fifteen days, I recommend your position be allocated to Audit Clerk III to realign the position to that classification indicating the greater complexity of this series.Footnote: 3 Effective December 1, 1985, Ms. Boggs was promoted to an Tax Audit Clerk II, which is part of a new position series established as a result of a mid-1980s Tax Department study. Ms. Sydenstricker, the Tax Department's Personnel Officer, recommended in a January 28, 1985 memo that Ms. Boggs' position be reclassified to a Tax Audit Clerk II. Ms. Sydenstricker also said: In the absence of this action taking place within the next fifteen days, I recommend your position be allocated to Audit Clerk III to realign the position to that classification indicating the greater complexity of this series.Footnote: 4 In the petition of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Civil Service Com'n of West Virginia, No. 17929 (W.Va. May 20, 1988)(AFSCME III)(per curiam order), Ms. Boggs' job title was listed as Tax Audit Clerk II and the period for which she claimed back wages was October 16, 1976 to December 1, 1985. At the level IV hearing, Ms. Boggs requested back pay from February 1, 1979 through December 1, 1985. During the level IV hearing, the hearing examiner noted that because Ms. Boggs did not contend that she should have been classified as an Audit Clerk II, any claim in that regard was deemed abandoned.Footnote: 5 See AFSCME IV, 181 W. Va. at 9, 380 S.E.2d at 44, for a brief summary of the earlier cases. In AFSCME I, we did not find that all the petitioners meet the description of the higher civil service category and said that on remand the status of such petitioners should be re-examined. AFSCME I, 174 W. Va. at 223 n. 4, 324 S.E.2d at 365 n. 4. In AFSCME II, the petitioners included the AFSCME I petitioners and two additional relators. The status of each petitioner was reviewed (176 W.Va. at 76-77, 341 S.E.2d at 696-97) and we concluded that all the petitioners were entitled to full back pay "for the entire period during which they worked out of classification." AFSCME II, 176 W.Va. at 79-80, 341 S.E.2d at 699.Footnote: 6 The settlement agreement states, in pertinent part: (1)AFSCME and the Tax Department will attempt to resolve the amount of back pay owing the above-mentioned individual petitioners by December 27, 1988. As part of this process, the Tax Department will immediately provide AFSCME and the individual petitioners sufficient information concerning the department's position on the period of time of misclassification and the amount of back pay owing. AFSCME will likewise immediately provide the department with their position on the period of time of misclassification and the amount of back pay owing. Footnote: 7 The settlement agreement states, in pertinent part: (3)As to those individuals referred to in ¶s 1 and 2 above, whose claims are not resolved by December 27, 1988, the settling parties agree that the above specified procedures shall be deemed compliance with the first three steps of the arbitration procedure as set forth in W.Va. Code §29A-6A-4 and the settling parties agree to submit the matter to expedited arbitration at level four, West Virginia Code 29A-6A-4(d) for resolution by a hearing examiner. The parties agree that they will not assert any objections to the jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to consider this matter and that this agreement will become part of the record at level four. Footnote: 8 Paragraph 3 of the settlement agreement provided for an information exchange for "the 'pipeline' cases for employees of the Tax Department" (see supra note 6, for the information to be exchanged) and to "provide each other with information sufficient for an evaluation on the merits of the back pay owed for each of these ['pipeline'] claims or potential claims and the period of misclassification."Footnote: 9 According to the Tax Department's brief, except for Ms. Akers, Ms. Boggs and one other employee, all of the Tax Department's employees who were AFSCME IV petitioners, settled without the necessity of a level IV hearing. Although Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs argue that the Tax Department's offer indicates that the Tax Department agrees that they were entitled to back pay, the mere offer to settle does not necessarily acknowledge the validity of a claim. See Rule 408 [1985] of the W.Va.R.Evid.; Schartiger v. Land Use Corp., 187 W. Va. 612, 616-17, 420 S.E.2d 883, 887-88 (1991). Footnote: 10 Because of our decision in W.Va. Department of Health & Human Resources v. Hess, 189 W. Va. 357, 432 S.E.2d 27 (1993)(appeal to circuit court of an administrative decision must be filed within thirty "working," rather than, "calendar" days), the case was remanded to the circuit court, which had previously dismissed Ms. Akers' and Ms. Boggs' appeal of their level IV decisions for failing to file within thirty calendar days. Footnote: 11 Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs argue that because we approved the "settlements previously entered into by AFSCME and the state employers as consistent with this opinion" (AFSCME IV, 181 W. Va. at 15 n. 22, 380 S.E.2d at 50 n. 22), they are entitled to no less than the non-settling petitioners. However unlike the Department of Human Resources' employees, the merits of whose claims had been addressed in AFSCME I and AFSCME II, the claims of Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs had not been examined on their merits. Although Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs are entitled to the extensive procedural relief outlined in the AFSCME cases, the record does not justify any conclusion concerning the merits of their claims. Ms. Akers and Ms. Boggs cannot piggyback their claim onto the AFSCME IV claims, whose merits had been extensively addressed.Footnote: 12 The job description for Audit Clerk I provides: Under close supervision, an employee in this class receives and audits accounts and/or reports for completeness and accuracy. Assignments are reviewed by an administrative superior upon completion for conformity with departmental rules and policies. The job description for Audit Clerk II provides: Under general supervision,. . . performs advanced level sub-professional auditing work in checking reports for completeness and accuracy. Evaluates the compliance of data with prescribed laws, rules or regulations. Employee may also supervise lower level audit clerks and other clerical personnel. See supra p.4 for the job description for Audit Clerk III.

48c5547f830f482728be563a06a88d56d6b13f3291848a2c620a33e2fd7e700d

1995-07-11 00:00:00

71720195-0935-449e-94c4-c1e89ba8a496

State of WV v. Wood

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

State of WV v. Wood Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1995 Term ___________ No. 22575 ___________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. FORREST WOOD, Defendant Below, Appellant ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cabell County Honorable Dan O'Hanlon, Judge Criminal Action No. 93-F-00061 AFFIRMED, IN PART; REVERSED, IN PART; AND REMANDED. ___________________________________________________ Submitted: May 9, 1995 Filed: July 14, 1995 Gregory J. Campbell Julia B. Shalhoup Campbell & Turkaly Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellant Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. Attorney General Amie L. Langfitt Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellee CHIEF JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE BROTHERTON AND JUSTICE RECHT did not participate. JUDGE FOX and RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER sitting by temporary assignment. RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER and JUSTICE CLECKLEY concur, in part, and dissent, in part, for the same reasons stated by Justice Miller in his dissent in State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "To trigger application of the 'plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." Syl. pt. 7, State v. Miller, No. 22571, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (May 18, 1995). 2. West Virginia Rules of Evidence 608(a) permits the admission of evidence in the form of an opinion or reputation regarding a witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, subject to two limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness; and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. The admission of testimony pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a) is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and is subject to W. Va. R. Evid. 402, which requires the evidence to be relevant; W. Va. R. Evid. 403, which requires the exclusion of evidence whose "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury[;]" and W. Va. R. Evid. 611, which requires the court to protect witnesses from harassment and undue embarrassment. 3. "Expert psychological testimony is permissible in cases involving incidents of child sexual abuse and an expert may state an opinion as to whether the child comports with the psychological and behavioral profile of a child sexual abuse victim, and may offer an opinion based on objective findings that the child has been sexually abused. Such an expert may not give an opinion as to whether he personally believes the child, nor an opinion as to whether the sexual assault was committed by the defendant, as these would improperly and prejudicially invade the province of the jury." Syl. pt. 7, State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 4. "'"'"Whether a witness is qualified to state an opinion is a matter which rests within the discretion of the trial court and its ruling on that point will not ordinarily be disturbed unless it clearly appears that its discretion has been abused." Point 5, syllabus, Overton v. Fields, 145 W. Va. 797 [ 117 S.E.2d 598 (1960)].' Syllabus Point 4, Hall v. Nello Teer Co., 157 W. Va. 582, 203 S.E.2d 145 (1974)." Syllabus Point 12, Board of Education v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, 182 W. Va. 597, 390 S.E.2d 796 (1990).' Syl. pt. 3, Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993)." Syl. pt. 5, Mayhorn v. Logan Medical Foundation, ___ W. Va. ___, 454 S.E.2d 87 (1994). 5. "In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984): (1) Counsel's performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Syl. pt. 5, State v. Miller, No. 22571, ___ W.Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (May 18, 1995). 6. "In reviewing counsel's performance, courts must apply an objective standard and determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the broad range of professionally competent assistance while at the same time refraining from engaging in hindsight or second-guessing of trial counsel's strategic decisions. Thus, a reviewing court asks whether a reasonable lawyer would have acted, under the circumstances, as defense counsel acted in the case at issue." Syl. pt. 6, State v. Miller, No. 22571, ___ W.Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (May 18, 1995). 7. "'Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him.' Syl. pt. 1, Adkins v. Bordenkircher, 164 W. Va. 292, 262 S.E.2d 885 (1980)." Syl. pt. 6, State ex rel. Collins v. Bedell, No. 22781, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (June 19, 1995). 8. "A procedural change in a criminal proceeding does not violate the ex post facto principles found in the W. Va. Const. art. III, § 4 and in the U. S. Const. art. I, § 10 unless the procedural change alters the definition of a crime so that what is currently punished as a crime was an innocent act when committed; deprives the accused of a defense which existed when the crime was committed; or increases the punishment for the crime after it was committed." Syl. pt. 7, State ex rel. Collins v. Bedell, No. 22781, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (June 19, 1995). McHugh, Chief Justice: Following a one-day jury trial, the appellant, Forrest M. Wood, was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual assault and two counts of incest in the Circuit Court of Cabell County. The appellant was sentenced to prison terms of fifteen to thirty- five years on each of the first degree sexual assault counts and to five to fifteen years on each of the incest counts, with all sentences running consecutively. The appellant appeals his convictions raising the following four assignments of error: (1) whether the admission of the testimony of Mr. Donald Pace, a teacher, wherein he stated that he determined the victim's allegations against the appellant were true before he took any action regarding those allegations, was error; (2) whether the admission of the expert testimony of Elizabeth Brachna was error in that (a) she was not properly qualified as an expert, (b) she testified that the victim's allegations were credible, and (c) she based her testimony upon the child sexual abuse profile; (3) whether the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (4) whether the appellant was sentenced in violation of the ex post facto principles set forth in the West Virginia and United States Constitutions. For reasons set forth below, we affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand this case to the circuit court for the defendant's resentencing in accordance with this opinion. I. The appellant married the mother of the victim, Betty A.,See footnote 1 in 1981, thereby becoming Betty A.'s stepfather. At trial, Betty A. testified that once or twice a week in 1989, when she was approximately eight or nine years old, she was forced to engage in various sexual acts with the appellant.See footnote 2 Betty A. first reported the sexual assaults in the spring of 1992 to her behavior disorder teacher, Donald Pace, who testified at trial. Additionally, Elizabeth Brachna, a licensed social worker, and Vicki Riley, a supervised psychologistSee footnote 3 in private practice, who were qualified as experts on abused and assaulted children, both testified that in their opinion Betty A.'s behavior fit the profile of a sexually abused child. Betty A.'s mother's testimony supported Betty A.'s and the experts' testimonies. Conversely, the appellant testified that he did not sexually assault Betty A. The appellant and Betty A.'s mother separated in November of 1989, and a divorce action soon ensued. The evidence at trial indicates that Betty A. has had no contact with the appellant since her mother and the appellant separated. II. The appellant asserts that the admission of Donald Pace's testimony regarding the truthfulness of Betty A.'s allegations against the appellant was error. However, as the appellant concedes, the appellant's trial attorney did not object to the admission of this testimony.See footnote 4 Therefore, the admission of this testimony must invoke the plain error doctrine before this Court will reverse the appellant's conviction. In syllabus point 7 of State v. Miller, No. 22571, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (May 18, 1995) this Court held that in order "[t]o trigger application of the 'plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." See also syllabus point 4, in relevant part, State v. England, 180 W. Va. 342, 376 S.E.2d 548 (1988) (The plain error "doctrine is to be used sparingly and only in those circumstances where substantial rights are affected, or the truth-finding process is substantially impaired, or a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.") The appellant complains about the admission of the following testimony by Donald Pace: Q [This excerpt of testimony occurs after Mr. Pace has testified that he did not report Betty A.'s allegations until he determined whether or not they were true] [by the State] You indicated that you had come to the conclusion that [Betty A.] was not making this up; is that correct? A [by Mr. Pace] That's correct. Q Why do you say that? A Well, for one thing, after I had established a relationship with [Betty A.], I found out that when she was lying, if I pursued my questioning, she would always tell me the truth. Q Now, wait a minute. So, you're saying that [Betty A.] has lied to you? A In terms that she may deny that she had done something, and when I questioned her about that, she would often say, 'Oh, no, Mr. Pace, that wasn't me, I didn't do that, I didn't do that,' and when I pursued the matter, she would always own up to it. Q Always? A Well, to my knowledge, yes. . . . . Q So, in your opinion, based on your work with [Betty A.], she's basically a truthful person? A Oh, yes. Now, qualifying that, if she could get out of trouble, she would. . . . . Q . . . Did you investigate [Betty A.'s allegations of sexual assault], to your satisfaction, to determine whether or not she was, in fact, telling you the truth? A Yes, I did because -- in fact, we had -- you know, I explained the severity of making an accusation like that. . . . [S]he at that time convinced me that she was telling the truth. At the outset, we note that this issue involves the admission of testimony regarding the credibility of a witness. As observed by the United States Court of Military Appeals, "[t]here are three evidentiary stages which concern the credibility of witnesses at trial: bolstering, impeachment, and rehabilitation." United States v. Toro, 37 M.J. 313, 315 (C.M.A. 1993). Bolstering occurs when a party seeks to enhance a witness's credibility before it has been attacked. Id. Bolstering is generally disallowed. Impeachment occurs anytime a witness's credibility is attacked, and it may be accomplished in several different ways including, inter alia, the following: a witness's character trait for untruthfulness pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a); prior convictions pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 609(a); instances of misconduct not resulting in a conviction pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 608(b); and prior inconsistent statements pursuant to W.Va. R. Evid. 613.See footnote 5 See Id. Rehabilitation, which occurs after a witness's credibility has been attacked, also may be accomplished in a number of different ways including "explanations on redirect examination, corroboration, a character trait for truthfulness, or prior consistent statements." Toro, supra at 315 (citation omitted). Credibility issues concerning a witness may be addressed by questioning that witness or through the testimony of another witness. Although not briefed by the appellant, the resolution of the issue before us involves an analysis of W. Va. R. Evid. 608. W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a) allows for the admission of evidence which either attacks or supports the credibility of a witness in the form of opinion or reputation subject to two limitations: The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness; and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a). The first limitation found in 608(a)(1), which states "the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness[,]" explicitly "permits [opinion] testimony concerning a witness's general character or reputation for truthfulness or untruthfulness but prohibits any [opinion] testimony as to a witness's truthfulness on a particular occasion." State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 , 391 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted). The rationale behind disallowing opinion testimony as to a witness's truthfulness on a particular occasion is that "it prevents trials from being turned into contests between what would amount to modern oath-helpers who would largely usurp the fact- finding function of judge or jury." Id. at 392. See also United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336, 341 (8th Cir. 1986) (The "opinion evidence went beyond the limitation in Rule 608(a)(1) of only addressing character for truthfulness and addressed the specific believability and truthfulness of [the witness's] story."); People v. Koon, 713 P.2d 410 , 412 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985) ("[N]either a lay nor expert witness may give opinion testimony with respect to whether a witness is telling the truth on a specific occasion." (citations omitted)). We implicitly acknowledged the wisdom of the above rationale in syllabus point 7, in relevant part, of State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990), when we held that an expert on child sexual abuse "may not give an opinion as to whether he personally believes the child . . . as [this] would improperly and prejudicially invade the province of the jury." The second limitation found in W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a)(2), states "evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise[.]" This limitation disallows the bolstering of a witness's credibility. See 1 Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 6.8(A)(1) (3d 1994) and 3 Jack B. Weinstein, et al., Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 608[08] (1995). After all, "a person's character is assumed to be good unless evidence exists to indicate otherwise." Cleckley, supra at § 6-8(A)(2). See also Weinstein, supra at ¶ 608[08] at 608-64. ("'[T]here is no reason why time should be spent in proving that which may be assumed to exist.'" (quoting Wigmore, Evidence § 1104 (3d ed. 1940)). Moreover, W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a) is subject to the protections of W. Va. R. Evid. 402, which requires the evidence to be relevant; W. Va. R. Evid. 403, which requires the exclusion of evidence whose "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury[;]" and W. Va. R. Evid. 611, which requires the court to protect witnesses from harassment and undue embarrassment. See Weinstein, supra at ¶ 608[01] at 608-13 and Cleckley, supra at § 6- 8(A)(2). Thus, the admissibility of evidence regarding a witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and depends upon the totality of the circumstances of a given case. See Id. Accordingly, we hold that West Virginia Rules of Evidence 608(a) permits the admission of evidence in the form of an opinion or reputation regarding a witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, subject to two limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness; and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. The admission of testimony pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a) is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and is subject to W. Va. R. Evid. 402, which requires the evidence to be relevant; W. Va. R. Evid. 403, which requires the exclusion of evidence whose "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury[;]" and W. Va. R. Evid. 611, which requires the court to protect witnesses from harassment and undue embarrassment. In the case before us, we find that Mr. Pace's testimony violates the two limitations set forth in W. Va. R. Evid. 608 in that Mr. Pace gave his opinion as to Betty A's truthfulness on a specific occasion and testified as to her truthfulness before her character for truthfulness had been attacked. As we previously indicated, no objection was made at trial. Thus, we must determine if the admission of Mr. Pace's testimony was plain error. We conclude that it is not. As we previously stated, Mr. Pace, who was Betty A.'s behavior disorder teacher, was the first person to whom Betty A. reported the sexual assaults. At trial, Mr. Pace, the State's first witness, testified that when Betty A. first told him of the sexual assault he did not immediately report her allegations because he wanted to make sure they were true. However, the record reveals that there was no need for the prosecutor to engage in the questioning of Betty A.'s character for truthfulness in that Betty A.'s credibility had not yet been attacked. In fact, Betty A.'s credibility was not an issue until the prosecutor made it an issue.See footnote 6 As we previously stated, a witness's character for truthfulness is assumed to be truthful until attacked. Thus, the admission of Mr. Pace's testimony regarding Betty A.'s character for truthfulness was error pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a) because it was admitted before her character for truthfulness had been attacked. Furthermore, Mr. Pace's opinion testimony as to whether Betty A.'s allegations of sexual assault were believable is error pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a) in that it improperly invades the province of the jury. However, as the testimony above reveals, Mr. Pace was merely giving an historical account as to how he learned of Betty A.'s sexual assault allegations and as to how he determined what actions he should take regarding those allegations. Although Mr. Pace's testimony violates W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a), his testimony was not given for the purpose of determining Betty A.'s character for truthfulness which is the paramount concern of W. Va. R. Evid. 608, but rather was given as historical information. Cf. United States v. Blackwell, 853 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1988) (Fed. R. Evid. 608(a) does not preclude testimony by an accused of his lack of a criminal record because such testimony is essentially background information); Government of Virgin Islands v. Grant, 775 F.2d 508, 513 n. 7 (3d Cir. 1985) (The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted that the line between background evidence and character evidence is blurred). Thus, although we find that the admission of the above testimony by Mr. Pace violates W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a), we recognize that it is a close call considering the purpose for which this testimony was introduced. Cf. United States v. Toledo, 985 F.2d 1462, 1469-70 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 218 (An expert's statement in a case in which a child was kidnapped and sexually assaulted that the child's consistency in her story was "'consistent with a high likelihood that this occurred'" did not warrant review under the plain error doctrine because it is a close call and therefore not an obvious error affecting the fundamental fairness of the trial). Accordingly, although the admission of Mr. Pace's testimony regarding Betty A.'s character for truthfulness was error pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a), given the context in which this particular testimony occurred we find that it does not "seriously affect[ ] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings" thereby implicating review pursuant to the plain error doctrine. Syl. pt. 7, Miller, supra. III. Although not clearly defined, it appears that the appellant raises the following three issues regarding the testimony of Elizabeth Brachna, who testified as an expert on abused and assaulted children, which are as follows: (a) whether Ms. Brachna was properly qualified as an expert; (b) whether Ms. Brachna's testimony regarding the truthfulness of Betty A.'s story violates syllabus point 7 of Edward Charles L., supra; and (c) whether the law in Edward Charles L., supra, regarding the admission of a child sexual abuse profile is a sound principle or whether the case should be overruled. A. The appellant's trial counsel objected to Ms. Brachna being qualified as an expert on abused and assaulted children because she was not a treating psychiatrist or psychologist. In syllabus point 7 of Edward Charles L., supra, this Court held that expert psychological testimony regarding child sexual abuse is permissible: Expert psychological testimony is permissible in cases involving incidents of child sexual abuse and an expert may state an opinion as to whether the child comports with the psychological and behavioral profile of a child sexual abuse victim, and may offer an opinion based on objective findings that the child has been sexually abused. Such an expert may not give an opinion as to whether he personally believes the child, nor an opinion as to whether the sexual assault was committed by the defendant, as these would improperly and prejudicially invade the province of the jury. Furthermore, in syllabus point 5 of Mayhorn v. Logan Medical Foundation, ___ W. Va. ___, 454 S.E.2d 87 (1994) this Court stated: '"'"Whether a witness is qualified to state an opinion is a matter which rests within the discretion of the trial court and its ruling on that point will not ordinarily be disturbed unless it clearly appears that its discretion has been abused." Point 5, syllabus, Overton v. Fields, 145 W. Va. 797 [ 117 S.E.2d 598 (1960)].' Syllabus Point 4, Hall v. Nello Teer Co., 157 W. Va. 582, 203 S.E.2d 145 (1974)." Syllabus Point 12, Board of Education v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, 182 W. Va. 597, 390 S.E.2d 796 (1990).' Syl. pt. 3, Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993). Appellant's contention that Ms. Brachna must have a certain educational background in order to testify as an expert on abused and assaulted children is misplaced. "[A] witness may be qualified as an expert by practical experience in a field of activity conferring special knowledge not shared by mankind in general[.]" Syl. pt. 2, in relevant part, State v. Baker, 180 W. Va. 233, 376 S.E.2d 127 (1988). For instance, in Cargill v. Balloon Works, Inc., 185 W. Va. 142, 405 S.E.2d 642 (1991), we found that a certified pilot of hot air balloons had a sufficient background regarding the operation, safety, construction and flight of hot air balloons to be qualified as an expert in the design and manufacture of a hot air balloon that crashed even though the pilot did not possess an engineering or design degree. We concluded in Cargill that W. Va. R. Evid. 702, which enunciates the standard by which the qualification of an expert is determined, "cannot be interpreted to require . . . that the experience, education, or training of the individual be in complete congruence with the nature of the issue sought to be proven." Id. at 146-47, 405 S.E.2d at 646-47.See footnote 7 Instead, a witness may be qualified as an expert based upon his or her knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Board of Educ. v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc., 182 W. Va. 597, 390 S.E.2d 796 (1990) (This Court held that a witness was qualified as an expert on structural matters even though he had not been educated as a structural engineer because of his experience in the construction business). Thus, Ms. Brachna need not be a treating psychiatrist or psychologist as asserted by the appellant. The facts indicate that Ms. Brachna is a licensed social worker who works as a counselor with victimized children. Additionally, Ms. Brachna has a bachelor's degree in sociology and an uncompleted master's degree in behavioral disorders. Most importantly, the record reveals that Ms. Brachna has nine years of experience with troubled adolescent girls in group homes, and that she has seen more than one hundred abused and/or traumatized children. As the State points out, other states have qualified non- psychologists as experts on abused and assaulted children because of their experience and training. See, e.g., People v. Pollard, 589 N.E.2d 175, 180 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992), appeal denied, 596 N.E.2d 635 (assault program worker, who was a foster mother specializing in sexually abused children); and Commonwealth v. Thayer, 634 N.E.2d 576 (Mass. 1994) (licensed psychiatric social worker). Accordingly, based on Ms. Brachna's training and experience of working with abused and traumatized children, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by qualifying Ms. Brachna as an expert on abused and assaulted children. B. The appellant next contends that Ms. Brachna's testimony regarding the truthfulness of Betty A.'s allegations violates syllabus point 7, in relevant part, of Edward Charles L., supra, which states: "Such an expert may not give an opinion as to whether he personally believes the child, nor an opinion as to whether the sexual assault was committed by the defendant, as these would improperly and prejudicially invade the province of the jury." As we previously explained, W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a) prohibits any testimony as to a witness's truthfulness on a particular occasion. There are two questionable times in which Ms. Brachna's testimony borders on giving an opinion as to whether Betty A. was being truthful. The first incident occurred in the following exchange: Q [by the State] I do not want to relate specifically what [Betty A.] told you. That is not my purpose in having you testify. I only want you to inform this Court whether or not you made observations of [Betty A.] in her testimony which would cause you to be able to render to this Court an opinion as to whether or not [Betty A.] fit within the profile that you have previously described to this Court as that of a sexually abused child? A [by Ms. Brachna] Yes. When I do a taped interview, there are criteria I am watching and observing for. . . . [I]t ... allows us to look back and check to see if the age and the emotion matches the trauma the child is reporting. One particular criterion I look for when doing this is if the child or adolescent uses age appropriate terminology for their body, their body parts, the alleged perpetrator's body parts[.] . . . I also start each taped interview with questions which helps me determine if the child can determine right from wrong, or more importantly, truth from a lie, or also show some type of suggestibility. . . . In [Betty A.'s] case, she was not highly suggestible. She maintained what she perceived as the truth. That helps me as a guideline to go on with my questioning. . . . When I'm looking for a child that's been coached, I'm looking for more -- either a street language or even maybe the correct terminology for genitalia, which she did not have or give me. Her knowledge of sexual acts seemed age appropriate. . . . To my opinion, she demonstrated an appropriate level of anxiety, meaning her emotion did reflect the trauma that she was reporting[.] . . . So, it was a very credible statement to me as far as those components that I look for. (emphasis added). The second incident occurred after the State asked the following: "Was there anything . . . she said or her behavior or demeanor that would signal to you that there was something wrong with her statement, that there may be some falsity to it?" Ms. Brachna responded: "Not that I could tell. There was not what I would term as motive for her to give me that." The appellant's trial attorney, however, did not object to the admission of the above statements nor did the trial judge give a cautionary instruction.See footnote 8 Therefore the admission of this testimony must invoke the plain error doctrine before we will reverse on this ground. As we previously stated, in order "[t]o trigger application of the 'plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." Syl. pt. 7, Miller, supra. In the case before us, Ms. Brachna admitted, on cross- examination, that if a child were indeed lying, she would have no way of knowing, thereby neutralizing her prior testimony which suggested that she believed Betty A.'s allegations to be true. Thus, if Ms. Brachna's testimony on direct examination was error, such error did not "seriously affect[ ] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." Syl. pt. 7, Miller, supra. See State v. Folse, 623 So. 2d 59 (La. Ct. App. 1993) (The expert testified, without objection, on direct examination that he believed the victim was telling the truth about having been sexually abused; however, the court found that this did not violate rule 608 of the rules of evidence because the defendant's cross-examination corrected the direct testimony by making clear that the expert could not say whether or not the victim was telling the truth). Cf. United States v. Rosales, 19 F.3d 763 (1st Cir. 1994) (In a sexual abuse case the expert's testimony implicitly sent a message to the jury that the children had testified truthfully; however, review pursuant to the plain error doctrine was not warranted because the jury was presented with expert testimony which directly contradicted the objectional testimony and because the trial court instructed the jury that they were free to reject the opinions of the experts); United States v. Provost, 875 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 859 (The expert's testimony that two incidents described by the victim of a sexual assault "'both occurred'" was an isolated statement which did not constitute reversible error because it was harmless); Toledo, supra (An expert's statement in a case in which a child was kidnapped and sexually assaulted that the child's consistency in her story was "'consistent with a high likelihood that this occurred'" did not warrant review under the plain error doctrine because it is a close call and therefore not an obvious error affecting the fundamental fairness of the trial). Accordingly, because the appellant's trial counsel clarified that Ms. Brachna would have no idea whether a child was lying, the admission of Ms. Brachna's testimony regarding whether Betty A.'s allegations were truthful, if error, did not "seriously affect[ ] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings" thereby implicating review pursuant to the plain error doctrine. Syl. pt. 7, Miller, supra. C. Although the appellant's brief is unclear, it appears that the appellant contends that the admission of expert testimony based upon a child sexual abuse profile is error. More specifically, the appellant asserts that the theory that sexually abused children manifest particular identifiable characteristics is not supported by accepted medical or scientific opinion as is required by W. Va. R. Evid. 702. See syl. pt. 2, Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 2137 (1994) (This Court outlines how the admissibility of expert testimony should be analyzed pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 702). However, as the appellant concedes, this Court held the following in syllabus point 7 of Edward Charles L., supra, in relevant part, regarding the admission of expert testimony on the profiles of child sexual abuse victims: Expert psychological testimony is permissible in cases involving incidents of child sexual abuse and an expert may state an opinion as to whether the child comports with the psychological and behavioral profile of a child sexual abuse victim, and may offer an opinion based on objective findings that the child has been sexually abused. We decline to revisit our holding in Edward Charles L., supra.See footnote 9 Accordingly, the admission of Ms. Brachna's testimony regarding the psychological and behavioral profile of a child sexual abuse victim was not error.See footnote 10 IV. The appellant asserts that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and under Article III, § 14 of the West Virginia Constitution. We recently explained why addressing ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal is usually inappropriate: "In cases involving ineffective assistance on direct appeals, intelligent review is rendered impossible because the most significant witness, the trial attorney, has not been given the opportunity to explain the motive and reason behind his or her trial behavior." Miller, at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___ (slip op. at 22) (footnote omitted). See also State v. Triplett, 187 W.Va. 760, 771, 421 S.E.2d 511, 522 (1992) ("it is the extremely rare case when this Court will find ineffective assistance of counsel when such a charge is raised as an assignment of error on a direct appeal"). When addressing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, however, the following analysis should be used: 5. In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984): (1) Counsel's performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. 6. In reviewing counsel's performance, courts must apply an objective standard and determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the broad range of professionally competent assistance while at the same time refraining from engaging in hindsight or second-guessing of trial counsel's strategic decisions. Thus, a reviewing court asks whether a reasonable lawyer would have acted, under the circumstances, as defense counsel acted in the case at issue. Syl. pts. 5 and 6, Miller, supra. In the case before us, the appellant asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective because he, inter alia,: (1) failed to call character witnesses or any other witnesses other than the appellant; (2) failed to object to Mr. Pace's testimony which was previously discussed in this opinion; (3) failed to object to Ms. Brachna's testimony on whether Betty A.'s allegations against the appellant were true; (4) failed to call an expert who would attest that appellant's psychological profile would suggest that he did not commit the crimes charged; (5) failed to have the trial court give a cautionary instruction that the testimony of Ms. Riley, who, as we previously stated, was qualified as an expert on abused and assaulted children, regarding the hearsay statements made by Betty A., was only being offered to show the basis of her opinion and was not being offered to support the truth of what Betty A. said; (6) failed to request that Betty A. undergo psychological evaluation in order to see if there were psychological problems which may make her testify falsely; (7) failed to offer a jury instruction which stated that Betty A.'s testimony should be scrutinized with caution since it was uncorroborated; and (8) failed to offer any evidence of mitigating circumstances at appellant's sentencing hearing. However, as the State points out, there may have been tactical reasons for appellant's trial counsel's lack of action. For instance, there may not have been any witnesses who could testify as to appellant's character pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 404(a)(1)See footnote 11 nor may there have been any evidence of mitigating circumstances to offer at appellant's sentencing hearing. Our review of the record does not reveal "whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions [of the appellant's trial counsel] were outside the broad range of professionally competent assistance . . . [without] engaging in hindsight or second-guessing of [appellant's trial counsel's] strategic decisions." Syl. pt. 6, in part, Miller, supra. As we stated in Miller, at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___ (slip op. at 29), "[i]t is apparent that we intelligently cannot determine the merits of this ineffective assistance claim without an adequate record giving trial counsel the courtesy of being able to explain his trial actions." Accordingly, we decline to further address this issue on direct appeal. V. The appellant asserts that the trial judge violated ex post facto principles found in W. Va. Const. art. III, § 4 and U. S. Const. art. I, § 10See footnote 12 by sentencing him to serve a term of not less than fifteen nor more than thirty-five years in prison for sexual assault pursuant to W. Va. Code, 61-8B-3(b) which was effective on July 1, 1991. The appellant contends that the 1984 version of W. Va. Code, 61-8B-3(b), which provides for a term of "not less than fifteen nor more than twenty-five years[,]" is the applicable Code section because the indictment charges that he committed the crimes in 1989. Similarly, on the incest charges, the appellant was sentenced to a prison term of not less than five years nor more than fifteen years pursuant to W. Va. Code, 61-8-12(c) which was effective in 1991. In that the appellant was charged with committing incest in 1989, the appellant contends that he should have been sentenced according to the 1986 version of W. Va. Code, 61-8-12(c) which provides for a term of not less than five years nor more than ten years. This Court held the following in syllabus points 6 and 7 of State ex rel. Collins v. Bedell, No. 22781, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (June 19, 1995): 6. 'Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him.' Syl. pt. 1, Adkins v. Bordenkircher, 164 W. Va. 292, 262 S.E.2d 885 (1980). 7. A procedural change in a criminal proceeding does not violate the ex post facto principles found in the W. Va. Const. art. III, § 4 and in the U. S. Const. art. I, § 10 unless the procedural change alters the definition of a crime so that what is currently punished as a crime was an innocent act when committed; deprives the accused of a defense which existed when the crime was committed; or increases the punishment for the crime after it was committed. (emphasis added). Clearly, applying the 1991 versions of W. Va. Code, 61-8B-3(b) and 61-8-12(c) increased the appellant's punishment, thus, violating the ex post facto principles found in the W. Va. Const. and U. S. Const. Accordingly, we reverse the sentences imposed upon the appellant and remand this case to the circuit court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. VI. In summary, we reverse appellant's sentences on the sexual assault counts and incest counts, and remand this case to the circuit court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Otherwise, we affirm the appellant's conviction. Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part; and remanded. Footnote: 1 Since this case involves sensitive matters, we follow our traditional practice and use only the last initial of the juvenile involved in this case. See State v. Michael S., 188 W. Va. 229, 230 n. 1, 423 S.E.2d 632, 633 n. 1 (1992). (citation omitted).Footnote: 2 Though the record describes the sexual acts in graphic detail, considering our resolution of the issues in this case, it is not necessary to recount those facts in detail in this opinion.Footnote: 3 Ms. Riley is working as a psychologist under the supervision of Dr. Betsy Evans until she obtains a license in psychology.Footnote: 4 We held the following in syllabus point 2 of State v. Stewart, 187 W. Va. 422, 419 S.E.2d 683 (1992): "'"Error in the admission of testimony to which no objection was made will not be considered by this Court on appeal or writ of error, but will be treated as waived." Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Michael, 141 W. Va. 1, 87 S.E.2d 595 (1955).' Syllabus point 7, State v. Davis, 176 W.Va. 454, 345 S.E.2d 549 (1986)." However, W. Va. R. Evid. 103(d) states that "[n]othing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court."Footnote: 5 W. Va. R. Evid. 608(a) states, in relevant part, "[t]he credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation[.]" W. Va. R. Evid. 609(a) states, in pertinent part, that the credibility of an accused in a criminal case may be attacked by "evidence that the accused has been convicted of a crime ... but only if the crime involved perjury or false swearing." The credibility of a witness other than the accused may be attacked by "evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime ... subject to Rule 403 . . . if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year . . . and . . . [by] evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime . . . [involving] dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment." Id. W. Va. R. Evid. 608(b) states, in relevant part, that "[s]pecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of a witness other than the accused (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified." W. Va. R. Evid. 613(b) states, in pertinent part, that "[e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interest of justice otherwise require."Footnote: 6 At least one court has noted that if a witness's character for truthfulness is eventually attacked during the trial after opening statements which indicate that the credibility of a witness will be attacked, then the admission of the testimony of a witness's truthful character before such attack is harmless error. United States v. Beaty, 722 F.2d 1090, 1097 (3d Cir. 1983) ("'In view of the inevitability of defense counsels' attack on [the witnesses'] credibility and the formidable assault which in fact was made in the defense openings, cross-examinations and summations, the error in the timing of the introduction of the [truthfulness promise] does not require reversal in this case[:]" the prosecutor elicited on direct examination that the witness had promised to tell the truth in connection with a plea bargain (citation omitted)). Subsequent to Mr. Pace's testimony, the appellant's trial counsel did attack Betty A.'s character for truthfulness. Therefore, the State asserts that since Mr. Pace's testimony regarding Betty A.'s character for truthfulness would have been admissible once the appellant's trial counsel attacked her character for truthfulness, the admission of Mr. Pace's testimony in the facts before us was harmless error. However, unlike the case above, the prosecutor had no indication in the opening statement of the appellant's trial attorney that Betty A.'s credibility would be attacked. Thus, it is arguable whether the appellant would have attacked Betty A.'s credibility if the prosecutor had not delved into the issue during Mr. Pace's testimony. Moreover, we do not condone this type of questioning because it could still amount to error which is not harmless depending on the totality of the circumstances in a given case.Footnote: 7 W. Va. R. Evid. 702 states: Testimony by Experts. If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Additionally, this Court held the following in syl. pt. 4 of Mayhorn, supra: Pursuant to West Virginia Rules of Evidence 702 an expert's opinion is admissible if the basic methodology employed by the expert in arriving at his opinion is scientifically or technically valid and properly applied. The jury, and not the trial judge, determines the weight to be given to the expert's opinion.Footnote: 8 The trial judge did in his charge to the jury give the following instruction submitted by the appellant: The jury is instructed that the rules of evidence ordinarily do not permit witnesses to testify as to opinions or conclusions. An exception to this rule exists as to those whom we call 'expert witnesses.' Witnesses who, by education and experience, have become expert in some art, science, profession, or calling, may state their opinions as to relevant and material matter, in which they have been qualified to be expert, and may also state their reasons for the opinion. You should consider each expert opinion received in evidence in this case, and give it such weight as you may think it deserves. If you should decided [sic] that the opinion of an expert witness is not based upon sufficient education and experience, or if you should conclude that the reason given in support of the opinion is not sound or if you feel that it is outweighed by other evidence, you may disregard the opinion entirely.Footnote: 9 We recognize that the admission of expert testimony regarding the child sexual abuse profile is a disputed point. Justice Miller has written a very detailed dissent to Edward Charles L., supra, regarding this issue. However, the majority opinion in Edward Charles L., which authorizes the admission of such testimony, has not been overruled. Footnote: 10 Although it is not clear, the appellant also appears to argue that Ms. Brachna did not provide a basis for her knowledge of the sexual assault profile. However, as the State points out, W. Va. R. Evid. 705 does not require the expert to disclose the underlying facts or data which support his or her opinion unless the trial court requires the disclosure or unless during cross-examination he or she is asked to disclose that information: Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion. The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination. Moreover, appellant's assertion that Ms. Brachna's one- time interview with Betty A. was insufficient to enable Ms. Brachna to form an expert opinion, and appellant's assertion that Ms. Brachna failed to conduct a full-scale psychological and developmental evaluation of the child and underlying family dynamics are more appropriately explored through cross- examination which allows the trier of fact to weigh the credibility of the expert's opinion rather than on appeal. Cf. 2 Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers, § 7-2(A)(1) at 28 (3d ed. 1994) ("Should the [expert] witness later fail to adequately define or describe the relevant standard of care, opposing counsel is free to explore that weakness in the testimony. The trier of fact may then choose to discount the testimony." (citations omitted)).Footnote: 11 W. Va. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) states, in relevant part, that "[e]vidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he or she acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (1) Character of Accused.--Evidence of a pertinent trait of his character offered by an accused, or by the prosecutor to rebut the same[.]"Footnote: 12 The W. Va. Const. art. III, § 4 states, in relevant part: "No . . . ex post facto law . . . shall be passed." The U. S. Const. art. I, § 10 provides, in relevant part: "No State shall . . . pass any . . . ex post facto Law[.]"

39a43f22d1def80780bfac25d89a979950fabf0964ad5709729eb46173021345

1995-07-14 00:00:00

cd6880ba-6307-4123-8bb7-7ad70e5fe30b

SER Brewer v. Starcher

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

SER Brewer v. Starcher Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1995 Term _________ No. 22966 _________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. IRA MICHAEL BREWER II, Relator V. HONORABLE LARRY V. STARCHER, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONONGALIA COUNTY, AND SUSAN TUCKER, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR MONONGALIA COUNTY, Respondents _____________________________________________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION Writ Granted as Moulded _____________________________________________________ Submitted: September 12, 1995 Filed: October 27, 1995 James B. Zimarowski Morgantown, West Virginia Attorney for Relator Daniel DeBiase Assistant Prosecuting Attorney of Monongalia County Morgantown, West Virginia Attorney for Respondents JUSTICE CLECKLEY delivered the Opinion of the Court. RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER sitting by temporary assignment. JUSTICE ALBRIGHT did not participate. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1.Cases involving plea agreements allegedly breached by either the prosecution or the circuit court present two separate issues for appellate consideration: one factual and the other legal. First, the factual findings that undergird a circuit court's ultimate determination are reviewed only for clear error. These are the factual questions as to what the terms of the agreement were and what was the conduct of the defendant, prosecution, and the circuit court. If disputed, the factual questions are to be resolved initially by the circuit court, and these factual determinations are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Second, in contrast, the circuit court's articulation and application of legal principles is scrutinized under a less deferential standard. It is a legal question whether specific conduct complained about breached the plea agreement. Therefore, whether the disputed conduct constitutes a breach is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. 2.There is no absolute right under either the West Virginia or the United States Constitutions to plea bargain. Therefore, a circuit court does not have to accept every constitutionally valid guilty plea merely because a defendant wishes so to plead. 3. Although the parties in criminal proceedings have broad discretion in negotiating the terms and conditions of a plea agreement, this discretion must be permissible under the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, the decision whether to accept or reject a plea agreement is vested almost exclusively with the circuit court. 4.Once a circuit court unconditionally accepts on the record a plea agreement under Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, the circuit court is without authority to vacate the plea and order reinstatement of the original charge. Furthermore, after a defendant is sentenced on the record in open court, unilateral modification of the sentencing decision by the circuit court is not an option contemplated within Rule 11(e)(1)(C). 5.A circuit court has no authority to vacate or modify, sua sponte, a validly accepted guilty plea under Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure because of subsequent events that do not impugn the validity of the original plea agreement. 6.If proven, a charge of fraud or misrepresentation poses a serious threat to the integrity of judicial proceedings. Therefore, the "fraud exception" is adopted as a necessary rule to enhance the administration of justice. This exception is aimed at penalizing deceitful behavior engaged in during the negotiating of a plea agreement, in its presentation to the court, or in its execution by the defendant. 7. As provided by Rule 11(h) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, a violation of Rule 11 does not necessarily require automatic reversal or vacatur. Rather, when an defendant claims that a circuit court failed to comply with Rule 11, a straightforward, two-step harmless error analysis must be conducted: (1) Did the circuit court in fact vary from the procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, did such variance affect substantial rights of the defendant? 8.There are two possible remedies for a broken plea agreement - specific performance of the plea agreement or permitting the defendant to withdraw his plea. A major factor in choosing the appropriate remedy is the prejudice caused to the defendant. Cleckley, Justice: In this original proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition, the relator requests that we prohibit the respondent, The Honorable Larry V. Starcher, Judge of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County,See footnote 1 from adding any additional terms to the aforementioned plea agreement negotiated under Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure.See footnote 2 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The relator, Ira Michael Brewer II, was indicted by a Monongalia County Grand Jury on one count of unlawful assault and on a second count of wanton endangerment involving a firearm. The events relating to the underlying indictment involve a late night brawl at a bar with the relator and his brother on one side and between two and nine other individuals on the other side. There were allegations that a number of weapons were brandished during the fight. During this altercation, the relator purportedly fired a gun, injuring Gary Croston. Although the facts and the relator's actual role during the event were greatly in dispute, the relator and the State decided the best course of action was to negotiate a plea agreement. A binding plea agreement was negotiated pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the agreement, the relator agreed to plead guilty to the felony charge of wanton endangerment involving a firearm. In return for the relator's plea, the State agreed to dismiss the first count of the indictment charging unlawful assault, also a felony. Additionally, the State agreed it would nolle prosequi the two count indictment charging the relator's brother, Jeffrey Scott Brewer, with aiding and abetting both felonies. The plea agreement also indicated that the maximum sentence the relator would receive would be one year in the county jail and a possible fine. The relator agreed to make restitution for all medically related expenses of the victim. The State also agreed not to oppose a work release program for the relator provided the relator made a good faith effort to "cooperate with law enforcement agencies to be specified at a later date." Following a hearing on March 15, 1995, the respondent entered an order dated March 16, 1995. According to the written plea order, the respondent noted a plea agreement was negotiated with and proposed to the relator, the relator knowingly and willingly entered into the agreement, and the relator understood "that the final decision as to the sentence ... [was] the Court's." The order indicated that during the hearing on the preceding day the respondent "then permitted the parties to execute in open Court the written plea agreement[.]" A sentencing hearing was held on April 14, 1995. At this hearing, the respondent again followed the specifications of the plea agreement and sentenced the relator to one year in the county jail and a fine of $2,500 plus the costs and expenses of the proceeding. The respondent also ordered the relator would be eligible for work release provided he was able to maintain a job. The relator's income from work release was then supposed to be sent directly to the circuit clerk who would divide the relator's salary and pay half for restitution and return the remainder to the relator for his maintenance. Following this hearing, the State prepared the written sentencing order. This proposed order mirrored the respondent's oral order during the April 14, 1995, hearing. However, the respondent rejected the proposed order and sent another written order that ultimately modified the prior plea agreement. The second written order kept the earlier terms of the plea agreement, but ordered the relator to pay $5,000 for the pain and suffering of the victim in addition to the $2,500 fine (plus costs) and the restitution for the medical expenses of the victim. Moreover, the order provided that the circuit clerk would apply fifty percent, but not less than $400 of the relator's salary towards restitution for the victim. A subsequent hearing was held on May 2, 1995, to address issues arising from the second written order. The respondent gave the relator three options: (1) withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial upon the original charges; (2) approve the order as amended by the respondent with the additional $5,000 for pain and suffering; or (3) "[t]ake the disputed issued (sic) raised by the . . . [relator] to the W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals." In an order dated May 18, 1995, after describing the events of the May 2, 1995, hearing, the respondent noted that if the relator chose the first option, the trial would be scheduled for as soon as practicable; if the second option was chosen, then relator's counsel should signify acceptance by initialling the order; and if the third option was chosen, then the order modifying the plea agreement would be entered, but the relator's exceptions would be preserved. The relator then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with this Court and a rule to show cause was issued returnable September 12, 1995. II. DISCUSSION In this original action, the relator seeks to prohibit the respondent from vacating his initial plea and sentencing order. In support of the issuance of a writ of prohibition, the relator asserts that (1) the inclusion of the $5,000 for pain and suffering violated both the binding plea agreement created under Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (2) the respondent violated the relator's procedural due process rights by unilaterally imposing the additional $5,000 in damages without providing a hearing and without having the relator and his counsel present at the time the sentencing modification was made. A. Standard of Review Our cases have not been explicit as to whether the appropriate standard of review is de novo or the more deferential standard of clear error or abuse of discretion when a criminal defendant claims a breach of a plea agreement. We take this opportunity to clarify the appropriate standard of review and to explain why the two standards in the context of a plea agreement are not necessarily in conflict. Appellate review often calls into play a blend of rules. Indeed, cases involving plea agreements allegedly breached by either the prosecution or the circuit court present two separate issues for consideration: one factual and the other legal. First, the factual findings that undergird a circuit court's ultimate determination are reviewed only for clear error. These are the factual questions as to what the terms of the agreement were and what was the conduct of the defendant, the prosecution, and the circuit court. If disputed, factual questions are to be resolved initially by the circuit court, and these factual determinations will be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Farley, 192 W.Va. 247, 452 S.E.2d 50 (1994). See also Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, ___ W. Va. ___, 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995). Second, in contrast, a circuit court's articulation and application of legal principles is scrutinized under a less deferential standard. See Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, supra. It is a legal question whether specific contested conduct breaches a plea agreement. Therefore, whether the disputed conduct constitutes a breach is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. The solicitude extended by a reviewing court takes into account the fact that a circuit judge, who has first-hand exposure to the litigants and the evidence in a particular case, is in a considerably better position to bring the scales of justice into balance than an appellate tribunal. State ex rel. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Canady, ___ W.Va. ___, 460 S.E.2d 677 (1995). However, to the extent that findings of fact can be shown to have been predicated upon or induced by errors of law, they will be accorded diminished respect on appeal. Burnside v. Burnside, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 460 S.E.2d 264, 267 (1995). For the most part, in the case sub judice, we are not faced with disputed facts and our initial task is to determine only the legal question of whether the respondent's conduct constitutes a breach of the plea agreement. Therefore, our review is de novo. B. Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure The crux of the issue before us is under what circumstances the provisions of a plea agreement entered under Rule 11(e)(1)(C) (C-type agreements) may be modified once the agreement is judicially accepted and the defendant is sentenced in open court. The relator argues the respondent impermissibly altered the binding plea agreement created pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C) by sua sponte adding as restitution an additional $5,OOO in damages for pain and suffering.See footnote 3 The respondent asserts he was entitled to modify the decree because: "(1) After giving due consideration to the uncertain nature of the victim's wishes, and the fact that a handgun was involved, Respondent became dissatisfied with the plea agreement; and (2) The parties' lack of candor and inaccurate representations, regarding the existence and disposition of sexual offense charges against the ... [Relator] in the other division of the Court, led Respondent to view the plea agreement as being inadequate." We begin our analysis with the observation that there is no absolute right under either the West Virginia or the United States Constitution to plea bargain. To this end, we have noted that a defendant has "no constitutional right to have his case disposed of by way of a plea bargain[.]" See Myers v. Frazier, 173 W.Va. 658, 664 n.5, 319 S.E.2d 782 , 788 n. 5 (1984). Therefore, a circuit court need not accept every constitutionally valid guilty plea merely because a defendant wishes to plead. Writing for the United States Supreme Court in Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 , 507, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 2546, 81 L. Ed. 2d 437, 442 (1984), Justice Stevens reasoned that "[a] plea bargain standing alone is without constitutional significance; in itself it is a mere executory agreement which, until embodied in the judgment of a court, does not deprive an accused of liberty or any other constitutionally protected interest." Although parties in criminal proceedings have broad discretion in negotiating the terms and conditions of a plea agreement, this discretion must be permissible under the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, the decision whether to accept or reject a plea agreement is vested almost exclusively with the experienced men and women who preside at the circuit court level. See Tucker v. Holland, 174 W.Va. 409, 416, 327 S.E.2d 388 , 396 (1985) (Rule 11 "'gives a trial court discretion to refuse a plea bargain.'" (Citation omitted)). We say "almost" because all plea agreements must be constitutionally acceptable and in compliance with procedural rules this Court mandates. See State v. Whitt, 183 W.Va. 286, 290, 395 S.E.2d 530 , 534 (1990) ("trial judge has discretion to refuse a plea bargain agreement if he [or she] follows the procedure prescribed by the rules governing plea agreement procedure"). See also State v. Guthrie, 173 W.Va. 290, 315 S.E.2d 397 (1984); State ex rel. Roark v. Casey, 169 W.Va. 280, 286 S.E.2d 702 (1982). Thus, a circuit court's discretion is not unlimited. As a general proposition, we believe that a circuit court's unilateral modification of a specific and judicially accepted plea agreement presents a clear violation of Rule 11 and creates serious implications for the everyday business of a circuit court. Today's enunciation of the appropriate legal interpretation of Rule 11 is intended to avoid future repetition. We next set out the analytical framework for our decision. In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 499, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427, 433 (1971), the United States Supreme Court declared that "when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement ... so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled." Because a plea agreement requires a defendant to waive fundamental rights, we are compelled to hold prosecutors and courts to the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance. As a matter of criminal jurisprudence, a plea agreement is subject to principles of contract law insofar as its application insures a defendant receives that to which he is reasonably entitled. See generally State ex rel. Rogers v. Steptoe, 177 W.Va. 6, 350 S.E.2d 7 (1986) (agreement was enforceable because defendant performed everything required of him). Thus, when a defendant enters into a plea agreement with the prosecution, the circuit court must ensure the defendant receives what is reasonably due him under the agreement. If the defendant lives up to his end of the bargain, the circuit court and the prosecutor are bound by their promises. It is obvious the circuit court in this case unilaterally attempted to modify the binding plea agreement in question. It is equally clear that the binding nature of the plea agreement was a significant factor in the relator's decision to accept the agreement. By unilaterally modifying the terms of the agreement, unless justified under the fraud exception discussed below, the respondent significantly and deliberately breached the agreement. It is a defendant's rights which are violated when a plea agreement, after being accepted by a circuit court, is broken. It must again be emphasized that in exchange for a plea agreement a defendant waives important rights. He offers that waiver in exchange for the actual sentence or impact on the judge. Where he fails to get the benefit of that promise, the waiver is ineffective. Although we review the alleged breach under principles of contract law, we must determine under our Rules of Criminal Procedure whether any exceptions exist that justify the respondent's retreat from his commitment and promise to abide by the plea agreement. The procedures associated with a circuit court's role in the plea agreement process are found in Rule 11(e). Under this rule, defendants and prosecutors are permitted to engage in plea bargaining. Rule 11(e)(1)(A)-(D) lists four sentencing options a prosecutor may choose to use in negotiating for a particular plea. They vary from a simple sentence recommendation by a prosecutor to an agreed upon sentence.See footnote 4 Specifically, a prosecutor may: (1) move to dismiss some charges, (2) recommend a sentence or agree not to oppose a sentence, (3) agree to a specific sentence, or (4) agree not to seek additional indictments or informations about past known criminal activity. Once an agreement has been formulated, it must be presented to the circuit court for approval. A circuit court, however, is under no obligation to accept a plea. See Syl. pt. 2, in part, Myers v. Frazier, supra ("'West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11, gives a trial court discretion to refuse a plea bargain.'" (citation omitted)). Thus, a circuit court may properly reject a plea agreement based on undue leniency, including the failure of the plea agreement to provide for restitution. If a plea agreement is approved, the type and nature of the plea agreement control whether a circuit court has the discretion to impose a sentence inconsistent with that specified in the agreement. If a sentence is specified in a plea agreement pursuant to either Rule 11(e)(1)(A) or Rule 11(e)(1)(C), then a circuit court must apply the sentence included in the agreement. Indeed, the whole design of an agreement under Rule 11(e)(1)(C) is to control sentencing. The plea agreement in this case was clearly a C-type agreement. The text of the agreement explicitly provided that it had been negotiated under Rule 11(e)(1)(C). Moreover, the fact that the parties agreed to a specific disposition rather than a sentencing recommendation is a clear indication that the parties intended to negotiate a C-type agreement. When a C-type agreement is involved, a circuit court has only three options: (1) accept the agreement; (2) reject the agreement; or (3) defer a decision pending a presentence investigation.See footnote 5 See Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Forbes v. Kaufman, 185 W. Va. 72, 404 S.E.2d 763 (1991) (discussing the ramifications of proposing a sentencing agreement under W.Va.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1)(C)). Furthermore, a circuit court "may not accept the guilty plea and impose a different sentence." Syl. pt. 2, in part, State ex rel. Forbes v. Kaufman, supra. See also U.S. v. Aguilar, 884 F.Supp. 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). Once a circuit court unconditionally accepts on the record a C-type agreement, the circuit court is without authority to vacate the plea and order reinstatement of the original charge. Furthermore, after a defendant is sentenced on the record in open court, unilateral modification of the sentencing decision by the circuit court is not an option contemplated within this rule. When a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, the status of the plea agreement should not have to be implied. This interpretation flows inexorably from the straightforward language of Rule 11, which mandates that at the time a plea is offered a circuit court shall indicate on the record whether it will accept the plea, reject it, or defer the decision. See W.Va.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(2); 8 Robert M. Cipes, Moore's Federal Practice ¶11.05[2] at 11-90 (Revised 1994). Additionally, once a circuit court accepts the plea agreement, it is required under Rule 11(e)(3) to tell the defendant the disposition provided for in the agreement will be incorporated in the judgment and sentence. "This serves the purpose of informing the defendant immediately that the agreement will be implemented." Fed.R.Crim. P. 11 advisory committee note, 1974 Amendment.See footnote 6 If the circuit court made its acceptance predicated on facts known to it, but indicated to the parties the need to review the presentence report, then the relator would be entitled to no relief. See Syl. pt. 14, Myers v. Frazier, supra; United States ex rel. Selikoff v. Commissioner of Corrections, 524 F.2d 650, 653 n.1 (2nd Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 1725, 48 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1976). But once the agreement was accepted, thereby binding the prosecution and the defendant, the respondent lost his broad discretion to reject the agreement and vacate the plea. Obviously, if a circuit court is free to accept or reject a plea agreement at any time, there would be no need to include deferral as an option.See footnote 7 As we will discuss later, there is no reasonable dispute in this case that the circuit court accepted the guilty plea and that the bargain for predicate, a binding and specific sentence, was set out on the record and was accepted as well. As of the time the respondent accepted the plea agreement in open court and clearly when the respondent announced a sentence consistent with the plea agreement, the bargain was sealed and the agreement became binding.See footnote 8 There exists no authority under these circumstances, short of fraud on the court, that permits a circuit court to change its mind as to the wisdom of the agreement and to refuse to enforce it. See Lombrano v. Superior Court, 124 Ariz. 525, 606 P.2d 15 (1980) (because the acceptance of defendant's guilty plea places him or her in jeopardy, a circuit court may not sua sponte set aside the plea); People v. Matthews, 71 A.D.2d 864, 419 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1979) (in the absence of fraud, a plea agreement cannot be set aside); People v. Damsky, 47 A.D.2d 822, ___, 366 N.Y.S.2d 113, 114 (1975) (trial court is without power "to withdraw a defendant's plea of guilt"). Plea bargaining is "an essential component of the administration of justice" Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. at 260, 92 S.Ct. at 498, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 432, and the requirement of Rule 11 that a circuit court make a definite announcement of acceptance, rejection, or deferral of its decision concerning the plea agreement is indispensable to a criminal justice system so heavily dependent on the plea agreement process. See United States v. Burruezo, 704 F.2d 33, 38 (2nd Cir. 1983); United States v. Herrera, 640 F.2d 958, 960-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting the trial court's acceptance or rejection plays a critical role in the plea agreement process); United States v. Thomas, 580 F.2d 1036, 1037 (10th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1130, 99 S. Ct. 1051, 59 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1979) (treating a promise "'on behalf of the judiciary'" the same as a promise by the government. (Citation omitted)). If only the prosecutor and the defendant were bound by a judicially accepted plea agreement and not the judge, it would substantially reduce the advantage of plea bargaining and thereby dilute the incentive for a defendant to plead guilty.See footnote 9 A circuit court's faithful observance of the requirements of Rule 11 is just as vital to the fairness and efficiency of the criminal process as the prosecutor's. A circuit court not only must insure the agreement is understood by a defendant, but has an equal obligation to satisfy itself that the terms of the agreement are adhered to by both sides, as well as the court itself.See footnote 10 To resolve any doubt, we hold today that a circuit court has no authority to vacate or modify, sua sponte, a validly accepted guilty plea under Rule 11(e)(1)(C) because of subsequent events that do not impugn the validity of the original plea agreement. Our decision is in accord with the vast majority of jurisdictions that have considered this issue.See footnote 11 In United States v. Blackwell, 224 U.S. App. D.C. 350, 362, 694 F.2d 1325, 1338 (1982), the court stated with abundant clarity that once a plea is accepted under Rule 11, a circuit court lacks authority to repudiate a plea agreement unless the facts of the case fit within one narrow exception of fraud on the court: "Although, as pointed out in Santobello ... there is 'no absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted,' and '[a] court may reject a plea in exercise of sound judicial discretion,' once a judge has accepted a plea and bound the defendant to it, [he or] she cannot, except possibly for fraud, refuse to carry through on the bargain." (Citation omitted). As stated previously, the respondent advances two reasons why his effort to modify the plea agreement and the subsequent withdrawal of the guilty plea were not an infringement of the policy and rights protected under Rule 11: (1) after reviewing the facts, the respondent gave more weight to the use of a handgun and the vacillation of the victim and the victim's family; and (2) the possibility that the parties and counsel misrepresented facts to the respondent regarding another pending charge. Only the second reason raises a concern to this Court. If the sole reason for the modification of the plea agreement was based on information that existed at the time of sentencing or was contained in the presentence report, such a modification or vacatur of the plea is particularly inappropriate.See footnote 12 See U.S. v. Holman, 728 F.2d 809 (6th Cir. 1984), superseded by statute as stated in U.S. v. Kemper, 908 F.2d 33 (6th Cir. 1990). It must be remembered that Rule 11 expressly grants a circuit court the right to defer its decision on the plea agreement until it acquires additional information necessary for an intelligent decision. Thus, if the circuit court desired more information or to see the presentence report in making its decision, it should have expressly deferred its decision at the time the plea was offered. As stated earlier, the respondent may not simply change his mind on the basis of information already before him or which is contained in the presentence report, at least where that information reveals less than fraud. On the other hand, if proven, a charge of fraud or misrepresentation poses a serious threat to the integrity of judicial proceedings. For that reason, we adopt and apply the "fraud exception" as a necessary rule to enhance the administration of justice.See footnote 13 This exception "is aimed at penalizing deceitful behavior engaged in during the negotiating of the plea agreement, in its presentation to the [circuit] court, or in its execution by the defendant." U.S. v. Blackwell, 224 U.S. App. D.C. at 364 n.18, 694 F.2d at 1338 n.18. See Hamlin v. Barrett, 335 So. 2d 898 (Miss. 1976) (defendant deliberately concealed prior felony when questioned by the judge at the time plea accepted for promise of probation). It is obvious to us that we do not have a full and complete record on this issue, and it is necessary to remand this issue to the circuit court for a more complete factual development of the matter. For the reasons discussed below, we find it necessary to appoint another judge to conduct the hearing. Although there may be times when a judge may change his mind after accepting a guilty plea without violating the rights of a defendant, the judge must do so within the framework of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Even if fraud on the circuit court had been clearly shown, we believe the respondent's attempt to modify his sentencing decision and to impose that modification on the relator resulted in impermissible participation in plea negotiations.See footnote 14 If fraud on the court existed, the respondent's only choice when he was preparing the written order was to either accept or reject the agreement. The respondent's attempt to modify the agreement, even a modest modification, and to impose the new conditions on the defendant, constitutes a clear violation of the prohibition against judicial involvement in plea bargaining contained in Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11(e) advises that attorneys for the State and the defendant "may engage in [plea] discussions with a view toward reaching an agreement[,]" but the rule concludes with the admonition that "[t]he court shall not participate in any such discussions." As we recently interpreted, this provision is a bright-line rule. See Syl. pt. 8, State v. Sugg, 193 W. Va. 388, 456 S.E.2d 469 (1995) (the unambiguous mandate of Rule 11 prohibits the participation of the judge in plea negotiations under any circumstances; it is a rule that admits of no exceptions). Judicial involvement with plea bargaining casts doubt over the entire process. "The primary concern of those who would dissociate the judge from the plea bargaining process ... [is] that judicial intervention may coerce that defendant into an involuntary plea he would not otherwise enter." United States v. Werker, 535 F.2d 198, 201-02 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Santos-Figueroa v. U.S., 429 U.S. 926, 97 S.Ct. 330, 50 L. Ed. 2d 296 (1976). The prohibition on court participation in plea negotiations in Rule 11 "is designed to totally eliminate judicial pressure from the plea bargaining process." United States v. Corbitt, 996 F.2d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 1993). As this Court noted in State v. Sugg, 193 W. Va. at ___, 456 S.E.2d at 487-88, there are many reasons for this strict prohibition: "First and foremost, it serves to diminish the possibility of judicial coercion of a guilty plea, regardless of whether the coercion would cause an involuntary, unconstitutional plea. Second, such involvement is likely to impair the trial court's impartiality. A judge who suggests or encourages a particular plea bargain may feel a personal stake in the agreement and, therefore, may resent a defendant who rejects his advice. Third, judicial participation in plea discussions creates a misleading impression of the judge's role in the proceedings. As a result of his participation, the judge is no longer a judicial officer or a neutral arbiter. Rather, he becomes or seems to become an advocate for the resolution he suggests to the defendant. For these reasons, Rule 11(e)(1) draws a bright-line prohibiting judicial participation in plea negotiations." The respondent's conduct and statements in the instant case, while falling far short both as to degree and content in comparison with what was alleged in Sugg, nonetheless crossed the line into the realm of participation.See footnote 15 We need not make an evaluation of the degree of judicial participation in this case because the modified order that was later proposed by the circuit court was rejected. Although it is clear the circuit court claimed the modified order was motivated because of the interest of the victim, Rule 11(e) requires that this concern, when embodied in a specific sentence proposal, however well- intentioned,See footnote 16 be addressed by someone other than the judge before whom the defendant pled guilty and was sentenced. Finding a violation of this rule does not end our inquiry. As provided by Rule 11(h), a violation of Rule 11 does not necessarily require automatic reversal or vacatur. Rather, when a defendant claims that a circuit court failed to comply with Rule 11, a straightforward, two-step "harmless error" analysis must be conducted: (1) Did the circuit court in fact vary from the procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, did such variance affect substantial rights of the defendant? Having answered the first question, we must proceed to the second. There are two possible remedies for a broken plea agreement - specific performance of the plea agreement or permitting the defendant to withdraw his plea. See State v. Conley, 168 W.Va. 694, 285 S.E.2d 454 (1981); State ex rel. Clancy v. Coiner, 154 W.Va. 857, 179 S.E.2d 726 (1971). See also Santobello, 404 U.S. at 263, 92 S.Ct. at 499, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 433 (noting there are two ways to remedy a breach of a plea agreement: giving the defendant "the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty" or "specific performance of the agreement)."See footnote 17 Of course, a major factor in choosing the appropriate remedy is the prejudice caused to the defendant. See State v. Hodges, 172 W.Va. 322, 305 S.E.2d 278 (1983); State ex rel. Simpkins v. Harvey, 172 W.Va. 312, 305 S.E.2d 268 (1983), superseded by statute as stated in State ex rel. Hagg v. Spillers, 181 W. Va. 387, 382 S.E.2d 581 (1989); Brooks v. Narick, 161 W.Va. 415, 243 S.E.2d 841 (1978); United States v. Delegal, 678 F.2d 47 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Runck, 601 F.2d 968 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1015, 100 S.Ct. 665, 62 L. Ed. 2d 644 (1980). In Holman, the court placed this issue in its proper context: "If breach of an agreement calling for a specific sentence forces a defendant to proceed to trial, and the trial results in a greater sentence than the one involved in the agreement, then the prejudice would be clear. Delegal, 678 F.2d at 52. If Holman had elected to go to trial, and received a sentence greater than the one year and one day, the only appropriate remedy would be specific performance of the agreement." 728 F.2d at 813. As stated previously, in the case sub judice, the respondent offered the relator three choices. The relator chose to institute this action. Upon remand, the circuit court must determine whether there were substantial misrepresentations made to the respondent during the previous hearing sufficient enough to constitute fraud on the court. If so, the circuit court must permit the relator the option to withdraw his guilty plea. If the circuit court concludes that the evidence is insufficient to constitute fraud on the court, the circuit court is directed to sentence the defendant as specified in the plea agreement.See footnote 18 If that is done, the relator will obtain all he and the prosecutor say he was promised. III. CONCLUSION For the aforesaid reasons, the writ of prohibition requested by the relator is granted as moulded.See footnote 19 The case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Inasmuch as this Court has determined that the actions of the respondent have caused him to become involved in plea negotiations, we find the respondent is disqualified. On remand, the circuit clerk should reassign this matter to the Honorable Robert Stone, Judge of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, for any additional proceedings on this matter. Writ granted as moulded. Footnote: 1 Although two respondents are listed, we use the term "respondent" in referring only to the circuit judge. Footnote: 2 Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: "In General. -- The attorney for the state and the attorney for the defendant or the defendant when acting pro se may engage in discussions with a view toward reaching an agreement that, upon the entering of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charged offense or to a lesser or related offense, the attorney for the state will do any of the following: *** "(C) Agreement that a specific sentence is the appropriate disposition of the case[.]" Footnote: 3 This case is quite unique in that both the relator and the assistant prosecuting attorney who handled this case below argue that the relator is entitled to relief because the respondent violated the clear provisions of Rule 11.Footnote: 4 See note 2 for the text of Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.Footnote: 5 A circuit court may opt for the latter only if the defendant consents to a review of the presentence report. See W.Va.R.Crim.P. 32(c). Footnote: 6 Even where a circuit court fails to make known the status of the agreement, the implication is that the court accepted the agreement in its entirety. See United States v. Holman, 728 F.2d 809, 812 (6th Cir. 1984), superseded by statute as stated in U.S. v. Kemper, 908 F.2d 33 (6th Cir. 1990). In other words, where this failure requires an implication as to what was intended, the implication must be construed against the circuit court because the court possessed control over clarity. Footnote: 7 Rule 11 seems clear. If a plea is accepted, the circuit court does not announce any deferral of that acceptance, and the defendant adheres to the terms of the agreement, all parties to the agreement are bound. Although the rule does permit deferral of the decision to accept or reject the plea, usually for the purpose of reviewing a presentence report, the mere postponement of sentencing itself to a future date does not authorize the circuit court to remake or vacate the plea agreement for whatever reasons may later seem appropriate. Footnote: 8 Even though no written order was accepted by the relator and the prosecution and signed by the respondent, the oral order from the April 14 hearing is still viewed as binding. Prior case law consistently indicates that a judge speaks through his or her written orders. Although written orders are a convenient method of ascertaining finality, they are not sacrosanct. Clearly, statutory mandates requiring disclosure in open court of all elements of a plea agreement take precedence. See W.Va.R.Crim.P. 11(g) (requiring that a "verbatim record of the proceedings" must be made concerning a plea agreement). Rule 11 is the controlling rule in a plea agreement situation and permitting later written modifications of a plea accepted in open court will violate this rule. As noted by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Gonzalez, 918 F.2d 1129, 1133 (3rd Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom., Caba v. U.S., 499 U.S. 1107, 111 S. Ct. 1015, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1097; cert. denied sub nom., Vazquez v. U.S., 499 U.S. 968, 111 S. Ct. 1604, 113 L. Ed. 2d 667; cert. denied, Gonzales v. U.S., 499 U.S. 982, 111 S. Ct. 1697, 113 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1991), "[i]t is axiomatic that a plea agreement is neither binding nor enforceable until it is accepted in open court." Footnote: 9 In Dotson v. State, 321 Md. 515, 518, 583 A.2d 710, 711 (1991), the Maryland Court of Appeals stressed the importance of promoting certainty in plea agreements: "'We recognized the importance of this "certainty" aspect of plea bargaining, and the adverse effect its loss would have on the process. . . . "If the prosecutor cannot rely upon the plea bargain, the potential 'chilling effect' upon the very institution of plea bargaining could be devastating." . . . Similar results could ensue if the defendant were unable to rely upon the bargain.'" (Citations omitted).Footnote: 10 The purpose of Rule 11's insistence is that there be a public record of the terms of the plea agreement. Rule 11(g) requires that "[a] verbatim record of the proceedings at which the defendant enters a plea shall be made and, if there is a plea of guilty ... the record shall include, without limitation, the court's advice to the defendant, the inquiry into voluntariness of the plea, including any plea agreement, and the inquiry into the accuracy of a guilty plea." Footnote: 11 This Court in Myers, supra, listed the following cases, both for and against the notion that a circuit court may initially accept and then reject a plea agreement: U.S. v. Blackwell, 224 U.S. App. D.C. 350, 694 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1982); U.S. v. Cruz, 709 F.2d 111 (1st Cir. 1983); U.S. v. Burruezo, supra; U.S. v. Holman, supra; U.S. v. Runck, 601 F.2d 968 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1015, 100 S. Ct. 665, 62 L. Ed. 2d 644 (1980); Banks v. State, 56 Md. App. 38, 466 A.2d 69 (1983). Compare Dolchok v. State, 639 P.2d 277 (Alaska 1982); Reaves v. State, 417 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. App. 1982); Barker v. State, 259 So. 2d 200 (Fla. App. 1972); State v. Wenzel, 306 N.W.2d 769 (Iowa 1981); People v. Dulin, 122 Mich. App. 382, 332 N.W.2d 492 (1983). Unlike the present case, all the cases listed above involved a lower court rejecting a plea agreement during the sentencing hearing.Footnote: 12 Under Rules 11 and 32 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a circuit court cannot use this information in its initial decision to accept or reject a plea unless it has obtained the defendant's consent. If a circuit court were entitled to vacate a previously accepted plea agreement, based on information contained in the presentence report, there would be no reason to obtain the defendant's consent to use the report during its initial consideration of the plea agreement. Footnote: 13 It cannot be gainsaid that a court asked to dispense equitable remediation should give serious consideration to the interest of the public in maintaining the highest amount of integrity in criminal proceedings. Here, the circuit court purportedly found the public interest would be disserved unless restitution was granted. It is "old hat" that a court called upon to do equity should always consider whether the requesting party has acted with clean hands and in good faith. Although the respondent found misrepresentation, he did so only after a unilateral modification in the order was challenged. Thus, the relator argues before this Court that the proffered justifications for the modification were disingenuous. The record before us is simply inadequate for an appellate determination of the fraud issue. On remand, this issue must be resolved by a neutral and detached trier of fact.Footnote: 14 The relator conceded during arguments that he did not preserve the issue of judicial participation below. In our recent decision of State v. Miller, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 459 S.E.2d 114, 128 (1995), we adopted the federal standard for determining "plain error." We believe that judicial participation in plea negotiation is so inherently dangerous, an appellate court should raise the issue sua sponte and order appropriate relief. See also United States v. Corbitt, 996 F.2d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 1993) ("Judicial participation [in plea discussions] is plain error, and the defendant need not show actual prejudice"). Footnote: 15 The commentary to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and our previous decisions make it clear that the circuit court is expected to take an active role in evaluating a plea agreement once it is disclosed. This evaluation may include a consideration of the punishment allowable under the agreement, as compared to the punishment appropriate for the defendant's conduct as a whole. Therefore, any such comments made during a discussion of the effects of a plea agreement properly presented to the circuit court do not constitute improper participation in violation of Rule 11. On the other hand, although a circuit court may state its reasons for rejecting a plea agreement, it may not also suggest a plea agreement that would be acceptable. When a circuit court goes beyond providing reasons for rejecting a plea agreement presented and comments or otherwise makes known what it would accept, the court crosses the line established by Rule 11 and becomes involved in the negotiations. Footnote: 16 We do not disagree with the respondent's desire to protect victims in cases of serious crimes. In Syllabus Point 5, in part, of Myers v. Frazier, supra, we stated "that consideration must be given not only to the general public's perception that crimes should be prosecuted, but to the interests of the victim as well." In Tucker v. Holland, 174 W.Va. at 417, 327 S.E.2d at 396, we explicitly stated that a circuit court may reject a plea agreement solely on the basis that "restitution had not been resolved[.]" Our decision today merely requires compliance with the mandatory rules for conducting court business, especially when those rules embody within them notions of due process. Footnote: 17 We also recognize that, in unusual circumstances, upon remand by an appellate court, a circuit court may craft other remedies such as imposing a specific sentence because such sentence is the only just remedy and the only one which could now approximate specific performance of the agreement. Footnote: 18 While the choice of remedy is normally left to the discretion of the sentencing court, see Santobello, 404 U.S. at 263, 92 S.Ct. at 499, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 433, this Court has repeatedly expressed a preference for specific performance of the agreement rather than vacating the plea. See generally Sellers v. Broadwater, 176 W.Va. 232, 342 S.E.2d 198 (1986); State v. Ball, 175 W.Va. 652, 337 S.E.2d 310 (1985). Footnote: 19 The relator also contends the respondent erred by including $5,000 for pain and suffering because the Victim's Protection Act of 1994 encompassed in W.Va. Code, 61-11A-1, et seq., does not provide for pain and suffering as a form of damages recoverable from the relator. We agree. The Victim's Protection Act permits a circuit court to order restitution in certain situations. W.Va. Code, 61-11A-4(2), states that a court may order restitution "(2) In the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim "(A) Pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric and psychological care, including nonmedical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law of the place of treatment; "(B) Pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation; and "(C) Reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense[.]" Nothing in this statute suggests a circuit court may order restitution for anything but specific medical costs. Although restitution for pain and suffering may be necessary and beneficial to the well being of the victim, a circuit court may not order this form of restitution under the Victim's Protection Act of 1994. The victim is not precluded, however, from filing an independent civil action to recover additional damages.

81dbf008751bedda9b159833361b7fe67a23a112d9f382cd1bbc40977cfe4354

1995-10-27 00:00:00

c496a085-7e05-47a2-abe7-56470281e1d6

Lawrence v. Carolyn M.

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Lawrence v. Carolyn M. Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA JANUARY 1995 Term _________ NO. 22545 _________ JAMES M.B. AND LAWRENCE E.B., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants V. CAROLYN M. AND WILLIAM M., Defendants Below, Appellees __________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County Honorable Charles E. McCarty, Judge Civil Action No. 92-C-245 DISMISSED ____________________________________________________________ Submitted: January 11, 1995 Filed: February 17, 1995 James M.B. Pro Se David R. Karr Ravenswood, West Virginia Attorney for Appellees JUSTICE CLECKLEY DELIVERED the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE BROTHERTON did not participate. JUDGE FOX sitting by temporary assignment. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. A court of limited appellate jurisdiction is obliged to examine its own power to hear a particular case. This Court's jurisdictional authority is either endowed by the West Virginia Constitution or conferred by the West Virginia Legislature. Therefore, this Court has a responsibility sua sponte to examine the basis of its own jurisdiction. 2. Where neither party to an appeal raises, briefs, or argues a jurisdictional question presented, this Court has the inherent power and duty to determine unilaterally its authority to hear a particular case. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court directly or indirectly where it is otherwise lacking. 3. Under W.Va. Code, 58-5-1 (1925), appeals only may be taken from final decisions of a circuit court. A case is final only when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution of what has been determined. 4. Rule 59(e) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure provides the procedure for a party who seeks to change or revise a judgment entered as a result of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. 5. "A motion to amend or alter judgment, even though it is incorrectly denominated as a motion to 'reconsider', 'vacate', 'set aside', or 'reargue' is a Rule 59(e) motion if filed and served with ten days of entry of judgment." Syllabus Point 1, Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W.Va. 197, 423 S.E.2d 600 (1992). 6. "Calling a Rule 59(e) motion a motion to 'reconsider', 'vacate', 'set aside', or 'reargue' is confusing to a trial court, and where such motions are filed within ten days of judgment they should be correctly styled as Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend judgment." Syllabus Point 2, Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W.Va. 197, 423 S.E.2d 600 (1992). 7. A motion for reconsideration filed within ten days of judgment being entered suspends the finality of the judgment and makes the judgment unripe for appeal. When the time for appeal is so extended, its full length begins to run from the date of entry of the order disposing of the motion. Cleckley, Justice: This case is brought pro se by the plaintiffs below and appellants herein, James M.B. and Lawrence E.B.See footnote 1 The plaintiffs appeal the June 30, 1994, order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, which granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action against the defendants below and appellees herein, Carolyn M. and William M. Subsequently, on July 7, 1994, the plaintiffs filed a "motion for reconsideration" with the circuit court. The circuit court did not rule on this motion prior to the plaintiffs' filing a notice of an intent to appeal the June 30, 1994, order to this Court. As a result of the pending motion, we find the petition for appeal was improvidently granted and this appeal must be dismissed. It is, of course, axiomatic that a court of limited appellate jurisdiction is obliged to examine its own power to hear a particular case. This Court's jurisdictional authority is either endowed by the West Virginia Constitution or conferred by the West Virginia Legislature. Therefore, this Court has a responsibility sua sponte to examine the basis of its own jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L. Ed. 126 (1908). As occurred in this case, where neither party to an appeal raises, briefs, or argues the jurisdictional question presented, this Court has the inherent power and duty to determine unilaterally its authority to hear a particular case. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court directly or indirectly where it is otherwise lacking. Thus, it is irrelevant that the parties have not disputed jurisdiction. Accordingly, we address as a threshold matter whether there is an appealable order in this case. Under W.Va. Code, 58-5-1 (1925), appeals only may be taken from final decisions of a circuit court. Parkway Fuel Service, Inc. v. Pauley, 159 W.Va. 216, 219, 220 S.E.2d 439 , 441 (1975) ("W. Va. Code, 58-5-1, permits a party to a controversy to obtain an appeal ... when the matter in controversy exceeds three hundred dollars and a final judgment has been entered." (Emphasis added)). This rule, commonly referred to as the "rule of finality," is designed to prohibit "piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions which do not terminate the litigation[.]" United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., Inc., 458 U.S. 263 , 265, 102 S.Ct. 3081, 3082, 73 L. Ed. 2d 754, 756 (1982). The requirement of finality has been called "'an historic characteristic of ... appellate procedure.'" Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 , 263, 104 S. Ct. 1051, 1053-54, 79 L. Ed. 2d 288, 293 (1984), quoting Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 , 324, 60 S.Ct. 540, 541, 84 L. Ed. 783, 785 (1940). Pertinent here, a case is final only "when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined." St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R.R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24 , 28-29, 2 S. Ct. 6, 8, 27 L. Ed. 638, 639 (1883).See footnote 2 With rare exception, the "finality rule" is mandatory and jurisdictional. Thus, to be appealable, an order must be final as discussed above, must fall within a specific class of interlocutory orders which are made appealable by statute or by the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure,See footnote 3 or must fall within a jurisprudential exception.See footnote 4 It is manifest that none of the exceptions to the final judgment rule remotely applies in this case; therefore, our discussion will address only whether there is a final appealable order. In the present case, the circuit court granted the defendants' pretrial motion to dismiss and entered an order to that effect on June 30, 1994. Rather than take an immediate appeal, the plaintiffs, within ten days of the circuit court's order, filed a "motion for reconsideration."See footnote 5 We now must determine what effect, if any, does the filing of a "motion to reconsider" have on a party's right to appeal and the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such an appeal prior to the circuit court's ruling on this motion.See footnote 6 The West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure authorize several post-trial or post-judgment motions. They are: a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) under Rule 50(b); a motion to amend the findings on which a judgment is based where a case is tried to a judge without a jury under Rule 52(b) or a motion to amend or alter a judgment under Rule 59(e); and a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a) and (b). By their plain terms, the motion for a new trial and the motion for j.n.o.v. apply only to jury trials; thus, they are not applicable to this case. In cases tried to a judge without a jury, a motion similar to a motion for a new trial may be used to set aside or revise the judgment. Therefore, Rule 59(e)See footnote 7 is applicable to situations where a party seeks to alter, amend, or revise a judgment that was entered as a result of a pretrial motion.See footnote 8 More specifically, Rule 59(e) provides the procedure for a party who seeks to change or revise a judgment entered as a result of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Although a "motion to reconsider" is nowhere explicitly authorized in the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, it has been said to be a legitimate procedural device.See footnote 9 In the present case, the "motion to reconsider" was filed within the ten-day period required for motions under Rule 59; therefore, for the reasons discussed below, we proceed as if it was a timely filed request for relief under Rule 59(e). Our decision to treat the "motion to reconsider" under Rule 59(e) is controlled by Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W.Va. 197, 423 S.E.2d 600 (1992). In Lieving, we quoted Paragraph 59.12[1] at 265-64 of 6A James W. Moore & Jo D. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice (June 1989), which states: "'In order to avoid confusion, and to prevent harsh results for unwary parties, the courts have generally held that, regardless of its label, any motion made within ten days of entry of judgment [...] will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion which suspends the finality of [the] judgment and tolls the time [to] appeal. Thus, a motion to reconsider, vacate, set aside, or reargue will ordinarily be construed as Rule 59(e) motions if made within ten days of entry of judgment.'" 188 W. Va. at 200, 423 S.E.2d at 603. (Emphasis added and footnotes omitted in Lieving). In Lieving, we concluded the reasoning behind the federal practice was sound and adopted the federal practice of considering "motions for reconsideration" as motions made under Rule 59(e) of our Rules of Civil Procedure.See footnote 10 Specifically, we stated in Syllabus Points 1 and 2 of Lieving: "1. A motion to amend or alter judgment, even though it is incorrectly denominated as a motion to 'reconsider', 'vacate', 'set aside', or 'reargue' is a Rule 59(e) motion if filed and served within ten days of entry of judgment. "2. Calling a Rule 59(e) motion a motion to 'reconsider', 'vacate', 'set aside', or 'reargue' is confusing to a trial court, and where such motions are filed within ten days of judgment they should be correctly styled as Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend judgment." Thus, in West Virginia, a "motion for reconsideration"See footnote 11 filed within ten days of judgment being entered suspends the finality of the judgment and makes the judgment unripe for appeal. Furthermore, when the time for appeal is so extended, its full length begins to run from the date of entry of the order disposing of the motion.See footnote 12 Application of these principles of appellate review produces a result entirely consistent with, and perhaps required by W.Va. Code, 58-5-1. As previously mentioned, the plaintiffs filed the "motion for reconsideration" within ten days of the circuit court's order. Applying Syllabus Points 1 and 2 of Lieving, we determine the plaintiffs' "motion for reconsideration" is actually a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Therefore, we find that, because the circuit court never ruled on the motion, the June 30, 1994, order is not a final, appealable judgment. A judgment is final only when a court hands down a judgment couched in language calculated to conclude all claims before it. We have no authority to consider an appeal except as previously discussed.See footnote 13 With no finality of the judgment, this Court has no authority to review the merits of this case.See footnote 14 For the foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice.See footnote 15 Dismissed. Footnote: 1 The merits of this case involve a paternity action. Although we do not discuss the merits of the case in this opinion, we continue to protect the identity of the individuals involved by following our traditional practice of not using last names to avoid stigmatizing the parties. See State v. Derr, W. Va. , S.E.2d (No. 22101 11/18/94); In the Matter of Browning, W. Va. , S.E.2d (No. 21863 11/18/94). Footnote: 2 The "finality rule" preserves the autonomy of the trial court by minimizing appellate interference, ensuring that the role of the appellate court will be one of review rather than one of intervention. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 , 546, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L. Ed. 1528, 1536 (1949). It furthers efficiency by providing there only will be review where the record is complete and the judgment pronounced. Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. at 263-64, 104 S. Ct. at 1054, 79 L. Ed. 2d at 293. It preserves integrity and emphasizes the importance of the harmless error doctrine by prohibiting review until an appellate court can determine whether a claimed trial error was harmless. Finally, in the civil context, the rule reduces the ability of litigants to wear down their opponents by repeated, expensive appellate proceedings.Footnote: 3 This Court may address specific issues that arise by writs of prohibition, certified questions, or by judgments rendered under Rule 54(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. A writ of prohibition sought pursuant to W. Va. Code, 53-1-1 (1923), "shall lie as a matter of right in all cases of usurpation and abuse of power, when the inferior court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter in controversy, or, having such jurisdiction, exceeds it legitimate powers." See also State ex rel. Allen v. Bedell, W. Va. , S.E.2d (No. 22359 12/9/94) (Cleckley, J., concurring). This Court also may answer certified questions that are brought from circuit courts pursuant to W. Va. Code, 58-5-2 (1967), and from federal courts or appellate courts in other states pursuant to W. Va. Code, 51-1A-1 (1976). Moreover, this Court may entertain judgments that are made under Rule 54(b). Rule 54(b) applies to judgments in cases involving multiple parties or claims and provides, in part: "[T]he court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties." The rationale behind this rule is to prevent a party from experiencing hardship or injustice as a result of delay by forcing a party to wait until a final judgment is rendered as to all claims and parties. See Durm v. Heck's, Inc., 184 W. Va. 562, 401 S.E.2d 908 (1991).Footnote: 4 The "collateral order" doctrine was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Cohen, supra. In Durm, 184 W. Va. at 566 n.2, 401 S.E.2d at 912 n.2, we noted the doctrine as an exception to the federal interpretation of Rule 54(b), and we said that under Cohen "[a]n interlocutory order would be subject to appeal under this doctrine if it '(1) conclusively determines the disputed controversy, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.' Thompson [v. Betts], 754 F.2d [1243,] 1246 [(5th Cir. 1985)]." (Citations omitted in Durm). Footnote: 5 It must be emphasized that motions to reconsider or to amend or alter the judgment upon a Rule 59(e) motion are not necessary to preserve the right of appeal. As we stated in Parkway Fuel, 159 W.Va. at 219, 220 S.E.2d at 441, "[t]hese remedies exist concurrently with and independently of the remedy of appeal, and failure to apply for such relief does not affect the appealability of a final judgment." Footnote: 6 The right of pro se plaintiffs to petition this Court for an appeal cannot be effectively denied by the circuit court's failure to act promptly on post-judgment motions. Circuit courts have the authority to adopt local rules requiring all motions to be brought to its attention before or immediately after filing. Considering that trial judges usually do not reach a decision in the first place until their conclusion is firm, unless the post- judgment motion presents some factual or legal matter that earlier had not been adduced, the issues raised on these motions are ripe for quick resolution. Footnote: 7 Rule 59(e) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "Motion to alter or amend a judgment.--A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment."Footnote: 8 A case may be decided by a judge without a jury in two separate situations: "One occurs when a question of law is posed at the pretrial stage that is determinative of the action and that may be resolved without a trial of factual issues going to the merits. Such a situation arises, for example, when a party moves for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for summary judgment on the ground that no genuine issue of fact is involved. The other situation occurs when issues of fact are tried to the court without a jury." Fleming James, Jr., Geoffery C. Hazard, Jr., John Leubsdorf, Civil Procedure §12.3 at 646 (4th ed. 1992).Footnote: 9 Pro se pleadings and motions are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 970 , 99 S.Ct. 464, 58 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1978). Allegations, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for an opportunity to offer supporting evidence, unless it is "'beyond doubt'" that the claimant could prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 , 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263, 268 (1972), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 102, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 84 (1957).Footnote: 10 Ordinarily, an order dismissing a case pursuant to a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is a ruling on the merits and constitutes an effective termination of all proceedings before the circuit court making the case appealable. However, a Rule 59 motion technically reopens the case. In Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 , 109 S.Ct. 987, 103 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1989), for instance, the United States Supreme Court held that a post-judgment motion for discretionary prejudgment interest constituted a motion to alter or amend the judgment, as contemplated by Rule 59(e). Consequently, a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of the motion was ineffective. Footnote: 11 We again emphasize our warning in Lieving, 188 W. Va. at 201, 423 S.E.2d at 604, that it is confusing when motions do not fall clearly within a particular rule. In addition, "it allows opposing counsel to make motions to dismiss appeals in this Court for lack of timeliness, when such motions would not be invited were they properly styled as a 'Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment.'" See also Graf v. West Virginia University, 189 W. Va. 214, 218, 429 S.E.2d 496, 500 (1992).Footnote: 12 For a general treatment of post-trial motion procedure, see David E. Herr, Roger S. Haydock, and Jeffrey W. Stempel, Motion Practice §§22, 23 (2nd ed. 1990).Footnote: 13 In some instances, departure from our appellate rules has been indulged. Although this Court may construe the statute liberally in determining whether it has been complied with, we may not waive jurisdictional requirements even for "good cause shown" in pro se cases. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 , 317, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 2409, 101 L. Ed. 2d 285, 291 (1988). Footnote: 14 Based on the record presented to this Court, neither the parties nor the circuit court gave any serious consideration as to whether the joinder of the children, who arguably would benefit from the plaintiffs' proposal, is necessary as required by Rule 19 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit court must make such a determination of this issue on the record. A necessary party is one whose interest could be so impaired or adversely affected by the outcome that he or she must be included as a plaintiff or defendant unless there is a valid excuse for their nonjoinder. See Dixon v. American Indus. Leasing Co., 157 W.Va. 735, 205 S.E.2d 4 (1974). See generally 3A James Wm. Moore, Federal Practice and Procedure ¶¶19.01-19.07 (1994); 7 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d §§ 1601-1611 (1986). Footnote: 15 As we have noted, the circuit court has not ruled on the "motion for reconsideration." When the circuit court does rule, the plaintiffs may then appeal if the motion is denied. Rule 72 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure controls the time frame for filing a petition for appeal when a Rule 59 motion is made. Rule 72 states, in relevant part: "The full time for filing a petition for appeal commences to run and is to be computed from the entry of any of the following orders made upon a timely motion under such rules: . . . granting or denying a motion under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment[.]"

c0f2532cc1e2ca94610073fcfc604960dc950f7afebbc37154aa291b9485278b

1995-02-17 00:00:00

73e8af98-16a5-4033-b741-f09aa9ca7e07

Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1995 Term _________ NO. 22642 _________ JANET M. TENNANT AND LARRY B. TENNANT, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees V. MARION HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION, INC., AKA MARION HEALTH CARE HOSPITAL; CANDACE CHIDESTER, M.D.; AND PATRICIA K. ENDRESS, D.O., Defendants Below, Appellants __________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion County Honorable Rodney B. Merrifield, Judge Civil Action No. 91-C-426 REVERSED ____________________________________________________________ Submitted: May 9, 1995 Filed: June 15, 1995 William E. Galloway Daniel P. Taylor Galloway & Taylor Weirton, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellees Herbert G. Underwood Steptoe & Johnson Clarksburg, West Virginia Karen Kahle Steptoe & Johnson Wheeling, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellants JUSTICE CLECKLEY delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE BROTHERTON and JUSTICE RECHT did not participate. JUDGE FOX, sitting by temporary assignment, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER and JUDGE SPAULDING sitting by temporary assignment. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Once a successor judge is properly assigned pursuant to Rule 63 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule XVII of the West Virginia Trial Court Rules for Trial Courts of Record, his or her decision or judgment is to be reviewed on appeal under the same standard that would have been applied to the decision of the original trial judge. To do otherwise would disrupt the administration of justice. To the extent that our prior cases are inconsistent with this decision, they are expressly overruled. 2. "When a trial judge vacates a jury verdict and awards a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial judge has the authority to weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses. If the trial judge finds the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, is based on false evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, the trial judge may set aside the verdict, even if supported by substantial evidence, and grant a new trial. A trial judge's decision to award a new trial is not subject to appellate review unless the trial judge abuses his or her discretion." Syllabus Point 3, in part, In re State Public Building Asbestos Litigation, ___ W. Va. ___, 454 S.E.2d 413 (1994). 3. A claim of an appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of a fundamental defect in due process requiring a new trial. Absent a showing of bias or prejudice, a new trial is unwarranted when (1) there has been a full trial on the merits, (2) there is no obvious error during the original proceedings, (3) the record shows it is extremely unlikely the prejudice could have affected the trial, and (4) the failure to disclose facts leading to a disqualification motion was inadvertent. 4.Once a trial judge rules on a motion in limine, that ruling becomes the law of the case unless modified by a subsequent ruling of the court. A trial court is vested with the exclusive authority to determine when and to what extent an in limine order is to be modified. 5."'"'Failure to make timely and proper objection to remarks of counsel made in the presence of the jury, during the trial of a case, constitutes a ... [forfeiture] of the right to raise the question thereafter in the trial court or in the appellate court.' Point 6, Syllabus, Yuncke v. Welker, 128 W.Va. 299 [36 S.E.2d 410 (1945)]." Syllabus point 7, State v. Cirullo, 142 W.Va. 56, 93 S.E.2d 526 (1956).' Syl.Pt. 5, State v. Davis, 180 W.Va. 357, 376 S.E.2d 563 (1988)." Syllabus Point 1, Daniel B. by Richard B. v. Ackerman, 190 W.Va. 1, 435 S.E.2d 1 (1993). 6.The formulation of jury instructions is within the broad discretion of a circuit court, and a circuit court's giving of an instruction is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. A verdict should not be disturbed based on the formulation of the language of the jury instructions so long as the instructions given as a whole are accurate and fair to both parties. 7."'"'Instructions must be read as a whole, and if, when so read, it is apparent they could not have misled the jury, the verdict will not be disturbed, through [sic] one of said instructions which is not a binding instruction may have been susceptible of a doubtful construction while standing alone.' Syl. Pt. 3, Lambert v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 155 W.Va. 397, 184 S.E.2d 118 (1971)." Syllabus Point 2, Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc., 176 W.Va. 492, 345 S.E.2d 791 (1986).' Syllabus Point 3, Lenox v. McCauley, 188 W.Va. 203, 423 S.E.2d 606 (1992)." Syllabus Point 6, Michael v. Sabado, ___ W. Va. ___, 453 S.E.2d 419 (1994). 8.The cumulative error doctrine may be applied in a civil case when it is apparent that justice requires a reversal of a judgment because the presence of several seemingly inconsequential errors has made any resulting judgment inherently unreliable. Cleckley, Justice: The appellants and defendants below, the Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., aka Marion Health Care Hospital; Candace Chidester, M.D.; and Patricia K. Endress, D.O., appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Marion County granting a new trial. The defendants assert the circuit court should not have granted the plaintiffs below and appellees herein, Janet M. Tennant and Larry B. Tennant, a new trial because there were insufficient grounds to justify setting the verdict aside. The defendants assert the plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the post-verdict revelation of the original trial judge's relationship with opposing counsel and, even if recusal was proper, a jury verdict should not be overturned solely on the appearance of impropriety without evidence proving bias or prejudice on the part of the original trial judge. It is also argued that the reviewing court erred in finding the defendants violated a prior in limine order and in finding error in one of the defendants' jury instructions. I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION During March and April of 1989, Janet M. Tennant visited Marion Health Care Hospital (the Hospital) approximately four times for treatment. Lab work performed on March 23, 1989, indicated Mrs. Tennant suffered from severe iron deficiency anemia. Dr. Chidester, a physician and employee of the Hospital, treated Mrs. Tennant's anemia without further investigating the possible underlying cause. Medical records do not reflect any other visits by Mrs. Tennant until August 17, 1989. On August 17, 1989, Mrs. Tennant returned to the Hospital with rectal complaints and was treated by Dr. Endress. Dr. Endress treated Mrs. Tennant on several occasions at the Hospital through the fall of 1989. Throughout this period, Mrs. Tennant continued to have rectal complaints. On November 17, 1989, Dr. Endress discovered a perirectal abscess. Dr. Endress referred Mrs. Tenant to a surgeon on November 27, 1989, because of the persistence of the abscess. The surgeon, David McLellan, M.D., further referred Mrs. Tennant to Mohammed Roidad, M.D., a gastroenterologist. Dr. Roidad diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the anus on January 9, 1990. Mrs. Tennant was then referred by Dr. Roidad to Ronald Gaskin, M.D., a gastroenterologist at West Virginia University. Dr. Gaskin, in turn, referred Mrs. Tennant to the Cleveland Clinic. In January, 1990, Mrs. Tennant was examined by Victor Fazio, M.D., and Jeffrey Milsom, M.D., both colorectal surgeons. Because of the advanced stage of the cancer and the size of the lesion, Dr. Fazio and Dr. Milsom agreed surgery was the proper course of treatment for Mrs. Tennant. Mrs. Tennant was not offered a less invasive method of treatment like chemoradiation because the surgeons thought chemoradiation did not offer a good prospect for recovery. An abdominoperineal resection with partial posterior vaginectomy with permanent colostomy was performed on Mrs. Tennant on January 18, 1990, at the Cleveland Clinic. The surgery was successful, with the exception of a nick on her ureter, which required some treatment. Mrs. Tennant has had no recurrence of the cancer nor experienced any long term effects from the nick of her ureter. Following the surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, Mrs. Tennant continued to seek medical treatment at the Hospital. Dr. Endress continued to provide most of Mrs. Tennant's treatment through June of 1991. Between 1991 and 1992, Mr. and Mrs. Tennant initiated a suit against the Cleveland Clinic for damaging Mrs. Tennant's ureter. The Cleveland Clinic agreed to a settlement that included a waiver of fees and expenses owed to the Clinic. On August 16, 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Tennant filed an action against the defendants alleging negligent care and treatment by the Hospital and its physicians/employees. The Tennants asserted in their complaint that Mrs. Tennant was deprived of the opportunity to avoid the surgery because of the defendants' negligent failure to diagnose her cancer earlier. Prior to trial, the Tennants filed motions in limine requesting the circuit court to restrict the defendants from mentioning anything about the settlement with the Cleveland Clinic. The circuit court entered an order stating "the settlement of the Cleveland Clinic lawsuit will not come in as evidence in this case pending in Marion County, West Virginia[.]" The order also granted the defendants an offset for any sum received by the plaintiffs in the Cleveland Clinic lawsuit against any damages the defendants might pay in this case. Trial commenced on January 26, 1994, before the Honorable Fred FoxII. After five days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. During March, 1993, defense counsel's firm was retained by the liability carrier for the State to defend Judge Fox and others in a civil rights claim by a pro se litigant in federal court. One of the defense attorneys in the present case represented Judge Fox. On March 9, 1993, defense counsel made a motion to dismiss the federal case on behalf of Judge Fox. The motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment and was granted on January 31, 1994. It was not until after he received a copy of the federal court order on February 2, 1994, that Judge Fox realized he had any relationship with defense counsel.See footnote 1 On February 10, 1994, Judge Fox notified plaintiffs' counsel of his relationship with defense counsel. Judge Fox was permitted by this Court to recuse himself, and the Honorable Rodney B. Merrifield was assigned to hear the post-trial motions. Following the entry of the judgement order, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the verdict or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial contending they were prejudiced by Judge Fox's relationship with defense counsel. The motion also alleged the defendants violated the pretrial order prohibiting any mention of the prior settlement with the Cleveland Clinic and that an erroneous jury instruction misstated the appropriate standard of care. Following a post-trial hearing on April 18, 1994, Judge Merrifield issued an order granting a new trial based on the appearance of impropriety, the violation of the pretrial order, and the erroneous jury instruction. The defendants appeal from this order. II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Before addressing the individual errors raised in the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, we must resolve the procedural contention of the defendants concerning the appropriate standard of review in this case. As a general proposition, we review a circuit court's rulings on a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard. In re State Public Building Asbestos Litigation, ___ W. Va. ___, 454 S.E.2d 413 (1994) (Asbestos Litigation). Thus, in reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a two-pronged deferential standard of review. We review the rulings of the circuit court concerning a new trial and its conclusion as to the existence of reversible error under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review. The defendants argue that Judge Merrifield's order is not entitled to deference under an abuse of discretion standard because he did not preside at trial, thus he neither had the benefit of hearing the evidence nor assessing the credibility of the witnesses. Our prior cases uniformly suggest that the actions of a judge who did not preside at trial are "not aided or strengthened by any presumption arising from personal knowledge of the character, appearance or demeanor of the witnesses, parties or jurors." Young v. Duffield, 152 W. Va. 283, 289, 162 S.E.2d 285 , 290 (1968). We have stated in Syllabus Point 1 of Hendricks v. Monongahela West Penn Public Service Co., 115 W. Va. 208, 175 S.E. 441 (1934): "Where it appears that the judge who acted favorably upon a motion to set aside a verdict was not the judge who presided at the trial, and that the granting of such motion was tantamount to passing finally upon the respective rights of the parties to the action, the general rule that the action of a trial court in setting aside a verdict and awarding a new trial is entitled to peculiar weight will be relaxed." We believe our prior cases do not give adequate consideration and proper respect to Rule 63 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, which codifies the principle that, when necessary, a judge different from the one who presided at trial may preside and determine all remaining post-trial motions. Once chosen, a successor judge is given broad discretion in determining whether he or she properly can perform the remaining duties in a trial in which he or she did not preside.See footnote 2 The defendants, without mentioning Rule 63, argue that just as an appellate court reviews a trial court's cold record, Judge Merrifield's post-trial rulings were also made on a cold record and, for that reason, should not be given deference under the clearly erroneous standard. Although this is not a case of first impression in West Virginia, its significance is demonstrated by its implication of considerations of judicial independence as well as the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. As a preliminary matter, we note the defendants did not challenge the assignment of Judge Merrifield to succeed Judge Fox, and that, in accordance with Rule XVII of the West Virginia Trial Court Rules for Trial Courts of Record, the transfer of the case to Judge Merrifield was duly authorized and proper in all respects. Considering these facts, we believe this case was particularly proper for disposition by a successor judge. Contrary to the defendants' characterization, this case was not complex and, more significantly, it was a jury trial with a jury verdict. Judge Merrifield, prior to ruling, reviewed the files and records in the case, including a transcript of the proceedings, and heard the same counsel who conducted the trial. Of course, the stage of the proceedings at which the successor judge enters the case is usually the dispositive consideration in determining the successor judge's powers under Rule 63. If the successor judge takes over after a verdict has been entered of record and the remaining task is but to hear post- trial motions, as in this case "the new judge may perform any action which the first judge could have taken had he not become disabled.... [I]f the transcript of the proceedings is sufficient, he may also rule upon any post-trial motions made by the parties, including a motion for judgment n.o.v. or a motion for a new trial." James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 63 at 63-10 (1995). See also Lever v. United States, 443 F.2d 350 (2nd Cir. 1971); Rose Hall, Ltd. v. Chase Manhatten Overseas Banking Corp., 576 F. Supp. 107 (D.C. Del. 1983), aff'd 740 F.2d 956, 740 F.2d 957, 740 F.2d 958 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1159, 105 S. Ct. 909, 83 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1985).See footnote 3 We now turn to the question of whether Judge Merrifield's decision should be reviewed under a deferential standard of review. We find that the manner in which Judge Merrifield prepared for this task was efficient, thorough, and exemplary. In these circumstances, once a successor judge is properly assigned pursuant to Rule 63 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule XVII of the West Virginia Trial Court Rules for Trial Courts of Record, his or her decision or judgment is to be reviewed on appeal under the same standard that would have been applied to the decision of the original trial judge. To do otherwise would disrupt the administration of justice. To the extent that our prior cases are inconsistent with this decision, they are expressly overruled.See footnote 4 Pursuant to Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, a circuit judge may grant a new trial "for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law." Essentially, Rule 59 merely restates the common law rule for new trials. Recently in Syllabus Point 3, in part, of Asbestos Litigation, supra, we refined our standard for appellate review of a circuit court's ruling on a motion for new trial: "When a trial judge vacates a jury verdict and awards a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial judge has the authority to weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses. If the trial judge finds the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, is based on false evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, the trial judge may set aside the verdict, even if supported by substantial evidence, and grant a new trial. A trial judge's decision to award a new trial is not subject to appellate review unless the trial judge abuses his or her discretion." See also Syl. pt. 2, in part, Maynard v. Adkins, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 22529 3/27/95) ("'question of whether new trial should be granted by reason [of] counsel's possible violation'" of rules of Professional Responsibility is within the circuit court's discretion. (citation omitted)); Cook v. Harris, 159 W. Va. 641, 225 S.E.2d 676 (1976). The case before us presents several issues containing mixed questions of fact and law. As we previously note, these issues require a somewhat nuanced standard of review. Appeals in West Virginia are usually arrayed along a degree-of-deference continuum, stretching from plenary review at one pole to highly deferential modes of review (e.g., clear error, abuse of discretion) at the opposite pole. The standard of review we apply to mixed questions usually depends on where they fall along the degree-of-deference continuum: The more fact dominated the question, the more likely it is the trier's resolution of it will be accepted unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Thus, the level of deference given to a successor judge's decision to grant a new trial based upon trial error varies with the circumstances of each case. We accord a trial judge's decision to grant a new trial on the basis of judge bias and prejudice and evidentiary and instructional errors substantial respect. However, as will be discussed infra, the "harmless error" rule cautions that reviewing courts have the obligation to ensure that a successor judge exercise "sound judgment" in granting new trial on the basis of trial error. This less deferential standard is particularly appropriate when the justification for the new trial concerns legal trial errors as opposed to insufficiency of evidence under Rule 59. The lower court must always temper the decision whether to grant a new trial because of trial error by considering the importance to the litigants of receiving a fair and final judgment with society's interest, as expressed through our Legislature, that unless error affected the outcome of the trial, a new trial should not usually be granted. In other words, when a trial court abuses its discretion and grants a new trial on an erroneous view of the law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or on error that had no appreciable effect on the outcome, it is this Court's duty to reverse. We will discuss each assignment of error in turn.See footnote 5 B. Judicial Disqualification In the present case, Judge Fox was represented in his official capacity by one of defense counsel. Although defense counsel's representation of Judge Fox coincided with the representation of the defendants, both Judge Fox and defense counsel inadvertently failed to inform the plaintiffs until after the conclusion of the trial. It was only after Judge Fox received a letter from defense counsel summarizing actions taken on his behalf that he realized the potential conflict. Judge Fox then promptly informed the plaintiffs of the problem. Shortly thereafter, Judge Fox was permitted to recuse himself out of concern for the appearance of impropriety. We do not question Judge Fox's decision to recuse himself. In fact, we commend Judge Fox's flawless integrity and decision to staunchly uphold the principles of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to protect the judiciary from even a scintilla of doubt regarding impartiality. Recognizing the failure to disclose the attorney-client relationship earlier in the proceedings was inadvertent, the successor judge nevertheless found "the plaintiffs had an absolute right to be notified of that conflict" and the late disclosure "calls into question the judicial process . . . [and] . . . any adverse ruling by . . . [Judge Fox] then may be questioned by the litigants as possibly being unfair, although it probably was absolutely not unfair and was the correct ruling." We disagree with the successor judge that the "appearance of impropriety," without more, necessitates a new trial. The legal system will endure only so long as members of society continue to believe that our courts endeavor to provide untainted, unbiased forums in which justice may be found and done. The right to a fair and impartial trial is fundamental to a litigant; fundamental to the judiciary is the public's confidence in the impartiality of our judges and proceedings over which they preside. "'[J]ustice must satisfy the appearance of justice.'" In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133 , 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L. Ed. 942, 946 (1955), quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 , 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13, 99 L. Ed. 11, 16 (1954). Thus, it is beyond peradventure that this Court possesses broad authority to preserve and protect the judiciary's essential functions. In this vein, we have repeatedly expressed the importance of an impartial judiciary. See State ex rel. Skinner v. Dostert, 166 W.Va. 743, 750, 278 S.E.2d 624 , 630 (1981) (courts have an obligation pursuant to Section 17 of Article 3 of the West Virginia Constitution "to apply the law and decide the case unfettered by any influences alien to the case or the process"). See also State ex rel. Shrewsbury v. Poteet, 157 W.Va. 540, 202 S.E.2d 628 (1974); State ex rel. Moats v. Janco, 154 W.Va. 887, 180 S.E.2d 74 (1971). Similarly, judicial judgment must be made free of "'partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.'" State ex rel. Skinner v. Dostert, 166 W. Va. at 750, 278 S.E.2d at 630. (Citation omitted). Indeed, one of the most fundamental constitutional rights of a party under our judicial system is that he, she, or it is entitled to a fair judicial tribunal and that "'"fairness requires an absence of actual bias or prejudice in the trial of a case."'" United States v. Wade, 931 F.2d 300, 304 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 888, 112 S.Ct. 247, 116 L. Ed. 2d 202 1991). (Citations omitted). To protect against the appearance of impropriety, courts in this country consistently hold that a judge should disqualify himself or herself from any proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.See footnote 6 Again, we have repeatedly held that where "'the circumstances offer a possible temptation to the average . . . [person] as a judge not to hold the balance nice, clear and true'" between the parties, a judge should be recused. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Syl. pt. 3, in part, State ex rel. Brown v. Dietrick, 191 W. Va. 169, 444 S.E.2d 47 (1994). (Emphasis added; citation omitted). See also State v. Hodge, 172 W.Va. 322, 305 S.E.2d 278 (1983); Louk v. Haynes, 159 W.Va. 482, 223 S.E.2d 780 (1976). In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 , 860-61, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 2203, 100 L. Ed. 2d 855, 872-73 (1988), the United States Supreme Court described the standard for recusal as whether a reasonable and objective person knowing all the facts would harbor doubts concerning the judge's impartiality. The Supreme Court stated: "'The goal is to avoid even the appearance of partiality.'" Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 860, 108 S.Ct. at 2203, 100 L. Ed. 2d at 872. (Citation omitted). To be clear, avoiding the appearance of impropriety is as important in developing public confidence in our judicial system as avoiding impropriety itself. Unquestionably, a judge should take appropriate action to withdraw from a case where he or she deems himself or herself biased or prejudiced.See footnote 7 Also important, however, is the rule that a judge has an equally strong duty to sit where there is no valid reason for recusal. See Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824 , 93 S.Ct. 7, 34 L.E.2d 50 (1972) (Memorandum of Rehnquist, J.); Stern Bros., Inc. v. McClure, 160 W.Va. 567, 236 S.E.2d 222 (1977). In other words, while due consideration should be given to the notion that the administration of justice should be beyond the appearance of unfairness, a trial judge in deciding whether to recuse himself should also consider whether cases may be unfairly prejudiced or unduly delayed, or discontent may be created through unfounded charges of prejudice or unfairness made against the judge in the trial of a cause. See State v. Flint, 121 W.Va. 676, 301 S.E.2d 765 (1983). Therefore, it must be emphasized that the standard for recusal is an objective standard. The objective standard is essential when the question involves appearance: "[W]e ask how things appear to the well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person." U.S. v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 156 (5th Cir. 1995).See footnote 8 See also In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990). The objective standard requires a factual basis for questioning a judge's impartiality.See footnote 9 Because Judge Fox requested his own disqualification and recusal, we will assume, without deciding, that a reasonable person would have harbored doubts about his impartiality.See footnote 10 Thus, our next task under this assignment of error is to determine whether the remedy imposed by the successor judge was appropriate. We hold that a violation of the above recusal standard involving only the appearance of impropriety does not automatically require a new trial.See footnote 11 See Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 862, 108 S.Ct. at 2203, 100 L. Ed. 2d at 873 ("there is surely room for harmless error committed by busy judges who inadvertently overlook a disqualifying circumstance")See footnote 12; U.S. v. Jordan, 49 F.3d at 158 (holding that "violation of [28 U.S.C.] . . . 455(a) [which governs disqualification of judges for the appearance of impropriety] does not automatically require a new trial"). We agree with the successor judge that a breach of our disqualification standards "calls into question the judicial process" and that the plaintiffs had an absolute right to disclosure; however, these rights, even when violated, do not automatically translate into a right to a new trial. Affirming the successor judge's ruling granting a new trial would create a per se rule that a new trial should be granted each time there is merely an appearance of impropriety without any additional supporting evidence indicating actual prejudice or bias. The reasoning of the successor judge flies directly in the teeth of the proposition that evidence of actual bias or prejudice must be presented and, in the bargain, contradicts the plain language of our harmless error rules and directly conflicts with our prior case law that new trials should be granted only in rare cases. Thus, a claim that there is a sense of unfairness about the trial is not enough to justify a new trial. Under our legislative and rule mandates, we are not permitted to grant new trials on the basis of ethical considerations. Rather, we must ask whether the trial court's rulings, decisions, and actions have erroneously and adversely affected the substantial rights of the parties. See W.Va.R.E. 103(a)See footnote 13; W.Va.R.Civ.P. 61See footnote 14; W.Va. Code, 58-1-2 (1972)See footnote 15; W. Va. Code, 58-1-3 (1923).See footnote 16 Disqualification under our recusal standards "is designed for the benefit of the judicial system, and even if a judge errs in failing to recuse . . . [himself], the error does not necessarily call into question the decisions of the court." United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d at 158. In other words, a claim of an appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of a fundamental defect in due process requiring a new trial.See footnote 17 We have reached a similar conclusion when reviewing an attorney's unethical behavior. In Maynard v. Adkins, supra, we suggested that an attorney's conflict of interest did not control our determination of trial errors: "It must be kept in mind that the action before us is not an ethics proceeding. Although issues concerning legal ethics are intertwined herein, this action is an appeal from the granting of a new trial under W.Va.R.Civ.P. 59." ___ W. Va. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. (Slip op. at 3). The present case concerns possible judicial impropriety instead of an attorney's conflict of interest. However, as stated in Maynard, while ethical considerations are important, they do not change or lessen the requirements for a new trial.See footnote 18 Under West Virginia law, when substantial rights are not affected, reversal is not appropriate. A party is entitled to a new trial only if there is a reasonable probability that the jury's verdict was affected or influenced by trial error. Accordingly, we hold that absent a showing of bias or prejudice, a new trial is unwarranted when (1) there has been a full trial on the merits, (2) there is no obvious error during the original proceedings, (3) the record shows it is extremely unlikely that prejudice could have affected the trial, and (4) the failure to disclose facts leading to a disqualification motion was inadvertent. It is vital to the rule of law that legislative commands be honored, so long as they are constitutionally appropriate. Courts are not at liberty to disregard lawful directives of the Legislature simply because those directives conflict with our notions of fairness. In the last analysis, it is crucial to public confidence in the courts that judges be seen as enforcing the law and as obeying it themselves. This principle applies with full force to the "statutory harmless" error rule which, in substance, is a command to the judges of this State. Constitutional defects aside, "when ... the legislative trumpet sounds clearly, courts are duty bound to honor the clarion call." United States v. Jackson, 30 F.3d 199, 204 (1st Cir. 1994). Although the successor judge understandably was concerned with judicial impropriety, he failed to require the plaintiffs to make a showing of actual bias or prejudice.See footnote 19 When a party argues that a judge is disqualified from a case because of bias or prejudice, the party bears the burden of proving the disqualifying facts and demonstrating how his or her rights to a fair trial were prejudiced. "[I]t is critically important in a case of this kind to identify the facts that might reasonably cause an objective observer to question . . . [a judge's] impartiality." Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 865, 108 S.Ct. at 2205, 100 L. Ed. 2d at 875. "Because of the presumption of regularity attendant on trial court proceedings," prejudice will not be presumed from a barren record. State v. Trail, 174 W.Va. 656, 660, 328 S.E.2d 671 , 675 (1985). Therefore, the jury verdict in this case will be reinstated if, after a full review of the facts and issues presented, we conclude no reversible trial error was committed. Because we find no error based solely on the appearance of impropriety in this case, we must now decide whether error of any such magnitude was committed justifying the setting aside of the jury's verdict. C. In Limine Motion The second basis for the successor judge's granting of a new trial is the defendants' violation of the pretrial order prohibiting disclosure of any evidence concerning the plaintiffs' prior settlement with the Cleveland Clinic. The defendants argue: (1) the plaintiffs "opened the door" to such discussion, and (2) the plaintiffs failed to object to the defendants' questions on the settlement. The plaintiffs assert they were not required to raise an objection at trial and any attempt to do so would have caused the jury to place undue emphasis on the tainted evidence. The plaintiffs assert the defendants breached the pretrial order restriction when the following exchange took place between defense counsel and Mrs. Tennant: "[Defense counsel:] And am I not correct that you continued to see and use the facilities at the Marion Health Care Hospital until you and your husband decided to bring a lawsuit? "[Mrs. Tennant:] That's correct. "[Defense counsel:] And am I correct that the first lawsuit you brought was a lawsuit against the Cleveland Clinic? "[Mrs. Tennant:] Yes. "[Defense counsel:] And am I correct that the lawyers that you used in that process or procedure are the same lawyers that you have at the present time? "[Mrs. Tennant:] That's correct. "[Defense counsel:] And am I correct that the lawsuit concluded without trial but with settlement? "[Mrs. Tennant:] That's correct." As noted by the defendants, the plaintiffs did not object during or after this line of questioning. Additionally, there is no evidence the plaintiffs requested an instruction be given to the jury. Under this assignment, we are required to address specific areas of evidence law regarding motions in limine (a Latin phrase which means "at the threshold"). First, we must determine the proper procedure to be followed when the party opposing the in limine order believes the "door" to the prohibited evidence has been opened at trial. Second, where a motion in limine order has been deliberately violated, we must determine when a reversal of a verdict in favor of the party violating the order is required. We begin with a discussion of the role and purpose of motions in limine. Certain types of exclusionary rulings in civil cases are commonly made before trial, such as rulings on the admissibility of settlement evidence. In most cases, judges are hesitant to rule finally on evidentiary questions in advance of trial. The role and importance of the disputed evidence, its fit with the other evidence in the case, and even the precise nature of the evidence may all be affected by, or at least clearly understood within, the context of the trial itself. At the same time, determining the admissibility of a piece of evidence may sometimes require a potentially lengthy factual inquiry (i.e., whether a new class of scientific evidence is admissible). Thus, the utility of a pretrial motion in limine is that "it can settle evidentiary disputes in advance without interrupting an ongoing trial to entertain arguments (even briefs) on complicated points and without the inevitable risk that objecting and deciding evidence questions will themselves convey to the jury the substance of the matter in question, or subject the parties to risks of adverse jury reaction because of the contentious nature of evidentiary argument." Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Evidence § 1.6 at 23 (1995). The entire structure of the case, the parties' preparations, and the trial court's preparation of the jury charge may turn on whether a central piece of evidence is admitted. Thus, while caution needs to be exercised, trial judges have discretion to make purportedly final advance rulings to admit or exclude evidence. We say "purportedly" because judges in ongoing proceedings normally have some latitude to revisit their own earlier rulings. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 , 41-42, 105 S.Ct. 460, 463, 83 L. Ed. 2d 443, 448 (1984) ("even if nothing unexpected happens" trial court may "alter a previous in limine ruling"). In this case, neither side disputes the fact that the circuit court was entitled to rule in limine on the evidence in controversy pursuant to Rule 103(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.See footnote 20 Nor is there any challenge to the correctness of the circuit court's ruling in limine. Rather, the defendants state that once the door was opened by the plaintiffs, the defendants had every right to rebut the evidence, even if the rebuttal evidence had been declared inadmissible at a pretrial hearing. We strongly disagree. Once a trial judge rules on a motion in limine, that ruling becomes the law of the case unless modified by a subsequent ruling of the court. Like any other order of a trial court, in limine orders are to be scrupulously honored and obeyed by the litigants, witnesses, and counsel. It would entirely defeat the purpose of the motion and impede the administration of justice to suggest that a party unilaterally may assume for himself the authority to determine when and under what circumstances an order is no longer effective. A party who violates a motion in limine is subject to all sanctions legally available to a trial court, including contempt, when a trial court's evidentiary order is disobeyed.See footnote 21 To be clear, the only participant not bound by the in limine ruling is the trial court. A trial court is vested with the exclusive authority to determine when and to what extent an in limine order is to be modified. We have not had occasion to address the specific protocol that should be followed when a litigant believes that a change of circumstances has "opened the door" to the introduction of the very evidence that is forbidden in the in limine order. When these circumstances present themselves, the party wishing to introduce the evidence is obligated under Rule 103(c) to request an in camera hearing out of the presence of the jury.See footnote 22 At that time, the party may request a modification of the order. If the trial court permits such a modification, the modified order becomes the law of the case and the parties are required to act accordingly. Had this procedure been followed in this case, the issue we are addressing would not be before this Court. The plaintiffs seize upon the defendants' violation as their grounds for urging us to affirm the granting of a new trial. "Having refused to hunt with the hounds, we likewise refuse to hold with the hare." United States v. Muniz, 49 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 1995). To hold as the plaintiffs urge would erect another per se rule that is inconsistent with our prior precedent and, for that reason, we decline to do so. The case law in this jurisdiction establishes the rule that the failure to follow a trial judge's in limine ruling is not always reversible error. It is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp., 172 W.Va. 435, 307 S.E.2d 603 (1983). In this case, the plaintiffs could have prevented the introduction of the evidence by a specific and timely objection. For strategical reasons, they decided not to do so. Rather, they argue that because of the in limine order they were not required to object and that an objection would have placed undue emphasis on the question and answer. We disagree. Simply stated, the plaintiffs cannot "squirrel" away objections, revealing them for the first time after an adverse verdict. As a threshold matter, we think the plaintiffs seriously misconstrue the role of a motion in limine and their responsibility under Rule 103(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence to preserve error for appellate review. We begin with the observation that had there been a timely objection to this line of questioning, it is unlikely the last question and answer would have been brought to the jury's attention. This is the paradigmatic case in which the plaintiffs gambled and lost by their failure to object. By failing to object, the plaintiffs failed to protect any rights they may have had to appeal the introduction of this evidence. Our jurisprudence clearly establishes the doctrine that preserving error is the responsibility of the parties. It is not the role of the trial judge to present evidence; nor is it his or her responsibility to exclude or limit evidence, as provided by evidence law, except insofar as the party opposing the evidence timely and specifically requests the trial judge to do so. To be clear, the party complaining on appeal of the admission of evidence bears sole responsibility for adequately preserving the record for meaningful appellate review. In this case, the responsible parties failed to meet this critical obligation. As we stated previously: "[O]bjections on non- jurisdictional issues, must be made in the lower court to preserve such issues for appeal." Loar v. Massey, 164 W. Va. 155, 159, 261 S.E.2d 83 , 86 (1979). Therefore, the "'"'[f]ailure to make timely and proper objection to remarks of counsel made in the presence of the jury, during the trial of a case, constitutes a . . . [forfeiture] of the right to raise the question thereafter in the trial court or in the appellate court.' Point 6, Syllabus, Yuncke v. Welker, 128 W.Va. 299 [36 S.E.2d 410 (1945)]." Syllabus point 7, State v. Cirullo, 142 W.Va. 56, 93 S.E.2d 526 (1956).' Syl.Pt. 5, State v. Davis, 180 W.Va. 357, 376 S.E.2d 563 (1988)." Syllabus Point 1, Daniel B. by Richard B. v. Ackerman, 190 W.Va. 1, 435 S.E.2d 1 (1993). See also Estep v. Brewer, ___ W. Va. ___, 453 S.E.2d 345 (1994); O'Neal v. Peake Operating Co., 185 W. Va. 28, 404 S.E.2d 420 (1991). Before leaving this subject, we note briefly that plaintiffs assert a rather broad reading of our decision in Bennett v. 3 C Coal Co., 180 W. Va. 665, 379 S.E.2d 388 (1989). The plaintiffs cite Bennett for the proposition that they were not required to renew their objection "to preserve the record for appeal." Their reliance on Bennett is misplaced. In Bennett, the defendant made a specific objection to and received an adverse ruling on its objection to the plaintiff's comments during opening statements. We found the defendant in that case was not required to repeat the objection later to preserve the issue for appeal. In the present case, the plaintiffs made an in limine motion. However, unlike the plaintiff in Bennett, the plaintiffs received a favorable ruling, but failed to raise an objection even once it was clear the defendants were violating the in limine order. Bennett's holding was designed to eliminate the requirement of repeating objections to preserve an issue for appeal only in the limited situation when a litigant has objected to and received an adverse ruling. We neither considered nor intended that this narrow proposition should be extended to include litigants who received a favorable ruling. Furthermore, we have consistently stressed that litigants have a continuing obligation to draw the attention of the circuit court to the opposing party's violation of any favorable rulings. Extending Bennett would only serve to undermine trial court proceedings and the appeal process by permitting litigants to appeal on barren records when their trial court strategies fail to produce a desirable verdict. Thus, we refuse to relieve the plaintiffs of their duty to object in a timely manner by extending the narrow holding in Bennett to mean that making a motion in limine is sufficient to preserve for appeal any violation of the ruling in limine. Similarly, we refuse to impose on the trial courts of this state a monitoring requirement after an in limine order has been entered. Counsel for litigants have the responsibility for bring any violations to the court's attention. Without generalizing too broadly, it is normally the case that this kind of monitoring is the job of counsel and not an already burdened circuit judge. In Waldron v. Waldron, 73 W.Va. 311, 317, 80 S.E. 811, 814 (1913), we stated a trial judge engrossed in many matters and points pertaining to a case of the magnitude of this one should be aided by the vigilant assistance of counsel: "If a party who has made an objection permits it to be forgotten, a waiver should be chargeable to the party." The circumstances justifying an in limine ruling often will change at trial. Problems that can be treated with some confidence in context are often very difficult to solve before other pieces of the puzzle have been assembled. This, we have said, is why circuit courts are reluctant to decide evidentiary questions before trial. In any event, it was the circuit court's responsibility to enforce its pretrial orders, and absent unusual circumstances not now before us, the circuit court's failure to do so due to the failure of counsel to bring the issue to its attention does not furnish us with the basis of concluding the circuit court abused its discretion. In this case, we need not evaluate whether the defendants breached the pretrial order or whether the plaintiffs "opened the door" to the discussion of the settlement because their failure to raise an objection to the defendants' questioning waived the issue for further review. An objection would have given the trial court a chance to remedy any breach of the in limine order by striking testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it. Thus, the plaintiffs' failure to object as a part of their trial strategy even precludes our consideration of this alleged error under the plain error rule, State v. Miller, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (No. 22571, 5/18/95) (Slip op. at 30-36), and most definitely precludes the successor judge from using the plaintiffs' assertions as a basis for the granting of a new trial. Because the successor judge failed to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiffs did not object to the defendants' purported violations in a timely manner, we find the successor judge abused his discretion in ordering a new trial based on this error. D. Jury Instructions The third basis for the successor judge's order granting a new trial was that one of the jury instructions misstated the standard of care. The contested instruction reads as follows: "A physician practicing in the field of family or general medicine is not required to possess or exercise the highest degree of learning-- learning, care, and skill, and that under the law, in the treatment of Janet Tennant, Doctors Chidester and Endress were not required or bound to possess or exercise the highest degree of learning, care, and skill known to the medical profession, but in their treatment of Janet Tennant, Doctors Chidester and Endress were only bound to possess and exercise that reasonable, ordinary, and average degree of learning, care, and skill which is possessed and exercised by the average doctor engaged in family or general medicine, regard being had to the state of medical science in 1989, when Janet Tennant was seen by the defendants prior to her cancer surgery. The Court further instructs the jury that unless plaintiffs prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Doctors Chidester and Endress failed to exercise such reasonable, ordinary, and average learning care, or skill in the treatment of Janet Tennant, then your verdict should be for the defendants." (Emphasis added). The plaintiffs specifically object to the use and placement of the word "average" in the instruction. The defendants assert the language of the instruction is derived from Syllabus Point 2 of Schroeder v. Adkins, 149 W. Va. 400, 141 S.E.2d 352 (1965),See footnote 23 and the standard of care is still consistent with the language in the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code, 55-7B-1, et seq. However, the plaintiffs assert the word "average" understates the standard of care required under W.Va. Code, 55-7B-3 (1986).See footnote 24 The plaintiffs assert the statute does not include the word "average." Furthermore, even if the word "average" were permissible, the second usage of the word in the instruction ("skill which is possessed and exercised by the average doctor engaged in family or general medicine") permits the jury to infer that it is acceptable for doctors to practice average medicine instead of being held to the higher standard of the average members of the profession in good standing. This argument merits little discussion. The formulation of jury instructions is within the broad discretion of a circuit court, and a circuit court's giving of an instruction is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. A verdict should not be disturbed based on the formulation of the language of the jury instructions so long as the instructions given as a whole are accurate and fair to both parties.See footnote 25 Syllabus Point 6 of Michael v. Sabado, ___ W. Va. ___, 453 S.E.2d 419 (1994), states: "'"'Instructions must be read as a whole, and if, when so read, it is apparent they could not have misled the jury, the verdict will not be disturbed, through [sic] one of said instructions which is not a binding instruction may have been susceptible of a doubtful construction while standing alone.' Syl. Pt. 3, Lambert v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 155 W.Va. 397, 184 S.E.2d 118 (1971)." Syllabus Point 2, Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc., 176 W.Va. 492, 345 S.E.2d 791 (1986).' Syllabus Point 3, Lenox v. McCauley, 188 W.Va. 203, 423 S.E.2d 606 (1992)." In other words, the adequacy of the charge must be made in the context of the entire trial. We agree that the above jury instruction has the potential for confusing the jury by it somewhat convoluted nature and that it slightly misstated the standard of care language of W.Va. Code, 55-7B-3. However, in this case, we find the granting of a new trial was inappropriate because the plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the instruction. Other instructions describe the appropriate standard of care without using the word "average,"See footnote 26 and in combination with the instruction in question should have eliminated any question the jury might have had about the proper standard of care. We repeat here that due to the risk of misleading the jury, a circuit court should refrain wherever possible from gratuitously adding language to its charge that is not an element of the claim or defense and that can better be presented to the jury by way of closing argument. Despite this admonition, we need not reverse this verdict. Our review of the entire charge convinces us that any confusion engendered by the inappropriate reference to "average" was offset by the circuit court's careful and clear discussion of the burden of proof. These instructions were adequate to ensure that the jury was informed as to its responsibilities and as to the substantive law standards in this case. Thus, we are unconvinced that the use of the word "average" in this single instruction is such a substantial departure from the legislative intent for the standard of care announced under W.Va. Code, 55-7B-3, that granting a new trial was merited. Although the contested instruction standing alone is "susceptible of a doubtful construction," other instructions read to the jury eliminated any potentially prejudicial effect. Thus, we can find no reversible error in the jury charge. Therefore, the successor judge abused his discretion by granting a new trial based on defects in the disputed instruction. E. Applicability of the Cumulative Error Rule Lastly, the plaintiffs contend, assuming arguendo, that while the alleged errors individually did not amount to reversible error, the errors cumulatively were sufficient to justify the granting of a new trial. On the other hand, the defendants argue the successor judge erred in applying the criminal law "cumulative error" doctrine in a civil case. As to both points, we disagree.See footnote 27 The cumulative error doctrine was created to permit courts to reverse "[w]here there are numerous violations of fundamental rules that, if considered individually, would probably have no measurable effect on the court but, in cumulative effect, . . . are prejudicial[.]" I Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on West Virginia Evidence §1-7(B)(5) at 48 (1994). The doctrine was designed to provide relief to a party when the combination of errors that are insignificant by themselves prevented the party from receiving a fair trial.See footnote 28 See Syl. pt. 5, in part, State v. Walker, 188 W. Va. 661, 425 S.E.2d 616 (1992) ("'[w]here the record of a criminal trial shows that the cumulative effect of numerous errors committed during the trial prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial, his conviction should be set aside, even though any one of such errors standing alone would be harmless error.'" (citation omitted)). Although we noted in Riggle v. Allied Chemical Corp., 180 W. Va. 561, 378 S.E.2d 282 (1989), that we had never applied the cumulative error doctrine to civil proceedings, nothing in that opinion or in the nature and purpose of the cumulative error doctrine forecloses the future application of the doctrine to civil cases. Therefore, we hold that the cumulative error doctrine may be applied in a civil case when it is apparent that justice requires a reversal of a judgment because the presence of several seemingly inconsequential errors has made any resulting judgment inherently unreliable. Although we recognize that the cumulative error doctrine may be used by a circuit court in situations where there are numerous "harmless" errors, as we have frequently noted, the doctrine should be used sparingly. Furthermore, "if the errors ... are insignificant and inconsequential, the case should not be reversed under this rule." I Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence §1-7(B)(5) at 49. Additionally, the doctrine can only be applied if there are some errors in the record. See State v. Carrico, 189 W. Va. 40, 427 S.E.2d 474 (1993) (cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable where no errors are present); State v. Clements, 175 W. Va. 463, 334 S.E.2d 600 , cert. denied, 474 U.S. 857, 106 S.Ct. 165, 88 L. Ed. 2d 137 (1985). As a general rule, we hold that the cumulative error doctrine may be considered and applied when evaluating a party's claim of trial error. However, as discussed above, the successor judge did err in using the doctrine in this case. We find as a matter of law that the conduct and errors relied upon by the successor judge were insufficient alone or in combination to justify setting aside the jury's verdict. III. CONCLUSION After a thorough review of the record, we are convinced the jury's verdict must be reinstated. First, the plaintiffs do not contend that Judge Fox was actually biased during the trial phase nor do they allege an explicit nexus between the alleged errors and the appearance of impropriety or bias. Second, the plaintiffs failed to allege or prove any harm whatsoever during the trial because of any alleged bias or prejudice. Third, we find neither an indication of bias in the trial record nor any error requiring reversal. For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County is reversed and the jury verdict is ordered reinstated. Reversed. Footnote: 1 Judge Fox never met with defense counsel concerning the federal matter nor did he recall the pendency of the federal matter during the Tennants' case. Footnote: 2 Rule 63 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is substantially different from Rule 63 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a successor judge "may proceed with . . . [a trial] upon certifying familiarity with the record and determining that the proceedings in the case may be completed without prejudice to the parties." Otherwise, a new trial should be ordered. The federal rule also authorizes the successor judge to recall any witness. Professor Dale P. Olson in his treatise suggests that in West Virginia the successor judge may also order a new trial if he or she feels that the case cannot be completed without prejudice to the parties. Dale P. Olson, Modern Civil Practice in West Virginia § 8.21 at 478 (1984).Footnote: 3 In deciding post-trial motions, we recognize one exception to the rule that a successor judge steps completely into his or her predecessor's shoes. When the issue is purely one of fact that was previously determined by the jury, the successor judge's powers to alter or limit the verdict is limited. Therefore, when a successor judge alters or amends a factual determination under these circumstances, this Court is not required to give deference to the successor judge's determination. Thompson v. Sawyer, 678 F.2d 257 (D.C. Cir. 1982). We believe this is the essence of this Court's opinion in Hendricks. On the other hand, where a successor judge is asked to reconsider a legal ruling of his unavailable predecessor, the successor judge is empowered to reconsider those issues to the same extent as his predecessor could have. See United States Gypsum Co. v. Schiavo Bros., Inc., 668 F.2d 172 (3rd Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 961, 102 S.Ct. 2038, 72 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1982).Footnote: 4 It is important to place the cases of Young and Hendricks in their proper procedural and historical contexts. Hendricks was decided prior to our adoption of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure and particularly Rule 63. Understandably, the Court in Hendricks did not undertake the analysis that we are now required to conduct in reviewing a successor judge's rulings on post-verdict motions. Young, on the other hand, did not involve a Rule 63 situation and for that reason is distinguishable. Prior to the adoption of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, acting in its appellate capacity, was itself reviewing the decision made by the judge of the court of common pleas in Young. Thus, the circuit court lacked the authority of a "trial court" within the contemplation of Rule 52(a) and Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.Footnote: 5 In addition to the assigned errors discussed infra, the defendants also contend the circuit court assigned different reasons for granting a new trial in its written order than those stated orally during the hearing on the post-trial motions. According to the defendants, the circuit court's oral ruling granting a new trial was based on the possibility that Judge Fox's presence may have created the appearance of impropriety and on the defendants' alleged violation of the pretrial in limine order prohibiting the introduction of evidence concerning the prior settlement. The defendants insist because the instructional error was not included as a ground for the new trial at the hearing, it is not part of the record and should be excluded from our consideration in assessing the legality of the new trial order. As an initial matter, it is clear that where a circuit court's written order conflicts with its oral statement, the written order controls. Therefore, "we are left to decide this case within the parameters of the circuit court's order." State v. White, 188 W. Va. 534, 536 n.2, 425 S.E.2d 210, 212 n.2 (1992). See also Harvey v. Harvey, 171 W. Va. 237, 241, 298 S.E.2d 467 , 471 (1982) ("[t]hat a court of record speaks only through its records or orders has been generally affirmed by this Court in subsequent cases"). Considering the above authority, we believe it is necessary to give greater credence to the circuit court's order. Thus, we find in this case that the defendants' concerns of the difference between the circuit court's ruling from the bench and the subsequent written order have no merit.Footnote: 6 The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge maintain the integrity of the judiciary. At times, a judge's duty to the public requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself in numerous situations. Canon 2(A) provides: "A judge shall respect and comply with the law, shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities, and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Furthermore, Canon 3(E)(1) reads, in pertinent part: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: "(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; "(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during the association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it; "(c) the judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or is a party to the proceeding or has any other more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; "(d) the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: "(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee, of a party; "(ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; "(iii) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; "(iv) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding." (Emphasis added).Footnote: 7 The Commentary to Canon 3(E)(1) provides that a judge should timely disclose on the record information which the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification. Both litigants and counsel should be able to rely upon judges complying with our Canons of Ethics. There is no obligation imposed on counsel to investigate the facts known by the judge that could possibly disqualify him. The judge is duty bound to disclose them sua sponte. "Such investigation, of course, would undermine public confidence in the judiciary and hinder, if not disrupt, the judicial process-- all to the detriment of the fair administration of justice." Porter v. Singletary, 49 F.3d 1483, 1489 (11th Cir. 1995). Footnote: 8 Application of this standard will undoubtedly disqualify a trial judge who has no actual bias or prejudice and who would not be likely to weight the scales of justice against the complaining party. But to perform its high function in the best way "[j]ustice must satisfy the appearance of justice." In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. at 136, 75 S.Ct. at 625, 99 L. Ed. 2d at 13. (Citation omitted). Public respect for the judiciary demands this result. In re Mason, 916 F.2d at 386-87. Footnote: 9 There are obvious problems with implementing this objective standard: "Judges must ascertain how a reasonable person would react to the facts. Problematic is the fact that judges do not stand outside of the judicial system; they are intimately involved in the process of obtaining justice. Judges who are asked to recuse themselves are reluctant to impugn their own standards. Likewise, judges sitting in review of others do not like to cast aspersions. 'Yet drawing all inferences favorable to the honesty and care of the judge whose conduct has been questioned could collapse the appearance of impropriety standard . . . into a demand for proof of actual impropriety.'... Accordingly, we are mindful that an observer of our judicial system is less likely to credit judges' impartiality than the judiciary." United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d at 156-57. (Citation omitted).Footnote: 10 We reserve the question of whether recusal actually was necessary under these facts. However, as an appellate court, we have an obligation to provide circuit judges with some semblance of legal principles against which they may measure their conduct. Therefore, we acknowledge that it is unclear whether we would have held that Judge Fox's continued participation was error. Modern authorities suggest that no disqualification is necessary where a judge is only being represented in his official capacity. See Jeffrey M. Shaman, Steven Lubet, and James J. Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics §5.18 at 134-35 (1990) ("[d]isqualification may not be required if the attorney before the judge has represented him or her on the basis of the judge's official acts"). If the disqualification of every judge who is sued in his or her official capacity was required, it would have a substantial impact on available judicial resources. It must be noted that nearly every petition for a writ of prohibition brought to this Court has the unfortunate consequence of naming the judge as a party and the judge is obliged to obtain personal counsel or leave his defense to one of the litigants appearing before him. See State ex rel. John Doe v. Troisi, ___ W.Va. ___, ___ n.4, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ n.4 (No. 22817 5/18/95). (Slip op. at 7). This is particularly true when a writ of prohibition is sought on an interlocutory ruling. Should the mere fact that one of the litigants arguing on behalf of the judge have the consequence of disqualifying the judge from further participation in the case once the prohibition issue has been resolved? We think not and, for reasons discussed, infra, we refuse to adopt a per se recusal rule. Taking this argument one step further, any lawyer who argues in support of a trial judge's rulings on appeal would disqualify the trial judge from participating in any future cases in which the lawyer appears. Footnote: 11 De novo review is appropriate even though we review the "appearance of impropriety" allegation in the context of a motion for new trial. As we stated earlier, the standard for appellate review of a circuit court's decision whether to grant a Rule 59 motion for a new trial is an abuse of discretion. When the circuit court's ruling hinges on its view of the law, however, its decision is subject to de novo review. See Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568, 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 900, 112 S.Ct. 277, 116 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1991). Footnote: 12 See Liljeberg, supra (suggesting that even on the egregious facts of the case, disclosure and selection of a new judge resolved questions about impartiality and affirming vacatur in the case because the rights of one of the parties were greatly prejudiced). See also United States v. Wade, supra (stating that, even if a judge meets the recusal standard test, this fact alone may not be sufficient for ordering a new trial); United States v. Couch, 896 F.2d 78 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that the appellant's claim of an appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of a fundamental defect requiring a new trial). Footnote: 13 Rule 103(a) reads, in pertinent part: "Effect of Erroneous Ruling.--Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected[.]"Footnote: 14 Rule 61 reads as follows: " Harmless Error. No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."Footnote: 15 W. Va. Code, 58-1-2, reads as follows: "No judgment or decree shall be arrested or reversed for the appearance of either party, being under the age of eighteen years, by attorney, if the verdict (where there is one), or the judgment or decree, be for him and not to his prejudice; or because it does not appear that an issue has been made up on matter alleged in any pleading when, without objection by any party, the case has been tried in the absence of such issue and it is apparent from the record and the evidence (a) that the trial was conducted as if an issue had been made upon such matter, or (b) that no evidence pertaining to such matter was offered and it is reasonably apparent that the parties have treated such matter as waived or abandoned; or for any informality in the entry of the judgment or decree by the clerk; or for the omission of the name of any juror; or because it may not appear that the verdict was rendered by the number of jurors required by law; or any defect, imperfection, or omission in the pleadings, which could not be properly regarded on any motion under rule twelve of the West Virginia rules of civil procedure for trial courts of record, or on a demurrer in any case in which a demurrer is appropriate."Footnote: 16 W. Va. Code, 58-1-3, reads: "No decree shall be reversed for want of a replication to the answer, where the defendant has taken depositions as if there had been a replication; and when it appears that there was a full and fair hearing on the merits, and that substantial justice has been done, a decree shall not be reversed for want of a replication, although the defendant may not have taken depositions; nor shall a decree be reversed at the instance of a party who has taken depositions, for an informality in the proceedings, when it appears that there was a full and fair hearing on the merits, and that substantial justice has been done." Footnote: 17 We believe it is important to underscore a significant point. If, in fact, the plaintiffs had demonstrated "actual bias" by the trial court, this defect could not be overlooked on grounds of harmlessness. See generally Sullivan v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 2081-83, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182, 189-91 (1993) (finding that the denial of certain fundamental rights which would necessarily have unquantifiable and indeterminate "consequences are 'structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism ... [and] defy analysis by "harmless-error standards[.]'" (Citation omitted)). Such a situation involves the denial of the most fundamental constituents of due process--so fundamental that any judgment in its absence is indecent even if the complaining litigant has no case whatsoever. On the other hand, "[t]he right to a judge who is free from the mere appearance of partiality is not part of due process at all, let alone a fundamental part." Tyson v. Trigg, 50 F.3d 436, 442 (7th Cir. 1995). (Emphasis in original). Footnote: 18 The successor judge failed to acknowledge the ameliorating effect a judge's disqualification could have on the judicial process. In the interest of economy and fairness to all parties, a mere inadvertence on the part of a trial judge should be alleviated by the admittance of the problem, his or her recusal, and a successor judge reviewing the case for evidence of bias or prejudice. We also agree with the United States Supreme Court in Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. at 866, 108 S.Ct. at 2206, 100 L. Ed. 2d at 876, that "[a] full disclosure at . . . [the time of the impropriety] would have completely removed any basis for questioning the judge's impartiality and would have made it possible for a different judge to decide whether the interests--and appearance--of justice would have been served by a retrial." As suggested in Liljeberg, impartiality can be alleviated by recusal. Footnote: 19 Unlike most litigants, the plaintiffs have had the benefit of two reviewing courts, both of whom have had the opportunity to review the record. Additionally, neither below nor on appeal have the plaintiffs pointed to even one instance of bias or prejudice on the part of Judge Fox.Footnote: 20 Rule 103(c) reads as follows: "In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury. Where practicable, these matters should be determined upon a pretrial motion in limine." Footnote: 21 It is not clear whether the successor judge was indeed exercising supervisory authority over the conduct of the attorney when he relied upon the in limine issue to set aside the verdict. It is well established that "[o]rdinarily the control of attorneys' conduct in trial litigation is within the supervisory powers of the trial judge," and is thus a matter of judicial discretion. Redd v. Shell Oil Co., 518 F.2d 311, 314 (10th Cir. 1975). We will not disturb a trial court's findings regarding attorney conduct unless there is no reasonable basis to support those findings. See SLC Ltd. v. Bradford Group West, Inc., 999 F.2d 464, 466 (10th Cir. 1993). However, we review de novo a trial court's interpretation of the applicable law that governs its decision.Footnote: 22 See the text of Rule 103(c) of the Rules of Evidence in note 20, supra, mandating that, when practicable, these proceedings not be conducted within the hearing of the jury. Otherwise, the jury might become contaminated with tainted evidence that might require a mistrial or the imposition of other stringent and remedial measures.Footnote: 23 Syllabus Point 2 of Schroeder reads as follows: "A chiropodist is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and diligence possible in the treatment of an injury or disease, unless he has by special contract agreed to do so. In the absence of such special contract, he is required to exercise only such reasonable and ordinary skill and diligence as are ordinarily exercised by the average of the members of the profession in good standing in similar localities and in the same general line of practice, regard being had to the state of medical science at the time."Footnote: 24 W. Va. Code, 55-7B-3 reads, in part: "The following are necessary elements of proof that an injury or death resulted from the failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care: "(a) The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and learning required or expected of a reasonable, prudent health care provider in the profession or class to which the health care provider belongs acting in the same or similar circumstances[.]"Footnote: 25 On appeal, the question of whether a jury has been properly instructed is to be determined not upon consideration of a single paragraph, sentence, phrase, or word, but upon the charge as a whole. Footnote: 26 The pertinent portions of some of the other instructions addressing the standard of care read as follows: "In West Virginia, a health care provider is negligent if she fails to exercise such reasonable and ordinary skill, care--skill, care, diligence, and learning as are ordinarily exercised by prudent members of the profession in the same general line of practice in which the health care provider belongs, acting in the same or similar circumstances, with due regard given to the state of medical science at the time of the alleged negligence. * * * "Negligence in this case is the failure to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning required or expected of a reasonably prudent family practitioner in the same or similar circumstances in which Doctors Chidester and Endress found themselves in their care and treatment of Janet Tennant in 1989. In this case, an act of negligence on the part of those physicians may be referred to as a deviation from the standard of care. Therefore, in this case, negligence may be the performance of an act which a reasonably prudent family practitioner in the same or similar circumstances would not do, or it may be the failure to perform as would a reasonably prudent family practitioner in the same or similar circumstances." (Emphasis added).Footnote: 27 Additionally, the defendants argue that, even if all three errors are considered valid, none of the errors by themselves are sufficient to justify a new trial.Footnote: 28 In civil as well as criminal cases, the right to a fair trial is fundamental. See, e.g., In re International Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 932 n.11 (2nd Cir. 1980); Bailey v. Systems Innovation, Inc., 852 F.2d 93, 98 (3rd Cir. 1988) ("fairness in a jury trial, whether criminal or civil in nature, is a vital constitutional right"). To be specific, "the right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment [to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution] to criminal defendants and to all persons by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" of the United States Constitution and Section 10 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution. Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242, 248 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Cunningham v. Chicago Council of Lawyers, 427 U.S. 912, 96 S. Ct. 3201, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1976). In either type of case, the court must be alert to avoid even harmless, erroneous rulings that when considered together may undermine the fairness of the fact- finding process. Consistent commission of erroneous rulings may well deprive an aggrieved litigant of due process unless the cumulative effect of the errors does not affect the outcome of trial.

3bf822d68336436587ccaddd28141ca3251844572eff28e7c08733eae0ea7738

1995-06-15 00:00:00

dfaf1a15-5ca6-48e6-b162-4533e4ffa098

SER Arrow Concrete Co. v. Hill

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

SER Arrow Concrete Co. v. Hill Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1995 Term ___________ No. 22842 ___________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. ARROW CONCRETE COMPANY, A WEST VIRGINIA CORPORATION; ARROW INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, AN OHIO CORPORATION; AND PAUL BURGE, JR., Petitioners v. HONORABLE GEORGE W. HILL, JR., JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, AND ON TARGET CONCRETE, INC., Respondents ___________________________________________________ Petition for Writ of Prohibition WRIT DENIED ___________________________________________________ Submitted: May 2, 1995 Filed: June 19, 1995 Charles R. McElwee Robinson & McElwee Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Petitioners Marvin W. Masters Richard A. Monahan Masters & Taylor, L.C. Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Respondents CHIEF JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE BROTHERTON AND JUSTICE RECHT did not participate. JUDGE FOX and RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER sitting by temporary assignment. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "'A writ of prohibition is available to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of its discretion in regard to discovery orders.' Syllabus Point 1, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 188 W. Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992)." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Erickson v. Hill, 191 W. Va. 320, 445 S.E.2d 503 (1994). 2. Ordinarily the denial of a motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted made pursuant to WestVirginia Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is interlocutory and is, therefore, not immediately appealable. 3. "Under Rule 26(b)(1)(iii) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court may limit discovery if it finds that the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation." Syl. pt. 2, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stephens, 188 W. Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992). 4. "Where a claim is made that a discovery request is unduly burdensome under Rule 26(b)(1)(iii) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court should consider several factors. First, a court should weigh the requesting party's need to obtain the information against the burden that producing the information places on the opposing party. This requires an analysis of the issues in the case, the amount in controversy, and the resources of the parties. Secondly, the opposing party has the obligation to show why the discovery is burdensome unless, in light of the issues, the discovery request is oppressive on its face. Finally, the court must consider the relevancy and materiality of the information sought." Syl. pt. 3, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stephens, 188 W. Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992). 5. "The question of the relevancy of the information sought through discovery essentially involves a determination of how substantively the information requested bears on the issues to be tried. However, under Rule 26(b)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is not limited only to admissible evidence, but applies to information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Syl. pt. 4, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stephens, 188 W. Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992). 6. "The following six-factor test should be applied in determining whether there is 'good cause' pursuant to Rule 26(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a protective order: (1) The extent to which the information is known outside of the defendant's business; (2) The extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the defendant's business; (3) The extent of the measures taken by the defendant to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) The value of the information to the defendant and competitors; (5) The amount of effort or money expended by the defendant in developing the information; and (6) The ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others." Syllabus, State ex rel. Johnson v. Tsapis, 187 W. Va. 337, 419 S.E.2d 1 (1992). McHugh, Chief Justice: The petitioners, Arrow Concrete Co., Arrow Industries Corp., and Paul R. Burge, Jr., seek a writ of prohibition in order to prohibit the Honorable George W. Hill, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court of Wood County, from enforcing an order compelling the petitioners to respond to the respondent's discovery requests. The petitioners are the defendants below and the respondent, On Target Concrete, Inc., is the plaintiff below (hereinafter we will refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendants). For reasons set forth below, we decline to issue a writ of prohibition. I. On July 18, 1994, the plaintiff filed a four-count complaint against the defendants in the Circuit Court of Wood County alleging violations of the West Virginia Antitrust Act set forth in W. Va. Code, 47-18-1, et seq., and alleging the common law claim of tortious interference with present and prospective business relations. The plaintiff and defendants are both in the business of manufacturing, selling and/or pouring concrete and related products in the State of West Virginia.See footnote 1 On August 11, 1994, the defendants served their joint answer to the plaintiff's complaint as well as a counterclaim which alleged that the plaintiff had misappropriated confidential commercial information and tortiously interfered with the defendants' business. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent interrogatories and a request for production of documents to the defendants. On August 19, 1994, the defendants filed objections to the plaintiff's discovery requests. On September 6, 1994, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, a motion for leave to submit additional interrogatories, and a motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a claim pursuant to the Unfair Practices Act set forth in W.Va. Code, 47-11A-1, et seq. At a hearing held on September 12, 1994, the trial judge made several rulings which were subsequently memorialized in an order dated October 4, 1994. That order granted all of the plaintiff's motions and ordered that "no party hereto or their counsel shall publish or make public, beyond the necessary scope and bounds of this litigation, nor make any use beyond the necessary scope and bounds of this litigation, confidential commercial and trade secret information of any party hereto." Also in that order the trial judge ordered the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's discovery requests by October 12, 1994.See footnote 2 On October 5, 1994, counsel for the defendants contacted counsel for the plaintiff and requested a forty-five to sixty-day extension of the October 12, 1994 deadline on the basis that an additional law firm had been recently hired to act as co-counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff's counsel agreed to a forty-five day extension, and on October 11, 1994, the trial judge entered a proposed order acknowledging the extension of the deadline. On November 28, 1994, the defendants served their responses to the plaintiff's discovery requests. However, the defendants unilaterally contended that their responses to the discovery requests did not waive their previous objections or prohibit them from seeking further judicial protection or intervention. Additionally, the defendants stated that they were unable to fully respond to the discovery requests because the FBI and the IRS on October 19, 1994, executed a search warrant issued by the United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia and seized business books and records of the defendants. The defendants indicated that when the books and records were returned they would more fully comply with the discovery requests. Thereafter, on December 22, 1994, the defendants filed a motion for suspension, reconsideration, and rescission of the October 4, 1994 discovery order and a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office in March of 1995, in order to determine whether or not a procedure existed by which it could obtain the defendants' records that were being held by the government. By a letter dated March 20, 1995, an Assistant United States Attorney informed the plaintiff that it was the policy of the office to allow the persons from whom the records were obtained access to the records. The Assistant United States Attorney further indicated that the defendants could copy the records they needed at their expense. Additionally, by telephone the U.S. Attorney's Office informed the plaintiff that the defendants' computer records were in the defendants' possession since the government had taken only copies of the computer records. Based on the above letter and conversations with the U.S. Attorney's Office, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel a more complete response to the plaintiff's discovery requests on March 24, 1995. On March 31, 1995, the circuit court denied the defendants' December 22, 1994 motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or in the alternative for judgment on the pleadings. The circuit court also denied defendants' motion for rescission or suspension of the October 4, 1994 discovery order. The defendants thereafter filed the petition for writ of prohibition which is now before us. II. Although the petition is convoluted, it appears that the defendants are seeking a writ of prohibition for two reasons: (1) the discovery of business secrets should not be compelled since the plaintiff's complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted; and (2) the discovery is not relevant and is too oppressive and burdensome and should, therefore, be limited by the trial judge. We are mindful that a writ of prohibition is rarely granted as a means to resolve discovery disputes: "'A writ of prohibition is available to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of its discretion in regard to discovery orders.' Syllabus Point 1, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 188 W. Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992)." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Erickson v. Hill, 191 W. Va. 320, 445 S.E.2d 503 (1994).See footnote 3 See also Nutter v. Maynard, 183 W. Va. 247, 250, 395 S.E.2d 491 , 494 (1990) ("[R]eview of discovery matters is not generally appropriate through extraordinary remedies[.]"); 63A Am. Jur. 2d Prohibition § 62 at 194 (1984) ("Ordinarily, a petition for a writ of prohibition to set aside a discovery order will be denied[.]" (footnote omitted)). A. Initially, we address whether the discovery of business secrets should be compelled since the defendants allege that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. As we previously pointed out, the trial judge below denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants assert that the plaintiff has failed to allege the essential elements of each claim. Moreover, the defendants contend that a more particularized pleading is required when the complaint involves violations of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and/or the Unfair Practices Act in order to protect business secrets. See Baim & Blank, Inc. v. Warren-Connelly Co., 19 F.R.D. 108, 109 (S. D. N.Y. 1956) ("The modern 'notice' theory of pleading is not sufficient when employed in a complaint under the anti-trust laws.") and Honorable Charles E. Clark, Special Pleading in the "Big Case", 21 F.R.D. 45 (1957). But see Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738 , 746, 96 S. Ct. 1848, 1853, 48 L. Ed. 2d 338, 345 (1976) ("[I]n antitrust cases, where 'the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirator,'. . . dismissals prior to giving the plaintiff ample opportunity for discovery should be granted very sparingly." (citation omitted)) and Nagler v. Admiral Corporation, 248 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1957) (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that these cases are often laborious and that some judges require a more particularized pleading in this area; however, the Second Circuit declined to require a more particularized pleading and stated that if the defendant wanted more detailed information from the plaintiff about the allegations in the complaint it could seek the information through discovery.) Indirectly, the defendants are asking this Court to address the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In the syllabus of Wilfong v. Wilfong, 156 W. Va. 754, 197 S.E.2d 96 (1973), this Court concluded that "[t]he entry of an order denying a motion for summary judgment made at the close of the pleadings and before trial is merely interlocutory and not then appealable to this Court."See footnote 4 (footnote added). In arriving at this conclusion this Court noted: The principle of non-appealability in interlocutory rulings is well grounded in reason. It prevents the loss of time and money involved in piece-meal litigation and the moving party, though denied of immediate relief or vindication, is not prejudiced. The action simply continues toward a resolution of its merits following a decision on the motion. If unsuccessful at trial, the movant may still raise the denial of his motion as error on the appeal subsequent to the entry of the final order. Id. at 758-59, 197 S.E.2d at 99-100. (citations omitted). Although Wilfong did not directly address the denial of a motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted made pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the above rationale in Wilfong is nevertheless applicable to a 12(b)(6) motion. See 15A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3914.1 at 493 (2d ed. 1992) ("Ordinarily the denial [of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim] is not appealable." (footnote omitted)); Texaco, Inc. v. Cottage Hill Operating Co., 709 F.2d 452, 453 (7th Cir. 1983) ("As a general rule, denials of motions to dismiss are not appealable." (citations omitted)); Akerson v. City of Bridgeport, 649 A.2d 796 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994); School Bd. of Marion Co. v. Angel, 404 So. 2d 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981) (Prohibition is not available to review the correctness of a judge's ruling on a motion to dismiss); Thornton v. Hickox, 886 P.2d 779 (Idaho 1994); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 860 P.2d 216 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993); and Venzel v. Enright, 623 N.E.2d 69 (Ohio 1993).See footnote 5 Although for obvious reasons the defendants resist categorizing this prohibition as an appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss a claim for failure to state a cause of action, essentially that is what this proceeding involves. Accordingly, we hold that ordinarily the denial of a motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted made pursuant to West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is interlocutory and is, therefore, not immediately appealable. Thus, the defendants may not indirectly raise this issue by seeking a writ of prohibition in order to preclude the trial judge from compelling discovery.See footnote 6 B. Finally, we discuss whether the discovery in the case before us is relevant, and, if so, whether it is too oppressive and burdensome and should, therefore, be limited by the trial judge. The defendants argue that the discovery is not relevant to the complaint. Moreover, the defendants contend that the trial judge should have limited the discovery requests of the plaintiff in the following manner: (1) the trial judge should have imposed time- period limits upon the discovery; (2) the trial judge should have imposed geographic limits upon discovery; (3) the trial judge should have denied plaintiff's discovery of the defendants' income tax returns; and (4) the trial judge should have afforded more protection to the discovery than that which was provided. We are mindful that this Court has held the following in syllabus points 2, 3, and 4 of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stephens, 188 W. Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992): 2. Under Rule 26(b)(1)(iii) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court may limit discovery if it finds that the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. 3. Where a claim is made that a discovery request is unduly burdensome under Rule 26(b)(1)(iii) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court should consider several factors. First, a court should weigh the requesting party's need to obtain the information against the burden that producing the information places on the opposing party. This requires an analysis of the issues in the case, the amount in controversy, and the resources of the parties. Secondly, the opposing party has the obligation to show why the discovery is burdensome unless, in light of the issues, the discovery request is oppressive on its face. Finally, the court must consider the relevancy and materiality of the information sought. 4. The question of the relevancy of the information sought through discovery essentially involves a determination of how substantively the information requested bears on the issues to be tried. However, under Rule 26(b)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is not limited only to admissible evidence, but applies to information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also syl. pts. 3 and 4 of Truman v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 180 W. Va. 133, 375 S.E.2d 765 (1988). In Stephens, supra, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm) sought a writ of prohibition from this Court in order to prohibit the trial court from holding it in contempt for failing to comply with court- ordered discovery. State Farm contended that the discovery order in the bad faith action was oppressive and unduly burdensome. For example, the interrogatories requested State Farm to provide information on every claim filed against it nationwide since 1980 which involved allegations of bad faith, unfair trade practice violations, excess verdict claims, and inquiries from insurance industry regulators regarding State Farm's handling of claims. Id. An affidavit of a State Farm employee, Gary Driscoll, stated that it would cost $40 million to produce a list of all of the bad faith claims filed against State Farm nationwide since 1980. Based on these facts, this Court found that the trial court had substantially abused its discretion by compelling the above discovery since the information sought, although relevant, was unduly burdensome and oppressive. Id. In the case before us, the defendants make a general assertion that they should not be compelled to respond to the discovery because the discovery involves information which is not relevant and because the discovery involves the disclosure of "highly sensitive, proprietary financial information elicited by ... a business competitor[.]" Specifically, the defendants complain in their petition about the discovery of the following information: (1) pricing policy, price lists, and price charged since 1984 for concrete and how the prices were determined, including the use, time periods, application and conditions of discounts, escalation clauses, formula, multipliers, adjustments and labor and material indices; (2) a list by date and identification of documents reflecting the cost of manufacturing or producing concrete for each calendar quarter since 1984, and the proportion of the total costs represented by labor, materials and all other cost items, both fixed and variable; (3) the gross and net sales of concrete by quarter and year broken down according to all domestic sales and all foreign sales; (4) the total dollar amount of sales of concrete monthly since 1984 from defendants' Parkersburg/Vienna concrete plant, and to each customer from that plant; (5) the total dollar amount of sales concrete monthly since 1984 within West Virginia; (6) a list of customers who have made purchases of concrete since 1984 within West Virginia from the Parkersburg/Vienna plant and the date on which each purchase was made and the amount of each purchase ; (7) a list of each study or report concerning the productivity of labor, including labor productivity used in any negotiations of wage or salary with employees since 1984; (8) cost accounting policy; (9) new entrants into the market and the productive capacity and price structure of other manufacturers of concrete since 1984; and (10) the income tax returns of each of the two corporate defendants and the personal income tax returns of the owner of the two corporate defendants for each year since 1984. (emphasis provided and footnote omitted). As we have previously stated, "discovery is not limited only to admissible evidence, but applies to information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Syl. pt. 4, in relevant part, of Stephens, supra. Our review of the interrogatories and request for the production of documents indicates that the information requested by the plaintiff is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." The very nature of an antitrust action or an unfair trade practices action involves the discovery of how a business conducts itself. However, the fact that business trade secrets are being discovered does not make the information being sought less relevant. Furthermore, the discovery does not appear oppressive on its face, and the defendants, unlike State Farm in Stephens, supra, have failed to demonstrate how the discovery is oppressive and unduly burdensome. With this in mind, we address the defendants' specific arguments of how the trial judge should have limited the plaintiff's discovery requests. First, the defendants assert that the trial judge should have imposed time-period limits upon the discovery. Specifically, the defendants argue that the trial judge should have prevented the plaintiff from discovering information from 1984 until 1993 since the plaintiff was not even incorporated until 1993. The defendants contend that the information requested in the 1980's is not relevant. Conversely, the plaintiff asserts that the Supreme Court of the United States has expressly rejected this argument: The trial court further erred in its persistent exclusion of evidence relating to the pre-1938 period, on the ground that since [the petitioner] came to this country in 1938 nothing which transpired earlier could be relevant to his suit. Petitioners sought to introduce evidence that the conspiracy and monopolization alleged began in the early 1930's . . . . This evidence was clearly material to petitioners' charge that there was a conspiracy and monopolization in existence when they came into the industry, and that they were eliminated in furtherance thereof. Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 , 709-10, 82 S. Ct. 1404, 1416, 8 L. Ed. 2d 777, 790 (1962) (footnote omitted). Although the plaintiff in the case before us does not specifically assert into the complaint that the monopoly started prior to its entrance in the market, common sense dictates that a comparison between how the defendants conducted business prior to plaintiff's entrance into the market with how the defendants conducted business after the plaintiff's entered the market could rationally lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Thus, the defendants have failed to show that the trial judge substantially abused his discretion by not imposing time-period limits upon the discovery. Second, the defendants assert that the trial judge should have imposed geographic limits upon the discovery because the plaintiff's business is only in West Virginia whereas the defendants' business encompasses four states. The plaintiff correctly points out that the focus of the discovery is on the Parkersburg/Vienna area of West Virginia. Moreover, the plaintiff notes that W. Va. Code, 47-18-4 [1978] states: "The establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly or an attempt to establish a monopoly of trade or commerce, any part of which is within this State, by any persons for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices is unlawful." (emphasis added). Thus, information regarding the defendants' business in the other three states could rationally lead to admissible evidence regarding the existence of a monopoly which encompasses West Virginia as well as other states. The defendants have failed to show that the trial judge substantially abused his discretion by not imposing geographic limits upon the discovery. Third, the defendants assert that the trial judge should have denied the plaintiff's discovery of the defendants' income tax returns since they are not relevant. The plaintiff contends that the income tax returns are relevant since it is seeking punitive damages in its claim of tortious interference. See C.W. Development, Inc. v. Structures, Inc., 185 W. Va. 462, 466, 408 S.E.2d 41, 45-46 (1991) (Recognizing the potential for recovery of punitive damages under a tortious interference claim.) See also syl. pt. 13, TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources, Inc., 187 W. Va. 457, 419 S.E.2d 870 (1992), cert. granted in part by ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 594, 121 L. Ed. 2d 532 and judgment affirmed by ___ U. S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 2711, 125 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1993) (The financial position of the defendant is a factor a jury may consider when determining whether to award punitive damages.) The plaintiff argues that the defendants are alter egos of one another, therefore, the wealth and financial position of the defendants are factors relevant to whether the corporate veil may be pierced. Cf. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Maynard, 190 W. Va. 113, 437 S.E.2d 277 (1993) and Laya v. Erin Homes, Inc., 177 W. Va. 343, 352 S.E.2d 93 (1986). Whether the plaintiff will prevail on any of the aforementioned claims is not for this Court to decide. Nevertheless, we agree that the information sought could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the trial judge substantially abused his discretion by allowing the discovery of the defendants' income tax returns. Fourth, the defendants argue that the trial judge should have afforded more protection from the discovery of business and trade secrets than that which was afforded. W. Va. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) does provide that protective orders may be entered in order to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: . . . . (7) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way[.] Furthermore, this Court has outlined factors which should be considered when determining whether a protective order should be issued: The following six-factor test should be applied in determining whether there is 'good cause' pursuant to Rule 26(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a protective order: (1) The extent to which the information is known outside of the defendant's business; (2) The extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the defendant's business; (3) The extent of the measures taken by the defendant to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) The value of the information to the defendant and competitors; (5) The amount of effort or money expended by the defendant in developing the information; and (6) The ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. Syllabus, State ex rel. Johnson v. Tsapis, 187 W. Va. 337, 419 S.E.2d 1 (1992). As we previously pointed out, the trial judge did order that the information discovered could not go beyond the parties involved in this action. We fail to see nor do the defendants suggest how the trial judge could provide more protection to the defendants than he already has and still enable the plaintiff to acquire more information regarding its claim against the defendants. Cf. 4 James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.27 at 26-396 (2d ed. 1995) (A trial judge must weigh the need of the party who is seeking the protective order to keep certain information secret against the need of the party who is requesting the discovery to have the information in the action.) Therefore, the defendants have not shown that the trial judge substantially abused his discretion by not entering a broader protective order.See footnote 7 In conclusion, the information requested by the plaintiff is relevant to the complaint since it is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Moreover, unlike State Farm in Stephens, supra, the defendants have failed to demonstrate how the information requested is oppressive and unduly burdensome. The defendants correctly point out that the trial judge has broad authority to control the discovery process: There have been repeated expressions of concern about undue and uncontrolled discovery, and voices from this Court have joined the chorus. But until and unless there are major changes in the present Rules of Civil Procedure, reliance must be had on what in fact and in law are ample powers of the district judge to prevent abuse. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 176-77, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 1649, 60 L. E.2d 115, 134 (1979) (footnote omitted). However, this Court will not disturb the trial judge's decisions regarding discovery on a writ of prohibition unless the complaining party can show that the trial judge substantially abused his discretion. See syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Erickson v. Hill, supra. Upon all of the above, we hold that the defendants have failed to show that the trial judge substantially abused his discretion when compelling discovery. Thus, the defendants' request for a writ of prohibition is denied. Writ denied. Footnote: 1 Although not specifically stated in the complaint or in the record, the plaintiff asserts in its response to the petition for a writ of prohibition which is before us that the defendants informed the plaintiff when the plaintiff started constructing its concrete plant that they would run the plaintiff out of business. When the plaintiff persisted, the defendants collected signatures for a petition that would be presented to the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection in order to shut down the plaintiff's business. The plaintiff contends that eventually the defendants had their sales people follow the plaintiff's sales people, and when the plaintiff's sales people would be making a contract, the defendants' sales people would offer the contract at a lower price or at no cost and take the business. Footnote: 2 The defendants allege that they only had eight days to respond to the plaintiff's discovery request; however, the plaintiff points out that the defendants knew at the September 12, 1994 hearing that their response was due on October 12, 1994. Footnote: 3 As this Court noted in Stephens, supra at 626 n. 4, 425 S.E.2d at 581-82 n. 4, the above rule is based on syllabus point 1 of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W. Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979): In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance.Footnote: 4 This Court, in Wilfong, went on to suggest that an interlocutory order which denies a motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings may be certifiable to this Court under certain circumstances. Id. at 759, 197 S.E.2d at 100.Footnote: 5 Although not an issue in the case before us, we note that [an] appeal [of a denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim] is available in a few special circumstances to protect rights that are defined as rights intended to protect against the burden of trial rather than simply to protect against the entry of judgment, but such appeals are likely to be confined to clearly defined situations. The best illustration, so long as it stands, is provided by appeals based on claims of official immunity. Wright, supra at § 3914.1 at 493 (footnote omitted). Additionally, in criminal cases the appeal of a denial of the motion to dismiss the criminal charges may be appealable in special circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Nearhood, 518 N.W.2d 165 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994) (An order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal charges pending against him because he has not been tried within the 180 days time requirement is a final appealable order.)Footnote: 6 Although we decline to address the merits of the defendants' argument, we point out that this Court has held the following in syllabus point 3 of Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., 161 W. Va. 695, 246 S.E.2d 907 (1978): 'The trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' Syl. pt. 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., ___ W. Va. ___, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977) citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957). When discussing the above syllabus point this Court has explained that [a]ll that the pleader is required to do is to set forth sufficient information to outline the elements of his claim or to permit inferences to be drawn that these elements exist. The trial court should not dismiss a complaint merely because it doubts that the plaintiff will prevail in the action, and whether the plaintiff can prevail is a matter properly determined on the basis of proof and not merely on the pleadings. John W. Lodge Dist. Co., Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 161 W. Va. 603, 605-6, 245 S.E.2d 157 , 159 (1978) (citation omitted).Footnote: 7 The defendants also assert that the circuit court erred in not affording the defendants a hearing on their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. However, the defendants fail to cite to any authority to support their contention that the circuit court should have held such a hearing. Therefore, since the issue was not adequately addressed in the defendants' petition, we decline to address this issue in this writ of prohibition. See syl. pt. 3, Higginbotham v. City of Charleston, 157 W. Va. 724, 204 S.E.2d 1 (1974), overruled on other grounds, O'Neil v. City of Parkersburg, 160 W. Va. 694, 237 S.E.2d 504 (1977).

6dc654f2dea3abf8ed81e8166d34febeccae4dd5a4fb641e7cb038bb73033164

1995-06-19 00:00:00

f41d05c4-b2b3-4901-8186-a8d0a8e3460e

State of WV v. Saterfield

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

State of WV v. Saterfield Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1995 Term ___________ No. 22374 ___________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. SHAWN SATTERFIELD, Defendant Below, Appellant ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ritchie County Honorable Joseph Troisi, Judge Criminal Action No. 93-F-10 AFFIRMED ___________________________________________________ Submitted: January 11, 1995 Filed: March 27, 1995 Carl P. Bryant Bryant & White St. Marys, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellant Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. Attorney General Jacqueline I. Custer Senior Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellee JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. Justice Brotherton did not participate. Justices Cleckley and Fox, deeming themselves disqualified, did not participate. Judges Ranson and Berger sitting by temporary assignment. Chief Justice Neely dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "What is required for a dying declaration to be admissible is that the declarant have such a belief that he is facing death as to remove ordinary worldly motives for misstatement. In that regard, the court may consider the totality of the circumstances of motive to falsify and the manner in which the statement was volunteered or elicited." Syl. pt. 3, State v. Young, 166 W. Va. 309, 273 S.E.2d 592 (1980), holding modified on a different ground by State v. Julius, 185 W. Va. 422, 408 S.E.2d 1 (1991). 2. A suicide note may be admissible pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) as a dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. In order for a statement found in a suicide note to be admissible as a dying declaration the following must occur: the statement must have been made when the declarant was under the belief that his death was imminent, and the dying declaration must concern the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believes to be his impending death. 3. Once a trial judge determines that a statement falls within the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule found in W. Va. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then it must be determined whether the evidence is relevant pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 401 and 402 and, if so, whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 403. The statement is admissible only after the trial judge determines that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. 4. "'An indictment which charges that the defendant feloniously, wilfully, maliciously, deliberately, premeditatedly and unlawfully did slay, kill and murder is sufficient to support a conviction for murder committed in the commission of, or attempt to commit arson, rape, robbery or burglary, it not being necessary, under W. Va. Code, 61-2-1, to set forth the manner or means by which the death of the deceased was caused.' Syllabus Point 5, State v. Bragg, 160 W. Va. 455, 235 S.E.2d 466 (1977)." Syl. pt. 10, State v. Young, 173 W. Va. 1, 311 S.E.2d 118 (1983). 5. "'An instruction to the jury is proper if it is a correct statement of the law and if sufficient evidence has been offered at trial to support it.' Syllabus Point 8, State v. Hall, 171 W. Va. 212, 298 S.E.2d 246 (1982)." Syl. pt. 1, State v. White, 171 W. Va. 658, 301 S.E.2d 615 (1983). 6. "'"To warrant a change of venue in a criminal case, there must be a showing of good cause therefor, the burden of which rests on the defendant, the only person who, in any such case, is entitled to a change of venue. The good cause aforesaid must exist at the time application for a change of venue is made. Whether, on the showing made, a change of venue will be ordered, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed, unless it clearly appears that the discretion aforesaid has been abused." Point 2, Syllabus, State v. Wooldridge, 129 W. Va. 448, 40 S.E.2d 899 (1946).' Syllabus Point 1, State v. Sette, 161 W. Va. 384, 242 S.E.2d 464 (1978)." Syl. pt. 1, State v. Derr, ___ W. Va. ___, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994). 7. "'"A present hostile sentiment against an accused, extending throughout the entire county in which he is brought to trial, is good cause for removing the case to another county." Point 2, Syllabus, State v. Dandy, 151 W. Va. 547, 153 S.E.2d 507 (1967), quoting Point 1, Syllabus, State v. Siers, 103 W. Va. 30, 136 S.E. 503 (1927).' Syllabus Point 2, State v. Sette, 161 W. Va. 384, 242 S.E.2d 464 (1978)." Syl. pt. 2, State v. Derr, ___ W.Va. ___, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994). 8. "One of the inquiries on a motion for a change of venue should not be whether the community remembered or heard the facts of the case, but whether the jurors had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt or innocence of the defendant." Syl. pt. 3, State v. Derr, ___ W. Va. ___, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994). 9. "'"The true test as to whether a juror is qualified to serve on the panel is whether without bias or prejudice he can render a verdict solely on the evidence under the instructions of the court." Syllabus Point 1, State v. Kilpatrick, 158 W. Va. 289, 210 S.E.2d 480 (1974).' Syllabus Point 3, State v. Beck, 167 W. Va. 830, 286 S.E.2d 234 (1981)." Syl. pt. 7, State v. Neider, 170 W. Va. 662, 295 S.E.2d 902 (1982). 10. "'Where objections were not shown to have been made in the trial court, and the matters concerned were not jurisdictional in character, such objections will not be considered on appeal.' Syllabus Point 1, State Road Commission v. Ferguson, 148 W. Va. 742, 137 S.E.2d 206 (1964)." Syllabus point 3, O'Neal v. Peake Operating Co., 185 W. Va. 28, 404 S.E.2d 420 (1991). 11. "Where a State witness violates a sequestration order and is permitted to testify, the question on appeal is whether the witness's violation of the order and the ensuing testimony had a prejudicial effect on the defendant's case." Syl. pt. 4, State v. Steele, 178 W. Va. 330, 359 S.E.2d 558 (1987). 12. "'A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from the facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it before the verdict. (3) Such evidence must be new and material, and not merely cumulative; and cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same kind to the same point. (4) The evidence must be such as ought to produce an opposite result at a second trial on the merits. (5) And the new trial will generally be refused when the sole object of the new evidence is to discredit or impeach a witness on the opposite side.' Syllabus, State v. Frazier, 162 W. Va. 635, 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979), quoting, Syl. pt. 1, Halstead v. Horton, 38 W. Va. 727, 18 S.E. 953 (1894)." Syl. pt. 1, State v. King, 173 W. Va. 164, 313 S.E.2d 440 (1984). 13. "'A new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence or newly discovered evidence is very seldom granted and the circumstances must be unusual or special.' Syllabus Point 9, State v. Hamric, 151 W. Va. 1, 151 S.E.2d 252 (1966)." Syl pt. 2, State v. King, 173 W. Va. 164, 313 S.E.2d 440 (1984). 14. "'"The weight of circumstantial evidence, as in the case of direct evidence, is a question for jury determination, and whether such evidence excludes, to a moral certainty, every reasonable hypothesis, other than that of guilt, is a question for the jury." Syllabus point 4, State v. Bailey, 151 W. Va. 796, 155 S.E.2d 850 (1967).' Syl. pt. 4, State v. Meadows, 172 W. Va. 247, 304 S.E.2d 831 (1983)." Syl. pt. 4, State v. Gum, 172 W. Va. 534, 309 S.E.2d 32 (1983). McHugh, Justice: This case is before this Court upon the appeal of Shawn Satterfield from the October 13, 1993 order of the Circuit Court of Ritchie County which sentenced him to life imprisonment with eligibility for parole after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder with a recommendation of mercy. For reasons set forth below, we affirm the order of the circuit court. I. The appellant and his half-brother, Brian Vincent, were charged with murdering Billy Harper, a retired public school bus driver, during the late night hours of January 22, 1993. The facts surrounding the murder are contradictory and unclear. The strongest evidence against the appellant was provided by Glen Thomas and Bucky Moore, who were initially questioned by the police after witnesses stated that they saw Glen Thomas' car in the vicinity of the victim's home on the night of the murder. Thomas and Moore agreed to tell the police everything they knew about the murder if they would be granted immunity from prosecution for their involvement in the crime. Eventually, the trial court did grant immunity to Moore and Thomas for their testimony at trial. At trial, Moore and Thomas testified that they gave the appellant and Brian Vincent a ride to the vicinity of the victim's home. The appellant or Brian Vincent indicated that they were planning to rob the victim and anticipated having to hit the victim on the head during the robbery. When the appellant and Brian Vincent got out of the car, they had an ax handle with them. The ax handle had originally belonged to Thomas, but Thomas alleged that the ax handle was removed from his car by Brian Vincent prior to the incident. Moore and Thomas maintained that they were to return to pick up the appellant and Brian Vincent later in the evening. When Moore and Thomas returned to pick up the appellant and Brian Vincent, they were unable to locate them. Subsequently, Moore and Thomas alleged that when they saw the appellant and Brian Vincent, the two admitted that when robbing the victim, Brian Vincent had told the victim the appellant's name. Therefore, the appellant and Brian Vincent took turns striking the victim with the ax handle until he died. The appellant and Brian Vincent also allegedly told Moore and Thomas that they took the victim's billfold, which was never recovered, and a .22 rifle, which they hid behind a school bus stop in the vicinity. Evidently, the billfold was burned in the appellant's father's wood stove. During a search of the area after the murder, the ax handle, which was wrapped in the victim's plaid flannel jacket, and the .22 rifle, were recovered. Forensic reports state that the hair on the ax handle was consistent with the victim's hair. Moore's and Thomas' testimony further indicates that a couple of days after the murder the appellant and Brian Vincent stated that they needed a ride to Paul Greene's house, who is a friend of theirs, so that they could ask him to provide an alibi. The appellant and Brian Vincent were concerned with the disposal of their bloodied clothes. Paul Greene testified that the appellant and Brian Vincent came to his home and requested that he provide an alibi. Though Mr. Greene refused to provide one, he did not ask for a reason for the request. However, Paul Greene did describe a black garbage bag that the appellant had brought with him. The black garbage bag allegedly contained the bloodied clothes of the appellant and Brian Vincent. The appellant evidently took the bag with him when he and Brian Vincent left Mr. Greene's house and went to Don Vincent's house to stay the night. Don Vincent, who is co-defendant Brian Vincent's brother and appellant's half-brother, testified that he saw Brian Vincent retrieve the black garbage bag from a wood pile in his driveway. Brian Vincent and the appellant then disappeared into the woods with the black garbage bag and returned about thirty minutes later without it. Several witnesses testified that they saw two people walking along the highway in the vicinity of the victim's house on the night of the murder. The witnesses provided different descriptions of the two people and different descriptions of what they were wearing. At least one witness testified that one of the men had on a black leather coat and the other an army fatigue jacket. Thomas testified that he could have had on a black leather coat on the night of the murder. Moore admitted that he had on an army camouflage jacket on the night of the murder. However, three witnesses specifically identified the appellant as being one of the men walking along the highway. One witness saw the appellant earlier in the evening in a store wearing a red and black flannel jacket, and later he thought he saw the appellant and another individual walking along the highway near the victim's home. Another witness stated that he saw two men walking along the highway in dark clothing, but he could not identify either until the appellant's picture appeared in a newspaper. The third witness stated that he saw the appellant and another individual walking along the highway. Subsequent to the trial, at a hearing to set aside the verdict based upon newly-discovered evidence, a witness testified that she saw the appellant and Brian Vincent in the town of Pennsboro at the time the other witnesses state that they saw two men walking along a highway near the victim's house. Therefore, the appellant argues that witnesses could not have seen them walking along the highway near the victim's house. Moreover, Moore testified that after he and Thomas could not find the appellant and Brian Vincent when they returned to pick them up on the night of the murder, he went to Del Vincent's house (Del Vincent is Brian Vincent's brother and appellant's half- brother) where he stayed the night. Additionally, the only identifiable fingerprints at the crime scene were those of the victim. The expert testimony regarding the blood test results was contradictory. There was also testimony which indicates that all four men, the appellant, Brian Vincent, Thomas, and Moore, were smoking marihuana on the evening of the murder. During the trial the appellant's attorney aggressively cross-examined Moore and even suggested that Moore may have committed the murder. In fact, the appellant's attorney implied that Moore had told people that he struck the first blow on the victim during the murder. After recross-examination, Moore concluded his testimony, but was subject to recall by the State. Before the trial court reconvened the next day, Moore committed suicide. The appellant's attorney stated that he would not be calling witnesses to testify that Moore stated that he struck the first blow. However, subsequent to the suicide, Del Vincent testified that Moore did not come by his place on that night. Additionally, pursuant to the appellant's questioning, Del Vincent testified that Moore asked him to provide an alibi, and that on previous occasions Moore had bragged that he was going to kill people. Because of the appellant's attack on the credibility of Moore after his death and because the appellant suggested that Moore had committed the murders, the trial judge permitted the State to introduce a suicide note left by Moore which stated: "I didn't kill Harper and I won't do time for something that I didn't do. I'm sorry but I just can't take the presure [sic] of going through a trial. Good-by [sic]. [Signed] Bucky Moore. Tell Teresa [Bucky Moore's girlfriend] I loved he [sic] more than any thing in the world." The jury convicted the appellant of first degree murder with a recommendation of mercy based on the above evidence. II. The first issue before us is whether the trial judge erred by admitting into evidence the suicide note of Moore pursuant to the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule found in the West Virginia Rules of Evidence 804(b)(2). Even before the adoption of the rules of evidence, hearsay was generally not permitted in trials. See 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 658 (1994). The rationale for this rule is that out of court statements lack the conventional indicia of reliability: they are usually not made under oath or under circumstances that impress the declarant with the solemnity of his or her statements; the declarant's word is not subject to cross- examination; and the declarant is not available so that his or her demeanor and credibility may be assessed by the jury. Id. (footnote omitted). Nevertheless, several exceptions to the hearsay rule have been recognized. One of the exceptions is known as the dying declaration: The exception for dying declarations-- which antedates the development of the hearsay rule and the adoption of the Constitution was originally held to rest on the religious belief 'that the dying declarant, knowing that he is about to die would be unwilling to go to his maker with a lie on his lips.' 4 Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 804(b)(2)[01] at 804-124 to 804-125 (1994) (footnotes omitted and quote from Quick, Some Reflections on Dying Declarations, 6 Howard L.J. 109, 111 (1960)). Although in modern times the rationale for the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule is not necessarily religious, scholars continue to recognize the trustworthiness of a statement of a dying person since a dying person will not personally benefit from lying. See 29A Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 829 (1994) ("The dying declaration exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay statements at trial is based on the belief that persons making dying declarations are highly unlikely to lie." (footnote omitted)). See also 2 Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 8-4(B)(2) at 274 (3d 1994) ("The principle upon which the dying declaration is admitted . . . is that it has been made after the declarant . . . has presently approached so near upon the verge of death that he can see . . . no possible expectation, by anything he may do or say, of any personal benefit or advantage to himself in any of the material affairs of the outside world[.]") But see 4 Weinstein, supra at ¶ 804(b)(2)[01] at 804-125 ("[T]he lack of inherent reliability of deathbed statements has often been pointed out: experience indicates that the desire for revenge or self- exoneration or to protect one's loved ones may continue until the moment of death.") At common law the dying declaration exception only applied when the declarant was the murder victim. 2 Cleckley, supra. See State v. Meek, 107 W. Va. 324, 148 S.E. 208 (1929). However, the adoption of the rules of evidence has broadened the common law: (b) Hearsay Exceptions.--The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: . . . . (2) Statement under Belief of Impending Death.--In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. W. Va. R. Evid. 804(b)(2). The rules of evidence have obviously extended the dying declaration exception to civil cases and do not state that the declarant must be a murder victim. Under the rules of evidence, the focus is not on who made the statement when determining whether the dying declaration is admissible. Instead, courts focus on the circumstances giving rise to the dying declaration: What is required for a dying declaration to be admissible is that the declarant have such a belief that he is facing death as to remove ordinary worldly motives for misstatement. In that regard, the court may consider the totality of the circumstances of motive to falsify and the manner in which the statement was volunteered or elicited. Syl. pt. 3, State v. Young, 166 W. Va. 309, 273 S.E.2d 592 (1980), holding modified on a different ground by State v. Julius, 185 W.Va. 422, 408 S.E.2d 1 (1991). In the case before us, the dying declaration was in the form of a suicide note. Few courts have addressed whether a suicide note would ever fall into the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule.See footnote 1.There are at least two other cases which address whether a suicide note is admissible into evidence as a dying declaration: State v. Hodge, 655 S.W.2d 738 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983) and Commonwealth v. Antonini, 69 A.2d 436 (Superior Court of Penn. 1949). However, in both cases the courts found that the suicide note was not admissible since the declarant was not the victim of a homicide. See Hodge, 655 S.W.2d at 742 and Antonini, 69 A.2d at 438. These cases are not helpful to the issue before us since, as we have previously pointed out, W. Va. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) has broadened the common law to include declarants who are not murder victims.See footnote 2 Common sense dictates, however, that just as the rules of evidence have broadened the common law to include declarants who are not murder victims, the rules of evidence would also contemplate situations in which a dying declaration could be contained in a suicide note. Accordingly, we hold that a suicide note may be admissible pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) as a dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. In order for a statement found in a suicide note to be admissible as a dying declaration the following must occur: the statement must have been made when the declarant was under the belief that his death was imminent, and the dying declaration must concern the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believes to be his impending death. However, even if a trial judge finds that a suicide note is a dying declaration, that does not necessarily mean that the suicide note is admissible. The trial judge must additionally analyze whether the suicide note is relevant pursuant to W.Va. R. Evid. 401 and, if so, thereby admissible pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 402. However, if the probative value of the evidence "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice," then, although relevant, the evidence may be excluded pursuant to W.Va. R. Evid. 403.See footnote 3 See generally 1 Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 4-3 at 224 (3d 1994) (Evidence may generally be excluded under W. Va. R. Evid. 403 even though it otherwise qualifies for admission under the rules of evidence.)See footnote 4 Applying a 403 analysis to the hearsay exception is not a new concept. In Weinstein's text the following discussion regarding the admissibility of a dying declaration appears: The true test of admissibility is whether admission of the [dying declaration] statement will help the jury in its task, i.e., whether it is sufficiently reliable and relevant to withstand exclusion because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the party against whom it is offered. 4 Weinstein, supra at ¶ 804(b)(2)[01] at 804-131. Moreover, our prior cases support the notion that W. Va. R. Evid. 403 applies to hearsay situations. See State v. Murray, 180 W.Va. 41, 45, 375 S.E.2d 405 , 409 (1988) and State v. Golden, 175 W. Va. 551, 554-55, 336 S.E.2d 198 , 201 (1981). We caution a trial judge to be mindful that evidence may not be excluded under W. Va. R. Evid. 403 merely because he or she does not find the evidence to be credible, although the trial judge may consider the probative value of the evidence when undertaking the required balancing test pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 403. See U.S. v. Thompson, 615 F.2d 329, 332-33 (5th Cir. 1980). After all, it is fundamental that credibility determinations are for the jury.See footnote 5 Id. at 332. Thus, we hold that once a trial judge determines that a statement falls within the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule found in W. Va. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then it must be determined whether the evidence is relevant pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 401 and 402 and, if so, whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 403. The statement is admissible only after the trial judge determines that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Applying the analysis we set forth above to this case poses two questions: (1) is Moore's suicide note a dying declaration and (2) if so, is it relevant and is its probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. Is Moore's suicide note a dying declaration? Clearly, there was evidence that Moore wrote the suicide note with the belief that he was facing imminent death because he killed himself soon after writing the note. Additionally, the suicide note explained why Moore killed himself thereby explaining the causes or circumstances which led to his death. Therefore, Moore's suicide note falls within the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. Is Moore's suicide note relevant and, if so, is its probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the appellant? Though the trial judge in the case before us did not use this analysis, our review of the record reveals that Moore's suicide note is relevant and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice. In summary, we hold that Moore's suicide note falls within the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. We further conclude that the application of W. Va. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403 to the facts in this case demonstrates that the probative value of the suicide note is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice. Therefore, it was not error for the trial judge to admit Moore's suicide note into evidence. III. The following three issues raised by the appellant will be addressed together since they are all related: (1) was the indictment charging the appellant with murder defective since it did not specifically state that the appellant was being charged with the offense of felony murder as well as first degree murder; (2) was it error for the trial judge to read instructions regarding felony murder; and (3) was it error for the trial judge to rule that involuntary manslaughter was not a lesser included offense of murder. For reasons explained below, we find that the above issues are without merit. According to the appellant, the indictment charged him with "feloniously, maliciously, deliberately and unlawfully . . . slay[ing], kill[ing], and murder[ing] one Billy Harper[.]" The appellant argues that since the indictment did not reflect that the murder occurred during a robbery, it was error for the trial judge to read instructions regarding felony murder. However, this argument has been rejected previously by this Court in a case in which the defendant was convicted under the theory of felony murder: 'An indictment which charges that the defendant feloniously, wilfully, maliciously, deliberately, premeditatedly and unlawfully did slay, kill and murder is sufficient to support a conviction for murder committed in the commission of, or attempt to commit arson, rape, robbery or burglary, it not being necessary, under W. Va. Code, 61-2-1, to set forth the manner or means by which the death of the deceased was caused.' Syllabus Point 5, State v. Bragg, 160 W. Va. 455, 235 S.E.2d 466 (1977). Syl. pt. 10, State v. Young, 173 W. Va. 1, 311 S.E.2d 118 (1983). Thus, it is clear that the indictment did not need to specifically charge the appellant with felony murder. Additionally, it follows that it was not error for the trial judge to read instructions regarding felony murder. As for the appellant's last contention that it was error for the trial judge to rule that involuntary manslaughter was not a lesser included offense of murder, the State maintains that the trial judge properly found that the evidence at the trial did not support an instruction to the jury on involuntary manslaughter. This Court held in syllabus point 1 of State v. White, 171 W. Va. 658, 301 S.E.2d 615 (1983) that "'[a]n instruction to the jury is proper if it is a correct statement of the law and if sufficient evidence has been offered at trial to support it.' Syllabus Point 8, State v. Hall, 171 W. Va. 212, 298 S.E.2d 246 (1982)." Our review of the record reveals that the State is correct: the evidence at the trial did not support an instruction to the jury on involuntary manslaughter. IV. The next issue raised by the appellant is whether the trial judge erred by refusing to grant the appellant's motion for a change in venue. Syllabus points 1, 2 and 3 of State v. Derr, ___ W. Va. ___, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994) are helpful to the resolution of this issue: 1. '"To warrant a change of venue in a criminal case, there must be a showing of good cause therefor, the burden of which rests on the defendant, the only person who, in any such case, is entitled to a change of venue. The good cause aforesaid must exist at the time application for a change of venue is made. Whether, on the showing made, a change of venue will be ordered, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed, unless it clearly appears that the discretion aforesaid has been abused." Point 2, Syllabus, State v. Wooldridge, 129 W. Va. 448, 40 S.E.2d 899 (1946).' Syllabus Point 1, State v. Sette, 161 W. Va. 384, 242 S.E.2d 464 (1978). 2. '"A present hostile sentiment against an accused, extending throughout the entire county in which he is brought to trial, is good cause for removing the case to another county." Point 2, Syllabus, State v. Dandy, 151 W. Va. 547, 153 S.E.2d 507 (1967) quoting Point 1, Syllabus, State v. Siers, 103 W. Va. 30, 136 S.E. 503 (1927).' Syllabus Point 2, State v. Sette, 161 W. Va. 384, 242 S.E.2d 464 (1978). 3. One of the inquiries on a motion for a change of venue should not be whether the community remembered or heard the facts of the case, but whether the jurors had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In the case before us, the trial judge conducted a thorough individual voir dire of each prospective juror over the course of four days. Our review of the record indicates that most of the prospective jurors had heard about the case through the television, newspaper, or word of mouth, although few of the jurors could remember any specific details. However, each prospective juror was specifically asked whether his or her knowledge of the case would influence his or her decision at trial, and those prospective jurors who indicated that they could not be impartial were dismissed for cause. Because of the extensive voir dire conducted by the trial judge and because any juror who stated that he or she could not be impartial was removed, we do not find that a change of venue was necessary. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to grant the change of venue. V. The next issue raised by the appellant is that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant the appellant's challenge for cause of L. R. Northcraft, a prospective juror who was a good friend of four key State witnesses, a friend of the victim and the victim's daughter, and who knew some of the facts of the case from the two people who discovered the body of the victim.See footnote 6 The State points out that Northcraft also stated that he knew the appellant's family. The trial judge repeatedly questioned Northcraft about whether he could be impartial, and Northcraft repeatedly assured the trial judge that he could be. This Court held in syllabus point 7 of State v. Neider, 170 W. Va. 662, 295 S.E.2d 902 (1982) that "'"[t]he true test as to whether a juror is qualified to serve on the panel is whether without bias or prejudice he can render a verdict solely on the evidence under the instructions of the court." Syllabus Point 1, State v. Kilpatrick, 158 W. Va. 289, 210 S.E.2d 480 (1974).' Syllabus Point 3, State v. Beck, 167 W. Va. 830, 286 S.E.2d 234 (1981)." Our review of the record indicates that Northcraft was qualified to serve on the panel. Thus, we do not find that the trial judge erred in his ruling regarding prospective juror Northcraft. VI. The appellant's next assignment of error involves whether or not the trial judge erred in giving instructions regarding accomplices and robbery. We are mindful that "[i]n reviewing the adequacy of a trial court's choice and selection of jury instructions, we accord the trial court much discretion and will not reverse provided that the instructions, taken as whole, adequately state the controlling law." Derr, ___ W. Va. at ___, 451 S.E.2d at 745. A. More specifically, the appellant asserts that the trial court erred in granting an instruction on accomplices and accomplice testimony when there was no testimony by an accomplice at trial. The basis of the appellant's argument is that since neither he nor Brian Vincent testified at trial and since no one else was charged with the crime, there was no testimony by an accomplice. An accomplice is defined as "[o]ne who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an accessory." Black's Law Dictionary 17 (6th ed. 1990) (citation omitted). The State correctly points out that although neither the appellant nor Brian Vincent testified, Thomas and Moore testified and both could be considered accomplices since they knowingly drove the appellant and Brian Vincent to the scene of the crime.See footnote 7 Therefore, Thomas and Moore assisted the appellant with the crime. Additionally, the State contends that the appellant tendered an instruction on accomplice testimony similar to that offered by the State which the trial judge refused. Therefore, the appellant cannot complain about an instruction which was granted on the same issue. We agree with the State's contentions and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. B. The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in granting an instruction defining the elements of robbery without specifically stating that the stolen goods were "of value" as set forth in W. Va. Code, 61-2-12 [1961]. We disagree. The words "of value" do not appear in the text of the portion of the robbery statute which is applicable to the facts in the case before us. Instead, the words "of value" only appear in the portion of the robbery statute which concerns bank robberies. See W. Va. Code, 61-2-12 [1961]. Moreover, although not directly on point, this Court held the following in syllabus point 2 of State v. Alvis, 116 W. Va. 326, 180 S.E. 257 (1935): "It must appear from an indictment for robbery that the article taken had value, but value need not be specifically averred." (emphasis added). This Court explained that "'[a]s force or fear is the main ingredient of [robbery], the indictment need not specify value.' [citations omitted] We know as men that some value attaches to a rifle, watch and flashlight. The amount of that value is not material." Id., 116 W. Va. at 327, 180 S.E. at 257-58 (1935) (citations omitted). This rationale is equally applicable to jury instructions regarding robbery. The trial judge, in the case before us, adequately instructed the jury since he specifically stated in the jury instructions that the jury must find that the State proved that a wallet or a .22 rifle was taken with force in order to find that robbery had occurred.See footnote 8 Therefore, we find the appellant's contentions to be without merit.See footnote 9 VII. The appellant argues that the State made several unfair statements during its closing argument. First, the appellant complains that the State made unprofessional statements regarding the appellant's trial counsel during the closing argument. Evidently, the appellant's trial counsel had remarked that the State kept information from the appellant, although it is not clear from the record when such remark was made. The State during closing arguments made the following statement about the remarks of the appellant's trial counsel: the appellant's trial counsel's remarks are "nothing but a low down lie." The appellant contends that this statement was prejudicial. The State, on the other hand, points out that the appellant failed to object to its comment; therefore, the appellant failed to preserve this error. We agree: "'Where objections were not shown to have been made in the trial court, and the matters concerned were not jurisdictional in character, such objections will not be considered on appeal.' Syllabus Point 1, State Road Commission v. Ferguson, 148 W. Va. 742, 137 S.E.2d 206 (1964)." Syllabus point 3, O'Neal v. Peake Operating Co., 185 W. Va. 28, 404 S.E.2d 420 (1991). Accordingly, we decline to further address this issue. Second, the appellant complains that the trial judge erred in permitting the State in closing argument to add the following additional information which was not in evidence: that glass was recovered from the victim's pants and that Brian Vincent was employed at a glass factory at one time, thereby implying that Brian Vincent was at the scene of the crime. The State correctly points out that the information the appellant complains about was in evidence. There was testimony at trial from Dr. Livingstone, the assistant medical examiner, that glass was found on the victim. Also, there was testimony that Brian Vincent was working in a glass factory at the time of the murder. Therefore, since this information was in evidence, it was not error for the State to bring this information up during closing argument. Moreover, the appellant failed to object to the State's discussion of this evidence during closing argument. Third, the appellant complains that the State misquoted the evidence relating to the DNA test results. The State points out that the appellant objected upon the prosecuting attorney's discussion of the DNA test results. When the appellant objected, the prosecuting attorney immediately apologized in front of the jury for misquoting the evidence and then moved on to another topic. We do not find that the State's remarks in closing argument require reversal of the jury verdict. VIII. The appellant also argues that the trial judge erred in permitting two witnesses, Thomas and Moore, to be interviewed and coached by the prosecution at the same time and in the same room after the trial court had ordered that all witnesses be sequestered. First, the trial judge did not permit the prosecution to interview Thomas and Moore at the same time. The trial judge was unaware that this had occurred until after the State had interviewed Thomas and Moore at the same time. Second, the trial judge responded to this violation of the sequestration order by (1) refusing to allow the State to introduce into evidence any previously undisclosed information which it became aware of as a result of this meeting; and by (2) advising the jury prior to Moore's and Thomas' testimony that they had jointly met with the prosecution prior to trial. This Court held the following in syllabus point 4 of State v. Steele, 178 W. Va. 330, 359 S.E.2d 558 (1987): " Where a State witness violates a sequestration order and is permitted to testify, the question on appeal is whether the witness's violation of the order and the ensuing testimony had a prejudicial effect on the defendant's case." The State argues that since Moore and Thomas had previously given statements to the police which could have been used to impeach their testimony, there was no error. We agree that the violation of the sequestration order did not have prejudicial effect on the appellant's case. The trial judge cautioned the jury by stating the following before Moore and Thomas testified: I wish to again advise the jury in assessing the credibility and the weight of the testimony of Bucky Moore you may consider the fact that on Sunday, July 25, the prosecuting attorney, David Hanlon, met with Glen Thomas and Bucky Moore together all three present at the same time and place, and the prosecuting attorney discussed with and questioned each of them, Glen Thomas and Bucky Moore, regarding their testimony and statements. Additionally, Moore and Thomas had previously given statements to the police prior to violating the sequestration order which could have been used to impeach their testimony. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err by permitting Moore and Thomas to testify. IX. The appellant argues that a new trial should have been granted since a witness was discovered subsequent to the trial who saw the appellant and Brian Vincent at a different location at the time other witnesses claim to have seen them walking on a road near the victim's house. We are guided by principles set forth in syllabus points 1 and 2 of State v. King, 173 W. Va. 164, 313 S.E.2d 440 (1984): 1. 'A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from the facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it before the verdict. (3) Such evidence must be new and material, and not merely cumulative; and cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same kind to the same point. (4) The evidence must be such as ought to produce an opposite result at a second trial on the merits. (5) And the new trial will generally be refused when the sole object of the new evidence is to discredit or impeach a witness on the opposite side.' Syllabus, State v. Frazier, 162 W. Va. 635, 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979), quoting, Syl. pt. 1, Halstead v. Horton, 38 W. Va. 727, 18 S.E. 953 (1894). 2. 'A new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence or newly discovered evidence is very seldom granted and the circumstances must be unusual or special.' Syllabus Point 9, State v. Hamric, 151 W. Va. 1, 151 S.E.2d 252 (1966). Additionally, we are mindful that the decision to grant a new trial is within the discretion of the trial court. Id. 173 W. Va. at 165, 313 S.E.2d at 442. Our review of the record does not reveal that the testimony of the newly discovered witness is so unusual or special that it will produce an opposite result. Therefore, the trial judge did not err by refusing to award a new trial. X. Lastly, the appellant complains that the jury verdict is contrary to the law and contrary to the weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appellant argues that the evidence against him was wholly circumstantial. Additionally, the appellant maintains that most of the evidence came from Moore and Thomas, and that Moore had obviously not been truthful. Thus, the jury did not have sufficient evidence to find the appellant guilty. The appellant correctly states that most of the evidence against him was circumstantial. This Court has held the following about circumstantial evidence in syllabus point 4 of State v. Gum, 172 W. Va. 534, 309 S.E.2d 32 (1983): '"The weight of circumstantial evidence, as in the case of direct evidence, is a question for jury determination, and whether such evidence excludes, to a moral certainty, every reasonable hypothesis, other than that of guilt, is a question for the jury." Syllabus point 4, State v. Bailey, 151 W. Va. 796, 155 S.E.2d 850 (1967).' Syl. pt. 4, State v. Meadows, 172 W. Va. 247, 304 S.E.2d 831 (1983). Our review of the record indicates that the jury had sufficient evidence to make a determination of guilt or innocence. There was evidence that the appellant and Brian Vincent were seen walking near the victim's house. There was also evidence that the two asked someone to provide an alibi. Additionally, Thomas and Moore testified that either Brian Vincent or the appellant told them that they had killed the victim. Also, an ax handle which was recovered in the woods had hair on it which was consistent with the victim's hair, and a .22 rifle which belonged to the victim was recovered from behind a school bus stop. Moreover, the jury was instructed by the trial judge to keep in mind that "[c]ircumstantial evidence must always be scanned with great caution and can never justify a verdict of guilty unless the circumstances proved are of such character as to produce upon a fair and unprejudiced mind a moral conviction of guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." Accordingly, we do not find that the verdict against the appellant should be set aside. XI. Since the appellant does not raise any errors which warrant reversal, we affirm the October 7, 1993 order of the Circuit Court of Ritchie County. Affirmed. Footnote: 1 At least one court, in dicta, has stated that the suicide note in the case before it would not be admissible as a dying declaration. United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989, 94 S. Ct. 1586, 39 L. Ed. 2d 885 (1974), and cert. denied by Enten v. U.S., 415 U.S. 989, 94 S. Ct. 1587, 39 L. Ed. 2d 885. In Lemonakis, an informer, who was granted immunity to testify against the appellant, committed suicide before the trial against the appellant began. In a suicide note left to the informer's girlfriend the informer stated that the appellant did not commit the robberies. The appellant moved to admit the suicide note as exculpatory evidence; however, the trial court excluded it as hearsay. The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit stated that fairness required that the suicide note be admitted into evidence in spite of the hearsay rule. The rationale was that since inculpatory recordings between the informer and appellant had been admitted at trial, fairness demanded that the exculpatory suicide note be admitted. However, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit ultimately held that the exclusion of the suicide note by the trial court below was harmless error. Id. at 956-58. In a footnote the United States Court of Appeals stated that since the note was not made with the belief that death was imminent (the note was written almost a week before the informant committed suicide) and since the note did not contain information about the causes or circumstances of its maker's death, the suicide note would not fall into the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. Id. at 956 n. 24.Footnote: 2 There are at least two other cases which address whether a suicide note is admissible into evidence as a dying declaration: State v. Hodge, 655 S.W.2d 738 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983) and Commonwealth v. Antonini, 69 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1949). However, in both cases the courts found that the suicide note was not admissible since the declarant was not the victim of a homicide (neither Missouri nor Pennsylvania has codified or adopted rules of evidence which are similar to the West Virginia Rules of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Evidence). See Hodge, 655 S.W.2d at 742 and Antonini, 69 A.2d at 438. These cases are not helpful to the issue before us since, as we have previously pointed out, West Virginia has adopted W. Va. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), which has broadened the common law to include declarants who are not murder victims.Footnote: 3 W. Va. R. Evid. 401 states:" Rule 401. Definition of 'Relevant Evidence'. 'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." W. Va. R. Evid. 402 states: " Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible . All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia, by these rules, or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Appeals. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." W. Va. R. Evid. 403 states: " Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time . Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."Footnote: 4 It has been stated that W. Va. R. Evid. 609, which concerns the admissibility of convictions for impeachment purposes, may be an exception to the W. Va. R. Evid. 403 analysis. See 1 Cleckley, supra § 4-3 at 224. However, since this issue is not before us, we decline to further address it.Footnote: 5 We point out that the analysis has changed somewhat since syllabus point 3 of Young, supra was written due to the adoption of the rules of evidence (our discussion of Young is found on page 9 of this opinion). Therefore, we clarify that the jury and not the trial judge determines whether there is a motive to falsify since that issue goes to whether the dying declaration is credible.Footnote: 6 Although a prospective juror, Northcraft was not selected as a juror for appellant's trial.Footnote: 7 The trial judge gave the following instruction regarding accomplice testimony: The Court further instructs the jury that an accomplice is a person who knowingly and with criminal intent participates directly or indirectly with another person in the commission of a crime. The testimony of an accomplice is admissible in evidence yet in considering such testimony as to matters connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime which are not supported by other evidence and circumstances you should examine such testimony with great care and caution in determining what weight you give thereto. You may, however, find the defendant guilty on the evidence of an accomplice standing alone and not supported by any other evidence if you are convinced by such evidence of the defendant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Footnote: 8 The trial judge gave the following instruction on robbery: To prove the commission of or attempt to commit robbery the state of West Virginia must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.) that the defendant, Shawn Satterfield, in Ritchie County, West Virginia, on or about the 23rd day of January, 1993, attempted to unlawfully or unlawfully took and carried away or attempted to take and carry away a wallet or .22 rifle from the person of Bill Harper or in his presence against his will by use of force or violence to Bill Harper or by the threat or presenting of a deadly weapon or instrumentality or by putting him in fear of bodily injury and with the intent to permanently deprive Bill Harper of his property. Robbery is the unlawful taking or carrying away of money or goods from the person of another or in his presence against his will by force or violence to his person or by the threat or presenting of a deadly weapon or instrumentality or by putting him in fear of bodily injury with the intent to deprive him permanently of the property. In order to constitute the crime of attempted robbery two requirements must be met; one, a specific intent to commit the robbery and two, an overt act toward the commission of the robbery which falls short of completing the robbery. Footnote: 9 The appellant also argues that the trial judge erred by refusing 42 of appellant's instructions and in granting 11 of the State's instructions. However, since these issues were not adequately addressed in the appellant's brief, we decline to address these issues on appeal. See syl. pt. 3, Higginbotham v. City of Charleston, 157 W. Va. 724, 204 S.E.2d 1 (1974), overruled on other grounds, O'Neil v. City of Parkersburg, 160 W. Va. 694, 237 S.E.2d 504 (1977).

0c7152fdd7e6658ce4c196695a0e742910d3d2872a1eb6aec678662f3a2990e3

1995-03-27 00:00:00

3c3e28f7-31aa-47cd-94fb-1a5b3db0ef14

Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1995 Term __________ No. 22165 __________ MARY JANE BAREFOOT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GRACE LAMBERT, Plaintiff Below, Appellee V. SUNDALE NURSING HOME, JERRY BAIR, AND NANCY EDGELL, Defendants Below SUNDALE NURSING HOME, Appellant _____________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County Honorable Larry V. Starcher, Judge Civil Action No. 92-C-82 AFFIRMED _____________________________________________________ Submitted Upon Rehearing: April 4, 1995 Filed: April 13, 1995 Calvin Willie Wood Fairmont, West Virginia Attorney for Appellee Richard M. Yurko, Jr. Jill Oliverio Steptoe & Johnson Clarksburg, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellant JUSTICE CLECKLEY delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE BROTHERTON did not participate. RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER sitting by temporary assignment. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it is not the task of the appellate court reviewing facts to determine how it would have ruled on the evidence presented. Its task is to determine whether the evidence was such that a reasonable trier of fact might have reached the decision below. Thus, in ruling on a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. If on review, the evidence is shown to be legally insufficient to sustain the verdict, it is the obligation of this Court to reverse the circuit court and to order judgment for the appellant." Syllabus Point 1, Mildred L.M. v. John O.F., ___ W.Va. ___, 452 S.E.2d 436 (1994). 2.The "but for" test of discriminatory motive in Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 178 W. Va. 164, 358 S.E.2d 423 (1986), is merely a threshold inquiry, requiring only that a plaintiff show an inference of discrimination. 3."A complainant in a disparate treatment, discriminatory discharge case . . . may meet the initial prima facie burden by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that the complainant is a member of a group protected by the Act; (2) that the complainant was discharged, or forced to resign, from employment; and (3) that a nonmember of the protected group was not disciplined, or was disciplined less severely, than the complainant, though both engaged in similar conduct." Syllabus Point 2, in part, State ex rel. State of West Virginia Human Rights Commission v. Logan-Mingo Mental Health Agency, Inc., 174 W. Va. 711, 329 S.E.2d 77 (1985). 4. Unless a comparison employee and a plaintiff share the same characteristics, the comparison employee cannot be classified as a member of a plaintiff's class for purposes of rebutting prima facie evidence of disparate treatment. 5.After the employer has articulated a nondiscriminatory justification for its employment decision, to defeat a motion for a directed verdict, a plaintiff need not show more than the articulated reasons were implausible and, thus, pretextual. A finding of pretextuality allows a juror to reject a defendant's proffered reasons for a challenged employment action and, thus, permits the ultimate inference of discrimination. 6."In proving a prima facie case of disparate impact under the Human Rights Act, W.Va. Code 5-11-1 [1967] et seq., the plaintiff bears the burden of (1) demonstrating that the employer uses a particular employment practice or policy and (2) establishing that such particular employment practice or policy causes a disparate impact on a class protected by the Human Rights Act. The employer then must prove that the practice is 'job related' and 'consistent with business necessity.' If the employer proves business necessity, the plaintiff may rebut the employer's defense by showing that a less burdensome alternative practice exists which the employer refuses to adopt. Such a showing would be evidence that employer's policy is a 'pretext' for discrimination." Syllabus Point 3, WestVa. University v. Decker, 191 W. Va. 567, 447 S.E.2d 259 (1994). 7."'Disparate impact in an employment discrimination case is ordinarily proved by statistics[.]' Syl. pt. 3, in part, Guyan Valley Hospital, Inc. v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 181 W.Va. 251, 382 S.E.2d 88 (1989)." Syllabus Point 2, Dobson v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 188 W. Va. 17, 422 S.E.2d 494 (1992). 8.As a general rule, a trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether to give special verdicts and interrogatories to a jury unless it is mandated to do so by statute. 9."Where a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more liability issues and its verdict is supported by the evidence on at least one issue, the verdict will not be reversed, unless the defendant has requested and been refused the right to have the jury make special findings as to his liability on each of the issues." Syllabus Point 6, Orr v. Crowder, 173 W. Va. 335, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 981, 105 S. Ct. 384, 83 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1984). 10.To the extent that a per se reversible error rule was announced in Orr v. Crowder, 173 W. Va. 335, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 981, 105 S. Ct. 384, 83 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1984), it should be limited to the specific facts stated and a further expansion of this rule is unwarranted. 11. Although it would be preferable to give special verdict forms in multiple theory employment discrimination cases, which would remove doubt as to the jury's consideration of any alternative basis of liability that does not have adequate evidentiary support, the refusal to do so does not provide an independent basis for reversing an otherwise valid judgment. Cleckley, Justice: This case was originally submitted for decision at the September, 1994, term of this Court, and an opinion was filed on December 8, 1994. Thereafter, the plaintiff below and appellee herein, Mary Jane Barefoot, Administratrix of the Estate of Grace Lambert, petitioned for a rehearing and said petition was granted. On April 4, 1995, this case was reheard and the Court, thereafter, withdrew the original opinion. We now issue the following opinion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The defendant below and appellant herein, Sundale Nursing Home, appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County upholding a jury verdict awarding Mary Jane Barefoot, Administratrix of the Estate of Grace Lambert, $32,000 because of Sundale's alleged discriminatory discharge of Ms. Lambert.See footnote 1 On appeal, the defendant asserts several assignments of error including the plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case showing discrimination or, in the alternative, the plaintiff's failure to prove the defendant's business excuse was a pretext for discriminatory purposes. On June 14, 1991, Theresa L. Ratcliffe, a nursing assistant employed by Sundale, reported Ms. Lambert (the decedent), another nursing assistant employee, struck the patient with whom they both were working, causing a skin tear on his arm. The matter was reported to Nancy Edgell, the Director of Nursing.See footnote 2 After informing Jerry Bair, Sundale's administrator, and other administrators, Ms. Edgell interviewed Ms. Ratcliffe, the floor nurse who examined the patient, and Ms. Lambert. Ms. Edgell also reviewed the patient's medical records, visited the patient, and observed the skin tear on his arm. According to Ms. Edgell, Ms. Lambert said "she didn't cause the skin tear but she did not refute the fact that she had struck the resident." In an unrelated matter before a State Employment Security Administrative Law Judge, Ms. Lambert gave the following testimony: "'I did not put the skin tear on the man and all I did was tap him on the top. He had his fist like this. So, this is the way that he comes into my stomach; and I just tapped him on the top of the hand. I did not hurt the man. He never even said "ouch" and that was just to calm him down from hitting me the fifth time in the stomach and if I had of put a skin tear on him, I would have gone straight to the nurse but I did not put a skin tear on the man.'" According to the defendant's personnel manual, the first offense penalty for "[a]buse of resident, use of obscene or abusive language, striking, threatening, or harassing a resident" is discharge. Ms. Lambert's personnel file contained a receipt acknowledging that Ms. Lambert received Sundale's personnel manual and read and understood Sundale's personnel policies. Following an investigation of the alleged incident, Sundale dismissed Ms. Lambert for striking a resident. Following her June 14, 1991, dismissal, Ms. Lambert filed suit on January 24, 1992, alleging she was discharged because she was female, over forty years old, and a Native American. On January 31, 1992, while this suit was pending, Ms. Lambert died of cardiac arrestSee footnote 3; Ms. Barefoot was substituted as plaintiff.See footnote 4 At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence supporting a prima facie case of both disparate treatment and disparate impact by the defendant. The plaintiff also attempted to establish that the decedent's discharge was discriminatory by presenting evidence that other employees who had struck patients were not fired and the defendant fired all five of its Native American employees within a six- to eight-month period. After the jury returned a verdict against SundaleSee footnote 5 awarding the plaintiff $32,000, the circuit court denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, granting a new trial. Sundale then appealed to this Court. II. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE A. Standard of Review Sundale challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment entered in this case. Essentially, Sundale argues it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for failure of the plaintiff to meet her burden of proof at trial. Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict if, with respect to an issue essential to a plaintiff's case, there exists no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff. 5A James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶50.08 at 50-76 (2nd ed. 1994).See footnote 6 Under this rule, a circuit court may enter a favorable ruling for the movant if, after examining the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, it determines the evidence could lead a reasonable person to only one conclusion favorable to the movant. Powell v. Time Ins. Co., 181 W. Va. 289, 382 S.E.2d 342 (1989). If there is reasonable doubt, that is evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors might reach a different conclusion, then the motion should be denied. In Syllabus Point 1 of Mildred L.M. v. John O.F., ___ W.Va. ___, 452 S.E.2d 436 (1994), this Court stated: "In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it is not the task of the appellate court reviewing facts to determine how it would have ruled on the evidence presented. Its task is to determine whether the evidence was such that a reasonable trier of fact might have reached the decision below. Thus, in ruling on a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. If on review, the evidence is shown to be legally insufficient to sustain the verdict, it is the obligation of this Court to reverse the circuit court and to order judgment for the appellant." Thus, a circuit court's denial of a motion under Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure will be reversed only if the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the movant that a reasonable jury could not reach a verdict against the movant. In performing this analysis, the credibility of the witnesses will not be considered, conflicts in testimony will not be resolved, and the weight of the evidence will not be evaluated. In other words, we will reverse the circuit court's ruling denying such a motion if, after scrutinizing the proof and inferences derivable therefrom in the light most hospitable to the plaintiff, we determine that a reasonable factfinder could have reached but one conclusion: Sundale was entitled to judgment. A denial of a motion for j.n.o.v.See footnote 7 is reviewed de novo, which means the same stringent decisional standards that control circuit courts are used.See footnote 8 While our review of this motion is plenary, it also is circumscribed because we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Singer v. Dungan, 45 F.3d 823, 827 (4th Cir. 1995). Against this backdrop, we examine the claim that the circuit court improperly denied the defendant's motion below. B. Disparate Treatment We have consistently held that cases brought under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code, 5-11-1, et seq., are governed by the same analytical framework and structures developed under Title VII, at least where our statute's language does not direct otherwise. E.g., West Va. University v. Decker, 191 W.Va. 567, 447 S.E.2d 259 (1994); Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp, 178 W. Va. 164, 358 S.E.2d 423 (1986).See footnote 9 Under the burden- shifting McDonnell Douglas-Burdine framework for analyzing pretext claims, a plaintiff must first create an inference of discrimination by establishing a prima facie case. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2747, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407, 416 (1993); Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 , 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207, 214-15 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 677-78 (1973), receded from by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 1701, 123 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1993). The burden of production then shifts to the defendant to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged employment action. See St. Mary's Honor Center, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2747, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 416 (employer must produce evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason to rebut the presumption of discrimination created by the prima facie case). See also Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. at 1093, 67 L. Ed. 2d at 215; McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 677-78. Finally, the plaintiff then is accorded an opportunity to demonstrate that either age, gender, or ancestry was a determinative factor in the defendant's employment decision or the defendant's articulated rationale was merely a pretext for discrimination. See St. Mary's Honor Center, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2747-48, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 416; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. at 1093, 67 L. Ed. 2d at 215; McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. at 1825, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 678-79.See footnote 10 Pretext may be shown through direct or circumstantial evidence of falsity or discrimination. The plaintiff's failure to come forth with evidence rebutting the defendant's explanation may entitle the defendant to judgment. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255-56, 101 S. Ct. at 1094-95, 67 L. Ed. 2d at 216-17. As a threshold matter, the defendant argues this Court should reverse the circuit court's decision because the plaintiff did not meet her initial burden of proving a prima facie case of gender, ancestry, or age discrimination. Under one accepted view, we could decide this appeal without resolving whether the plaintiff proved a prima facie case. "Where the defendant has done everything that would be required of [it] ... if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case, whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant." United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 , 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1482, 75 L. Ed. 2d 403, 410 (1983).See footnote 11 See also E.E.O.C. v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116, 119 (2nd Cir. 1994); Bhaya v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 832 F.2d 258, 260 (3rd Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1004, 109 S. Ct. 782, 102 L. Ed. 2d 774 (1989); E.E.O.C. v. Century Broadcasting Corp., 957 F.2d 1446, 1455 (7th Cir. 1992). Here, Sundale failed to persuade the circuit court to grant the motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief. The defendant then responded to the plaintiff's proof by offering evidence of its nondiscriminatory reasons for the dismissal of the decedent. As a result, we may affirm if there existed sufficient evidence for a jury to find the decedent's termination discriminatory within the meaning of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. See Aikens, 460 U.S. at 715, 103 S. Ct. at 1481, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 410. Because the jury found the plaintiff bore her burden, we can reverse the circuit court only if we find the jury's decision was unsupported by the evidence. Mildred L.M. v. John O.F., supra. For reasons expressed below, we believe the plaintiff did present a legally sufficient evidentiary basis from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant discriminated against the decedent under the West Virginia Human Rights Act. Aikens notwithstanding, an alternative disposition could turn on a plaintiff's success or failure in proving the prima facie case. If the plaintiff failed in that effort, in the sense that no reasonable jury could find a prima facie case, then we would have to reverse because the defendant would necessarily have some legitimate explanation for making the adverse employment decision. Moreover, if we conclude that the plaintiff did offer sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find a prima facie case, then, as explained below, the circuit court as a matter of law had to submit the case to a jury, and we, therefore, have to affirm the jury verdict. For these reasons, and to clarify our case law on both the prima facie case and the proof of pretext, we will assess the evidence in this case under the traditional McDonnell Douglas-Conaway framework. At the outset, we note some confusion about the prima facie case may have developed from the third prong of the analysis we set forth in Conaway that "[b]ut for the plaintiff's protected status, the adverse decision would not have been made." 178 W. Va. at 170, 358 S.E.2d at 429. Use of the "but for" language in that test may have been unfortunate, at least if it connotes that a plaintiff must establish anything more than an inference of discrimination to make out a prima facie case.See footnote 12 But the Conaway decision itself disavowed any desire to require more: "What is required of the plaintiff is to show some evidence which would sufficiently link the employer's decision and the plaintiff's status as a member of a protected class so as to give rise to an inference that the employment decision was based on an illegal discriminatory criterion." 178 W. Va. at 170-71, 358 S.E.2d at 429-30. Moreover, the majority in Conaway expressly noted it was not overruling our decisions in either Shepherdstown Volunteer Fire Department v. State ex rel. State of West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 172 W.Va. 627, 309 S.E.2d 342 (1983) (applying the federal test formulated in McDonnell Douglas, supra), or State ex rel. State of WestVirginia Human Rights Commission v. Logan-Mingo Area Mental Health Agency, Inc., 174 W.Va. 711, 329 S.E.2d 77 (1985) (applying a variation of the McDonnell Douglas standard). Rather, Conaway said its general test was inclusive of the analyses in those cases. To further clarify, we now hold the "but for" test of discriminatory motive in Conaway is merely a threshold inquiry, requiring only that a plaintiff show an inference of discrimination. When Conaway is read in this context, it becomes clear the plaintiff in this case offered a prima facie case; in fact, depending upon how one wants to break down the facts, she may have offered two. The plaintiff alleged a discriminatory discharge and adduced evidence that: (1) the decedent was a member of a protected class (Native American)See footnote 13; (2) the decedent provided competent, capable, and loyal service to her employer; (3) the decedent was discharged; and (4) the decedent was replaced by someone not of her protected class. These facts, standing alone, create an inference of discrimination. If the decision is not explained, we would suspect the employer had an illicit motive; a fair and rational employer does not fire an employee who is performing adequately and then hire someone totally new to replace the discharged worker. Of course, the employer might have a rational explanation for its action. When that explanation is offered, a function of the prima facie case is served; it is designed to allow a plaintiff with only minimal facts to smoke out a defendant--who is in control of most of the facts--and force it to come forward with some explanation for its action. E.g., Conaway, supra; Burdine, supra. In this case, the plaintiff supported the skeletal prima facie case with evidence that the employer also purged all other members of the decedent's class from its workforce over a period of six to eight months. Thus viewed, the plaintiff clearly established an inference of discrimination, and the circuit court was correct in requiring the defendant to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its discharge decision or face a directed verdict. The defendant responded. It contended the decedent was terminated because she hit a patient at the nursing home. Undoubtedly, that is (if believed by the jury) a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. But that explanation also gave rise to a second possible prima facie caseSee footnote 14 when the plaintiff offered evidence that other employees who were not members of the decedent's protected class hit patients and were not discharged. This meets the prima facie case outlined in Syllabus Point 2, in part, of Logan-Mingo Mental Health Agency, supra, which Conaway expressly reaffirmed:See footnote 15 "A complainant in a disparate treatment, discriminatory discharge case . . . may meet the initial prima facie burden by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence,See footnote 16 (1) that the complainant is a member of a group protected by the Act; (2) that the complainant was discharged, or forced to resign, from employment; and (3) that a nonmember of the protected group was not disciplined, or was disciplined less severely, than the complainant, though both engaged in similar conduct." Accord McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 , 96 S. Ct. 2574, 49 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1976). This prima facie burden is precisely what the plaintiff offered in this case. In an attempt to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie case, the defendant responded to the plaintiff's evidence of inconsistent treatment of comparison employees by asserting the plaintiff's evidence was not only inconclusive, but the comparison employees were actually members of the decedent's protected class. The first comparison employee was a black female--not a Native American. Unless a comparison employee and a plaintiff share the same characteristics, the comparison employee cannot be classified as a member of a plaintiff's class for purposes of rebutting prima facie evidence of disparate treatment. Therefore, so long as the employee in this case was not a Native American, it is irrelevant whether she was black, white, yellow, or purple. The defendant also claims the second comparison employee, Ms. Edgell, was a member of a protected class because she testified, without substantiation, that she was of "Native American heritage" from her grandmother's side "back about six generations." It is not clear whether that is six generations back from her grandmother or from Ms. Edgell. Here, the defendant fails to consider that an employer could discriminate against an individual who is obviously and predominantly a member of a racial minority, but not discriminate against one who is somewhere between 1/64 and 1/256 minority blood (depending upon where those six generations start). Proof that an employer disciplined the former but not the latter when both engaged in similar conduct is prima facie evidence of racial or ancestral discrimination; unless it is explained, such disparate treatment violates the Human Rights Act.See footnote 17 Moreover, the jury may very well have disbelieved Ms. Edgell that she, too, was of Native American ancestry. Certainly, the defendant offered no evidence to support Ms. Edgell's ancestral claim. Although we cannot tell from the record, the jury also may have taken into account the witnesses' (i.e., Ms. Barefoot's and Ms. Edgell's) physical appearances. The record fails to justify a conclusion that no reasonable jury could disbelieve Ms. Edgell. The record also fails to warrant the conclusion that no reasonable jury could conclude there had been a discriminatory discharge. One could reasonably argue from the record (which is all it takes to sustain a jury verdict) that: Ms. Edgell was not believable; the decedent did not abuse the patient by "tapping" him; the decedent acted in necessary self-defense; the incident was conveniently (and pretextually) blown way out of proportion; the decedent was a very conscientious and loyal employee; an employee with the decedent's work history would normally be given the benefit of a doubt; the defendant failed to meaningfully investigate the charge and merely seized the opportunity to get rid of the decedent; the defendant's failure to discipline others for similar conduct evidenced pretext; and the defendant was on a mission to purge Native Americans from its workforce. This line of reasoning does not follow inexorably from the record, but it does follow reasonably. And under the appropriate standard of review that is enough. It must be remembered the question for this Court is whether the record evidence reasonably supports an inference that Sundale did not act for nondiscriminatory reasons and not whether the evidence necessarily leads to the conclusion that Sundale did act for discriminatory reasons.See footnote 18 On the other hand, the plaintiff need not show more than that the defendant's articulated reasons were implausible and, thus, pretextual.See footnote 19 After the employer has articulated a nondiscriminatory justification for its employment decision, to defeat a motion for a directed verdict, a plaintiff need not show more than the articulated reasons were implausible and, thus, pretextual. A finding of pretextuality allows a juror to reject a defendant's proffered reasons for a challenged employment action and, thus, permits the ultimate inference of discrimination. See DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School, 4 F.3d 166, 170 (2nd Cir. 1993) ("[p]roof that the employer has provided a false reason for its action permits the finder of fact to determine that the defendant's actions were motivated by an improper discriminatory intent, but does not compel such a finding"), citing St. Mary's Honor Center, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2748-49, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 417-19.See footnote 20 When the evidence is read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a jury could reasonably find that Sundale terminated the decedent not because of the alleged assault, but rather because of her age, gender, and/or ancestry. The plaintiff's attack on Sundale's stated reasons for the discharge leaves this Court with the classical and paradigmatic case in which each party has produced testimony and evidence that conflicts on the ultimate issue--whether the decedent was discharged for her abusive conduct or for other factors violative of the Human Rights Act. This resulting conflict must be resolved by a jury and not by a circuit court as a matter of law. Indeed, reversing this case violates the limitations imposed on judges by the right to trial by jury in Section 13 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution. Zambelli v. House, 188 W. Va. 423, 424 S.E.2d 768 (1992) (error to grant motion in light of multitude of factual issues which require jury resolution). C. Disparate Impact In addition to alleging intentional discrimination, the plaintiff advanced a disparate impact claim based on evidence that over a period of six to eight months, the defendant fired all five of its Native American employees, beginning with the decedent. Recently, in Syllabus Point 1, in part, of West Virginia University v. Decker, supra, we stated: "In view of the language and purpose of the Human Rights Act, W.Va. Code 5-11-1 [1967] et seq., as it now stands, and the language of this Court in Guyan Valley Hospital, Inc. v. West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n, 181 W.Va. 251, 382 S.E.2d 88 (1989), we now hold that there is a cause of action for 'disparate impact' that applies equally to all claims arising under W.Va. Code, 5-11-1 [1967] et seq.[.]" "Unlike disparate treatment analysis, which turns on illegal motive, disparate impact turns on discriminatory effect." WestVa. Univ. v. Decker, 191 W. Va. at 572, 447 S.E.2d at 264. (Emphasis in original). In Decker, we noted that the 1991 amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., shifted the burden of production and persuasion to the employer to show that an employment practice, which had a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected trait, is "both 'job related' and 'consistent with business necessity'. [Footnote omitted.]" 191 W.Va. at 572, 447 S.E.2d at 264. Based on the 1991 amendments, we abandoned the disparate impact test of Guyan Valley, supra and in Syllabus Point 3 of Decker held: "In proving a prima facie case of disparate impact under the Human Rights Act, W.Va. Code 5-11-1 [1967] et seq., the plaintiff bears the burden of (1) demonstrating that the employer uses a particular employment practice or policy and (2) establishing that such particular employment practice or policy causes a disparate impact on a class protected by the Human Rights Act. The employer then must prove that the practice is 'job related' and 'consistent with business necessity.' If the employer proves business necessity, the plaintiff may rebut the employer's defense by showing that a less burdensome alternative practice exists which the employer refuses to adopt. Such a showing would be evidence that employer's policy is a 'pretext' for discrimination." In this case, the plaintiff attempted to show the alleged discriminatory effect of the defendant's practice or policy through a witness who testified about the decedent's discharge and three other discharges, two discharges allegedly for union activity and the witness's own discharge allegedly for patient abuse. The witness acknowledged that only one of the persons allegedly discharged for union activity was a Native American and did not provide any information about the fifth discharge. The plaintiff did not present any evidence comparing the discharge rate of the Native Americans to the general discharge rate of non-Native Americans. The defendant's administrator, Jerry Bair, testified that Sundale did not discharge all its Native American employees and that three Native Americans were currently employed at Sundale. Mr. Bair acknowledged one Native American was discharged for insubordination in the heat of a union organizing campaign, one was a temporary summer employee who left at the end of summer, and one was fired for excessive absenteeism. In Syllabus Point 2 of Dobson v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 188 W. Va. 17, 422 S.E.2d 494 (1992), we stated: "'Disparate impact in an employment discrimination case is ordinarily proved by statistics[.]' Syl. pt. 3, in part, Guyan Valley Hospital, Inc. v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 181 W.Va. 251, 382 S.E.2d 88 (1989)." See also Syl. pt. 3, in part, Dobson ("it is not an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to allow the use of such statistical evidence if the defendant has the opportunity to rebut the same"). In this case, the plaintiff did not meet her burden of establishing the defendant's policy caused a disparate impact on a protected class. The plaintiff offered no statistical evidence comparing the protected class to the non-protected class and her anecdotal evidence concerning the other discharges was insufficient as a matter of law. Thus, we fully agree with the defendant's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish a claim of disparate impact. The plaintiff's contention that the defendant's discharge decisions had a disparate impact does not adequately focus on a particular employment practice or policy. Moreover, even if the claim is narrowed to challenge only the defendant's rule that hitting a patient is per se a dischargeable offense, the plaintiff failed to show a disparate impact.See footnote 21 There is no basis in the record, logic, or common experience to suggest that a rule requiring automatic discharge of employees for hitting a patient would adversely affect Native Americans. In fact, it is so absurd that merely stating the contention gives cause to reject it. D. Summary We find the plaintiff offered sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination for this case to be sent to the jury. While the evidence presented by the defendant might well demonstrate the decedent was terminated for reasons not related to gender, age, or ancestry, "this is a question better left for the jury to resolve." E.E.O.C. v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d at 120. Accordingly, we conclude the circuit court properly denied the defendant's Rule 50 motion. III. OTHER ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The defendant assigns several other errors: (1) the use of a special verdict form that failed to require the jury to make specific findings of discrimination, to separate economic and non- economic damages, and to permit damages for reasons other than for discriminatory discharge; (2) various instructional errors including improperly instructing the jury on the measure of damages, not instructing the jury on the defendant's right to discharge the decedent for violations of the defendant's personnel policy, and improperly instructing the jury on what constitutes discrimination; (3) improperly permitting the introduction of evidence on unsafe working conditions, discriminatory hiring, and affirmative action; and (4) the improper and prejudicial behavior of plaintiff's counsel during trial. After conducting a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we find only one of the defendant's remaining errors merits discussion.See footnote 22 The defendant contends that under the circumstances of this case the circuit court was required to submit a special verdict form to the jury, and the failure to do so constitutes reversible error.See footnote 23 We disagree. As a general rule, a trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether to give special verdicts and interrogatories to a jury unless it is mandated to do so by statute. See Syl. pt. 15, Carper v. Kanawha Banking & Trust Co., 157 W. Va. 477, 207 S.E.2d 897 (1974) ("[i]n absence of statutory requirement, whether a jury shall be compelled to answer special interrogatories before arriving at a general verdict, is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court."); Torrence v. Kusminsky, 185 W. Va. 734, 745, 408 S.E.2d 684, 695 (1991) ("[a]s is evident by the use of the permissive word may in ... [Rule 49(b)], whether to give special interrogatories to the jury is within the trial court's discretion"). Moreover, in Teter v. Old Colony Co., 190 W. Va. 711, 720, 441 S.E.2d 728, 737 (1994), we quoted C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2506 at 498-500 (1971), for the following proposition with regard to Rule 49(a): "'The court has considerable discretion about the nature and scope of the issues to be submitted to the jury under Rule 49(a) so long as they present the case fairly. All material factual issues should be covered by the questions submitted. The court need not and should not, however, submit an issue that can be properly resolved as a matter of law. It is not error to refuse to put an issue that is adequately covered by other questions that have been put.' (Footnotes omitted)." Thus, while we recognize there is a distinction between Rule 49(a) and Rule 49(b), this Court clearly has granted trial courts discretion in determining matters under both parts of the rule. As a related matter, although we do not specifically cite Rule 49 in the opinion, we held in Syllabus Point 6 of Orr v. Crowder, 173 W. Va. 335, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 981, 105 S. Ct. 384, 83 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1984): "Where a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more liability issues and its verdict is supported by the evidence on at least one issue, the verdict will not be reversed, unless the defendant has requested and been refused the right to have the jury make special findings as to his liability on each of the issues." See also Casteel v. Consolidation Coal Co., 181 W. Va. 501, 383 S.E.2d 305 (1989). We further stated in Orr that a trial court is not required to submit a special interrogatory or verdict form in every case where there are multiple causes of action. Such special interrogatories or verdict forms may be refused "[i]f the judge believes there is sufficient evidence to support jury consideration of the various causes of action[.]" 173 W. Va. at 350, 315 S.E.2d at 608. We concluded "only when the trial judge is specifically requested by the defendant to submit special findings and refuses to do so, and on appeal we conclude that one of the causes of action given to the jury is insufficient as a matter of law that a reversal will occur." 173 W. Va. at 350, 315 S.E.2d at 608. In West Virginia, there appear to be three expansions to the general rule that special verdicts and/or special interrogatories are within the complete discretion of the trial court.See footnote 24 The first is where special interrogatories are compelled by statute, e.g., Mandolidis v. Elkins Indus., Inc., 161 W. Va. 695, 246 S.E.2d 907 (1978), superseded by statute/rule as stated in Handley v. Union Carbide Corp., 804 F.2d 265 (4th Cir. 1986), and its progeny. See Syl. pt. 2, Smith v. Perry, 178 W. Va. 395, 359 S.E.2d 624 (1987) ("[w]here not required by statute, special interrogatories in aid of a general verdict should be used cautiously and only to clarify rather than to obfuscate the issues involved" (Citation omitted)). The second is in cases involving multiple causes of action where at least one of the causes of action is not supported by sufficient evidence to make it a legitimate jury issue. The third expansion involves punitive damage cases. At oral argument, the defendant made it clear it was the second expansion upon which it relies. We do not believe any of the expansions apply to this case. This is not a case where the plaintiff presented three claims or causes of action, e.g., intentional discrimination, a HarlessSee footnote 25 claim, and breach of contract. Rather, it is a case in which the plaintiff used a combination of motives to prove one claim or cause of action.See footnote 26 What the defendant overlooks is that in cases such as this one the jury need not agree on a single legal theory or motive of intentional discrimination when more than one has been charged and submitted to it. The jury merely found the defendant guilty of intentional discrimination. Arguably, there was some evidence in support of all three motives. It certainly is not error to permit the plaintiff to use three different motives to prove the same thing, i.e., intentional discrimination. That is especially true when a jury could reasonably find, as in this case, that the adverse employment decision resulted from a combination of illegal motives.See footnote 27 Thus, the relevant question is whether it is acceptable to permit the jury to reach one verdict based on a combination of alternative findings. We are cited no authority suggesting that in civil rights cases where a general verdict is sought, the jurors should be required to agree on a single means by which the defendant committed intentional discrimination. To the contrary, we believe in employment discrimination cases a general verdict is valid so long as it is legally supportable on one or more of the theories submitted, even though that gives no assurance that a valid theory rather than an invalid one is the basis for the jury's action. Although it would be preferable to give special verdict forms in multiple theory employment discrimination cases, which would remove doubt as to the jury's consideration of any alternative basis of liability that does not have adequate evidentiary support, the refusal to do so does not provide an independent basis for reversing an otherwise valid judgment. What the defendant seeks is an expansion of Orr v. Crowder, supra, which was itself an expansion of the general rule. As we stated previously, the rule announced in Orr v. Crowder, supra, applies only to multiple causes of action and does not apply to cases where a combination of illegal motives are asserted to prove intentional discrimination. To the extent that a per se reversible error rule was announced in that case, we believe it should be limited to that specific situation and expansion of this rule is unwarranted.See footnote 28 If we followed the logic of the argument of the defendant, there would be no instances in which several acts or motives in the conjunctive are asserted as the basis for a claim that a special verdict form could be denied by the trial court. As the Supreme Court stated in Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 , 59, 112 S. Ct. 466, 474, 116 L. Ed. 2d 371, 382-83 (1991), "[j]urors are not generally equipped to determine whether a particular theory ... is contrary to law ... [but] are well equipped" to determine whether a particular theory is supported by the evidence. (Emphasis in original). In Griffin, the Supreme Court acknowledged it generally would be preferable to give the requested verdict forms, but the refusal to provide these to the jury is not alone a ground for reversal. Concededly, there are some circumstances where a general verdict may so obscure the basis upon which a jury considering multiple theories finds liability that fundamental fairness will not permit upholding a verdict possibly based upon the unsupported theories. Under harmless error analysis, however, a verdict generally will be upheld even where the general verdict issue has been raised if by careful scrutiny of the record it is possible to ascertain with a high degree of probability that the jury did not rely upon the arguably unsupported theories. See Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 , 90 S. Ct. 642, 24 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1970). In the present case, the defendant failed to convince the circuit court that the jury was misled by its instructions on intentional discrimination or that special verdict forms were necessary to prevent the jury from wrongfully deciding the case on improper grounds. Similarly, deference is appropriate because the trial court is better able than an appellate court to decide whether the refusal to submit this case by special verdict forms affected any substantial rights of the defendant. We conclude the decision was the circuit court's call, and we find no abuse of that discretion.See footnote 29 We do not say today that a circuit court cannot give special verdict forms which would help eliminate any doubt as to the basis of a jury's verdict. Indeed, we believe the giving of a special verdict form to the jury would have been preferable, but the refusal to do so does not provide an independent basis for reversing an otherwise valid judgment. Our holding is a limited one: When a jury returns a verdict based on a party's evidence charging several acts in the conjunctive, the verdict will stand if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged even though a more specific verdict form was asked for and denied. V. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County is affirmed. Affirmed. Footnote: 1 Ms. Lambert filed this suit about six months after her discharge from Sundale. Upon Ms. Lambert's death, Ms. Barefoot, her daughter and the administratrix of her estate, was substituted as plaintiff. Under W. Va. Code, 55-7-8a(b) (1959), when an action has been filed by an injured party and the injured party subsequently dies, the action "may be revived in favor of the personal representative of the injured party[.]" Footnote: 2 Ms. Ratcliffe moved to Florida and did not testify at trial. According to her notarized statement introduced at trial, Ms. Ratcliffe saw Ms. Lambert strike the patient. Footnote: 3 The record contains testimony that before Ms. Lambert tapped or struck the resident, he punched her several times in the lower abdomen, which was alleged to have caused the pain that led to Ms. Lambert's final hospitalization. However, no workers' compensation claim was filed and no private cause of action exists under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. §§651-678, for an allegedly unsafe working condition. See Handley v. Union Carbide Corp., 804 F.2d 265, 266 (4th Cir. 1986).Footnote: 4 Hereafter, Ms. Lambert will be referred to as the decedent and Ms. Barefoot will be referred to as the plaintiff.Footnote: 5 At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, a directed verdict was granted on behalf of Ms. Edgell and Mr. Bair. Footnote: 6 The standard for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same as for a directed verdict, i.e., after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, only one reasonable verdict is possible. Huffman v. Appalachian Power Co., 187 W. Va. 1, 415 S.E.2d 145 (1991); Fleming James, Jr., Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., & John Leubsdorf, Civil Procedure §7.30 at 406-07 (4th ed. 1992). Under this standard, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied if the evidence is conflicting or is insufficient to establish the movant's case. Footnote: 7 The abbreviation stands for judgment non obstante verdicto. In federal courts, j.n.o.v. is also known by another label. Amendments to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abandoned the terms "directed verdict" and "judgment n.o.v.," which were commonly associated with the former rule, in favor of the phrase "judgment as a matter of law." See generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 advisory committee's note. The amendment did not, however, affect either the standard by which a trial court reviews motions under the rule or the standard by which an appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling. Footnote: 8 In Syllabus Point 6 of McClung v. Marion County Commission, 178 W.Va. 444, 360 S.E.2d 221 (1987), this Court stated: "'In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict the court should: (1) consider the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party; (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in favor of the prevailing party; (3) assume as proved all facts which the prevailing party's evidence tends to prove; and (4) give to the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the facts proved.' Syl. pt. 5, Orr v. Crowder, 173 W.Va. 335, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 981, 105 S. Ct. 384, 83 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1984)." Footnote: 9 Where, however, there are substantive distinctions between the language used by the two statutes, we have inferred a State legislative intent to diverge from the federal law and have ruled accordingly. E.g., Chico Dairy Co. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 181 W. Va. 238, 382 S.E.2d 75 (1989); W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n v. United Transp. Union, Local 655, 167 W.Va. 282, 280 S.E.2d 653 (1981).Footnote: 10 We emphasize this analysis is not necessarily a three-step minuet for ordering the proof at trial. Rather, it provides a framework for analyzing the evidence and facilitating a trial court's rulings on motions to dismiss and for directed verdicts. As a practical matter, the plaintiff's case-in-chief will often include evidence on the prima facie case, the defendant's explanation for the adverse employment action, and pretext. See note 20, infra.Footnote: 11 In Aikens, the parties on appeal argued whether the district judge, ruling after a bench trial, used the wrong elements for a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote. Because the case "was fully tried on the merits," the Supreme Court thought it "surprising to find the parties and the Court of Appeals still addressing the question whether Aikens made out a prima facie case. . . . [B]y framing the issue in these terms, they have unnecessarily evaded the ultimate question of discrimination vel non." 460 U.S. at 714, 103 S. Ct. at 1481, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 409. (Footnote omitted). We concur with the United States Supreme Court's standards and hold that when a trial court has overruled a defendant's motion to direct a verdict for failure to establish a prima facie case and the defendant presented evidence sufficient for the trier of fact to make an adequate ruling on the merits, the question of whether the plaintiff made a prima facie case is not a necessary consideration for the disposition of the case on appeal.Footnote: 12 There is precedent in retaliation cases for using a formula for the prima facie case similar to Conaway's. E.g., Jennings v. Tinley Park Community Consol. School Dist. No. 146, 864 F.2d 1368 (7th Cir. 1988); E.E.O.C. v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). In that context, courts describe the prima facie showing as evidence that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, that the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment decision, and that there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse decision. As we have said, that link "can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, or by inferential evidence, or by a combination of evidence." Fourco Glass Co. v. State Human Rights Comm'n, 179 W.Va. 291, 293, 367 S.E.2d 760 , 762 (1988). (Emphasis added). In any event, these retaliation cases reinforce the point: a plaintiff's burden in making a prima facie case is merely to establish an inference that a discriminatory motive entered into the decision.Footnote: 13 For purposes of simplicity and because racial or ancestral discrimination appears to be plaintiff's strongest claim, we will limit our analysis to this ground as the basis for the alleged discrimination.Footnote: 14 The ensuing discussion in the text could also be analyzed as proof of pretext. See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas, supra. Whether the evidence is assessed as a separate prima facie case or as pretext does not really matter. Either characterization enlightens what is the only real issue: whether the plaintiff sustained her burden of proving that decedent's race or ancestry entered into the defendant's decision to discharge her. Footnote: 15 Indeed, Conaway described the Logan-Mingo formula as "a very useful, workable test for unequal treatment of employees." 178 W. Va. at 171 n.16, 358 S.E.2d at 430 n.16.Footnote: 16 This part of the Logan-Mingo analysis, which requires a plaintiff to prove the prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence, could be misleading. As described above, whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case is critical on motions to dismiss or for directed verdicts. A circuit court may not grant a defendant's motion to dismiss if the plaintiff has alleged the elements of a prima facie case (assuming there are no other defects in the pleadings). Nor may a circuit court grant a defendant's motion for a directed verdict if a reasonable jury could find the existence of a prima facie case. Thus, in ruling on those motions, the circuit court would not be assessing the evidence by a preponderance of the evidence standard. On the other hand, in a bench trial, the circuit could use the Logan-Mingo formula, as written, to analyze the facts. In addition, to assist a jury in its analysis of the facts, a circuit court could instruct the jury by explaining the Conaway three-step analysis (prima facie case - legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason - pretext). In that context, the circuit court's instructions would appropriately require the plaintiff to prove the prima facie elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Alternatively, the circuit court could simply instruct the jury that the plaintiff's burden is to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged illicit motive contributed to the employer's adverse action against the plaintiff. If that is proved, the plaintiff must prevail unless the defendant can show by a preponderance that the same decision would have been made in the absence of the discriminatory motive. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S. Ct. 1775, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989), superseded by 1991 Civil Rights Act. See Adams v. Nolan, 962 F.2d 791 (8th Cir. 1992); Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Cal. 1992); Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co., Inc., 160 Vt. 150, 624 A.2d 1122 (1992).Footnote: 17 Having found the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and Sundale has offered rebuttal evidence, we must now examine the record for evidence of inconsistencies or anomalies that could support an inference that Sundale did not act for its stated reasons.Footnote: 18 Indeed, the plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant's proffered reasons were false or played no role in the termination, but only that they were not the only reasons and the prohibited factor was at least one of the "motivating" reasons. See, e.g., Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989) (plurality opinion) (where employer shows a legitimate motive, the plaintiff need not show the prohibited factor was the sole or principal reason or the "true reason").Footnote: 19 A plaintiff who makes a prima facie case may defeat a judgment as a matter of law by either, through circumstantial or direct evidence, (1) discrediting the proffered reasons or (2) adducing that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the adverse employment action. Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 764 (3rd Cir. 1994). Although the plaintiff's ultimate burden may be carried by the presentation of additional evidence showing "the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence," Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095, 67 L. Ed. 2d at 217, as we stated above, it may often be carried by reliance on the evidence comprising the prima facie case, without more. See St. Mary's Honor Center, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2749, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 419. Thus, unless the employer comes forward with evidence of a dispositive, nondiscriminatory reason as to which there is no real dispute and "which no rational trier of fact could reject, the conflict between the plaintiff's evidence establishing a prima facie case and the employer's evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason reflects a question of fact to be resolved by the factfinder after trial." Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 203 (2nd Cir. 1995).Footnote: 20 There is another reason why the this case cannot be decided on a j.n.o.v. motion. Once a prima facie case is established under McDonnell Douglas, the burden of production passes to the defendant. Under St. Mary's Honor Center, supra, a prima facie case creates a presumption of discrimination in favor of a plaintiff and, thus, a plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of Rule 301 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence (the federal rule is identical). Under Rule 301, once a presumption enters the case, the case cannot as a matter of law be dismissed. Rather, it is incumbent on a circuit court to submit the case to the trier of fact for final resolution. The legislative history of Rule 301 supports this interpretation. The final Conference Report explaining Rule 301 states: "Under the Senate amendment, a presumption is sufficient to get a party past an adverse party's motion to dismiss made at the end of his case-in-chief." Eric D. Green & Charles R. Nesson, Federal Rules of Evidence at 42 (1994). Properly interpreted, Rule 301 precludes a circuit court from granting a judgment as a matter of law against the party the presumption favors. See I Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 3-2(B) at 174 (3rd ed. 1994). To this extent, the parties appear to agree. The defendant argues, however, that once it rebutted the presumption, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to offer independent evidence showing intentional discrimination. In effect, the defendant argues that, once the presumption was met by defendant's evidence of a nondiscriminatory explanation for the adverse treatment of the decedent, the presumption lost its evidentiary force and, for the plaintiff to win, she must point to other record evidence to satisfy her ultimate burden of persuasion. What is overlooked by the defendant is that intentional discrimination could be inferred from the basic facts that gave rise to the McDonnell Douglas presumption. Congress, in its discussion of Rule 301, suggested "the court may . . . instruct the jury that it may infer the existence of the presumed fact from proof of the basic facts." Eric D. Green & Charles R. Nesson, Federal Rules of Evidence at 42. The Supreme Court in Burdine made the same point: "In saying that the presumption drops from the case, we do not imply that the trier of fact no longer may consider evidence previously introduced by the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case. A satisfactory explanation by the defendant destroys the legally mandatory inference of discrimination arising from the plaintiff's initial evidence. Nonetheless, this evidence and inferences properly drawn therefrom may be considered by the trier of fact on the issue of whether the defendant's explanation is pretextual. Indeed, there may be some cases where the plaintiff's initial evidence, combined with effective cross-examination of the defendant, will suffice to discredit the explanation." 450 U.S. at 255 n.10, 101 S.Ct. at 1095 n.10, 67 L. Ed. 2d at 216 n.10. Finally, the majority's opinion in St. Mary's Honor Center, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S. Ct. at 2749, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 418-19, elaborated: "The factfinder's disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons, will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination, and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted that upon such rejection, '[n]o additional proof of discrimination is required[.]'" (Emphasis in original; citation and footnote omitted). We believe the existence of the presumption reviewed in light of the totality of circumstances in this case, even after being met by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, precluded the circuit court from entering a directed verdict and "'no additional proof of discrimination ... [was] required'" to justify the jury's verdict for the plaintiff. St. Mary's Honor Center, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S. Ct. at 2749, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 419. (Emphasis in original; citation omitted). See also Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724, 730-31 (3rd Cir. 1995) ("[r]ejection of the employer's nondiscriminatory explanation does not compel a verdict in favor of the employee, but it permits the trier of fact to infer discrimination and find for the plaintiff on the basis of the allegations of discrimination in her prima facie case"). Footnote: 21 The defendant also argues that even assuming the plaintiff established a disparate impact, Sundale proved a business necessity defense. While the defendant's proffered reason for the discharge--that the decedent hit a patient--is clearly a nondiscriminatory reason and is job related, we do not think this record warrants a conclusion that a per se discharge rule is necessary. A defendant can sustain the business necessity defense only by bearing the burden of proving through evidence (and not merely judicial intuition) that its challenged employment practice is not only related to its employees' ability to do the job in question, but also is necessary to achieve an important employer objective.Footnote: 22 In some instances, we are unable fully to evaluate the defendant's arguments because the record is incomplete. Our prior decisions indicate the importance of a properly designated record. See State v. Honaker, ___ W. Va. ___, 454 S.E.2d 96 (1994); State v. Flint, 171 W. Va. 676, 301 S.E.2d 765 (1983); State v. Nuckols, 152 W. Va. 736, 166 S.E.2d 3 (1968); State ex rel. Scott v. Boles, 150 W. Va. 453, 147 S.E.2d 486 (1966). In fact, in note 4 of State v. Honaker, ___ W. Va. at ___, 454 S.E.2d at 101, we "serve[d] notice on counsel that in future appeals, we will take as nonexisting all facts that do not appear in the designated record and will ignore those issues where the missing record is needed to give factual support to the claim." Such is the case here.Footnote: 23 Rule 49(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states: "Special verdicts.--The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If in so doing the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives his right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict." Footnote: 24 "In most states and in the federal courts, the general rule is that the trial court has complete discretion whether a general or special verdict is to be returned and to answer interrogatories along with a general verdict. This discretion includes the determination of the form of the special verdict, provided it fully and fairly presents to the jury the issues of the case." Fleming James, Jr., Geoffrey C. Hazzard, Jr., & John Leubsdorf, Civil Procedure §7.23 at 379-80 (4th ed. 1992). (Emphasis added). Footnote: 25 Harless v. First Nat'l Bank, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978). Footnote: 26 In a criminal context, the prosecutor is allowed some choice of theory, although the choice may be burdened with consequences, including those incident to the law of double jeopardy. Likewise, in a civil context, parties may be allowed some choice of motives or theories. But the choice in the civil context, although not as severe, also may be burdened with consequences. Because procedural law allows alternative contentions, parties to a civil action involving an array of factual and legal motives or theories should be allowed to defer their choice at least until late stages of the proceedings in the trial court. For example, both plaintiffs and defendants in a civil case may be allowed to maintain alternative contentions at least until the evidence is closed, when the circuit court should require a choice to be made as to the form of verdict to be used in submitting the case to the jury and instructions to the jury. In fact, we believe the best way for a defendant such as Sundale to challenge the use of multiple theories or motives to support a single claim is by a motion requiring the plaintiff to elect which particular theory or motive the plaintiff wishes to pursue. When a party does not make a motion to elect, the party also makes a choice that has the associated consequence of almost certainly precluding the assertion of the assignment of error raised here. To be specific, the law (a procedural rule, in this instance) allows alternative theories or motives to be asserted, but, rather than allowing complete freedom of choice, the same rule also grants the trial court authority to make the plaintiff elect which theory or theories are worthy of jury consideration. Thus, when a motion to elect is properly and timely made, the circuit court not only has the authority to, but also has an obligation to require the plaintiff to make a choice as to which theory or theories he or she wants to present to the jury and have reviewed for sufficiency purposes on appeal. See John S. Ewart, Waiver or Election, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 724 (1916).Footnote: 27 A trial court may in some circumstances allow submission to a jury of two or more theories, with appropriate instructions explaining the factual elements the jury must find to return a verdict sustaining each theory. The different theories submitted to a jury may be factually compatible--that is, a verdict sustaining all theories submitted may be permissible. For example, as in the present case, a plaintiff may claim the termination was triggered by a combination of motives. It is not unreasonable to believe that an employee could be terminated because she was an elderly Native American female. However, the evidence and the different theories of intentional discrimination submitted to a jury in a particular case may be so factually incompatible that the jury's choice is limited to finding one or another of the theories supported, but not all. We find no such incompatibility in this case.Footnote: 28 Because the special verdict form throws off the "cloak of secrecy" surrounding the jury process and enables the parties to see exactly what the jury has done, Edson Sunderland, Verdicts, General and Special, 29 Yale L.J. 253, 259 (1920), the liberal use of Rule 49(a) has been widely praised and condemned. Those who oppose it say the jury system should not be a scientific process: "Rather, the jury's greatest value is that it applies the strict and sometimes harsh principles of law with the sense of justice of the 'man on the street.' Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas went even further, calling for the rejection of Federal Rule 49, and describing it as 'but another means utilized by courts to weaken the constitutional power of juries and to vest judges with more power to decide cases according to their own judgments.'" Jack H. Friedenthal, Mary Kay Kane & Arthur B. Miller, Civil Procedure §12.1 at 534 (2nd ed. Hornbook Series 1993). Considering the point expressed above, we believe a much more deferential approach is necessary when the challenge made is different than the one suggested in Orr v. Crowder, supra. Such deference to the trial judge is particularly appropriate in intentional discrimination cases where a combination of motives may be considered as the basis for liability. Indeed, giving the jury the requested special verdict forms could well have caused unnecessary confusion. Footnote: 29 The giving of special verdict forms is quintessentially a judgment call by the circuit court. Because the dynamics of a particular case "may be difficult to gauge from the antiseptic nature of a sterile paper record," United States v. Passmore, 984 F.2d 933, 937-38 (8th Cir. 1993), our review must take into account "'the ... [trier's] superior feel for the case.'" 984 F.2d at 936. (Citations omitted). Accordingly we will not lightly second-guess the extent of a circuit court's ruling under Rule 49(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.

fb328c2b249ccf63320b8739230b6aa379f404d516b4661bec71f5807eb49d45

1995-04-13 00:00:00

f28e3530-7557-4339-8a81-27fe71b102bc

Earp v. Vanderpool

232 S.E.2d 513

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Earp v. Vanderpool Annotate this Case 232 S.E.2d 513 (1977) Carroll M. EARP, dba Earp Construction Company v. Selwyn VANDERPOOL and Lila L. Vanderpool. No. 13628. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 21, 1976. Rehearing Denied March 11, 1977. *514 Menis E. Ketchum, Huntington, for appellants. *515 Marshall & St. Clair, James W. St. Clair, Huntington, for appellee. FLOWERS, Justice: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Wayne County entered in a civil action instituted by Carroll M. Earp, doing business at Earp Construction Company, as the plaintiff, against Selwyn and Lila L. Vanderpool, as defendants, to enforce a mechanic's lien. The lien was based upon work performed by the plaintiff for the defendants in developing a tract of real estate for use as a subdivision. The Vanderpools defended the action upon the grounds that the plaintiff's work had been performed in an unauthorized and unworkmanlike manner and at an unreasonable cost. By counterclaim, the defendants sought damages for breach of contract. The trial court entered judgment upon a jury verdict of $17,813.47 for the plaintiff and against the defendants. Upon the denial of a motion for a new trial, the defendants prosecuted this appeal. The issues raised by the appellants encompass the sufficiency of the description of improvements in the notice of mechanic's lien and the propriety of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury upon the basis of the defendants' counterclaim and defense. Other errors relate to the trial court's refusal to admit certain evidence and its interrogation of a defense witness. The appellants, Selwyn and Lila L. Vanderpool, are the owners of a certain parcel of real estate in Wayne County which they attempted to develop as a subdivision called "Vanderpool Gardens". An apartment building and two homes were constructed on the appellants' property. Thereafter, the Vanderpools decided to alter their subdivision to provide for a mobile home area. After discharging another contractor, the appellants entered into an oral contract with the plaintiff to perform the necessary work. The terms of the oral agreement were discussed at a meeting attended by Earp, Selwyn Vanderpool and Floyd Stark, vice president of the banking institution which financed the venture. The evidence is in conflict regarding the specific work and price agreed upon by the parties. Admittedly, Earp agreed to level and gravel the roads and streets, install culverts and a sandtrap for the septic system, seed and fertilize the entire property, and fill a certain area for use as a park. Earp refuted the testimony of Selwyn Vanderpool to the effect that he had agreed to take up and replace certain sewer and water pipes which had been defectively installed by the prior contractor. Earp testified that he estimated the cost of the project at $27,000 to $30,000. Stark, the bank official, stated that the estimate was between $20,000 and $30,000, and Vanderpool asserted the estimate to be between $20,000 and $25,000. Irrespective of the estimate, however, Stark and Vanderpool maintained that no expenditures in excess of $25,000 were authorized unless Earp obtained their specific approval. The cost of the work performed by Earp totaled $37,821.47, and he was paid $20,000, leaving an unpaid balance of $17,821.47. The unpaid balance was the basis of the mechanic's lien, and the jury verdict, for all but $8.00 of that sum, was returned in favor of Earp. Earp testified that he performed all of the work in a proper manner as required by the terms of the agreement reached between himself and Vanderpool. Additionally, he stated that it was necessary for him to replace or repair all the sewer and water lines because of negligent and improper installation by the prior contractor. This work, he contended, was not included in his original estimate and was performed at the defendants' direction when it became apparent that water and sewage were leaking from the pipes. According to Earp, the only complaints he received from Vanderpool concerned the septic system, which he fixed, and the width of a road, which he felt was adequate. Earp admitted that he did not dispose of certain debris on the tract since he was simply asked to move it. The defendant presented the detailed testimony of an expert witness, Earl Mullens, *516 as to the reasonable cost and workmanlike manner of the work performed by Earp. Mullens stated that the width of one particular road was deficient and the installation of the culvert system was not accomplished in a workmanlike manner. He testified as to the specific costs of repairs to the road and culvert system as well as the cost of completing the work which the defendants maintained was required by the contract. Mullens stated that he would have performed these services for the defendants for a cost of $15,067.00 compared to the $37,821.00 charged by the plaintiff. I Upon the trial of the case, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the notice of mechanic's lien did not contain a sufficient description of the improvements upon the realty to properly perfect the lien. The notice was not in the statutory form prescribed in W.Va. Code, 38-2-8. The notice stated: "Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the laws of the State of West Virginia, that the undersigned claims a lien to secure the payment of $17,821.47 with interest from January 8, 1973, until paid on the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. This lien is upon the buildings, structures and improvements located on said land also." The attached exhibit, incorporated into the notice by reference, contained a metes and bounds description of the land. Nowhere in the notice or attached exhibit is the conclusory description of "the buildings, structures and improvements located on said land" supplemented by a more detailed list of improvements. Such a list is contemplated by W.Va.Code, 38-2-8, and counsel places himself in peril by failing to make advantageous use of the statutory form which is provided. If, however, the description is sufficient under the law, deviation from a statutory form will not constitute error. We have held that the notice of lien filed for recordation must describe the buildings, structures and improvements ". . . with sufficient definiteness that the same may be readily identified." Scott Lumber Co. v. Wheeling Cemetery Association, 117 W.Va. 534, 186 S.E. 117 (1936). In Scott Lumber, however, no mention of any improvements or buildings was included in the notice. Applying the principle of strict construction, the Court held the lien to have been improperly perfected because of the insufficient description. Counsel for the defendant maintains that the principles of Scott Lumber are applicable to the case at bar and constitute grounds for reversal. We do not agree. The strict construction approach employed in Scott Lumber arose because the existence of any improvement to the vacant cemetery land was not apparent from the face of the notice. Existence of an improvement is a statutory prerequisite upon which the right to the lien depends. W.Va. Code, 38-2-1. As this Court has more recently announced: "`. . . [if the question is] whether a particular case is within the statute [then] a strict construction should be applied; but where it appears from the case that there is a clear right to the lien under the statute and the controversy is whether the lienor has properly proceeded to establish his lien, a liberal construction should be applied. [Bailey Lumber Co. v. General Construction Co., 101 W.Va. 567, 577, 133 S.E. 135, 139.]'" Fisher v. Reamer, 146 W.Va. 83, 89, 118 S.E.2d 76 , 79 (1961). The challenge to the validity of the mechanic's lien in the instant case is not predicated upon whether a right to a lien exists, but rather whether the right has been properly perfected. The detail, therefore, necessary to establish a sufficient description of the improvements is subject to a liberal construction. Our position on this issue is consistent with prior cases in this and other jurisdictions. 53 Am.Jur.2d Mechanics' Liens § 216, p. 735; Annot., 52 A.L.R.2d 12, 94. *517 The identification of buildings or improvements may be aided by a detailed description of the land. Annot., 52 A.L. R.2d 12, 94; 53 Am.Jur.2d Mechanics' Liens § 216, p. 735. In view of the facts of this case which give rise to a lien based upon improvements appurtenant to all structures upon the realty, coupled with the detailed description of the real property involved, we hold that the notice contained a sufficient description to sustain its validity. II The second major issue in this appeal, and the one upon which we must reverse the trial court, relates to the refusal to give defendants' Instruction Nos. 3 and 4. Those instructions sought to embody the defendants' theory of negligent and unworkmanlike construction and the consequent counterclaim for damages resulting therefrom. The only instructions submitted to the trial court for consideration were those proffered by the defendants. Of the six instructions offered by the defendants, three were given by the trial court. Of those given, none included the issue upon which the defendants sought to defend or to recover in part from the plaintiff. Detailed testimony on this issue was adduced at the trial. Selwyn Vanderpool, as well as the expert witness, Earl Mullens, cited specific examples of improper or incompleted construction tasks. Upon the refusal of defendants' Instruction Nos. 3 and 4, the jury was left without guidance as to the legal effect they might give such evidence. As to the refused instructions, plaintiff's counsel had only commented generally, "We would object to No. 4" and the Court was equally terse in stating "No. 3 will be refused.. . . I will refuse No. 4 as amended and as binding." The defendants thereafter did not object nor except to the trial court's refusal and no objection nor exception was noted on either instruction. The defendants contend that the trial court erred in refusing the instructions because it failed to state its reasons for refusal, thereby handicapping defendants in formulating their grounds for appeal. This contention is merely an indirect rebuttal of plaintiff's argument that we cannot review this ground of error because the defendants failed to make specific objections when the instructions were refused. To preserve the right to appellate review of trial court errors regarding instructions, Rule 51 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure in part, provides: ". . . No party may assign as error the giving or the refusal to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the arguments to the jury are begun, stating distinctly, as to any given instruction, the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection; . . ." While this rule is normally invoked to require specific objections to the giving of instructions, we have, on at least one occasion refused to consider an assignment of error where there was no objection (or exception) to the lower court's denial of instructions. Nesbitt v. Flaccus, 149 W.Va. 65, 138 S.E.2d 859 (1964). We admit that some confusion may have resulted from the elimination of formal exceptions by Rule 46 and the dual office thrust upon objections by Rule 51. Under Rule 51 the objection may go to the substance of the instruction or to the court's refusal to give it. We have on many occasions set forth the minimal requirements of Rule 51 applicable to the content of an objection to a given instruction. Where "objection" is made to a portion of the court's charge or to an instruction of opposing counsel, then the objector, to preserve the error on appeal, must state "distinctly" and precisely his grounds as specified in the Rule. Chambers v. Smith, W.Va., 198 S.E.2d 806 (1973); Nesbitt v. Flaccus, supra. The purpose of requiring a specific objection in this instance is to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged errors so the trial court is afforded an opportunity to correct them. 9 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2554, pp. 643-44; 5A J. Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 51.04, p. 2521. See Sears v. Southern Pacific Co., 313 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1963). *518 We have not specifically determined the minimal requirements of Rule 51 as they relate to refused instructions. We hold, therefore, that where the "objection" is serving the former office of the exception to the ruling of the court, counsel meets the minimum requirements of Rule 51 when he simply states "objection" or "exception" following the court's refusal of an instruction. To require more might be considered mere duplication or argument. See Thurston v. Keathley, 143 W.Va. 795, 105 S.E.2d 181 (1958). This action is sufficient to indicate to the court that counsel has neither receded from his request for the instruction nor acceded to the court's refusal of it. The moving party in such a situation need not belabor the obvious reasons which motivated his offer of the instruction.[1] The appellant in the instant case did not meet even these minimal requirements to preserve his appellate rights. Thus we must determine whether to exercise the discretionary power vested in the court by this additional language in Rule 51, which provides: ". . . the court or any appellate court, may, in the interest of justice, notice plain error in the giving or refusal to give an instruction, whether or not it has been made the subject of objection." Such discretion must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Where the error not preserved is obvious and substantially affects the fairness and integrity of the trial proceeding, the interests of justice may mandate the exercise of this discretionary authority. We believe the circumstances of this case fall within that criteria. We proceed with great reluctance but have concluded that fairness to the litigants in this instance must overcome the formalities of appellate procedure. The record demonstrates a complete omission of any instruction on the issues which were of vital importance to the defendants. In view of the relatively few instructions offered to the trial court for consideration and the detailed testimony on these issues at the trial, the omission is obvious to us and should have been obvious to the trial court. We reverse the judgment of the trial court on this ground. III The third major issue in this case relates to the manner in which the trial court handled the examination and cross-examination of the defendants' expert witness. Specifically, two errors are alleged: (1) that the trial court erred in sustaining general objections to questions propounded to the witness by defense counsel on cross-examination; and (2) that the trial court erred by asking questions of the witness, thereby commenting on the evidence. The asserted errors arose on cross-examination when counsel asked certain questions of the witness relating to the reasonable cost of work to be done under the contract. In view of the record which disclosed that most, if not all, of the evidence counsel sought to adduce was subsequently a part of the witness's testimony and the rather wide latitude given counsel in his examination of the witness, we find no error in this regard. Finally the defendants object to the questions propounded by the trial court. These questions by the court occurred after counsel for the plaintiff had raised a question concerning the qualifications of the witness to testify as an expert. Counsel for the defendants maintains that these questions constitute a comment on the evidence and therefore are reversible error. Having carefully examined the record, we cannot agree. A judge has certain latitude in examining witnesses and absent abuse of discretion, there is no error. Jones v. Hebdo, *519 88 W.Va. 386, 106 S.E. 898 (1921). We find no abuse of discretion in this case. For reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Wayne County is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded; new trial awarded.

c9e1eeea06b76dc3f601a579cf7d2fbf0ca7acfee6c7c73853dbe42965db68c0

1976-12-21 00:00:00

25c5b5af-f2a5-4281-bf5a-3a9d266ca6fe

Prete v. Merchants Property Ins. Co. of Ind.

223 S.E.2d 441

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Prete v. Merchants Property Ins. Co. of Ind. Annotate this Case 223 S.E.2d 441 (1976) James A. PRETE and Doris L. Prete v. The MERCHANTS PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, a corporation, and the Potomac Insurance Company, a corporation. No. 13570. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. April 6, 1976. *442 S. J. Angotti, Morgantown, for appellants. Steptoe & Johnson, Robert M. Steptoe, Jr., Clarksburg, for appellees. FLOWERS, Justice: The plaintiffs, James A. Prete and Doris L. Prete, prosecute this appeal from an adverse judgment of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County. The plaintiffs were constructing an apartment building in the City of Morgantown and had purchased two multi-peril insurance policies with builder's risk provisions from the defendants, The Merchants Property Insurance Company of Indiana and The Potomac Insurance Company. The policies covered the apartment structure and any construction materials and supplies while stored within the specific areas designated by the policies. While stored in the basement of a building located across the street from the construction project, but within 82 feet of the insured premises, certain materials and supplies intended for use in the insured premises were destroyed by fire. The plaintiffs were denied recovery upon their two insurance policies by the court's conclusion that the destroyed materials were not on premises described in the policy when the fire occurred. The following policy provision is the focal point of the dispute: "Coverage A Building(s): . . .. This policy also covers temporary structures, materials, equipment and supplies *443 of all kinds incident to the construction of said building or structure and, when not otherwise covered by insurance, builders' machinery, tools and equipment owned by the insured or similar property of others for not exceeding the amount for which the insured is liable; all while in or on the described buildings, structures or temporary structures, or in the open (including within vehicles) on the described premises or within 100 feet thereof." (emphasis added) The plaintiffs and the defendants contend that the italicized language of the policy provision is clear and unambiguous but they ascribe different meanings to it.[1] The defendants argue that construction materials are only covered when they are stored in a building on the "described premises" or in the open within 100 feet of the premises. The plaintiffs maintain that all construction materials are insured under the policy wherever they are stored, provided the storage area is within 100 feet of the "described premises". The trial court concluded that the language was clear and unambiguous and ruled that the materials were destroyed in an area other than the described premises and that no special rider existed to extend coverage. Judgment was entered for the defendants under Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal we must review the trial court's ruling on the scope of the coverage provided under the policy and then determine whether the trial court failed to comply with Rule 52(a) which requires that the trial court state separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law. I The basic principle governing all insurance policies is that policy provisions which are clear and unambiguous are not subject to judicial interpretation or construction and effect must be given to the plain meaning intended. Atkins v. Stonewall Casualty Co., 155 W.Va. 81, 181 S.E.2d 269 (1971); Keffer v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 153 W.Va. 813, 172 S.E.2d 714 (1970); Laraway v. Heart of American Life Insurance Co., 153 W.Va. 70, 167 S.E.2d 749 (1969); Lewis v. Dils Motor Co., 148 W.Va. 515, 135 S.E.2d 597 (1964); Stone v. National Surety Corp., 147 W.Va. 83, 125 S.E.2d 618 (1962). Whenever the language of a policy provision, however, is reasonably susceptible of two different meanings or is of such doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning, it is ambiguous. Wilson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 256 Iowa 844, 128 N.W.2d 218 (1964). Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Clark, 217 F. Supp. 231 (D.C.Mont.1963). Cf. Hereford v. Meek, 132 W.Va. 373, 52 S.E.2d 740 (1949); State v. Harden, 62 W.Va. 313, 58 S.E. 715, 60 S.E. 394 (1907). We believe the language in question is ambiguous and thus subject to judicial construction. The guiding principle of construction in cases of insurance contracts requires us to construe the language liberally in favor of the insured. Lusk v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., W.Va., 195 S.E.2d 163 (1973); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 154 W.Va. 448, 175 S.E.2d 478 (1970). We thus conclude that coverage under the clause *444 considered in this case extended to any location within 100 feet of the described premises whether in the open, within a vehicle or, as here, in another building. In construing the language to extend coverage to construction materials and supplies which are stored in any building which is located within 100 feet of the "described premises", we are mindful of the caveat in Marson Coal Co. v. Insurance Co., W.Va., 210 S.E.2d 747 (1974). The construction given the applicable language in the instant case does not, however, contravene the object and plain intent of the parties. II The only other assignment of error relates to the manner in which judgment was entered under Rule 52. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court failed to satisfy Rule 52(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure which requires the trial court in all actions tried upon the facts without a jury to find "the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment." A failure to comply with Rule 52(a) constitutes neglect of duty by the trial court and a case may be remanded for compliance with the Rule. Parkway Fuel Service, Inc. v. Pauley, W.Va., 220 S.E.2d 439 (1975); National Grange Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wyoming County Insurance Agency, Inc., W.Va., 195 S.E.2d 151 (1973). In the instant case, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are contained in the judgment order. The trial court simply failed to accord them separate designations. There is no reason, therefore, to remand the case for compliance with the rule. Where there is sufficient information in the record regarding the facts which control the proper disposition of the case, it will be disposed of in this Court without remanding the case for compliance with Rule 52(a). Commonwealth Tire Co. v. Tri-State Tire Co., W.Va., 193 S.E.2d 544 (1972); 5A Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.-02[1] (2nd ed.). For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County is reversed and the case is remanded for such further proceedings as are consonant with the rulings expressed in this opinion. Reversed and remanded.

d7ca3eed50338cd80ff92ed1e90497a48f784324c24a17a351976be71ec976ff

1976-04-06 00:00:00

a86ea34a-04f7-40f0-886d-3cd394585c56

Chaves v. Blue Ridge Acres, Inc.

324 S.E.2d 361

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Chaves v. Blue Ridge Acres, Inc. Annotate this Case 324 S.E.2d 361 (1984) Fernando CHAVES, et al. v. BLUE RIDGE ACRES, INC. No. 15969. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 19, 1984. *362 Robert R. Skinner, Charles Town, for appellant. Sprague W. Hazard, Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, for appellee. PER CURIAM: Appellants, Fernando and Lucile Chaves, who built a vacation and eventual retirement home on a lot they purchased from the appellee, Blue Ridge Acres, Inc., in a developing subdivision in Jefferson County, thereafter instituted this civil action seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the appellee to improve and maintain roads within the subdivision and to eliminate surface water flooding of their property. The complaint alleged that when they bought the property, appellee's agents represented that the corporation would construct and maintain a road to the property and would install and maintain ditches, culverts, and other drains to control surface water drainage, and that the appellee failed to live up to these promises, causing flood damage to their home and decreasing the value of their investment. Appellants sought damages, with interest and costs. The case was tried to the trial court judge with the assistance of an advisory jury. The trial judge, based on the jury's verdict and answers to special interrogatories, found that the appellee had generally fulfilled its contractual obligations concerning road maintenance; that the appellee had a duty to provide reasonable snow removal services as part of its contractual duty to maintain roads within the subdivision; and that the alleged damages resulting from surface water flooding was caused by the equal fault or negligence of the parties and thus appellants were not entitled to any damage award under our comparative negligence rule announced in Syllabus Point 3 of Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979). The court entered a judgment for costs against the appellants. After mature consideration of appellants' assignments of error, we reverse the trial court's judgment awarding costs to the appellee but affirm its judgment in all other respects. Appellants ardently contend that the trial court erred in charging the jury, rather than giving the instructions they offered. We disagree. The jury was empaneled in only an advisory capacity. In any event, trial courts have long been authorized by W.Va.Code, 56-6-19 to give an orderly and connected charge to the jury, rather than giving the instructions as offered by the parties. A trial court does not commit error in instructing the jury on the law governing a case, if its charge incorporates the substance of all proper instructions tendered by the parties. Syllabus Point 1, McMillen v. Dettore, 161 W.Va. 346, 242 S.E.2d 459 (1978). The court's charge in this case satisfies this standard. To the extent appellee's proffered instructions correctly stated the applicable law, they were adequately covered by the court's charge. We find no error in the trial court's legal determination that the appellee's duty as to road construction and maintenance was governed by the language of the sales contract between the parties and that the contract was not subject to modification by parol evidence. Nor did the trial court commit an error of law in concluding that the doctrine of comparative negligence was applicable to the particular facts of this case. If any error was committed in the proceedings below, it was completely harmless and provides no basis for reversal. The trial court found as fact that the appellants knowingly constructed their house in a flood plain area adjacent to a stream draining surface land lying above *363 their property; that expert testimony indicated that a structure of the type erected by the appellants would be subject to flooding no matter where located on their lot because the nearby mountain stream bed was incapable of handling the water flow during periods of excess rain; that the stream bed simply could not accommodate the waterflow, whether or not drain culverts were in place. Appellants were well aware of the potential for periodic flooding when the home was constructed, but did not build it on an elevated foundation or employ other safeguards against flood water damage. The advisory jury found and the trial court concurred that the parties were equally at fault in creating the unfortunate situation. We will not interfere with a trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong. Syllabus Point 3, Munday v. Arcuri, W.Va., 267 S.E.2d 454 (1980), succinctly states this bedrock principle of appellate review as follows: "The findings of fact of a trial court are entitled to peculiar weight upon appeal and will not be reversed unless they are plainly wrong." Mahoney v. Walter, 157 W.Va. 882, 205 S.E.2d 692 (1974), Syllabus Point 6. See also, Syllabus Point 8, Sanders v. Roselawn Memorial Gardens, 152 W.Va. 91, 159 S.E.2d 784 (1969). We must conclude, however, that the trial court abused its discretion in entering judgment against the appellants for costs. The appellants, having prevailed on a part of their breach of contract claim, should have been, as a matter of course, granted a judgment for costs. See R.C.P. 54(d); W.Va.Code, 59-2-8. 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 54.70[4] (1983); Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2667 (1983). The advisory jury found that the appellee had a duty to provide reasonable snow removal services as a part of its contractual commitment to maintain the roads within the subdivision. The trial court, agreeing with this construction of the contract, entered a supplemental order directing the appellee to remove snow from the main drive in the subdivision, as well as the road leading to appellants' residence, within eight hours after appellants gave notice of their intent to stay at their residence. The court ordered the appellee to use all reasonable efforts, including the use of gravel chips, salt, and chemicals to remove ice and to prevent the development of ice, to ensure appellants reasonable access to their home. Appellants should have been awarded their costs. In accordance with what we have said herein, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County is reversed and set aside insofar as it awarded costs to the appellees, and the case is remanded for the entry of a judgment awarding costs to the appellants. Reversed and remanded.

9e8e0282008f912e8b5b6bbf5fa96fad04e0b15715b957f40d50509bdb19c27c

1984-12-19 00:00:00

8731bfda-e9d5-46c6-93bf-c3fb8e77a2c7

Dietz v. Legursky

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Dietz v. Legursky Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1992 Term ___________ No. 21144 ___________ KARL S. DIETZ, Petitioner Below, Appellant v. CARL LEGURSKY, Respondent Below, Appellee ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cabell County Honorable Alfred E. Ferguson, Judge Civil Action No. 90-C-1064 REVERSED AND REMANDED ___________________________________________________ Submitted: September 15, 1992 Filed: December 16, 1992 Victor A. Barone Hurt & Barone Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellant Mario J. Palumbo Barry L. Koerber Office of the Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellee CHIEF JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Because the right of a defendant in a criminal case to testify on his or her own behalf is fundamental, then, in a case where a trial court represents that a mistrial will be declared if the defendant does not so testify, in the event that the defendant does not in fact testify and can demonstrate that he or she decided to not testify in reliance on the trial court's representation, it is reversible error for the trial court to not declare a mistrial. 2. "Rule 404(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence essentially codifies the common law rules on the admission of character evidence of the victim of a crime. In particular, under our traditional rule, a defendant in a homicide, malicious wounding, or assault case who relies on self-defense or provocation, may introduce evidence concerning the violent or turbulent character of the victim including prior threats or attacks on the defendant. This is reflected by State v. Louk, 171 W. Va. 639, 301 S.E.2d 596 (1983): 'In a prosecution for murder, where self-defense is relied upon to excuse the homicide, and there is evidence showing, or tending to show, that the deceased was at the time of the killing, making a murderous attack upon the defendant, it is competent for the defense to prove the character or reputation of the deceased as a dangerous and quarrelsome man, and also to prove prior attacks made by the deceased upon him, as well as threats made to other parties against him; and, if the defendant has knowledge of specific acts of violence by the deceased against other parties, he should be allowed to give evidence thereof.' (Citations omitted)." Syl. pt. 2, State v. Woodson, 181 W. Va. 325, 382 S.E.2d 519 (1989). 3. In a homicide case, malicious wounding, or assault where the defendant relies on self-defense or provocation, under Rule 404(a)(2) and Rule 405(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, character evidence in the form of opinion testimony may be admitted to show that the victim was the aggressor if the probative value of such evidence is not outweighed by the concerns set forth in the balancing test of Rule 403. 4. "Where a counsel's performance, attacked as ineffective, arises from occurrences involving strategy, tactics and arguable courses of action, his conduct will be deemed effectively assistive of his client's interests, unless no reasonably qualified defense attorney would have so acted in the defense of an accused." Syl. pt. 21, State v. Thomas, 157 W. Va. 640, 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). McHugh, Chief Justice: In this case, Karl S. Dietz appeals from the ruling of the Circuit Court of Cabell County, which denied him habeas corpus relief. The appellant is presently incarcerated in the state penitentiary at Moundsville. The habeas corpus relief was sought in the circuit court following this Court's affirmance of the appellant's first degree murder conviction. See State v. Dietz, 182 W. Va. 544, 390 S.E.2d 15 (1990). The facts of this case are set forth in the reported opinion, specifically, 182 W. Va. at 548-49, 390 S.E.2d at 19-20. The appellant raises three issues in this proceeding, two of them the result of new developments in the record, one a reiteration of previous contentions. I. APPELLANT'S DECISION TO NOT TESTIFY As pointed out in the reported opinion, during voir dire, the trial judge stated that the appellant, in claiming self-defense, "will state that the decedent did threaten to attack and attacked him in such a way as to require him to defend himself ...." Trial counsel for the appellant objected, arguing that the trial judge's statement implied that the appellant would definitely testify, when, of course, he had the right to not testify.See footnote 1 Upon objection, the trial judge responded that if the appellant did not testify, then "I will declare a mistrial[.]" The appellant did not take the stand but the trial court did not declare a mistrial.See footnote 2 In the appeal of his conviction in this case, the appellant raised the issue of the trial court's representation that a mistrial would be declared, contending that reversible error occurred because he relied on the trial court's statement in choosing to not testify on his own behalf. In rejecting the appellant's contention in that appeal, this Court held: There is nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant was not called in reliance upon the circuit court's statement during voir dire. On this record, it is equally plausible that the appellant was not called as a witness for tactical reasons, for example, to preclude cross-examination of the appellant. In light of this, it would not have been error for the circuit court to fail to grant a mistrial at the conclusion of the appellant's case, if the reason the appellant did not testify was due to tactical reasons. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the record in this case. 182 W. Va. at 556, 390 S.E.2d at 27 (emphasis in original). We further pointed out that "gratuitous comments made by a trial court to the effect that it will grant a mistrial are not binding unless grounds are shown for a mistrial." 182 W. Va. at 556 n. 10, 390 S.E.2d at 27 n. 10 (emphasis supplied). In this proceeding, the appellant has now developed the record to support his original contention that he relied on the trial judge's statement that a mistrial would be declared if he did not testify. It is apparent from the record in this habeas corpus proceeding that the appellant relied on the trial judge's promise to declare a mistrial in deciding to not testify. Specifically, the appellant testified that he believed that the trial judge's promise was a "free play," which could be used in the event of the worst possible outcome on his behalf. The appellant testified to the following: Q. Did you believe the trial judge's statement when he said, 'I will declare a mistrial'? . . . . A. I most definitely did. Q. What part did that statement play, if any, in your decision not to testify at trial? A. I believed if -- I believed that -- pretty much that I had a free flag that if there was no -- that there was going to be a bad outcome or something of that nature or that I could rely on a mistrial and -- Q. Well, -- A. -- I could rely that there would be a mistrial declared if I did not take the witness stand. Q. Well, explain what you mean by 'free flag.' I mean, you have told me, but explain to the Court. A. Well, it is like in football when they throw a flag or whatever, it is a free play. They might -- they might throw a flag but let the play continue and whatever the outcome it will be favorable to the team that had the flag, especially in offensive play. That is the best way I can describe it. I don't -- it was just to the point if you had to bail out, then there was your outlet. That is the way I perceived it. Q. What, if anything, did your trial counsel advise you as to the Judge's statement that he was going to declare a mistrial if you didn't testify? A. I remember the day that the statement was made going out from the courtroom with my attorney. George Stolze, one of my attorneys, had expressed to me that either way that anything went or either way that the trial went he just opened the door to give us a mistrial and that we could rely upon that in the worst of circumstances. Q. Well, when -- during the course of the trial after the State had put on its evidence and then it became the defendant's turn, were you then given counsel by your trial counsel as to whether you should or shouldn't testify? A. I was given -- I was -- I talked to George Stolze over the telephone a couple days before I would most likely be called as or have the chance to be called as a witness and he said ultimately it was my decision of whether I wanted to testify or not but he did state emphatically that if I did not testify or I mean - strike that - not if I did not testify, he said that, 'Remember the Judge said he would declare a mistrial, so you always have that option,' something to that effect as close as I can recall. Q. Was the ultimate decision whether or not to testify then yours based on your advice from your counsel? A. Yes, that was mine after advise [sic] from my counsel. Q. And what was the reason that you decided not to testify? A. The reason I decided not to testify is because I wanted a mistrial of the whole situation. I wanted to get a mistrial. There is -- just that situation that I wanted a new trial, and since I was offered that mistrial I would take that -- Q. Well, then -- A. -- or that I believed that I was offered. Furthermore, the appellant's trial counsel testified at the habeas proceeding that he advised the appellant to not testify because he too relied on the trial judge's representation.See footnote 3 Trial counsel's testimony included the following: Q. What part, if any, did the Judge's statement about the mistrial play in Mr. Dietz not taking the stand? A. I would say that that was nearly the entire reason for Mr. Dietz not taking the stand. There were, of course, some other minor considerations, as there usually are; but that was the -- almost the entire reason. Q. All right. And did you -- what, if anything, did you advise Mr. Dietz as to the effect of and significance of the Judge's statement? A. I felt that from the beginning the trial started out with built-in error. Prior to -- I believe I was the one that moved the trial court to declare a mistrial following the Judge's statements to the jury. Basically, if I recall the statements now was that he indicated to the jury that the defense would be self-defense and, thereby, Mr. Dietz would take the stand and testify in his own defense. I considered that to be an improper comment to make to the jury. For one reason, it locked us into using a particular defense. The second reason being that I believe that locked us into putting Mr. Dietz on the stand, and neither Mr. Raptis nor I had the power to do that. Only Mr. Dietz could put himself on the stand. . . . . After the Judge made those comments I moved the Court to declare a mistrial which eventually prompted what I consider to be a promise made that in the event that Mr. Dietz did not testify in his own defense at the trial, that a mistrial would be declared. Because of that -- that what I termed a promise being made by the Judge at a point in time when it came time to make that decision whether or not Mr. Dietz would testify it was my advice to him that under the circumstances he should not; however, he was also advised that his right to testify or refuse to testify was a personal constitutional right that only he enjoyed and he was the only person that could really keep himself off of there, but it was advice to him that it would not be to his benefit to testify because of what had happened from the first day. In State v. Green, 163 W. Va. 681, 260 S.E.2d 257 (1979), this Court held in syllabus point 3: "A grossly erroneous mis-statement by counsel or court about the areas of conduct or criminal record that a defendant can be cross-examined about if he elects to testify in his behalf, which mis-statement may be reasonably considered to have deterred him from testifying, is reversible error."See footnote 4 We recognize in this case that the alleged "mis-statement" by the trial court did not relate to areas in which the appellant could have been cross-examined had he chosen to testify. However, the principle remains the same, namely, that the defendant in a criminal proceeding may not be misled by a statement which may be reasonably considered to have deterred the defendant from testifying. The record is clear in this case that the appellant relied on the circuit court's representation that a mistrial would be declared if he chose not to testify. Furthermore, the record is clear that the appellant's reliance on this statement may be reasonably considered to have deterred him from testifying on his own behalf. Accordingly, we hold that because the right of a defendant in a criminal case to testify on his or her own behalf is fundamental, then, in a case where a trial court represents that a mistrial will be declared if the defendant does not so testify, in the event that the defendant does not in fact testify and can demonstrate that he or she decided to not testify in reliance on the trial court's representation, it is reversible error for the trial court to not declare a mistrial. Consequently, the circuit court erred in not granting a mistrial. II. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL The appellant also maintains that he was constitutionally deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Primarily, the appellant points to trial counsel's failure to place in the record certain medical records which would have been the basis for the expert testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht. See State v. Dietz, 182 W. Va. 544, 553-55, 390 S.E.2d 15 , 24-26. We pointed out that the reports on which Wecht would have based his opinion were not included in the record. 182 W. Va. at 554 n. 6, 390 S.E.2d at 24-25 n. 6. The appellant argues that because those reports are now in the record, it is obvious that he was prejudiced by their exclusion because they would have shown the victim's propensity for aggressive behavior, thus, supporting his contention that he acted in self-defense because the victim was the aggressor. Rule 404(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence provides: Rule 404. Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes . (a) Character Evidence Generally.--Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: . . . . (2) Character of Victim of a Crime Other than a Sexual Conduct Crime.--Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime, other than a crime consisting of sexual misconduct, offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor[.] In State v. Woodson, 181 W. Va. 325, 329, 382 S.E.2d 519 , 523 (1989), we discussed this evidentiary provision: The text of our Rule 404(a)(2), as well as its federal counterpart, does not use the term 'self-defense,' but refers to the concept of the victim as 'the first aggressor.' The notes of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules make it plain that this rule covers several situations, i.e., 'evidence of a violent disposition to prove that the person was the aggressor in an affray' or 'an accused may introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim, as in support of a claim of self-defense to a charge of homicide.' This is essentially the same as our preexisting evidentiary rules. We summarized our discussion in this regard in Woodson in that opinion's second syllabus point: Rule 404(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence essentially codifies the common law rules on the admission of character evidence of the victim of a crime. In particular, under our traditional rule, a defendant in a homicide, malicious wounding, or assault case who relies on self-defense or provocation, may introduce evidence concerning the violent or turbulent character of the victim including prior threats or attacks on the defendant. This is reflected by State v. Louk, 171 W. Va. 639, 301 S.E.2d 596 (1983): 'In a prosecution for murder, where self-defense is relied upon to excuse the homicide, and there is evidence showing, or tending to show, that the deceased was at the time of the killing, making a murderous attack upon the defendant, it is competent for the defense to prove the character or reputation of the deceased as a dangerous and quarrelsome man, and also to prove prior attacks made by the deceased upon him, as well as threats made to other parties against him; and, if the defendant has knowledge of specific acts of violence by the deceased against other parties, he should be allowed to give evidence thereof.' (Citations omitted). "Clearly, under Rule 404(a)(2) the accused in a criminal case may initially introduce character evidence to prove that the victim was the first aggressor." Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 6.2(F)(1)(a) (1986). See also 2 Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 404[06] (1992). W. Va. R. Evid. 405 provides methods of proving character. "Rule 405 provides for three different ways of proving character: (1) by testimony as to reputation, (2) by testimony in the form of an opinion or (3) by evidence of specific instances of conduct. Which method may be used depends on the status of character in the case." Weinstein and Berger, ¶ 405[01] (footnote omitted). Specifically, Rule 405(a) provides the following: "In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct." Importantly, "the admission of reputation evidence of the victim's character under Rules 404(a)(2) and 405(a) renders knowledge of the character by the defendant unnecessary, since the evidence is offered merely to permit a jury to circumstantially infer that the victim was the aggressor." Cleckley, § 6.2(F)(1) (1986, 1992 Supp.) (emphasis supplied). See also Weinstein and Berger, ¶ 404[06], at 404-41-42 ("Even if the accused was unaware of deceased's reputation, evidence of it may be introduced pursuant to Rule 404(a)(2)."). As noted above, Rule 405 provides three methods of proving character: reputation, opinion, and specific acts. In the case now before us, we are only concerned with opinion testimony under Rule 405(a), specifically, opinion testimony that the victim may have been the aggressor in her fatal confrontation with the appellant.See footnote 5 It has been pointed out that Rule 405, by providing methods of proving character, "applies not only to testimony by friends, but also to testimony offered by one competent to form a professional opinion of the character of the accused or the victim, as, for example, a psychiatrist, or a polygraph examiner." Weinstein and Berger, ¶ 405[03] at 405-41 (emphasis supplied). Counterbalancing the admission of testimony under Rule 405, "as with all testimony, the judge will have to weigh its probative value against the countervailing factors to admissibility specified in Rule 403." Weinstein and Berger, ¶ 405[03], at 405-40. Rule 403 provides: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Accordingly, in a homicide case, malicious wounding, or assault where the defendant relies on self-defense or provocation, under Rule 404(a)(2) and Rule 405(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, character evidence in the form of opinion testimony may be admitted to show that the victim was the aggressor if the probative value of such evidence is not outweighed by the concerns set forth in the balancing test of Rule 403. The appellant has now developed the record to include the report upon which Dr. Wecht would have based part of his testimony. Because the record is now developed to include these pertinent records, this evidence would be admissible upon retrial. Significantly, trial counsel for the appellant, at the habeas corpus proceeding, admitted that the failure to include these reports was an oversight, and that such reports would have been essential to Dr. Wecht's testimony. These reports contained records which, as argued by the appellant, demonstrate a propensity for violence on the part of the victim. Specifically, the records contained in these reports indicate that the victim had bouts with alcoholism; drug addiction; hostility; erratic behavior, such as attempted suicide with a firearm; fighting with her husband and mental health personnel; and a tendency toward violent behavior when under the influence of drugs. This Court's standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is as follows: "Where a counsel's performance, attacked as ineffective, arises from occurrences involving strategy, tactics and arguable courses of action, his conduct will be deemed effectively assistive of his client's interests, unless no reasonably qualified defense attorney would have so acted in the defense of an accused." Syl. pt. 21, State v. Thomas, 157 W. Va. 640, 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). In this case, we believe that the appellant was constitutionally deprived of effective assistance of counsel by trial counsel's failure to vouch the record with the reports at issue. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court on this point as well.See footnote 6 III. PROSECUTOR'S CLOSING STATEMENT Finally, the appellant once again raises the issue of the propriety of the assistant prosecutor's remarks in characterizing the appellant during the closing statement of the trial. See State v. Dietz, 182 W. Va. 544, 559 n. 15, 390 S.E.2d 15 , 29-30 n. 15 (1990). For example, the assistant prosecutor repeatedly described the appellant as a "liar" and a "killer." The assistant prosecutor also stated that the appellant has a tattoo on his arm, made reference to the fact that the appellant had been adopted by his parents, and gets angry if someone calls him a "bastard," all, as contended by the appellant, to his prejudice. In contending that the remarks were improper, the appellant does not raise anything new, nor has anything been developed in the record on this point. Rather, this is a reiteration of previous contentions. Inasmuch as nothing new has been developed on this argument, we decline to engage in a comparative analysis of the statements made in this case against those in cases where we found error. However, we strongly urge the circuit court, upon the retrial of this case, to be advised of our opinion in State v. Moore, 186 W. Va. 23, 409 S.E.2d 490 (1990), which was decided after the trial and original appeal in this case. In Moore, the prosecutor had asserted a personal opinion on the guilt of the defendant. In reversing the defendant's conviction, we pointed out the impropriety of such an assertion by the prosecutor, and we reiterated the principle that the prosecutor occupies a quasi-judicial role. We again advise the circuit court in this case to not be unmindful of these principles in the retrial of this case. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, the ruling of the Circuit Court of Cabell County, denying the appellant habeas corpus relief, is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion herein. Reversed and remanded. Footnote: 1The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part: "No person shall . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]" Footnote: 2The appellant's motion for a mistrial was made at the conclusion of voir dire. Specifically, trial counsel for the appellant requested that the jury which was impaneled during voir dire be excused, and a new jury be selected. It was at this point that the trial court's promise was made. The State contends that the appellant was offered a mistrial at the close of his case, specifically, during arguments over instructions, and that the appellant refused this offer. However, as pointed out by the appellant, the argument over instructions, to which the State refers, centered on whether a pretrial statement made by the appellant should have been suppressed, and, in the event the case would be tried again, whether the appellant would not accuse the State of withholding exculpatory evidence in exchange for suppression of the statement. It is not clear from the record what exactly the appellant was offered, but it is clear that he was not offered a mistrial unconditionally. In any event, the right to testify upon one's own behalf is fundamental, thus, due process principles are implicated. See note 4, infra. Footnote: 3Trial counsel for the appellant did not represent the appellant in either appeal before this Court. Footnote: 4We have recognized that the right of a criminal defendant to testify on his or her behalf is so fundamental that, when surrendered, due process principles are inherently implicated. Syl. pts. 4-5, State v. Neuman, 179 W. Va. 580, 371 S.E.2d 77 (1988). Relatedly, the failure of a defendant in a criminal case to testify must not allow an inference of guilt to be drawn. In this case, the trial court did instruct the jury on this point. Footnote: 5In our opinion in the original appeal of this case, we went on to discuss Rule 405(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, which relates to evidence of specific acts and provides: "In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct." We pointed out in that opinion that under Rule 405(b), a defendant who relies on self-defense may offer evidence of specific acts of violence which have been made against him or her "if the defendant has knowledge of specific acts of violence against third parties by the victim[.]" Syl. pt. 3, in part, Woodson. We then went on to point out that there is no evidence that the appellant knew the victim prior to the time the homicide occurred. Consequently, under Rule 405(b), the appellant did not know of the victim's aggressiveness that would have caused him to believe that he was in danger. We recognize that our holding in Woodson, specifically, with respect to Rule 405(b), has been questioned. See Cleckley, § 6.2(F) (1986, 1992 Supp.). It has been pointed out that a literal construction of Rule 405 would not permit a defendant in a criminal case to show that the victim was the aggressor by using evidence of specific acts because the victim's aggressiveness is not an essential element of self-defense, but merely circumstantial to such a defense. "Nevertheless, . . . courts often fail to follow the logic of [this] distinction . . . though repeatedly chastised by scholars of evidence for failing to do so -- and not infrequently courts have said . . . that character is 'in issue' when such is not the case according to the logic [of the distinction] described above." IA Peter Tillers, Wigmore on Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 63.1, at 1382-83 n. 1 (1983). However, we need not revisit the principles relating thereto because the evidence in this case may be admitted under Rule 404(a)(2) and Rule 405(a), under which the appellant is attempting to prove by opinion testimony that the victim may have been the aggressor, in order to support a claim of self-defense. Footnote: 6As for the appellant's other contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel, we do not believe that they rise to such a level that reversible error has occurred. However, most of these other contentions are of the nature that they may be corrected by effective representation during retrial of this case. For example, most of the appellant's remaining contentions in this regard deal with trial counsel's failure to object, or to mount a particular defense.

019aea09040ed05837d9e3bc0238a7e9cdb395ca03ce116cc23afabcb8ef4838

1992-12-16 00:00:00

5c130453-8396-44c3-9c88-9932c1c25f3e

SER Johnson v. Tsapis

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

SER Johnson v. Tsapis Annotate this Case SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1992 Term ____________ No. 21008 ____________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. ERIC V. JOHNSON And SANDRA J. JOHNSON, his wife, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE CALLIE TSAPIS, Judge of the Circuit Court of Brooke County; HITACHI, LTD., a foreign corporation; and WHEELING-NISSHIN, INC., a corporation, Respondents ________________________________________________ WRIT OF PROHIBITION WRIT DENIED ________________________________________________ Submitted: April 7, 1992 Filed: June 1, 1992 Raymond A. Hinerman Hinerman & Fahey Weirton, West Virginia Counsel for Petitioners Scott W. Blass Bachermann, Hess, Bachmann & Garden Wheeling, West Virginia Brian D. Sieve Kirkland & Ellis Chicago, Illinois, Counsel for Hitachi, Ltd., Inc. Elba Gillenwater, Jr. Seibert, Kasserman, Farnsworth, Gillenwater, Glauser & Richardson Wheeling, West Virginia Counsel for Wheeling-Nisshin JUSTICE WORKMAN Delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT The following six-factor test should be applied in determining whether there is "good cause" pursuant to Rule 26(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a protective order: 1. The extent to which the information is known outside of the defendant's business; 2. The extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the defendant's business; 3. The extent of the measures taken by the defendant to guard the secrecy of the information; 4. The value of the information to the defendant and competitors; 5. The amount of effort or money expended by the defendant in developing the information; and 6. The ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. Workman, Justice: Petitioners Eric Johnson and Sandra Johnson seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a protective order issued by the Circuit Court of Brooke County. Having determined that the Honorable Callie Tsapis did not abuse her power in issuing a protective order in the underlying products liability action, we deny petitioners' request for a writ of prohibition. As a result of a workplace injury sustained by Eric Johnson on October 9, 1989, petitioners instituted a civil action on December 21, 1990, against respondents Wheeling-Nisshin, Inc., Mr. Johnson's employer, and Hitachi, the manufacturer of the product which allegedly caused Mr. Johnson's injuries. In their civil action, petitioners alleged claims based on products liability and breach of warranty. On April 5, 1991, petitioners served their first set of discovery requests on Hitachi seeking work orders, blueprints, technical bulletins, and other diagrams detailing the operation and design of the squeeze roll which allegedly caused Mr. Johnson's injuries. By letter dated April 26, 1991, Hitachi's counsel informed petitioners' counsel that he objected to producing documents responsive to the discovery requests prior to the entry of an appropriate protective order. Petitioners' counsel indicated to Hitachi's counsel that he did not normally object to protective orders, but would like to see a proposed draft before further comment. After reviewing the proposed protective order prepared by Hitachi, petitioners' counsel stated by letter dated June 19, 1991, that he would not approve the proposed protective order based on his opinion that the order as drafted was "overly broad," but he further indicated that he had "no problem at all with an Order that briefly provides that your trade secrets and confidential information shall remain confidential." In a subsequent letter dated July 8, 1991, petitioners' counsel advised Hitachi regarding the terms to which they would agree. Petitioners would "acknowledge that there may be trade secrets or confidential information which will be provided in the discovery process" and that, following Hitachi's identification of such trade secrets or confidential information, petitioners would agree that such information be kept secure in the circuit court clerk's office. When the parties could not resolve their disputes regarding the terms of an appropriate order, Hitachi filed a motion with the circuit court on August 9, 1991, seeking the court's entry of a protective order. Following two hearings and the circuit court's review of proposed orders submitted by petitioners and Hitachi, the circuit court issued an order dated December 12, 1991, which adopted verbatim the terms of the protective order drafted by Hitachi. Petitioners seek to be relieved from compliance with the protective order entered by the circuit court. Like any well-drafted protective order, the order at issue identified which documents or information could be categorized as confidential and the procedure for designating such documents as confidential. Consistent with cases involving trade secrets, the order limited the use of materials designated as confidential to the underlying lawsuit. Finally, the order provided a mechanism for the parties to bring any objection regarding disclosure of discovery materials to the circuit court for resolution. Rule 26(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the issuance of a protective order restricting disclosure of a party's trade secrets and other confidential information: Upon motion by a party . . . and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . (7) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way. That restrictions may be placed on the use of confidential information disclosed through discovery is well-established. Even when discovery is allowed, the courts usually impose conditions intended to protect the possessor of the asserted trade secret from use of the secret for purposes other than the litigation, and from wholesale dissemination. Thus, the courts have limited disclosure of the information obtained through discovery to party's counsel and such others necessary for preparation of the action. 4 James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.60[4], at 26-214 to -215 (2d ed. 1991) (footnote omitted). In seeking the writ of prohibition, petitioners rely primarily on the "good cause" requirement of Rule 26(c). Specifically, petitioners assert that Judge Tsapis entered the protective order based solely on "the bald assertions of counsel." In response to this contention, Hitachi posits that the court did not require an evidentiary showing of "good cause" based on its position that petitioners had previously conceded that "much of the information they were seeking constituted trade secrets." Not having a transcript reflecting the proceedings below, we are forced to make a ruling as to the "good cause" showing based on the limited record before us. In reviewing the procedural history of the protective order and its eventual issuance, it appears to this Court that there was little disagreement among the parties regarding the need for a protective order for the purpose of protecting both trade secrets and other confidential information pertaining to the machinery which allegedly caused Mr. Johnson's injuries. From the correspondence between the parties which has been made a part of the record in this case, it is more than apparent that the terms of the protective order rather than the need for its issuance was the focus of the parties' dispute. In deciding whether the circuit court had proper grounds for entering the protective order, we follow the court's decision in United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 67 F.R.D. 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), [hereinafter referred to as I.B.M.] to rely on the factors set forth in Section 757 of the Restatement of Torts as a test for determining whether a protective order should be issued with respect to commercial information which may rise to the level of a trade secret. See id. at 46-47. Accordingly, the following six-factor test should be applied in determining whether there is "good cause" pursuant to Rule 26(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a protective order: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the defendant's business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the defendant's business; (3) the extent of the measures taken by the defendant to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the defendant and competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the defendant in developing the information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. See I.B.M., 67 F.R.D. at 47. While not submitted in evidence at the circuit court proceedings, Hitachi has submitted the affidavit of one of its engineers in an ex post facto attempt to show compliance with the I.B.M. standard. The affidavit of Mr. Hitoshi Ohkoshi avers that: (1) the design drawings and other information Petitioners seek are not publicly available and are not known to anyone outside of Hitachi and Wheeling-Nisshin, both of whom are required to maintain them in confidence; (2) only a limited number of Hitachi personnel know the contents of the documents at issue; (3) Hitachi has taken numerous substantial, explicit, and costly steps to maintain the confidentiality of the documents in question; (4) the information is of great economic value both to Hitachi and its competitors; (5) Hitachi has expended considerable sums of money over the course of thirty years developing the information its seeks to protect; and (6) the information in question cannot be acquired or duplicated by others without substantial expenditures of capitol and resources. The information contained in the Ohkoshi affidavit addresses each of the elements of the six-part I.B.M standard which we have adopted as the test for the "good cause" requirement of Rule 26(c). The fact that this affidavit was not introduced in evidence in the proceedings below is of little or no moment since this Court remains firm in its opinion that the dispute brought to the circuit court centered not on the need for the issuance of a protective order, but on the terms of a protective order. Nonetheless, the Ohkoshi affidavit satisfies any lingering question that Hitachi has established the "good cause" prerequisite for obtaining a protective order. As an additional ground for seeking a writ of prohibition, petitioners assert that the protective order as entered by the circuit court is burdensome. Petitioners' primary objection on the grounds of burden appears to be the aspect of requiring petitioners' expert witnesses to comply with the terms of the protective order. What petitioners are really complaining about is the requirement that they first disclose to Hitachi the identity of any expert witness whom they wish to provide access to information which qualifies as confidential or super-confidential pursuant to the protective order and the further requirement that the expert witness not disclose such information nor make copies of such information except as needed for trial purposes. The order seeks to permit the identification of confidential and trade secret information and to prevent that information from being disseminated for use other than in connection with the underlying civil action. Numerous courts have recognized the discretion imposed on a trial court to place limitations upon the disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential information. See 4 Moore et al., supra ¶ 26.75 at 26-486 to -488 and cases cited therein; Harris v. Amoco Prod. Co., 768 F.2d 669, 684 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1011 (1986) (upon a showing of "'good cause,' the presumption of free use dissipates, and the district court can exercise its sound discretion to restrict what materials are obtainable, how they can be obtained, and what use can be made of them once obtained"). While the protective order is unquestionably drafted in legalese and is therefore more verbose than necessary, we find petitioners' objection that the protective order is burdensome to be meritless. In approving the protective order at issue, we note that the order provides a mechanism to resolve any disputes regarding whether a particular document is subject to the terms of the order. The order clearly states that upon objection by the non-producing party, any dispute regarding disclosure is to be resolved by court order. Having fully reviewed this procedural matter, we can find no evidence that the circuit court abused its discretion in issuing the protective order. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the writ of prohibition requested by petitioners is hereby denied. Writ denied.

de0c32f44b57d3731b998effbacb8d56558835c602c3bf495bafbebe398982a5

1992-06-01 00:00:00

d5ccc7f8-30dc-46eb-924e-2e70942e5226

Bennett v. Charles Corp.

226 S.E.2d 559

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Bennett v. Charles Corp. Annotate this Case 226 S.E.2d 559 (1976) Howard BENNETT and Lillian L. Bennett v. The CHARLES CORPORATION, a corporation, et al. No. 13586. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. July 20, 1976. *561 J. Ross Hunter, Jr., F. Duane Hill, Charleston, for appellants. Fred M. Frisk, Jr., Sam D. Lopinsky, Charleston, for appellees. *560 FLOWERS, Justice. This appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County involves the enforceability of certain restrictions upon the use of a tract of land. The plaintiffs, Howard Bennett and Lillian L. Bennett, owners of a dwelling house within a subdivided tract, sought to enjoin the defendants who are the owners of the remaining lots in the tract from converting those lots into a cemetery and from using them for other than residential purposes. The plaintiffs also sought additional mandatory relief requiring the defendants "to remove any graves (sic) in said subdivision" and to pay ten thousand dollars damages and costs. The equitable relief sought was awarded by the Common Pleas Court of Kanawha County. The Circuit Court refused to entertain an appeal on the ground that, following the adoption of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment in 1974, appellate relief could only be granted by this Court. The defendants were then granted an appeal here from the adverse judgment. The most significant issues confronting us involve: (1) whether the defendants by oral representation at the time of the sale of the property to the plaintiffs created an equitable negative easement which is enforceable and (2) whether the defendants are bound as subsequent purchasers with notice by restrictive testamentary language in a devise of the property to their predecessors in title. James M. Curry died testate in 1941 and by his will, probated and placed of record more than twenty years prior to the conveyance to the defendants, devised the residue of ten acres of real estate to his sons, F. I. Curry and J. C. Curry. The will contained the following language: ". . . It is my desire and I hereby direct that hereafter there shall not be sold or used for cemetery purposes or for the burial of the dead any additional part of the said tract and parcel of ten acres land, except that part now fenced and enclosed as a cemetery. "I further direct that the proceeds from the sale of any and all cemetery lots included in the three to four acres hereinbefore mentioned, and enclosed by fence as above described, shall be paid to and become the money and property of my two sons E. R. Curry and W. B. Curry, to be used by them in the payment of the taxes, insurance, upkeep and other expenses up on the real estate hereinbefore bequeathed to them jointly." The devisees, F. I. Curry and J. C. Curry, subsequently partitioned the six to seven *562 acres left them from the ten-acre tract. The portion received by F. I. Curry was platted in 1954 as the "F. I. Curry subdivision." The plat showed a separation of lots into two blocks divided by a street. That portion east of the street, containing 12 lots, was designated as "Block A", while the portion west of the street, containing 13 lots, was designated as "Block B". No lots were sold while F. I. Curry owned the property. The entire tract was purchased in 1964 by Clyde Eplin and The Charles Corporation who together constructed two houses on the portion of the tract designated as Block B. One of the houses was leased for six months and then sold to the plaintiffs by a deed, dated September 1, 1965. The deed described the property as "Lot No. Three (3) of the F. I. Curry Subdivision to Marmet" and made reference to the plat "for aid in the description and identification of the property." Neither the deed nor the plat contained restrictive covenants of any nature. It was undenied, however, that the sellers intended, and so represented to the plaintiffs through Eplin and a real estate agent, that the subdivision would be a residential development and that additional houses would be built. The defendants objected to the introduction of parol evidence to vary the terms of the deed and plat, contending that a servitude upon the defendants' lands could be created only by a writing which met the requirements of W.Va.Code, 36-1-1 and 36-1-3. After negotiation of the sale of the property to the plaintiffs, Eplin became ill. He moved into the other house he had built in Block B near the Bennetts and sold his interest in the land to The Charles Corporation. The defendant Lewis, who was President of The Charles Corporation, testified that in late 1969 or early 1970 he found he could not develop Block A as a residential housing area because of difficulties obtaining a sewage line. He then decided to clear the land and develop it as a cemetery. After learning of the proposed cemetery development, the plaintiffs accepted a deed for a portion of the additional half of a lot adjacent to their dwelling which they had agreed to purchase in 1965. This second deed, like the first, contained no restrictions on use. In February, 1972, a cemetery plat was recorded and a lot was sold to Mr. and Mrs. William Howard Markham. The Markham lot was located in the center of the original Block A. In April, 1972, William Howard Markham was buried there. It was acknowledged that the Markham gravesite was no closer to the plaintiffs' property than the two established cemeteries which border on the subdivision perimeter. The plaintiffs nevertheless claimed their property was diminished in value by the establishment of the new cemetery. A civil action was filed by the Bennetts in April, 1972, naming as defendants, The Charles Corporation, C. Russell Lewis, and Margaret Louise Markham, widow of William Howard Markham. Mrs. Markham filed a third-party complaint against The Charles Corporation and Lewis. The court found that the plaintiffs would not have purchased the property from The Charles Corporation had they been aware that a portion of the subdivision would be used for a cemetery. Upon this finding the court determined that an implied covenant arose upon the sale of the property to the Bennetts, warranting that the property would not be used for cemetery development and would be used solely for residential purposes. The trial court ordered that an injunction should issue enjoining the defendants from developing the property as a cemetery and requiring defendant Markham to remove her husband's body within 60 days. Upon her failure to do so, the plaintiffs were extended the right to remove the body to a suitable resting place. Thereafter, upon motion of counsel for the plaintiffs, the court admitted as after-discovered evidence the will of James M. Curry and affirmed its prior ruling. I The initial question presented for decision involves whether the events surrounding *563 the sale of property in the subdivision to the Bennetts support injunctive enforcement of an oral negative restrictive easement against the property identified as "Block A". Easements may be classed as affirmative or negative. When the effect of the restriction sought is to preclude an owner of land from doing something he otherwise would be entitled to do, it is considered a negative easement. 25 Am. Jur.2d, Easements and Licenses, § 8, pp. 422-23; Cottrell v. Nurnberger, 131 W.Va. 391, 397-98, 47 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1948). Negative restrictive easements are basically restrictive covenants[1] which are equitably enforceable. 2 G. Thompson, Real Property, § 382, p. 540 (1961); 25 Am.Jur.2d, Easements and Licenses, § 5, p. 421. Though the terms "easement" and "servitude" are often used indiscriminately the one is usually applied to the right enjoyed while the other refers to the burden imposed. Cottrell v. Nurnberger, supra at 397, 47 S.E.2d at 457. An easement, whether affirmative or negative, is an incorporeal hereditament and as such is a species of real property or land subject to the provisions of the statutes governing the conveyance or creation of estates in land. W.Va.Code, 36-1-1, and the Statute of Frauds, W.Va.Code, 36-1-3. Cottrell v. Nurnberger, supra at 397, 47 S.E.2d at 457. The deed to the plaintiffs did not create the negative easement, nor did the plat or any other writing meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, W.Va.Code, 36-1-3. Whether the will of James M. Curry created such an easement is dealt with hereafter. While there are limited instances in which an easement has been held to "arise from estoppel" or where the owner against whose land an easement is sought may be estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds as a defense, we think such exceptions were ably dealt with in Cottrell and the decision in that case is controlling here. In Cottrell the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the construction of a motel on a lot in a subdivision which had been used for recreational purposes. The plaintiffs' case for equitable relief was based upon the theory that they had purchased their lots, paying a higher price, and built homes because of the representation of the developer that Lot 45 would be preserved for recreational purposes. The Court found that oral restrictions upon the use of land were easements falling within the provisions of W.Va.Code, 36-1-3, and 36-1-1, which require a writing, deed or will and prohibit the creation of easements by parol. The decision, however, recognizes that a defendant may be estopped to assert the Statute of Frauds in defense of an action for enforcement where certain limited circumstances exist. Those limited situations include fraud and part performance. In defining the conduct which would raise an equitable estoppel, the Court distinguished between a representation and a promise, holding that a broken promise did not provide a sufficient basis upon which to predicate fraud. Moreover, payment of the purchase price, although excessive, was not of itself part performance; neither would improvement of the purchased lots remove the agreement from the operation of the statute. The Court did not consider as persuasive the recorded map on which Lot 45 was shown without any legend to signify that it was reserved or dedicated to a particular purpose. The principles of Cottrell are in accord with the weight of authority. In 2 G. Thompson, Real Property, § 333, p. 12 (1961 Supp.) it is stated: *564 "For an oral conveyance of an easement to be effective there must be: (1) conduct of the parties clearly evidencing the agreement sufficient to avoid the statute of frauds under the minimization of perjured claims theory and (2) equitable circumstances establishing a true estoppel or avoidance of unjust enrichment." The following appears in 5 R. Powell, The Law of Real Property, ¶ 672, pp. 152-53 (1975): ". . . Most courts frankly recognize that the promise has to be in writing in order to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, and dispense with a writing only on the equitable principles of estoppel or part performance generally applicable to create exceptions to the Statute of Frauds." The conflict in decisions on this issue results generally from the consideration of what conduct results in estoppel to assert the Statute of Frauds as a defense. This conflict is evident upon comparison of the majority and dissenting opinions in Cottrell. Powell in his treatise comments: ". . . The extension of this doctrine of estoppel to oral representations involving only a promise has caused some judicial hesitance. Some courts have refused such an extension. Other courts retain lip service to the doctrine of estoppel by finding a misrepresentation of fact in the promise read in its circumstances. Other courts swallow the `promissory estoppel' without a gulp, and give effect in equity to oral promises that retained lands will be subjected to restrictions and to other oral promises respecting the use of land, without attempting to find the `representation of fact' traditionally necessary for an estoppel in pais. This liberality is particularly common where land has been subdivided and a plat has been recorded. . . ." 5 R. Powell, The Law of Real Property, ¶ 672, pp. 153-54 (1961). The facts of the instant case are compatible with those in Cottrell, and the circumstances of this case do not warrant a departure from that decision. The map merely subdivided the tract into lots and did not dedicate any of the lots in Block A to residential housing. The oral expression of intention made to the Bennetts at the time of sale constituted at most a promise to develop the tract in the future as a residential housing subdivision. When the defendant found it impossible to perform according to this promise, the use of the tract was changed. The basis of equitable estoppel is fraudulent or inequitable conduct. The acts of the defendant in the instant case do not rise to that level. No fraud can be gleaned in these circumstances from the breach of an oral promise to dedicate land to a particular use. The conclusion expressed by Judge Haymond in Cottrell we think is relevant here: ". . . The mere failure or refusal of the vendor in an oral agreement, which is within the Statute of Frauds and for that reason unenforceable, to recognize it as binding or to comply with it does not in itself amount to fraud or inequitable conduct upon which to base estoppel, when, as here, it does not appear that he intended to violate the oral agreement when it was made. In refusing to perform it he is simply exercising a statutory right. The other party to the contract is presumed to know that the contract is unenforceable and that he acts under it at his risk. To regard otherwise the acts of the parties to a contract within the statute would be to disregard the statute and to refuse to give it force or effect." Cottrell v. Nurnberger, supra at 406-07, 47 S.E.2d at 461-62. The Statute of Frauds has been a part of our law for three hundred years. Its purpose is the prevention of fraud and perjury. Smith v. Morton, 70 Okl. 157, 173 P. 520 (1918). Its need is as pressing today as at its origin. If we were to sanction the substitution of verbal declarations for written instruments in the creation and transfer of estates in land, we would defy the experience of time. The Statute protects against the fallibility of man's memory and insures certainty in land transactions. While it must never be an instrument of *565 the fraud which it was intended to prevent, the Statute cannot be ignored or circumvented in order to achieve what may be a more desirable result for one of two litigants. Cottrell v. Nurnberger, supra, 131 W.Va. at 411, 47 S.E.2d at 464. II The second determination in this case requires a consideration of the effect of the will of James M. Curry upon the tract of land devised to the parties' predecessor in title. The will provided that: "it is my desire and I hereby direct" that no portion of the tract of land be used or sold for "cemetery purposes or for the burial of the dead." The will was admitted as after-discovered evidence. No error in this regard was assigned by the defendants. The effect to be given the will requires a determination of the interest created by the testamentary language. Several types of interest may have been created, including (1) a fee simple determinable; (2) a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent; (3) a negative restrictive easement; and (4) a personal restriction for the benefit of the testator's devisees and legatees which confers no special rights or burdens upon their successors in title. The determinable fee and fee subject to condition are estates which terminate or are subject to divestment upon the happening of a named event or condition. Woman's Club of St. Albans v. James, W.Va., 213 S.E.2d 469 (1975); Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. Willim, 153 W.Va. 299, 168 S.E.2d 555 (1969). Characteristic of the creation of the former estate is the use of words such as "so long as" or "until". 1 L. Simes and A. Smith, The Law of Future Interests, § 286, p. 341 (2nd ed. 1956); Woman's Club of St. Albans v. James, supra. Fees subject to divestment upon the occurrence of a condition subsequent are ordinarily indicated by the use of language such as "upon condition that" or "in the event that". 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estates, § 144, pp. 259-60. In the instant case, the testator did not employ the language of either category. Moreover, if we were to construe the provision as creating one of the two estates, the rights and benefits resulting from the occurrence of the event would benefit the heirs of the testator and not the plaintiffs. Woman's Club of St. Albans v. James, supra. A third possible construction would be that the language creates a negative restrictive easement. Such easements arise upon the separation of a tract of land into dominant and servient estates. Cottrell v. Nurnberger, supra, 131 W.Va. at 397, 47 S.E.2d at 457. The plaintiffs, however, cannot demonstrate that their lot constitutes a part of the dominant estate which might be benefited by the restriction in the will. Whether the other Curry brothers who were devised adjoining property could have claimed the F. I. and J. C. Curry devise was a servient estate to their devise is of no avail to these plaintiffs. Restrictive easements upon the use of land are basically covenants implying mutuality or agreement as a protection to the dominant estate. It has been stated that: "The creation of an easement by devise, which occurs but infrequently, may be considered as one phase of the creation of easements by grant." 3 H. Tiffany, Real Property, § 776, p. 245 (3rd ed. 1939). This textual statement refers to the creation of a legal easement. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which a restrictive covenant could be created by a testamentary document. We are not, however, required to make such a determination in this case. A person claiming a right under a restrictive negative easement must show that the advantage to be derived from the restriction is a benefit to the land. Cole v. Seamonds, 87 W.Va. 19, 104 S.E. 747 (1920). Such a benefit cannot be shown in the instant case. The property owned by James M. Curry at his death was used in part to maintain a public and a private family cemetery. He devised a portion of his property to his sons E. R. Curry and W. B. Curry. He devised a second portion, excepting therefrom the fenced area dedicated as a public cemetery, to his sons, J. C. Curry and F. I. Curry. In *566 addition, he bequeathed to E. R. Curry and W. B. Curry the proceeds from the sale of any cemetery lots in the fenced areas, excepted from the devise to J. C. Curry and F. I. Curry, for the purpose of paying taxes, insurance and upkeep on the portion of the property devised to them. It is apparent that the restrictive directive in the will of James M. Curry resulted from his desire to prevent competition among his sons and to ensure some income for the protection of the property on which he had maintained his residence. The restriction may have been enforceable between the original devisees. Equity will not, however, enforce a restriction against subsequent purchasers which is personal to the grantor. Cole v. Seamonds, supra. III The final question presented for decision is whether the circuit court erred in failing to entertain an appeal of this case. Under prior statutes the circuit court of a county was vested with appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by courts of limited jurisdiction within that county. With the ratification of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment, however, courts of limited jurisdiction automatically became circuit courts. At the time of application for appellate relief in this case the common pleas court had been reconstituted under the Amendment as the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Appellate relief, therefore, could only be granted by this Court. For reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is reversed. Reversed.

a6ed2ebd9c116ad9a2c2ab10f7d6f96149092c0651d30c106891a7bd4928ce6c

1976-07-20 00:00:00

d08502c1-4f48-45f6-8f9f-2bb85546c448

Triggs v. Berkeley Co. Board of Education

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Triggs v. Berkeley Co. Board of Education Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1992 Term _____________ No. 20220 _____________ JOYCE TRIGGS, Appellant v. BERKELEY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee of Election Below, Appellee ___________________________________________________________ Appeal for the Circuit Court of Berkeley County Honorable Patrick G. Henry, III, Judge Civil Action No. 90-C-409 AFFIRMED ___________________________________________________________ Submitted: January 15, 1992 Filed: April 2, 1992 Lawrence M. Schultz, Esq. Askin, Pill, Scales & Burke, L.C. Martinsburg, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellant Richard L. Douglas, Esq. Claudia W. Bentley, Esq. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love Martinsburg, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellee JUSTICE NEELY delivered the Opinion of the Court. McHugh, C. J., and Workman, J., concur in part, dissent in part, and reserve the right to file concurring and dissenting opinions. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1."The legislative intent expressed in W.Va. Code, 18-29-1 (1985), is to provide a simple, expeditious and fair process for resolving problems." Syllabus Point 3, Spahr v. Preston County Bd. of Educ. ___ W. Va. ___, 391 S.E.2d 739 (1990). 2.Under W.Va. Code, 18-29-3(t) [1985], a county board of education or its superintendent may appeal a grievance decision made by the superintendent's designee at level two or by an independent hearing examiner at level four. 3.W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) [1983] does not provide clear and unambiguous instruction concerning what happens to the seniority of a person who voluntarily resigns or retires from a public school system and is subsequently reemployed by the same board of education. However, based on the other code provisions dealing with professional employment and the commonly accepted meaning of the term "seniority," the court concludes that the legislature did not intend, upon reemployment, to resurrect the seniority of a person who had voluntarily resigned or retired. Thus, when a teacher resigns from a school system, that teacher loses seniority. That teacher, even if reemployed as a substitute teacher, does not regain even a limited employment preference until the reemployed substitute teacher has been employed in a professional capacity for 133 days or more in any one school year. W.Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990]. 4.Seniority for professional employees of a county board of education is based on "regular, full-time" professional employment and the only seniority that a substitute teacher can earn is "exclusively for the purpose of applying for employment" and this limited employment preference accrues "[u]pon completion of one hundred thirty-three days of employment in any one school year." W.Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990]. 5."Under W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) (1983), decisions of a county board of education affecting teacher promotions and the filling of vacant teaching positions must be based primarily upon the applicants' qualifications for the job, with seniority having a bearing on the selection process when the applicants have otherwise equivalent qualifications or where the differences in qualification criteria are insufficient to form the basis for an informed and rational decision." Syllabus Point 1, Dillon v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Wyoming, 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986). 6."County boards of education have substantial discretion in matters relating to the hiring, assignment, transfer, and promotion of school personnel. Nevertheless, this discretion must be exercised reasonably, in the best interests of the schools, and in a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious." Syllabus Point 3, Dillon v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Wyoming, 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986). 7.Teachers who have voluntarily withdrawn from school employment to raise families or for other reasons have valuable experience that must be taken into consideration when such former teachers reapply for full-time positions in the school system. Under W.Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990] (formerly W.Va. Code, 18A-4-8b [1983]), hiring must always be done on the basis of qualifications, and it is therefore inappropriate to hire new and inexperienced teachers over older, more experienced teachers simply because young personnel are cheaper for the board to hire. However, this general proposition should not discourage a board from hiring young teachers when they are the best qualified applicants. 8."A board of education making a hiring decision under W.Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) [1988], should use its best professional judgment to select the applicant best suited to the needs of the students based on qualifications and evaluations of the applicants' past service. Only when all other factors are equal should a board of education look to seniority." Syllabus Point 4, Bd. of Educ. of the County of Wood v. Enoch, ___ W. Va. ____, ____ S.E.2d ___ (No. 20289, Filed February 6, 1992, Modified March 13, 1992). Neely, Justice: Joyce Triggs, alleging that she was improperly denied employment as a full-time elementary school teacher, appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County that refused to award her a full-time position. Because Ms. Triggs did not show that she was the best qualified candidate for a position as a full-time teacher, we affirm the circuit court. Ms. Triggs was a full-time teacher with the Berkeley County Board of Education from 1960 to 1971, when she resigned. Ms. Triggs, who holds a West Virginia professional certificate with a specialization in elementary education for grades one through eight, was recommended for tenure in a 1963 favorable evaluation and was a tenured teacher from 1963 through 1971. In 1979 and every year thereafter, Ms. Triggs contracted with the Board to be a substitute teacher. In 1987 Ms. Triggs sought to regain a full-time teaching position and, between 1987 and 1989, Ms. Triggs applied for roughly twenty-nine posted vacancies. Ms. Triggs maintains that she should have been hired because her qualifications in at least three cases were superior to the qualifications of the successful applicant.See footnote 1 Ms. Triggs alleges that even though more than 100 positions became available between 1987 and 1989, she was never interviewed. The three vacancies that Ms. Triggs alleges were filled by applicants with less teaching experience include: a first grade position at Tuscarora School that was awarded to an applicant with no teaching experience in Berkeley County; a second grade position at Berkeley Heights School that was awarded to an applicant with only one year of experience as a substitute teacher; and, another first grade position at Tuscarora School that was awarded to an applicant with no teaching experience. Alan Canonico, the Board's Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, testified that his office prepared a list of the applicants with the appropriate certification for each vacancy. The list, which was given to the principal of the school where the vacancy existed, indicated the applicant's status as a regular employee, a substitute teacher, or a prospective employee. The selection from the list was made by the principal, after which the superintendent and the board usually approved the principal's recommendation. Mr. Canonico did not know why Ms. Triggs was not interviewed for the three vacancies for which she had more experience than the successful applicants, nor could he explain how the principals reached their hiring decisions.See footnote 2 Mr. Canonico did note that the successful applicants had taught, either as student or substitute teachers, in the school where they were hired. Ms. Triggs filed a grievance and a level two hearing was conducted by Craig Manford, the superintendent's designee. Mr. Manford found that Ms. Triggs was entitled to a full-time position and recommended that she be offered employment at the next possible opportunity. Both the Board and Ms. Triggs appealed the decision; however, Ms. Triggs' appeal was limited to the issue of back pay. The Board waived the matter to level four. After the level four hearing examiner of the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board found Ms. Triggs was not entitled to full-time employment, Ms. Triggs appealed to the Circuit Court, which upheld the level four decision. Ms. Triggs now appeals here alleging that the Board cannot appeal an unfavorable decision made by a superintendent's designee and that she was improperly denied a full-time position and back pay. I. First, Ms. Triggs argues that the Board of Education cannot appeal the level two decision granting her employment made by the superintendent's designee under W. Va. Code, 18-29-4 [1985], the statute establishing the grievance levels and procedures. The grievance procedures set out in W.Va. Code, 18-29-1 et seq. [1989], "are to be given a flexible interpretation in order to carry out the legislative intent." Spahr v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., ___ W. Va. ___, 391 S.E.2d 739 , 743 (1990). See Paxton v. Crabtree, ___ W.Va. ___, 400 S.E.2d 245 , 249 (1990) (discussing procedural issues under the W.Va. Human Rights Act); Duruttya v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Mingo, ___ W. Va. ___, 382 S.E.2d 40 (1989). In Syllabus Point 3, Spahr supra, we said: The legislative intent expressed in W.Va. Code, 18-29-1 (1985), is to provide a simple, expeditious and fair process for resolving problems. The first hearingSee footnote 3 in this matter was conducted by a designee of the superintendent under W. Va. Code, 18-29-4(b) [1985], which states: Within five days of receiving the decision of the immediate supervisor, the grievant may appeal the decision to the chief administrator, and such administrator or his or her designee shall conduct a hearing in accordance with section six [§18-29-6] of this article within five days of receiving the appeal and shall issue a written decision within five days of such hearing. Such decision may affirm, modify or reverse the decision appealed from. [Emphasis added.] An appeal of the level two decision by the grievant is allowed under W.Va. Code, 18-29-4(c) [1985], which states in pertinent part: Except as to faculty and classified employees of the board of regents or any state institution of higher education who shall have the option to proceed directly to level four, within five days of receiving the decision of the chief administrator, the grievant may appeal the decision to the governing board of the institution.See footnote 4 [Emphasis added.] Ms. Triggs argues that because W.Va. Code, 18-29-4(c) [1985] specifically allows the grievant to appeal, but does not allow the Board or its superintendent to appeal, no appeal by the Board or its superintendent is allowed. Although W.Va. Code, 18-29-4 [1985] does not state that the Board may appeal an adverse decision, the first three decisions on the grievance ladder (except for decisions made by a superintendent's designee) are made by the immediate supervisor, the superintendent or the Board, making an appeal by the Board unnecessary. In any event, the Board maintains that its appeal is allowed under W.Va. Code, 18-29-3(t) [1985], which states: Any chief administrator or governing board of an institution in which a grievance was filed may appeal such decision on the grounds that the decision (1)was contrary to law or lawfully adopted rule, regulation or written policy of the chief administrator or governing board, (2)exceeded the hearing examiner's statutory authority, (3)was the result of fraud or deceit, (4)was clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record, or (5)was arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. Such appeal shall follow the procedure regarding appeal provided the grievant in section four [§18-29-4] of this article and provided both parties in section seven [§18-29-7] of this article. Based on W.Va. Code, 18-29-3(t) [1985] we find that a county board of education or its superintendent may appeal a grievance decision made by the superintendent's designee at level two or by an independent hearing examiner at level four. An appeal by the superintendent of his own designee's decision would appear to show either that the superintendent unwisely chose the designee or that the superintendent reached a decision without benefit of a hearing and is unwilling to change his mind. Yet, if we deny the superintendent the right to appeal a level two decision, the level two hearing will become a pro forma waste of time because the system will encourage the superintendent to instruct his designee to decide issues for the administration and against the grievant. Therefore, in an imperfect world where an optimum mix of incentives is impossible to achieve, we find the best course is to allow the superintendent to appeal a level two decision made by a designee. II. Ms. Triggs maintains that she has seniority in matters of employment because her reemployment as a substitute teacher resurrected her seniority of eleven years based on her previous teaching in the county. Because of this resurrected seniority, Ms. Triggs alleges that under W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8(b) [1983], she, as the applicant with the most seniority, was entitled to a written statement of the reasons she was not selected.See footnote 5 Professional employees of a board of education are entitled to seniority under W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b (a) [1983], which provides, in pertinent part: The seniority of professional personnel shall be determined on the basis of the length of time the employee has been professionally employed by the county board of education. [Emphasis added.]See footnote 6 This brief description of seniority for professional employees provides neither a comprehensive definition of seniority nor any ancillary rules that would indicate how the seniority system is to work in practice. In the present case, W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) [1983] does not provide clear and unambiguous instruction on what happens to the seniority of a person who voluntarily resigns or retires and is subsequently reemployed by the same board of education. The statute also does not define when a person "has been professionally employed." However, based on the other code provisions dealing with professional employment and the commonly accepted meaning of the term "seniority," it is clear that the legislature did not intend, upon reemployment, to resurrect the seniority of a person who had voluntarily resigned or retired. A. Our holding that seniority is not resurrected upon reemployment with the same board of education is based on the other code sections dealing with professional employment and on the customary and usual meaning of the term "seniority." The two statutory provisions dealing with professional employment that help clarify what employee rights are affected when a person voluntarily resigns or retires are W. Va. Code, 18A-2-2a [1988], providing for leaves of absence and W. Va. Code, 18A-2-2 [1990], providing for teacher contracts. In addition to the leave policy found in W. Va. Code, 18A-4-10 [1991] (the Code section allowing sick days and "personal days"), an employee of the board, with the board's approval, may have a leave of absence without pay for a period of one year or less. During the leave of absence, the "teacher shall retain all seniority, rights and privileges which had accrued at the time of the approved leave of absence, and shall have all rights and privileges generally accorded teachers at the time of reemployment." W. Va. Code, 18A-2-2a (a) [1988]. Obviously, this Code section assumes that a teacher leaving for a year would lose seniority were it not for the benefit of this section. W. Va. Code, 18A-2-2 [1990] also provides guidance on what rights are retained by a teacher who returns to employment after a resignation. W. Va. Code, 18A-2-2 [1990] specifically deals with a teacher's right to a continuing contract after a probationary period and provides that "[t]he continuing contract of any teacher shall remain in full force and effect except as modified by mutual consent of the school board and the teacher, unless and until terminated. . . ."See footnote 7 Except for the situations outlined in W. Va. Code, 18A-2-2 [1990]See footnote 8, the termination of a teacher's employment ends the continuing contract and upon reemployment the teacher must again serve a successful probationary period before being granted a continuing contract. The legislature's determination not to grant a reemployed teacher a continuing contract indicates that the legislature considers termination of a teacher's contract to end the employer-employee relationship, except in specific limited circumstances generally dealing with dismissals based on lack of need (i.e., lay-offs). Therefore, based on our reading of all related statutes together, we find that the legislature did not intend seniority rights to be retained by a teacher who voluntarily resigns or retires. B. Until 11 August 1987, the state superintendent of schools interpreted the applicable code provisions to extinguish seniority for teachers who voluntarily resign or retire and he directed that reemployed teachers begin with zero seniority. However in 1987, the state superintendent changed his opinion and held that "[s]eniority no longer will be deemed extinguished, but only suspended during the hiatus in employment. . . ." The superintendent did not change his opinion based on any statutory modification, but because he wanted to preserve uniformity of interpretation and application of school law. The challenge to uniformity occurred when two circuit courts interpreted W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) [1983] to afford a reemployed teacher seniority without regard for any breaks in the employment relationship.See footnote 9 Because the circuit court decisions were binding on the involved boards of education, the superintendent changed his interpretation to allow seniority to be resurrected on reemployment by the same board. Although the superintendent's interpretation of school law is entitled to great weight unless clearly erroneous (Syllabus Point 3, Smith v. Bd. of Ed. of Logan County, 176 W. Va. 65, 341 S.E.2d 685 (1985)), given the superintendent's reason for revising his interpretation, we find that greater weight should be accorded to his pre-1987 interpretation finding seniority extinguished on voluntary termination. C. Our conclusions concerning the effect of voluntary termination of employment on the employee's seniority rights are significantly bolstered by custom and usage. Hechler v. McCuskey, 179 W. Va. 129, ___, 365 S.E.2d 793 , 796 (1987) (using custom and usage to decide if the Budget process altered the duty to pay postage). Although West Virginia's teacher seniority system was created by statute, most seniority systems result from collective bargaining negotiations and are part of labor-management agreements; therefore, we may look to general labor law to find the custom and usage that surrounds seniority. One of the commonly accepted notions about seniority is that it is "a status attained by length of continuous service... to which are attached by custom or prior collective agreement various rights or privileges...on the basis of ranking relative to others." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2066 (unabridged ed. 1970). See California Brewers Ass'n v. Bryant, 444 U.S. 598 , 605, n.12 (1979) (quoting the same definition of seniority); but see Brewers, 444 U.S. at 612-13 n. 3 (Marshall, J. dissenting). Usually the collective bargaining agreement provides that a reemployed person is considered a new employee after returning from a voluntary cessation of employment and the agreement usually specifies any exceptions to the forfeiture of accumulated seniority rights. Brewers, 444 U.S. at 607 ns. 17-20 (giving examples of what a collective bargaining agreement can specify about seniority). According to 13 Warren G. Lamont et al., Employment Coordinator, ¶LR-40,290(1992), "[s]eniority may be determined by the length of continuous employment in a plant, department, or smaller unit, or from placement on a list established on a specific date." See also, 48A Am. Jur.2d Labor and Labor Relations, §§1802-05 (1979) (discussing various seniority provisions). In the present case, because W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b (a) [1983] does not specify the meaning of "length of" employment, we find that given normal custom and usage, the legislature's intent was to require continuous employment for the calculation of seniority. Our conclusion that seniority is based on continuous employment unless the employee falls into one of the statutory exceptions is consistent with the other code provisions dealing with professional employment. Therefore, we find that Ms. Triggs' resignation extinguished the seniority she had acquired during her previous employment by the Berkeley County Board of Education. III. We also find that Ms. Triggs did not acquire any seniority based on her substitute teaching between 1979 and 1987 because the professional employment described in W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) [1983] as beginning the accrual of seniority, means full or substantially full time employment. A substitute teaching contract is not analogous to a full-time teaching contract. Most substitute teachers are assigned and employed on a temporary basis. See W. Va. Code, 18A-2-3 [1969]. The benefits, including salary, that a teacher receives are partially based on the type of contract, either full time or substitute. W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7 [1981] prescribes the pay for substitute teachers and uses the term "experience" rather than the term "seniority" to describe a substitute teacher's years of employment. W. Va. Code, 18A-4-2 [1990] prescribes the state minimum salaries for full-time teachers and W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b [1988] enumerates various "employee" rights, including seniority, termination, promotion and transfer. Because the employee's right to seniority is based on full-time employment, seniority does not arise pursuant to casual, substitute or temporary employment.See footnote 10 Seniority rights are predicated on full-time employment because the preference given by seniority is primarily important during reductions in force for lack of need and during subsequent recalls. In Dillon v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Wyoming, 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986), we noted that the legislature by adopting W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b (a) [1983], requiring a written statement be given to the unsuccessful candidate with the most seniority, "must have intended seniority to play some role in the selection process. [Footnote omitted]." Dillon id. at ___, 351 S.E.2d at 61. The 1990 amendments to W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a made clear that seniority for professional employees of a county board of education is based on "regular, full-time" professional employment and not employment as a substitute. W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990], states: Employment for a full employment term shall equal one year of seniority, but no employee may accrue more than one year of seniority during any given fiscal year. Employment for less than the full employment term shall be prorated. A random selection system established by the employees and approved by the board shall be used to determine the priority if two or more employees accumulate identical seniority. According to W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990], the only seniority that a substitute teacher can earn is "exclusively for the purpose of applying for employment" and this limited employment preference accrues "[u]pon completion of one hundred thirty-three days of employment in any one school year."See footnote 11 When a teacher resigns from a school system, that teacher loses seniority. That teacher, even if reemployed as a substitute teacher, does not regain even a limited employment preference until the reemployed substitute teacher has been employed in a professional capacity for 133 days or more in any one school year. See Harkins v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., 179 W. Va. 373, 369 S.E.2d 224 , 226 (1988) (recognizing that employment of a substitute teacher for at least 133 days in the three previous school years "entitled her to a continuing contract"). In the present case, during her eight years as a substitute, Ms. Triggs never began to work as a "regular, full-time" teacher and never was employed for 133 days in any one school year. Therefore, during her employment as a substitute teacher, Ms. Triggs never accrued regular seniority based on full-time employment and never accrued "seniority exclusively for the purpose of applying for employment" based on serving as a substitute teacher for 133 days in one school year. We find that when Ms. Triggs sought a full-time position she had no seniority because her voluntary resignation extinguished the seniority she had accrued before 1971 and her employment as a substitute teacher was insufficient to accrue even a limited employment preference. Because Ms. Triggs was not the applicant with the most seniority, she was not entitled to a written statement of the reasons she was not selected. IV. Ms. Triggs contends that because she was the best qualified applicant for at least three positions, she was improperly denied a full-time position under W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) [1988], which provided in pertinent part: A county board of education shall make decisions affecting promotion and filling of any classroom teacher's position occurring on the basis of qualifications.See footnote 12 In Syllabus Point 1, Dillon v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Wyoming, supra, we said: Under W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) (1983), decisions of a county board of education affecting teacher promotions and the filling of vacant teaching positions must be based primarily upon the applicants' qualifications for the job, with seniority having a bearing on the selection process when the applicants have otherwise equivalent qualifications or where the differences in qualification criteria are insufficient to form the basis for an informed and rational decision. In the present case, Ms. Triggs, a teacher with eleven years experience as a full-time teacher, was passed over in favor of applicants with little or no full-time experience. The Board of Education's explanation of why applicants with less experience were selected, although vague, indicated that the successful applicants had taught in the schools where the vacancies existed either as student teachers or substitute teachers. Ms. Triggs did not produce evidence demonstrating that she was decidedly superior to any particular successful candidate. Seniority, of course, is only a tie breaker among equally qualified applicants. Ms. Triggs had superior apparent credentials only because of experience, which may or may not translate into her being deemed the best qualified applicant. See supra sections II and III. Although the selection process used by the principals where the vacancies existed was unknown to the assistant superintendent for personnel, the record indicates that the principals hired those applicants who, either as student teachers or substitute teachers, had taught in the school where the vacancies existed and, therefore, the principals were not buying a pig in a poke. In Syllabus Point 3 of Dillon, supra, we said: County boards of education have substantial discretion in matters relating to the hiring, assignment, transfer, and promotion of school personnel. Nevertheless, this discretion must be exercised reasonably, in the best interests of the schools, and in a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious. Recently in Syllabus Point 4, Bd. of Educ. of the County of Wood v. Enoch, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, (No. 20289, Filed February6, 1992, Modified March 13, 1992), we said: A board of education making a hiring decision under W.Va. Code, 18A-4-8b(a) [1988], should use its best professional judgment to select the applicant best suited to the needs of the students based on qualifications and evaluations of the applicants' past service. Only when all other factors are equal should a board of education look to seniority. In Johnson v. Cassell, 182 W.Va. 317, 387 S.E.2d 553 (1989), this Court recognized that the various laws and policies relating to the hiring of teachers require that the best qualified teacher be hired. In accord Egan v. Bd. of Educ. of Taylor County, ___ W.Va. ___, 406 S.E.2d 733 (1991); State ex rel. Oser v. Haskins, 179 W.Va. 789, 374 S.E.2d 184 (1988). In Tenney v. Bd. of Educ. of the County of Barbour, 183 W.Va. 633, 398 S.E.2d 114 , 116 (1990), we noted that "selection of candidates for educational positions is not a mechanical or mathematical process." See also, supra, note 12. In Tenney, we found insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Tenney was the best qualified applicant, although the record contained the qualifications of all applicants and outlined the selection process. We find that teachers who have voluntarily withdrawn from school employment to raise families or for other reasons have valuable experience that must be taken into consideration when such former teachers reapply for full-time positions in the school system. Under W.Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990] (formerly W.Va. Code, 18A-4-8b [1983]), hiring must always be done on the basis of qualifications, and it is therefore inappropriate to hire new and inexperienced teachers over older, more experienced teachers simply because young personnel are cheaper for the board to hire. However, this general proposition should not discourage a board from hiring young teachers when they are the best qualified applicants. See supra, note 12. In the present case, Ms. Triggs did not show that she was the best qualified applicant for a particular position or that the Board willfully discriminated against her. Ms. Triggs presented evidence only of the experience of the candidates. Although teaching experience is a factor to consider in reviewing an applicant's qualifications, the amount of experience is but one of many factors that a board should consider in selecting a candidate for a full-time teaching position.See footnote 13 We find that because Ms. Triggs failed to show that she was the best qualified applicant, she is not entitled to be appointed to any of the positions to which she applied. For the above stated reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County is affirmed. Affirmed. Footnote: 1About 24 of the positions for which Mrs. Triggs applied were filled by transferring the full-time teacher with the most seniority. Footnote: 2Mr. Canonico noted that preference in filling all vacancies was given to full-time teachers according to seniority. Footnote: 3The filing of a level one grievance requires a "conference with the immediate supervisor to discuss the nature of the grievance and the action, redress or other remedy sought." W. Va. Code, 18-29-4 (a)(1) [1985]. Ms. Triggs' level one grievance was not answered. Footnote: 4W.Va. Code, 18-29-4(d)(1) [1985] also provides that "[i]f the grievant is not satisfied with the action taken by the governing board, within five days of the written decision the grievant may request, in writing, on a form furnished by the employer, that the grievance be submitted to a hearing examiner as provided for in section five [§18-29-5] of this article...." [Emphasis added.] Footnote: 5W. Va. Code, 18A-4-8(b) [1983], provides in pertinent part: If the applicant with the most seniority is not selected for the position a written statement of reasons shall be given to the applicant with the most seniority with suggestions for improving the applicant's qualifications. Footnote: 6The current code section dealing with seniority for professional employees is W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990], which, in pertinent part, provides the same method for determining seniority. W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990], provides: The seniority of classroom teachers as defined in section one, article one of this chapter with the exception of guidance counselors shall be determined on the basis of the length of time the employee has been employed as a regular full-time certified and/or licensed professional educator by the county board of education and shall be granted in all areas that the employee is certified and/or licensed. [Emphasis added.] Footnote: 7W. Va. Code, 18A-2-2 [1990], provides in pertinent part: A teacher's contract, under this section, shall be for a term of not less than one nor more than three years, one of which shall be for completion of a beginning teacher internship pursuant to the provisions of section two-b [§18A-3-2b], article three of this chapter, if applicable; and if, after three years of such employment, the teacher who holds a professional certificate, based on at least a bachelor's degree, has met the qualifications for the same, and the board of education enter into a new contract of employment, it shall be a continuing contract:...Provided, however, That a teacher holding continuing contract status with one county shall be granted continuing contract status with any other county upon completion of one year of acceptable employment if such employment is during the next succeeding school year or immediately following an approved leave of absence extending no more than one year. The continuing contract of any teacher shall remain in full force and effect except as modified by mutual consent of the school board and the teacher, unless and until terminated... Provided further, That a continuing contract shall not operate to prevent a teacher's dismissal based upon the lack of need for the teacher's services pursuant to the provisions of law relating to the allocation to teachers and pupil-teacher ratios. But in case of such dismissal, the teachers so dismissed shall be placed upon a preferred list in the order of their length of service with that board, and no teacher shall be employed by the board until each qualified teacher upon the preferred list, in order, shall have been offered the opportunity for reemployment in a position for which they are qualified: And provided further, That he has not accepted a teaching position elsewhere. Such reemployment shall be upon a teacher's preexisting continuing contract and shall have the same effect as though the contract had been suspended during the time the teacher was not employed. Footnote: 8 W. Va. Code, 18A-2-2 [1990] provides the following exceptions: (1)if a teacher's dismissal is for lack of need, the teacher's "reemployment shall be upon a teacher's preexisting continuing contract and shall have the same effect as though the contract had been suspended during the time the teacher was not employed;" and (2) a teacher with a continuing contract in one country is to be granted continuing contract status in another county "upon completion of one year of acceptable employment if such employment is during the next succeeding school year or immediately following an approved leave of absence extending no more than one year." Footnote: 9The two circuit court cases allowing reemployment to resurrect previously acquired seniority are: Gilkerson v. Nolan, No. 85-P-116 (Wayne County, Jan. 15, 1986), appeal denied (April 1, 1986) and Hark v. Trumble, No. 86-C-Ap-306 (Kanawha County, March 5, 1987). We note that our denial of appeal in Gilkerson, which cited no ground for rejection, is similar to the denial of certiorari by the U. S. Supreme Court in that the denial of appeal is not an adjudication on the merits and does not carry any implication of approval of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Rule 7 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure; Syllabus, Smith v. Hedrick, ___ W. Va.___, 382 S.E.2d 588 (1989). Footnote: 10W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990], is the current code section enumerating professional employee rights. Footnote: 11W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990], provides in pertinent part: Upon completion of one hundred thirty-three days of employment in any one school year, substitute teachers shall accrue seniority exclusively for the purpose of applying for employment as a permanent, full-time professional employee. One hundred thirty-three days or more of said employment shall be prorated and shall vest as a fraction of the school year worked by the permanent, full-time teacher. Footnote: 12In 1990, the relevant provisions of this section were moved to W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990]. The new statute requires that the applicant with the highest qualifications be selected and provides guidance for judging qualifications. W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990], states in pertinent part: A county board of education shall make decisions affecting the hiring of new classroom teachers or professional personnel other than classroom teachers on the basis of the applicant with the highest qualifications. In judging qualifications, consideration shall be given to each of the following: Appropriate certification and/or licensure; amount of experience relevant to the position or, in the case of a classroom teaching position, the amount of teaching experience in the subject area and/or grade level; the amount of course work and/or degree level in the relevant field and degree level generally; academic achievement; relevant specialized training; past performance evaluations conducted pursuant to section twelve [§18A-2-12], article two of this chapter; and other measures or indicators upon which the relative qualifications of the applicant may fairly be judged. If one or more permanently employed instructional personnel apply for a classroom teaching position and meet the standards set forth in the job posting, the county board of education shall make decisions affecting the filling of such positions on the basis of the following: Appropriate certification and/or licensure; amount of experience relevant to the position; the existence of teaching experience in the subject area; degree level in the relevant field; specialized training directly related to the performance of the job; meeting satisfactory standards in evaluations over the previous two years; and seniority. If the applicant with the most seniority is not selected for the position, upon the request of the applicant a written statement of reasons shall be given to the applicant with suggestions for improving the applicant's qualifications. When reading this statute, it is obvious that the legislature intended appointments in our school systems to be based primarily on qualifications, with such things as seniority and paper credentials serving only as tie breakers. Thus, a teacher with an undergraduate mathematics degree and a demonstrated mastery of calculus, probability theory, statistics, and number theory is more "qualified" than a person holding a master's degree in mathematics education if the master's degree holder's highest mathematical achievement is competence in college algebra. Of course, it does the great mathematician with the undergraduate degree no good if he or she can't teach, but these are the factors that must be weighed in an intelligent way and then articulated to successful and unsuccessful applicants alike. "Qualifications" means "qualifications"; "qualifications" does not mean "politics." Footnote: 13One of several indicators of qualifications specifically listed by the legislature in W. Va. Code, 18A-4-7a [1990] was "the amount of teaching experience in the subject area and/or grade level...."

616f73273e2dba1d1c578ca7226254ea8cd63172124c6e988989bb15a03d9c5d

1992-04-02 00:00:00

247b132e-abdb-41b6-8dfe-3cae64fdcaf7

Magnet Bank v. Barnette

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Magnet Bank v. Barnette Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1992 Term ___________ No. 20406 ___________ MAGNET BANK, F.S.B., Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. WILLIAM A. BARNETTE, FRANK M. MORRISON, AND MOUNTAIN TOP ATHLETIC CLUB, INC., A CORPORATION, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Below, Appellants v. ROBERT P. MARTIN, Third-Party Defendant Below, Appellee _______________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County Honorable Frank E. Jolliffe, Judge Civil Action No. 86-C-130 Reversed ________________________________________________________ Submitted: April 29, 1992 Filed: May 29, 1992 Michael C. Allen Charleston, West Virginia Christopher P. Bastien Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellee Robert P. Martin David A. Sims Michele W. Good Wallace, Ross & Harris Elkins, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellants The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1."'The provisions for impleader under Rule 14(a), West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, ... are within the sound discretion of the trial court and where the third party procedure may create confusion or cause complicated litigation involving separate and distinct issues the trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow impleader under third party practice.' Syl. Pt. 5, in part, Bluefield Sash & Door Co., Inc. v. Corte Constr. Co., 158 W. Va. 802, 216 S.E.2d 216 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Haynes v. City of Nitro, 161 W. Va. 230, 240 S.E.2d 544 (1977)." Syllabus Point 5, Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 183 W. Va. 585, 396 S.E.2d 766 (1990). 2,"'Impleader under Rule 14(a), West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, should not be allowed if there is a possibility of prejudice to the original plaintiff or the third party defendant.' Syl. Pt. 3, Bluefield Sash & Door Co., Inc. v. Corte Constr. Co., 158 W. Va. 802, 216 S.E.2d 216 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Haynes v. City of Nitro, 161 W. Va. 230, 240 S.E.2d 544 (1977)." Syllabus Point 6, Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 183 W. Va. 585, 396 S.E.2d 766 (1990). 3."The purpose of Rule 14(a), West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, permitting impleader of a third party defendant by the original defendant, is to eliminate circuity of actions when the rights of all three parties center upon a common factual situation." Syllabus Point 1, Bluefield Sash & Door Co., Inc. v. Corte Constr. Co., 158 W. Va. 802, 216 S.E.2d 216 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Haynes v. City of Nitro, 161 W. Va. 230, 240 S.E.2d 544 (1977). Miller, Justice: In this appeal, the defendants and third-party plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint. The basis for the trial court's dismissal was that the third-party complaint was unrelated to the matters arising out of the original complaint. The court concluded that the third-party complaint did not meet the criteria of Rule 14 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs third-party actions. We disagree. Rule 14(a) permits a defendant to bring a third-party complaint against "a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him." Similar language is found in Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which our Rule 14 was taken. The appellee third-party defendant relies mainly on Shamblin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 183 W. Va. 585, 396 S.E.2d 766 (1990), where we affirmed the trial court's initial denial of a motion to bring a third-party action.See footnote 1 In Shamblin, the defendant attempted to file the third-party complaint more than four years after the lawsuit was filed and two months before the actual trial. In Syllabus Points 5 and 6 of Shamblin, we quoted with approval Syllabus Point 3, in its entirety, and Syllabus Point 5, in part, of Bluefield Sash & Door Co., Inc. v. Corte Construction Co., 158 W. Va. 802, 216 S.E.2d 216 (1975), overruled on other grounds by Haynes v. City of Nitro, 161 W. Va. 230, 240 S.E.2d 544 (1977): "5. 'The provisions for impleader under Rule 14(a), West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, ... are within the sound discretion of the trial court and where the third party procedure may create confusion or cause complicated litigation involving separate and distinct issues the trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow impleader under third party practice.'... "6. 'Impleader under Rule 14(a), West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, should not be allowed if there is a possibility of prejudice to the original plaintiff or the third party defendant.'..." (Citations omitted). Bluefield Sash & Door involved a certified question relating to a Rule 14(a) third-party action. We concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion by dismissing the third-party action, because the issues in the third-party suit were unrelated to those in the main action. We spoke in Syllabus Point 1 of Bluefield Sash & Door as to the rationale behind Rule 14: "The purpose of Rule 14(a), West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, permitting impleader of a third party defendant by the original defendant, is to eliminate circuity of actions when the rights of all three parties center upon a common factual situation." We have not had occasion to discuss in any detail the type of claim which the defendant must assert to meet the requirement of Rule 14(a) that the third-party defendant "is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim[.]" The federal courts have considered this question and in 3 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶14.07(1) at 14-45-46 (1991), this summary is given: "Thus, 'claim' is defined transactionally, and has nothing to do with the legal theory upon which a party relies. The fact that the third-party complaint may be based upon a different legal theory from the underlying case is irrelevant; the question is whether the assertion of liability against the third-party defendant is derivative of the same transaction, occurrence or nucleus of operative fact as the underlying claim by the plaintiff. If the transactional relatedness is present, impleader is proper even if the third-party complaint will be tried to the court while the underlying action will be tried to a jury. In sum, it is clear that the remedial purpose of Rule 14 requires that it be interpreted liberally to promote its underlying purposes." (Footnotes omitted). In this case, the defendants had borrowed $35,000 from Magnet Bank in April of 1984 and, as security for the loan, pledged their leasehold estate, including a building and the fixtures, equipment, and inventory located therein. The lessor of the property filed for bankruptcy in 1985. After the bankruptcy filing, the defendants discovered that the lease had not been recorded. As a result, the bankruptcy court declared the lease void in November 1987 and caused the loss of the security to the Bank. (The Bank had sued the appellants in November 1986 for the amount due on the loan.) In June of 1989, the appellants filed a motion to serve a third-party complaint on the defendant-appellee, which the trial court granted. Thereafter, in December of 1989, the appellants settled with the Bank and, in July of 1990, the appellee filed his motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The circuit judge, in granting the motion, referred to the Shamblin case and concluded that there was a lack of common issues. He reasoned that the original claim by the Bank was to collect on a debt, while the third-party claim centered on a theory of attorney malpractice in failing to record the lease. From a purely factual analysis, it appears that the third-party claim is derived from the original loan to the Bank. Certainly, the solvency of the security constituted a substantial interest to the Bank, but was of equal importance to the individual guarantors of the loan. These individuals, who were named defendants in the Bank's suit, had a right to claim that if the security agreement had been validated by a timely recording of the lease, their personal liability would have been at least diminished, if not offset, by the security. These facts are analogous to those in May's Family Centers, Inc. v. Goodman's, Inc., 104 F.R.D. 112 (N.D. Ill. 1985), where May's sued Goodman's because of its refusal to consent to an assignment of May's lease. Goodman's, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against its law firm based on the claim that if there was any legal impropriety in the failure to consent to the assignment, it was due to the negligence of the law firm. The court, in upholding the third-party complaint, stated: "[T]here is considerable overlap between the facts necessary to establish May's breach of contract claim and those underlying Goodman's malpractice claim.... To require Goodman's to duplicate those proofs in a separate action would not only waste resources (including judicial resources)--it would also create an unfair risk of inconsistent determinations from the same facts in the two actions." 104 F.R.D. at 116. In Taylor v. G I Export Corp., 78 F.R.D. 494 (E.D.N.Y. 1978), the plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The defendant had agreed to purchase the plaintiff's two corporations. The defendant filed a third-party complaint alleging that the negligence of Arthur Andersen & Company, an accounting firm, in preparing financial statements had caused the contract not to be performed. The court rejected the motion to dismiss the third-party claim because the underlying action proceeded on a breach of contract theory, while the third-party claim was based on negligence of the accounting firm: "The law requires no such unjust result. There can be no doubt that if Arthur Andersen was negligent and that negligence proximately caused damages to G I Export, it could recover in a separate action.... To say that such a claim for damages by G I Export cannot be litigated in the very proceeding which will determine whether there was damage is to make litigation a game." 78 F.R.D. 495-96. See also Monarch Life Ins. Co. v. Donohue, 702 F. Supp. 1195 (E.D. Pa. 1989); O'Mara Enterprises, Inc. v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 101 F.R.D. 668 (W.D. Pa. 1983). As earlier stated, we find that there was a sufficient factual nexus to warrant a Rule 14(a) procedure. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the third-party action, and its judgment is, therefore, reversed. Reversed. Footnote: 1Rule 14(a) requires a defendant to seek leave of court to file a third-party action unless it is served "not later than 10 days after he serves his original answer."

9ff2c8d843822f4e78f02bc8ad69aa0dc66ad261d74361c0925ff2dd7ce3adf4

1992-05-29 00:00:00

a1b9bdb9-ccd7-474a-8676-0d81ca213220

State Farm Auto v. Stephens

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

State Farm Auto v. Stephens Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1992 Term _________ NO. 21368 _________ STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner V. HONORABLE BOOKER T. STEPHENS, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MCDOWELL COUNTY, DONALD RAY PERKINS AND SHEILA D. PERKINS, Respondents __________________________________________________________ Petition for Writ of Prohibition WRIT GRANTED AS MOULDED ____________________________________________________________ Submitted: December 1, 1992 Filed: December 16, 1992 R. Carter Elkins Laura L. Gray Campbell, Woods, Bagley, Emerson, McNeer & Herndon Huntington, West Virginia Attorney for the Petitioner G. David Brumfield John M. Hedges Welch, West Virginia Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for Respondents Attorney for Respondent Donald Ray Perkins and Booker T. Stephens Sheila D. Perkins JUSTICE MILLER delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. A writ of prohibition is available to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of its discretion in regard to discovery orders. 2. Under Rule 26(B)(1)(iii) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court may limit discovery if it finds that the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. 3.Where a claim is made that a discovery request is unduly burdensome under Rule 26(b)(1)(iii) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court should consider several factors. First, a court should weigh the requesting party's need to obtain the information against the burden that producing the information places on the opposing party. This requires an analysis of the issues in the case, the amount in controversy, and the resources of the parties. Secondly, the opposing party has the obligation to show why the discovery is burdensome unless, in light of the issues, the discovery request is oppressive on its face. Finally, the court must consider the relevancy and materiality of the information sought. 4.The question of the relevancy of the information sought through discovery essentially involves a determination of how substantively the information requested bears on the issues to be tried. However, under Rule 26(b)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is not limited only to admissible evidence, but applies to information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5.Under Rule 37(b)(2)(D) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, a court has the power to find a party in contempt for failure to obey a discovery order, except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. 6.A civil contempt sanction that sets monetary penalties retroactively before the hearing on contempt for failure to comply with a discovery order cannot be enforced. A monetary per diem penalty is permissible where it is set prospectively from the date of the contempt order as a means of ensuring compliance with the underlying discovery order. 7.Under Rule 37(b)(2)(E) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may require a party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure. This provision allows attorney's fees to be excused unless the failure was substantially justified or such an award would be unjust. The rule clearly states that such sanctions may be imposed in lieu of or in addition to any other sanctions. Miller, Justice: In this original proceeding in prohibition, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) asks us to prevent the Circuit Court of McDowell County from enforcing an order entered July 10, 1992, which held State Farm in contempt for failing to comply with court-ordered discovery and assessed a penalty against State Farm of $5,000 for each day of continued noncompliance. State Farm contends that the trial court's discovery order was oppressive and unduly burdensome and that the contempt citation was, therefore, unwarranted. We agree, and we grant the writ of prohibition prayed for, as moulded. I. The history of this case is long and tortuous. Respondent Donald Ray Perkins, a resident of McDowell County, was rendered a quadriplegic as the result of an automobile accident which occurred in Virginia in February 1982 and was caused by another driver whose identity is unknown. In order to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of his automobile insurance policy, issued by State Farm, Mr. Perkins and his wife, Sheila D. Perkins (the plaintiffs), instituted a "John Doe" tort action in the Circuit Court of McDowell County. State Farm removed the tort action to federal court and filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a judgment of noncoverage. These actions were consolidated, and the case proceeded to the summary judgment stage in federal court. The federal district court then certified to this Court questions concerning the appropriate choice of law and application of the "physical contact" requirement. We answered these questions in Perkins v. Doe, 177 W. Va. 84, 350 S.E.2d 711 (1986). As a result, the federal district court entered a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of coverage and remanded the tort action to the Circuit Court of McDowell County. The tort action was tried on September 26, 1989, and the jury rendered a verdict of $3.5 million for the plaintiffs. On February 27, 1990, the plaintiffs instituted an action against State Farm in the Circuit Court of McDowell County, alleging that State Farm unreasonably and in bad faith refused to settle the "John Doe" action for the policy limits of the uninsured motorist coverage. The plaintiffs also alleged that State Farm violated the Unfair Trade Practices Act, W. Va. Code, 33-11-1, et seq. Along with the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a set of interrogatories, which, among other things, asked State Farm to provide information on every claim filed against it, nationwide, since 1980 which involved allegations of bad faith, unfair trade practice violations, excess verdict liability, or inquiries from insurance industry regulators concerning State Farm's handling of claims.See footnote 1 State Farm filed no responses or objections to the plaintiffs' interrogatories. On July 16, 1990, the plaintiffs filed with the circuit court a motion to compel State Farm to respond to the interrogatories. On August 1, 1990, State Farm filed a motion for a protective order, asking the trial court to limit the scope of the plaintiffs' discovery. Apparently, there was no hearing on either of these motions. On May 31, 1991, the plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel discovery. A hearing was conducted before the circuit court on July 1, 1991. Although no transcript of this hearing has been provided to this Court, it appears that State Farm challenged at least some of the plaintiffs' interrogatories as being unduly burdensome.See footnote 2 The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery and ordered State Farm to respond fully to all of the plaintiffs' interrogatories by September 15, 1991. State Farm's counsel was apparently directed to prepare an order reflecting the court's ruling at the July 1, 1991 hearing. For some reason, however, this order was not prepared until November of 1991. On November 19, 1991, the order compelling discovery was entered by the circuit court, nunc pro tunc to July 1, 1991. Shortly thereafter, State Farm's local counsel withdrew from representation and present counsel took over its defense. On February 20, 1992, the plaintiffs filed with the court a motion for partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, for sanctions against State Farm under Rule 37 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs alleged that State Farm had still not responded to any of their interrogatories and was in contempt of the November 19, 1991 discovery order. On February 27, 1992, State Farm filed partial responses to the plaintiffs' interrogatories, apparently providing information regarding bad faith and excess verdict claims filed against State Farm in West Virginia and the log of complaints filed against it with the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner. That same day, State Farm filed a motion for reconsideration of the November 19, 1991 order on the ground that the plaintiffs' interrogatories seeking disclosure of data on claims filed throughout the country were oppressive and unduly burdensome. Attached to the motion was the affidavit of Gary Driscoll, a State Farm employee, which indicated that State Farm had no index or computer program which would enable it to locate the information requested by the plaintiffs. Mr. Driscoll stated that producing a list of all bad faith claims filed against State Farm since 1980 would require manual inspection of all State Farm claim files, active and retired, throughout the country for the period in question and would cost over $40 million.See footnote 3 A hearing, which was styled by the circuit court as a show cause hearing to determine whether State Farm should be held in contempt of court, was conducted on May 14, 1992. Mr. Driscoll testified as to the matters contained in his affidavit and was cross-examined by the plaintiffs' attorney. By order dated July 10, 1992, the trial court found State Farm in contempt of the November 19, 1991 discovery order and assessed a fine of $5,000 for every day after entry of the contempt order that State Farm failed to provide the required responses to the plaintiffs' interrogatories. A hearing on State Farm's motion for reconsideration of the November 19, 1991 discovery order was held on August 7, 1992, and, by order dated September 3, 1992, the trial court denied the motion. On September 18, 1992, State Farm instituted this proceeding in prohibition. State Farm contends that the November 19, 1991 discovery order is oppressive and unduly burdensome and asks us to prevent the circuit court from enforcing that order and the contempt order. II. Initially, we note that in the past we have permitted the use of a writ of prohibition to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of its discretion in regard to discovery orders. See, e.g., Nutter v. Maynard, 183 W. Va. 247, 395 S.E.2d 491 (1990); Michael v. Henry, 177 W. Va. 494, 354 S.E.2d 590 (1987). This rule is based on Syllabus Point 1 of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W. Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979).See footnote 4 Turning to the question of the validity of the trial court's discovery order, Rule 26 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure governs discovery generally. The scope of discovery is set out in Rule 26(b)(1), which provides, in part: "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action[.]"See footnote 5 The rule also specifies, however, that the trial court may limit discovery if it finds that "[t]he discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation."See footnote 6 W.Va.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)(iii). Rule 33(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to the use of interrogatories, states that "[i]nterrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b)[.]" We discussed burdensome discovery requests in Truman v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 180 W. Va. 133, 375 S.E.2d 765 (1988). In Truman, a wrongful discharge case, the plaintiff, after answering the defendant bank's interrogatories, had submitted her own interrogatories and a request for production of documents. The bank took discovery depositions, but failed to answer the plaintiff's discovery requests. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. The bank then moved for summary judgment and made a motion to block the plaintiff's discovery as being oppressive. The trial court granted summary judgment for the bank. In Syllabus Points 3 and 4 of Truman, we stated: "3. In assessing whether discovery is burdensome or oppressive, the question is not the number of interrogatories or the fact that the interrogating party is using successive methods of discovery, or even that the interrogating party already possessed the information, but whether or not, they are unduly burdensome or oppressive when viewed with relation to the case itself; are the interrogatories unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. "4. Where objections are made to discovery requests, most courts require specific showing as to how each discovery request is burdensome, oppressive, or embarrassing unless such can be determined from the sheer volume of the requests in light of the case issues." We held that the plaintiff's discovery requests were relevant to disputed factual issues and that the trial court should have ruled on the motion to compel discovery and on the bank's motion for a protective order before addressing the summary judgment motion. We found the plaintiff's discovery requests not to be unduly burdensome, and we reversed the judgment of the circuit court. Rule 26 and Truman, supra, indicate that where a claim is made that a discovery request is oppressive and unduly burdensome, the trial court should consider several factors. First, a court should weigh the requesting party's need to obtain the information against the burden that producing such information places on the opposing party. This requires an analysis of the issues in the case, the amount in controversy, and the resources of the parties. Secondly, the opposing party has the obligation to show why discovery is burdensome unless, in light of the issues, the discovery request is oppressive on its face. Finally, the court must consider the relevancy and materiality of the information sought. In this case, the trial court heard State Farm's objections to the plaintiffs' interrogatories on July 1, 1991. No transcript of that hearing has been filed with this Court. We have only the court's November 19, 1991 order to reflect what occurred at the hearing. It appears that the court only considered State Farm's argument that the interrogatories objected to were unduly burdensome.See footnote 7 There is no mention made in the order of the relevancy of the material sought in the questioned interrogatories. The question of the relevancy of the information sought through discovery, which essentially involves a determination of how substantively the information requested bears on the issues to be tried, is a factor that has been stressed by a number of courts. See, e.g., Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp., 522 F.2d 333 (10th Cir. 1975); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 167 Ariz. 135, 804 P.2d 1323 (App. 1991); Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 313 , 232 Cal. Rptr. 752 (1986); Leeson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 190 Ill. App. 3d 359, 137 Ill. Dec. 837, 546 N.E.2d 782 (1989); State ex rel. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Miller, 160 Mont. 256, 502 P.2d 27 (1972); Wyda v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 162 A.D.2d 133, 556 N.Y.S.2d 78 (1990). See generally 4A Moore's Federal Practice ¶33.20 (1992). Under Rule 26(b)(1), discovery is not limited only to admissible evidence, but applies to information "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."See footnote 8 Nevertheless, the information sought must be relevant to the issues in the case. In the present case, the information requested by the plaintiffs was relevant to the issues involved in the civil action below. In Jenkins v. J.C. Penney Casualty Insurance Co., 167 W.Va. 597, 280 S.E.2d 252 (1981), we recognized that to prove a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, W.Va. Code, 33-11-1, et seq., the plaintiff must show more than one violation of the statute.See footnote 9 Thus, the plaintiffs' request for information of other unfair trade practices claims against State Farm was relevant to prove their own allegations in that regard. Likewise, the plaintiffs' interrogatories sought information relevant to their bad faith claim which carried with it the potential for punitive damages.See footnote 10 Other courts have recognized that in a bad faith claim against an insurance carrier, previous similar acts can be shown to demonstrate that the conduct was intentional. See Hawkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 733 P.2d 1073 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 874 , 108 S. Ct. 212, 98 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1987); Moore v. American United Life Ins. Co., 150 Cal. App. 3d 610 , 197 Cal. Rptr. 878 (1984). This type of related-acts evidence is admissible at trial under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.See footnote 11 See generally F. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers §6.6 (1986 & Cum Supp. 1992). Recently, in Gable v. Kroger Co., 186 W. Va. 62, 410 S.E.2d 701 (1991), a slip-and-fall case, we recognized that this rule controlled the attempted introduction of evidence as to other falls occurring at the store.See footnote 12 In Gable, we stated that Rule 402 of the Rules of Evidence authorizes the introduction of relevant evidence. Even where evidence is relevant, however, it may not be subject to discovery where production of the requested information is unduly burdensome. We have recognized that otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence for a variety of reasons: "[I]f its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."See footnote 13 Thus, even relevant evidence may be inadmissible if it is needlessly cumulative. Consequently, a discovery request may be denied where the breadth of the information sought would result in the production of material so cumulative as to be inadmissible at trial. The interrogatories objected to by State Farm requested information on all bad faith, unfair trade or settlement practices, and excess verdict claims filed against State Farm throughout the entire country since 1980. The plaintiffs also requested data on all complaints filed against State Farm with insurance industry regulators nationwide for the same period. In a number of cases, courts have refused to compel discovery where the requested information was less extensive than the interrogatories involved in this case. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra (request for documents relating to any bad faith lawsuits against insurer); Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, supra (request for information on every bad faith claim made against insurer in six and one-half year period); Leeson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra (request for information concerning all medical exams conducted by auto insurer for medical benefits claims within prior year); State ex rel. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Miller, supra (request for names and addresses of all persons within state whose claims for health and accident disability benefits against insurer were rejected or not fully paid over three-year period). Moreover, the uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Driscoll indicated that compilation of the information requested by the challenged interrogatories would take literally years of man-hours to complete and would cost approximately $40 million.See footnote 14 We find that the trial court did not give proper consideration to the cumulative nature of the information sought as it bore on the question of oppressive burden of production. We believe the logical approach in this case would be initially to narrow the scope of the interrogatories to other similar claims filed against State Farm in West Virginia. We note that State Farm apparently made no objection to answering Interrogatory No. 17 which requested information concerning bad faith, unfair trade practices, and unfair settlement practices claims filed against State Farm in West Virginia.See footnote 15 It also appears that State Farm filed responses to Interrogatory No. 17 and other interrogatories on February 27, 1992, although the exhibits before this Court do not disclose what those responses were. It may be that these responses are adequate to the plaintiffs' needs so as to obviate the necessity for further discovery. If not, or if the plaintiffs object that the responses are incomplete, then the trial court should determine whether more extensive discovery is warranted.See footnote 16 In summary, then, we conclude that the circuit court failed to consider all of the appropriate factors in determining whether the plaintiffs' interrogatories were burdensome to State Farm under Rule 26(b)(1)(iii) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. We further conclude that although the information sought by the plaintiffs was relevant to the issues involved in the civil action below, State Farm has met its burden of showing that the plaintiffs' request for claims information throughout the country was unduly burdensome and oppressive. For these reasons, we conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering State Farm to respond to the challenged interrogatories, and that the November 19, 1991 discovery order is invalid to that extent. The order remains in effect, however, with respect to the remainder of the plaintiffs' interrogatories which were not challenged in this proceeding. We leave it to the circuit court to determine whether State Farm has adequately responded to those interrogatories and whether, upon proper motion and an appropriate showing of need, more extensive discovery is warranted.See footnote 17 In view of our holding, it follows that the circuit court's contempt order of July 10, 1992, cannot be enforced to the extent that it is based on State Farm's failure to comply with the invalid portions of the November 19, 1991 discovery order. The validity of the contempt order depends on the validity of the underlying discovery order. Greater Newburyport Clamshell Alliance v. Public Serv. Co. of N.H., 838 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1988); Securities & Exch. Comm'n v. First Fin. Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660 (5th Cir. 1981); Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hosp. & Training Sch. for Nurses, 622 F.2d 496 (10th Cir. 1980). See also Vincent v. Preiser, 175 W. Va. 797, 338 S.E.2d 398 (1985). III. As a final matter, State Farm also contends that the trial court had no authority to impose a per diem monetary fine as a sanction for civil contempt. Clearly, the trial court has the authority to exercise the contempt power for a party's failure to comply with a discovery order under Rule 37(b)(2)(D) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits the court to enter "an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination[.]"See footnote 18 We explicitly recognized this power in Vincent v. Preiser, 175 W. Va. at 801, 338 S.E.2d at 402, where we said: "A movant for a protective order under W.Va.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(4) may be held in contempt of court, under W.Va.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(D), for failure to comply with court orders compelling discovery[.]" Other courts have recognized the power to punish noncompliance with discovery orders by contempt. See, e.g., Hodgson v. Mahoney, 460 F.2d 326 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1039, 93 S. Ct. 519, 34 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1972); Lamar Fin. Corp. v. Adams, 918 F.2d 564 (5th Cir. 1990); Castillo v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 938 F.2d 776 (7th Cir. 1991); Kropp v. Ziebart, 557 F.2d 142 (8th Cir. 1977); Richmark v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, 61 U.S.L.W. 3060 (U.S. Oct. 29, 1992 ) (No. 92-31) and 61 U.S.L.W. 3155 (U.S. Oct. 29, 1992) (No. 92-305). See generally 23 Am. Jur. 2d Depositions & Discovery §393 (1983 & Supp. 1992). Thus, it is clear under Rule 37(b)(2)(D) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a court has the power to find a party in contempt for failure to obey a discovery order, except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. Other courts have recognized that the imposition of a per diem fine is an appropriate sanction for civil contempt of a discovery order when the purpose of the monetary sanction is remedial rather than punitive. See Hodgson v. Mahoney, supra; Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, supra; New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 763 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985); International Business Mach. Corp. v. United States, 493 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S. Ct. 2409, 40 L. Ed. 2d 774 (1974); Powers v. Chicago Transit Auth., 890 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Westinghouse, 648 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1981). As the court stated in Westinghouse: "[T]he purpose [of the fines] was to compel the companies to comply with the court's schedule for discovery.... [T]he companies could have purged themselves of contempt and of any fine through timely compliance. The sanctions were therefore remedial rather than punitive, prospective and for the benefit of the other party to the litigation rather than unconditional, retrospective, or in vindication of the state's authority.... In short, the fines were compulsory in nature, ... and as such the contempt was civil. That the companies were forced to pay the piper even though they belatedly complied with the orders does not alter the civil nature of the contempt." 648 F.2d at 651. (Citations omitted). This language is consistent with our view of the nature of a civil contempt, as expressed in Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. Robinson v. Michael, 166 W. Va. 660, 276 S.E.2d 812 (1981): "Where the purpose to be served by imposing a sanction for contempt is to compel compliance with a court order by the contemner so as to benefit the party bringing the contempt action by enforcing, protecting, or assuring the right of that party under the order, the contempt is civil." State Farm, however, argues that per diem fines are not a permissible sanction for civil contempt in reliance on Vincent v. Preiser, supra. In Vincent, there had been a prior court order requiring the plaintiff to answer certain interrogatories. When the plaintiff failed to answer, the court found him in contempt of its discovery order and imposed a sanction of $7,400, a figure arrived at by assessing a penalty of $100 per day for each day after entry of the discovery order and before the contempt hearing that the defendant had not answered the interrogatories. In Vincent, we held that the monetary sanction imposed blurred the line between civil contempt and criminal contempt, noting that "the predominant purpose of the monetary sanctions imposed by the trial court was to punish the appellant for his disrespect for the court's authority." 175 W.Va. at 802, 338 S.E.2d at 403. We observed: "'That an act punished as neither wholly civil nor altogether criminal reflects an impermissible confusion or combination of purpose on the part of the sanctioning court.'" 175 W. Va. at 803, 338 S.E.2d at 404, quoting Robinson v. Michael, 166 W. Va. at 671, 276 S.E.2d at 818. For this reason, we concluded that the imposition of the monetary sanctions in Vincent was impermissible. In Vincent, we indicated, in dicta, that "a prospective, per diem fine was inappropriate," noting that the fine imposed was not "'in the nature of compensation or damages to the party aggrieved,' as required for a civil contempt." 175 W. Va. at 803, 338 S.E.2d at 404, quoting Syllabus Point 3, State ex rel. Robinson v. Michael, supra. The critical factor in Vincent was the fact that the trial court attempted to impose a monetary fine upon the plaintiff for conduct which occurred before the plaintiff was found in contempt of the court's discovery order, a sanction which smacks of a criminal penalty, rather than a coercive civil penalty which can be purged upon compliance with the discovery order. Other courts have held that a civil contempt sanction that sets monetary penalties retroactively before the hearing on contempt for failure to comply with a discovery order cannot be enforced. See United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., supra; Lamar Fin. Corp. v. Adams, supra. We do not read Vincent as precluding a per diem fine for contempt where, as here, the penalty is not imposed retroactively, but instead prospectively from the date of the entry of the contempt order as a means of ensuring compliance with the discovery order. Thus, a civil contempt sanction that sets monetary penalties retroactively before the hearing on contempt for failure to comply with a discovery order cannot be enforced. A monetary per diem penalty is permissible where it is set prospectively from the date of the contempt order as a means of ensuring compliance with the underlying discovery order. Sanctions intended to compensate the aggrieved party for the opposing party's failure to comply with a discovery order are authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(E). This subsection provides that a court may require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure" unless "the failure was substantially justified" or such an award would be unjust.See footnote 19 The rule clearly states, however, that such sanctions may be imposed "[i]n lieu of ... or in addition" to any of the other sanctions provided by the Rule. IV. For the reasons stated, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering State Farm to respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories No. 5, No. 15, No. 16, and No. 18 and in holding State Farm in contempt for failing to comply with the discovery order. As a consequence, to that extent a writ of prohibition is granted to prevent enforcement of the November 19, 1991 discovery order and the July 10, 1992 contempt order. We lack sufficient facts to determine if there was good-faith compliance by State Farm in its answers to those interrogatories to which it had not objected and leave that determination to the circuit court. The trial court may also determine whether additional interrogatories should be authorized as outlined in this opinion. Finally, the trial court should determine whether plaintiff's counsel is entitled to expenses and reasonable attorney's fees for enforcing the answers to interrogatories. Writ granted as moulded. Footnote: 1Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 15 requested the following information: "State every claim alleging bad faith or violation of unfair trade practices against defendant in the United States from 1980 to the present. As to each claim or alleged incident, state: (a)the name and address of claimant; (b)the name, address, and phone number of claimant's attorney; (c)whether an action was filed and, if so, (i) the style of the action; (ii) civil action number and name of court and state; and (iii) disposition." Interrogatory No. 16 had a similar format and requested a list of "each and every claim made against the defendant involving excess verdict liability from 1980 to the present." Interrogatory No. 18 asked for identification of "each inquiry received by State Farm ... from 1980 to the present from insurance commissioners in the United States relative to questions of its handling, investigation, and settlement of claims." In addition, Interrogatory No. 5 asked whether State Farm had "ever litigated the issues of failure to offer uninsured motorist coverage, commercially effective offer, knowing and informed waiver, or any related matter[.]" It appears, however, that the parties have settled the claims to which this interrogatory relates. Footnote: 2It is alleged in the plaintiffs' brief that these objections were raised by State Farm in its motion for a protective order filed on August 1, 1990. This motion is not among the exhibits filed with this Court. Footnote: 3Mr. Driscoll's affidavit stated that there were 903,851 open automobile claim files in approximately 1,070 local and regional offices and approximately 33,548,000 closed files. Assuming it would take five minutes to review each file, Mr. Driscoll estimated that it would take over 2,870,000 hours to review both active and stored files, which would cost $39,000,000 in employee time. Added to this figure were retrieval costs and supervision expenses, bringing the approximate cost to $40,000,000. Footnote: 4Syllabus Point 1 of Hinkle states: "In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance." Footnote: 5Rule 26(b) provides, in pertinent part: "Discovery scope and limits. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows: "(1) In general. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action[.]" Footnote: 6Rule 26(b)(1) states, in relevant part: "The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods set forth in subdivision (a) shall be limited by the court if it determines that: "(i) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; "(ii) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or "(iii) The discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation." Obviously, where the requested information is available from another source which is less burdensome to the opposing party, an issue not raised in this proceeding, the trial court may limit discovery under Rule 26(b)(1)(i). Footnote: 7The relevant portion of the November 19, 1991 order states: "State Farm further argued that the discovery sought was extremely burdensome and required, prior to answer, a search of every file or claim made upon State Farm, whether resulting in a legal action or otherwise, since the year 1980. That is, it was State Farm's position it had no filing system whereby it could determine the answers to certain of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. State Farm also claimed that excessive man hours and costs would be incurred in a laborious search of all claims filed since 1980 (and for Interrogatory number 5, back to the start of the company's operations)." Footnote: 8Rule 26(b)(1) states, in part: "It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Footnote: 9W. Va. Code, 33-11-4(9) (1985), states, in pertinent part: "No person shall commit or perform with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: ..." In Syllabus Point 3 of Jenkins, we said: "More than a single isolated violation of W. Va. Code, 33-11-4(9), must be shown in order to meet the statutory requirement of an indication of 'a general business practice,' which requirement must be shown in order to maintain the statutory implied cause of action." Footnote: 10In Syllabus Point 3 of Garnes v. Fleming Landfill, Inc., 186 W.Va. 656, 413 S.E.2d 897 (1991), we listed among the factors that the jury could consider in awarding punitive damages "whether/how often the defendant engaged in a similar conduct in the past[.]" Footnote: 11Rule 404(b) of the Rules of Evidence states: "Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.--Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." Footnote: 12In Syllabus Point 3 of Gable, we stated: "To be admissible at all, similar occurrence evidence must relate to accidents or injuries or defects existing at substantially the same place and under substantially the same conditions. Evidence of injuries occurring under different circumstances or conditions is not admissible." See also Hendrick v. Monongahela West Penn Public Serv. Co., 111 W. Va. 576, 163 S.E. 411 (1932). Footnote: 13Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence states: " Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Footnote: 14In their brief, the plaintiffs submit that the testimony of Mr. Driscoll must be disregarded in light of the decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Engelke, 824 S.W.2d 747 (Tex. App. 1992). In Engelke, the plaintiff requested, through interrogatories, a list of every bad faith lawsuit filed against State Farm in Texas in the previous five years. State Farm's representative testified, as did Mr. Driscoll in this case, that no index of such lawsuits existed and that compilation of the desired data would require a costly manual examination of every claim file. State Farm's witness also testified, however, that a program could be developed to enable State Farm to retrieve the requested information from its files by computer. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge was correct in ordering State Farm to answer the interrogatory "insofar as that order requires State Farm to provide the requested information ... in the form of a computer generated response." 824 S.W.2d at 751. (Emphasis in original). We agree with the court in Engelke that where the technology is readily available to allow a party to compile information requested in discovery within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost, the party opposing discovery cannot rely on its failure to use that technology to avoid discovery. Here, however, there was no evidence that State Farm could have obtained the requested data by writing a computer program. Footnote: 15Interrogatory No. 17 asked: "State each and every claim against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in West Virginia alleging an incident of bad faith, breach of West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act, or unfair settlement or practices from 1980 to the present. As to each claim or alleged incident, state: "(a) the name and address of claimant; "(b) the name, address, and phone number of claimant's attorney; "(c) whether an action was filed and, if so, (i) the style of the action; (ii) the civil action number and name of court and state; and (iii) disposition." Footnote: 16State Farm indicated at the May 14, 1992 hearing that it would be willing to answer the interrogatories with regard to its Seaboard Region which includes West Virginia and several other states. Footnote: 17Part of the plaintiffs' discovery request was a motion to produce the original defense attorney's file. This matter was not addressed by the trial court in its November 19, 1991 order nor its subsequent orders. Consequently, we do not address this issue. Footnote: 18Our Rule 37(b)(2) provides, in relevant part: "Sanctions by Court in Which Action is Pending.--If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery ... the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others are the following: *** "(D) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination[.]" This rule is the same as Rule 37(b)(2)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Footnote: 19The relevant portion of Rule 37(b)(2)(E) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent part: "In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust."

b375df5f8cbb22f2429d23240ed18d5b3a7c47bb8a335cb48d13a2d03c8f1c4c

1992-12-16 00:00:00

ef889599-0f1a-4f87-9049-23ab79ffdfe1

Blankenship v. Mingo Co. Economic

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Blankenship v. Mingo Co. Economic Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1992 Term ___________ No. 20282 ___________ EARLENE BLANKENSHIP, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. MINGO COUNTY ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, INC., Defendant Below, Appellant ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mingo County Honorable Elliott E. Maynard, Judge Civil Action No. 89C-7382 AFFIRMED ___________________________________________________ Submitted: January 21, 1992 Filed: March 24, 1992 Bernard Spaulding Logan, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellee Cecil C. Varney Varney Law Offices Larry E. Thompson Thompson & Thompson Williamson, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellant This Opinion was delivered PER CURIAM Justices Neely and Workman dissent and would reverse this case. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT "A promise of job security contained in an employee handbook distributed by an employer to its employees constitutes an offer for a unilateral contract; and an employee's continuing to work, while under no obligation to do so, constitutes an acceptance and sufficient consideration to make the employer's promise binding and enforceable." Syl. pt. 5, Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W. Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986). "Generally, the existence of a contract is a question of fact for the jury." Syl. pt. 4, Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W. Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986). "'If a party offers evidence to which an objection is sustained, that party, in order to preserve the rejection of the evidence as error on appeal, must place the rejected evidence on the record or disclose what the evidence would have shown, and the failure to do so prevents an appellate court from reviewing the matter on appeal.' Syllabus Point 1, Horton v. Horton, 164 W.Va. 358, 264 S.E.2d 160 (1980)." Syl. pt. 8, Torrence v. Kusminsky, ___ W. Va. ___, 408 S.E.2d 684 (1991). "'The granting of a continuance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, though subject to review, and the refusal thereof is not ground for reversal unless it is made to appear that the court abused its discretion, and that its refusal has worked injury and prejudice to the rights of the party in whose behalf the motion was made. Syl. pt. 1, State v. Jones, 84 W. Va. 85, 99 S.E. 271 (1919).' Syllabus Point 1, State v. Davis, [176] W. Va. [454], 345 S.E.2d 549 (1986)." Syl. pt. 1, Templeton v. Templeton, 179 W. Va. 597, 371 S.E.2d 175 (1988). Per Curiam: The Mingo County Economic Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EOC) appeals from a jury verdict entered in the Circuit Court of Mingo County in favor of a former employee of the EOC, Earlene Blankenship, who brought suit against the EOC seeking to be rehired under an implied contract theory. The EOC asserts numerous assignments of error and seeks to have the jury verdict set aside. Upon consideration of the record before us, we conclude that there is no reversible error. I Ms. Blankenship was employed by the EOC as one of five district directors. She earned an annual salary of approximately $15,000.00, which was paid with funds received by the EOC from Community Service Block Grant Funds (hereinafter CSBG). In the fall of 1987, Herbert Harmon was appointed acting executive director of the EOC by the EOC Board of Directors. Thereafter, in a letter dated December 4, l987, Mr. Harmon gave layoff notices to all employees working for the EOC who were paid by CSBG because the EOC was unable to make the payroll. Ms. Blankenship received one of these notices and was laid off. Carl Bradford was later appointed by Arch Moore (hereinafter Moore), who was then serving as governor, to serve as a temporary trustee director at the EOC. Ms. Blankenship subsequently received a letter from Mr. Bradford notifying her, as a former employee of the EOC who had been laid off, that the EOC was filling positions for community service aides. Mr. Bradford advised Ms. Blankenship that a resume and references were to be sent to him at the EOC office by August 19, 1988. Ms. Blankenship sent a response to Mr. Bradford's letter, dated August 19, 1988, stating that she was more interested in full-time employment but would accept part-time employment to supplement her income. She further advised him that she was in a "legal bind" as to whether she would be available for employment and requested that she be considered for any positions which opened after September 12, 1988. In December of 1988, four people were hired by the EOC to fill the community service aide positions. Ms. Blankenship was not one of those chosen for the position. Ms. Blankenship filed a complaint against the EOC on October 6, 1989, alleging that she was entitled to be rehired by the EOC by virtue of a provision in the EOC's personnel policy stating that the priority for filling a vacancy within the agency should be given to any staff person or former staff person displaced as a direct result of the loss or reduction of funding. Four days before the trial was scheduled to begin in this case, the trial court notified the parties that a hearing would be held sua sponte concerning a subpoena that was issued for former Governor Arch Moore to appear as a witness to testify in the case. The trial court advised the parties at the beginning of the hearing that Moore had called the court to say he knew nothing about the case and that he could not offer anything as a witness that would be of probative value in the case. Moore was also not available to appear at the trial. The trial court, after hearing the arguments of both parties, concluded that the subpoena should be quashed. After the trial concluded, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Blankenship and awarded her damages in the amount of $51,090.00. The EOC filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial. Following a hearing on that motion, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court subsequently entered an order on November 26, 1990, reflecting the jury's verdict and its judgment on the motion. The EOC now appeals from that order. II The EOC first contends that the trial court erred in failing to either direct a verdict in its favor or grant a new trial on the ground that there was no evidence introduced by Ms. Blankenship which established that the personnel policy in question was formally adopted by the EOC. Ms. Blankenship maintains that it was established, through the testimony of Rebecca Sheppard, a former EOC district director, and Mark Timothy Crum, a former executive director of the EOC, that the personnel policy was used at the EOC. Before we address the issue of whether the evidence adduced by Ms. Blankenship established that the personnel policy in question was the policy of the EOC, we must first consider whether the jury could have concluded from the evidence that a certain provision of that policy created a binding contract.See footnote 1 The provision in the personnel policy upon which Ms. Blankenship relied as creating a binding contract states: When and if a vacancy occurs within the agency, the priority and obligations for filling the vacancy should be given to: Any staff person or former staff person displaced or being displaced from employment as a direct result of the loss of funding and/or reduction of funding. This Court has recognized that employee handbooks or policy manuals containing express or implied promises may create a binding contract. Collins v. Elkay Mining Co., 179 W. Va. 549, ___, 371 S.E.2d 46 , 52 (1988); Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W. Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986). We specifically held in syllabus point 5 of Cook: A promise of job security contained in an employee handbook distributed by an employer to its employees constitutes an offer for a unilateral contract; and an employee's continuing to work, while under no obligation to do so, constitutes an acceptance and sufficient consideration to make the employer's promise binding and enforceable. Whether the personnel policy constitutes an agreement binding the parties is usually a question for the jury as we recognized in syllabus point 4 of Cook: "Generally, the existence of a contract is a question of fact for the jury." In the case before us, Ms. Blankenship established at the jury trial that she was employed by the EOC as a district director. Mr. Harmon, who was acting director at the time Ms. Blankenship was laid off, testified that she was laid off as a result of the lack of funding. Moreover, the jury heard the testimony of Ms. Blankenship, Ms. Sheppard, Mr. Crum and Mr. Harmon identifying the personnel policy as the one used at the EOC at the time of the layoffs. Furthermore, a copy of the personnel policy was admitted into evidence.See footnote 2 There was no evidence introduced by the EOC which contradicted the testimony of those witnesses regarding the personnel policy. When considering this evidence in a light most favorable to Ms. Blankenship, it is clear that the trial court did not err in denying the EOC's motion for a directed verdict.See footnote 3 The evidence showed that the personnel policy was used at the EOC and that it included a provision giving priority to displaced employees in filling vacancies at the EOC. The evidence adduced by Ms. Blankenship established a prima facie case. Thus, it was within the province of the jury to ascertain from the facts whether the policy in question was the EOC's and whether its provisions constituted a binding contract.See footnote 4 III The EOC next asserts that the trial court erred in quashing the subpoena of former Governor Arch Moore and in refusing to allow it to introduce letters written by Moore. Ms. Blankenship maintains that the testimony of Moore would have no bearing on the case and that the EOC never attempted at trial to introduce the letters written by Moore. The EOC obtained a subpoena for the attendance of Moore at the trial pursuant to Rule 45(e)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45(e)(1) provides that "[a]t the request of any party subpoenas for attendance at a hearing or trial shall be issued by the clerk of the court in which the hearing is held or the action is pending." At the hearing on the issuance of the subpoena to former Governor Moore, the trial court represented to the parties that Moore's secretary advised the court that he would not be able to be in Mingo County on the date of the trial or anytime during the week the trial was scheduled. The trial court pointed out that the EOC had waited "until the last minute" to subpoena Moore and that the likelihood of Moore appearing at trial was "slim and none" because Moore had pled guilty to several criminal charges in federal court.See footnote 5 The trial court then determined that it would quash Moore's subpoena and allow the EOC to introduce Moore's letters into evidence through Mr. Bradford or another witness who could testify how the EOC was funded. Generally, the trial court's determination to quash a subpoena is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is subject to review for abuse of discretion. See Manning v. Lockhart, 623 F.2d 536, 539-40 (8th Cir. 1980) (trial court abused its discretion in refusing to issue a subpoena requiring attendance of witness when record showed that his testimony was relevant); Swartz v. Pittsburgh Public Parking Authority, 439 A.2d 1254, 1255-56 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in quashing subpoenas issued to Public Parking Authority and city counsel members because condemnees failed to show how the testimony of the subpoenaed persons would be relevant to their case). See 5A James W. Moore & Jo D. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice § 45.09 (2d ed. 1991); 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2463 (1971). We do not find from the record before us that the trial court abused its discretion in quashing Moore's subpoena. Moore, who had been indicted in federal court and pled guilty, could not appear at trial. The record also shows that the EOC was not diligent in its efforts to depose or subpoena him. Moreover, it appears from the record that the EOC could have introduced the evidence regarding the EOC's funding through another witness. The EOC further argues, however, that the trial court refused to allow the two letters written by Moore into evidence at the trial regarding the restructuring of the EOC. One letter essentially outlined the problems at the EOC and suggested that a temporary trustee director, who would report directly to the Governor's Office of Community and Industrial Development, be appointed to oversee all EOC programs. The other letter returned operational authority to the EOC Board and eliminated the position of district director.See footnote 6 However, upon review of the transcript of the trial, it does not appear that counsel on behalf of the EOC ever attempted to introduce those letters into evidence. While Mr. Bradford was testifying on behalf of the EOC regarding his responsibilities as the temporary EOC trustee director, counsel on behalf of Ms. Blankenship objected on the grounds that a proper foundation had not been laid for him to testify about his duties at the EOC. Counsel on behalf of the EOC asked the trial court's permission to excuse Mr. Bradford so that another witness could be called to lay a foundation for his testimony. Counsel on behalf of the EOC never called Mr. Bradford back to the stand nor did he offer Moore's letters or vouch the record regarding what he intended to place into evidence. This Court explained in syllabus point 8 of Torrence v. Kusminsky, ___ W. Va. ___, 408 S.E.2d 684 (1991): 'If a party offers evidence to which an objection is sustained, that party, in order to preserve the rejection of the evidence as error on appeal, must place the rejected evidence on the record or disclose what the evidence would have shown, and the failure to do so prevents an appellate court from reviewing the matter on appeal.' Syllabus Point 1, Horton v. Horton, 164 W. Va. 358, 264 S.E.2d 160 (1980). IV The EOC further contends that the trial court erred in denying the EOC's motion to excuse a juror, Celene Fitch, who was related by marriage to Ada Farley, another former district director who had a similar suit pending against the EOC. Ms. Blankenship asserts that counsel on behalf of the EOC never made a motion that Juror Fitch be removed for cause. This Court has recognized that the test of a qualified juror is whether a juror can render a verdict based on the evidence, without bias or prejudice, according to the instructions of the court. Davis v. Wang, 184 W. Va. 222, ___, 400 S.E.2d 230 , 233 (1990); syl. pt. 1, State v. Wilson, 157 W. Va. 1036, 207 S.E.2d 174 (1974). Furthermore, we stated in Davis that "the appearance and bearing of the juror in answering questions is of great importance and thus, the decision of the trial court as to his [or her] eligibility should control." 184 W. Va. at ___, 400 S.E.2d at 233. Finally, on a motion for a new trial, the burden is on the complaining party to show that he or she has been prejudiced by the presence of the juror on the jury. Syl. pt. 3, Malone v. Monongahela Valley Traction Co., 105 W. Va. 60, 141 S.E. 440 (1928). In the case before us, Juror Fitch stated that Ada Farley was her mother-in-law's half sister. Juror Fitch explained that she and Ms. Farley were "not real close" and represented to the court that she could return a fair and impartial verdict based solely on the law and evidence in this case. The EOC made no motion to strike Juror Fitch for cause.See footnote 7 Thus, based on the record before us, we do not find any abuse of discretion by the trial court. V The EOC also asserts that the trial court erred in prohibiting Ms. DeLong and Mr. Bradford from testifying as to their firsthand observations of the EOC Board meeting pursuant to Rule 803(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. However, Ms. Blankenship contends that because the EOC was attempting to introduce the minutes of the EOC Board meeting, it should have called as a witness either the person who served as secretary of the EOC at the time the meeting was held or the custodian of the minutes of the meeting. The EOC relies on Rule 803(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, which provides: "The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:[¶] (1) Present Sense Impression.--A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter."See footnote 8 It appears that the EOC's reliance on Rule 803(1) is misplaced. The Board meeting to which the EOC sought to have Mr. Bradford and Ms. DeLong testify regarding their "present sense impression" had been held approximately two and one-half years before the trial in this case was conducted. The EOC was not attempting to introduce statements made by a declarant at the time he or she was perceiving an event or immediately thereafter. Instead, the EOC was attempting to establish Mr. Bradford's duties at the EOC by introducing the minutes from the EOC's Board meeting. The admissibility of the minutes of the EOC's Board meeting would not fall under Rule 803(1) relating to "present sense impression." The admissibility of business records of regularly conducted business activity is primarily controlled by Rule 803(6).See footnote 9 This Court recognized in State v. Fairchild, 171 W. Va. 137, 147, 298 S.E.2d 110 , 120 (1982), a case decided prior to the adoption of the current West Virginia Rules of Evidence, that "[i]t is not necessary that the maker of the record be called to testify to verify the authenticity of the entry." We further explained that the trustworthiness of the entry can be established through the testimony of the custodian of the records who can show that the record was kept as an established procedure within the business routine. Id. We observed, however, that "in no instance may records of this kind prove themselves." Id. The trial court in the case before us did not rule that the minutes of the EOC meeting were inadmissible but instead directed the EOC to introduce those records through the testimony of the secretary who prepared the minutes or the custodian of the records containing the minutes of the EOC Board meeting.See footnote 10 It does not appear that the trial court's ruling on this issue was inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 803(6).See footnote 11 VI As its next assignment of error, the EOC contends that the trial court erred in granting two motions in limine which barred the EOC from impeaching Ms. Blankenship and from introducing evidence to show the reasons for eliminating the positions of district director at the EOC. Ms. Blankenship maintains that the trial court properly ruled under Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the prejudicial possibilities of this evidence outweighed its probative value.See footnote 12 With respect to the issue of whether Ms. Blankenship could be impeached with evidence of a criminal conviction, this Court specifically addressed the application of Rule 609(a)(2) in CGM Contractors, Inc. v. Contractors Environmental Services, Inc., 181 W.Va. 679, 383 S.E.2d 861 (1989). We recognized in syllabus point 2 of CGM Contractors that: Rule 609(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence divides the criminal convictions which can be used to impeach a witness other than a criminal defendant into two categories: (A) crimes 'punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year,' and (B) crimes 'involving dishonesty or false statements regardless of the punishment.' The balancing test found in Rule 403 does not apply to impeachment by crimen falsi convictions under Rule 609(a)(2). We specifically observed in CGM Contractors that "[f]or the specific crimes contained in Rule 609(a)(2)(B), commonly called crimen falsi, there is no balancing test except as provided in Rule 609(b)." 181 W. Va. at ___, 383 S.E.2d at 865. The United States Supreme Court has also held that the balancing test found in Rule 403 does not apply to impeachment by crimen falsi convictions under Rule 609(a)(2)(B). Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504 , 109 S. Ct. 1981, 104 L. Ed. 2d 557 (1989). Thus, under our holding in CGM Contractors and the Supreme Court's holding in Green, we find that the trial court was required to allow the EOC to introduce evidence of Ms. Blankenship's conviction for mail fraud for impeachment purposes.See footnote 13 However, it appears from the record that the trial court's disallowance of the impeachment testimony was harmless error. The disposition of this case was based primarily on the jury's determination that the terms of the EOC personnel policy regarding displaced employees created a binding contract, and that Ms. Blankenship, who was a displaced employee, was not given priority in the filling of a new position. Most of the evidence on these two issues consisted of written documents such as the personnel policy, the layoff notice sent to Ms. Blankenship, the letter from Mr. Bradford to Ms. Blankenship regarding the new position, and Ms. Blankenship's written response to Mr. Bradford's letter. Moreover, there was testimony of witnesses other than Ms. Bradford concerning the use of the personnel policy at the EOC. Ms. Blankenship's testimony served primarily to support the documents which were introduced into evidence,See footnote 14 with the exception of her testimony regarding damages.See footnote 15 Therefore, we do not find from the record that the EOC was prejudiced by the trial court's ruling that it could not introduce Ms. Blankenship's conviction for mail fraud. The EOC also argues that the trial court erred in granting Ms. Blankenship's motion in limine barring it from introducing into evidence the alleged wrongdoing of other employees at the EOC. The trial court believed that any evidence regarding the alleged wrongdoing of other employees of the EOC would be highly prejudicial and extremely unfair to Ms. Blankenship's case. However, the trial court, in granting the motion in limine, advised counsel on behalf of the EOC that "[y]our objection is noted, and you can put anything in the record you want when we're done here." The EOC never vouched the record regarding the rejected evidence.See footnote 16 Thus, under our holding in Torrence, supra, we shall not review this matter. VII The EOC further argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance because it was clear that neither party was prepared to go to trial. Ms. Blankenship contends that the EOC was not diligent in its discovery and that it has not identified any newly discovered evidence or evidence not in its possession at the start of the trial which would indicate that it was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance. Both parties cite Templeton v. Templeton, 179 W. Va. 597, 371 S.E.2d 175 (1988). This Court stated in syllabus point 1 of Templeton: 'The granting of a continuance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, though subject to review, and the refusal thereof is not ground for reversal unless it is made to appear that the court abused its discretion, and that its refusal has worked injury and prejudice to the rights of the party in whose behalf the motion was made. Syl. pt. 1, State v. Jones, 84 W. Va. 85, 99 S.E. 271 (1919).' Syllabus Point 1, State v, Davis, [176] W. Va. [454], 345 S.E.2d 549 (1986). We do not find from the record before us that the trial court's denial of a continuance worked injury and prejudice to the rights of the EOC. The EOC claims that it was not given a sufficient opportunity to depose Ms. Blankenship and that it was surprised by several rulings relating to former Governor Moore. Yet, it appears from the record that the EOC was not diligent in its efforts to depose either Ms. Blankenship or former Governor Moore. Moreover, as we previously pointed out, the EOC never attempted to introduce Moore's letters into evidence. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance. VIII The remaining assignments of error concern the jury instructions and the trial court's charge to the jury. We stated in Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc., 176 W. Va. 492, ___, 345 S.E.2d 791 , 797 (1986) that we "will presume that a trial court acted correctly in giving or refusing instructions, unless the instructions given were prejudicial or the instructions refused were correct and should have been given." After reviewing the instructions in this case as a whole, we find that they were not prejudicial to the EOC and that there was evidence to support them. Moreover, we do not find that the EOC was prejudiced by the trial court's statement in its charge to the jury that it did not "favor the cause of either litigant." Thus, for the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Mingo County should be affirmed.See footnote 17 Affirmed. Footnote: 1As its second assignment of error, the EOC argues that the trial court erred in failing to rule as a matter of law that the section of the personnel policy giving priority to displaced employees in filling vacancies at the EOC does not form the basis of a contract. Footnote: 2The personnel policy introduced into evidence as plaintiff's exhibit 4 states that "[t]hese policies have been approved by the Board of Directors of the Mingo County E.O.C." and that "[e]ach employee shall receive, upon appointment, a copy of this Personnel Policy[.]" Footnote: 3We recognized the standard of review upon a motion to direct a verdict in syllabus point 1 of Cook: '"Upon a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant, every reasonable and legitimate inference fairly arising from the testimony, when considered in its entirety, must be indulged in favorably to plaintiff; and the court must assume as true those facts which the jury may properly find under the evidence." Syl., Nichols v. Raleigh-Wyoming Coal Co., 112 W. Va. 85, 163 S.E. 767 (1932).' Syl. pt. 1, Totten v. Adongay, [175] W. Va. [634], 337 S.E.2d 2 (1985). Footnote: 4The EOC also asserts that the circuit court should have directed a verdict in its favor because Ms. Blankenship was given the opportunity by Mr. Bradford to apply for the community service aide position but failed to follow through with the application requirements. However, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Ms. Blankenship, we find that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to direct a verdict because the evidence showed that Ms. Blankenship sent a letter to the EOC stating that she would be interested in any job openings after September 12, 1988, and that the positions for the community service aides were not filled until December of 1988. Thus, this issue should not have been removed from the jury's consideration. Finally, our determination that the contract issue was a jury question also disposes of the EOC's assignment of error that the trial court should have granted its motion for summary judgment. Footnote: 5The trial court gave the following explanation of its decision to quash Moore's subpoena: Here is where we stand with this issue. You come in and tell me former Governor Moore's testimony is essential to the defense in this case. If that were the case, why did you wait until the last minute to subpoena him, the facts and circumstances being as they are? Now, it's going to be virtually impossible to get his deposition or to get him here for trial. If his testimony is essential to your case, you could have and should have secured his testimony for use at trial. Former Governor Moore has been indicted on four or five federal counts and has pled guilty or is about to plead guilty and he is involved in some other trial going on in federal court. The chance[s] he's going to show up here for trial are slim and none, frankly. May 10, 1990 hearing, tr. at 12. Footnote: 6The second letter from Moore was addressed to Columbia DeLong, who was a witness in this case. Footnote: 7The following exchange between the trial court and counsel on behalf of the EOC was had out of the hearing of the jurors: MR. VARNEY: What I'm afraid of is it will come out in evidence Ada Farley had the same job and was laid off at the same time. THE COURT: It will come out in evidence? MR. VARNEY: Yes. The letter was made out to all district directors. THE COURT: Was it sent to this woman, Ada Farley? MR. VARNEY: It was addressed to all workers, and somehow it may come out Ada Farley was--- THE COURT: I understand. Trial tr. at 30. Footnote: 8We noted in State v. Smith, 178 W. Va. 104, ___ n. 4, 358 S.E.2d 188 , 192-93 n. 4 (1987) that a comprehensive discussion of Rule 803(1) can be found in Booth v. State, 306 Md. 313, 508 A.2d 976 (1986). Footnote: 9Rule 803(6) provides, in relevant part: A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. (emphasis added) Footnote: 10We note that the refusal of the trial court to admit admissible evidence is presumed to be prejudicial where it does not appear that a verdict against a party objecting was unaffected thereby. Tedesco v. Weirton General Hospital, 160 W. Va. 466, 472, 235 S.E.2d 463 , 466 (1977). However, in the present case, it does appear that the jury's verdict would have been unaffected by this evidence even if the trial court would have ruled that the minutes of the EOC Board meeting were inadmissible. Footnote: 11We note that counsel on behalf of the EOC did not vouch the record regarding what he intended to establish through the introduction of those minutes. Footnote: 12Rule 403 provides: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Footnote: 13Apparently Ms. Blankenship's conviction involved her misrepresentation to an insurance carrier regarding who was driving an automobile. Footnote: 14Two of those documents which were introduced during Ms. Blankenship's testimony were the EOC's exhibit 4, the letter from Mr. Bradford to Ms. Blankenship, and the EOC's exhibit 5, Ms. Blankenship's response to that letter. Footnote: 15The EOC did not raise the damage issue as a separate assignment of error although it points out that Ms. Blankenship was awarded damages in the amount of her salary as a district director rather than at the amount of the salary of a community service aide. However, we note that the EOC's inquiry at the hearing about the damage issue was limited. Footnote: 16The EOC claims that the trial court never gave it the opportunity to vouch the record. Footnote: 17Although the EOC also assigned as error the trial court's denial of its special interrogatories to the jury, the only reference to those interrogatories we can find in the transcript is the EOC's objection that the trial court did not consider them. The EOC did not vouch the record nor were the special interrogatories discussed any further. Therefore, we shall not address this assignment of error.

1507c44e54c5a7d30e8469d271535d97d5f36b4a2eba66f794c75b58d11fced1

1992-03-24 00:00:00

32847ca6-d179-4307-9860-e56a80ba8ee9

Willard et al. v. Whited (dissenting)

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

, v. Whited Willard et al., v. Whited (dissenting) Annotate this Case Download PDF No. 29327 Geraldine Willard and Denzil Rhodes, Co-Executors of the Estate of Alma Whited, deceased, v. Gary Eugene Whited, Executor of the Estate of Delbert R. Whited, deceased. RELEASED FILED Albright, Justice, dissenting: December 10, 2001 December 10, 2001 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA I dissent in this matter because this Court should either reverse the judgment of dismissal below and permit this action to proceed under West Virginia Code § 55-13-4, permitting a declaratory judgment proceeding to declare legal relations and rights in estate matters, or remand with instructions to amend the final judgment in this matter to authorize an amendment of the complaint to plead a case for equitable relief from a judgment independent of Rule 60(b), as specifically authorized by Rule 60(b). I understand the reluctance of the majority to permit the use of the declaratory judgment statute to collaterally attack otherwise final judgments. I acknowledge that this Court and the vast majority of other jurisdictions generally observe that rule. Our adoption of that rule is set forth in syllabus point three of Hustead v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 197 W.Va. 55, 475 S.E.2d 55 (1996), as follows: A declaratory judgment action can not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal. I believe the reliance of the majority on this syllabus point is misplaced. In the body of the excellent opinion in Hustead, Justice Workman cites as the basis for the rule the agreement of this Court with the holding of School Committee v. Commissioner of Education, 482 N.E.2d 796 (Mass. 1985). The specific ruling in School Committee cited by Justice 1 Workman in Hustead is as follows: Absent special circumstances, an action for a declaratory judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal . . . . Hustead, 197 W.Va. at 61, 475 S.E.2d at 61 (emphasis added). It is regrettable that syllabus point three of Hustead did not pick up the exception for special circumstances. That does not alter the fact that this Court s opinion adopting the general rule expressly and properly recognized that it should not apply in the face of special circumstances. As will be discussed in the course of this opinion, the present case has highly relevant special circumstances. One of the most readily apparent special circumstances is that the declaratory judgment act expressly recognizes the likelihood that persons involved in the settlement of estates may need the relief provided for in the act, undoubtedly in contemplation of the fact that the administration and closing of an estate often involves unforseen questions arising in the process of executing the directions of the law applicable to estates. Another special circumstance is the novelty of the questions for which Appellant s action seeks direction and answers. The statute involved here, West Virginia Code § 42-3-1, et seq., was adopted in 1995 and introduced into our law the concept of an augmented estate, thereby substantially altering the meaning of a surviving spouse s elective share and, inter alia, stating special rules for determining who was liable for paying over such elective share and to what extent. It appears that the statute has not been the subject of litigation in this Court and, perhaps, not extensive litigation in the circuit courts. 2 Directlyrelated to the circumstances presented by therelative novelty of the subject statute is the fact that the matters contained in the commissioner s report and confirmed and adopted as the order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County lack a level of clarity and certainty which would permit their easy and certain enforcement by any court or other officer directed to assist in that enforcement. The entire text of the portion of the commissioner s report relating to a judgment reads as follows: k. That judgment by award of the elective share [of the estate] should be rendered as follows: Based on the numbers provided at the hearing and in all other forms offered by the respective counsel, and upon calculation through the elective share formula, the amount should be $77,035.00, as of the date of the hearing. In calculating the final amount due and owing, counsel must exchange proof of all interest earned on the accounts held by the estate in order that 38% percent of that income will also be paid as part of the elective share due Plaintiff. l. Costs should be assessed to the plaintiff and defendant as incurred by each party individually in the prosecution and defense of this case. Costs of the Special Commissioner should be assessed equally between Plaintiff and Defendant. Not only is the judgment facially uncertain, the factthat it does not disclose against whom the judgment is rendered demonstrates that the judgment cries out for clarification, direction and definition, especially in light of the fact that someone other than the Executor of the Last Will and Testament of the decedent spouse could be liable for some part of the elective under the augmented estate scheme adopted in the statute. It readily appears from the record that the amount of the elective share determined 3 in the commissioner s report was calculated by applying a factor of 38% to $202,724.00, the sum of the value of the probate estate of $117,801.00, all or part of which may be in the hands of the fiduciary, and $84,923.00 of reclaimable estate, most of which was not likely in the hands of the fiduciary. While it is not crystal clear from the scanty record before us, it appears that persons holding or suspected of holding parts of the augmented estate, other than the fiduciary, were parties to this action, or at least the prior action in which this uncertain judgment was rendered, and would likely be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Jackson County to untangle this web. I also note from the briefs filed in this matter that attempts have been made to collect this uncertain judgment, not only from the fiduciaries, but from their personal holdings and/or those of third parties. This is a mess crying for resolution, not disposition by conformity to rules rigidly and improperly applied. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County and direct that this action, with such parties added as may be necessary, proceed to completely dispose of the matter. An alternative remedy is to remand the case with directions to allow an amendment of the complaint to state an independent action for equitable relief from a judgment whose prospective application was not contemplated by the entering court. It is regularly recognized that a dismissal should not be effected under Rule 12(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure unless there is no set of facts under which the party praying for relief might recover that relief. The trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff 4 can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Syl. Pt. 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., 160 W.Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977) citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). It is likewise the policy of the rules that amendment shall be freely allowed to the end that justice may be served. Amendments are controlled by West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which states in pertinent part: (a) Amendments. A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Poling v. Belington Bank, Inc., 207 W. Va. 145, 529 S.E.2d 856 (1999). Rule 60(b) expressly preserves such an independent action, where justified, apart from a showing of entitlement to relief under that rule, by providing: [T]he procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action. (Emphasis added.) For all the reasons previously assigned as special circumstances justifying a declaratory judgment proceeding in this case, I believe that a skillful pleader could set forth a cause of action to address what Appellant believes to be the inequitable effect of the uncertain judgment confirmed, adopted and entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County in the case underlying the case sub judice. 5 The majority opinion does a distinct injusticeby preventing the affected parties from gaining a workable, effective and certain order under which to settle and close the affected estates. I hope our judicial system, by a rehearing in this Court, or otherwise, has and seizes the opportunity to make our system of laws work to bring about a just result on the merits in this matter whatever that result may be after full hearing and adjudication of the issues we have thus far not allowed to be heard. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice McGraw joins in this dissenting opinion. 6

1c2353dda4dadffafe65d603fd1325a780efbe8ea3300c60ab24595ab5ef5f52

2002-07-03 00:00:00

33645e85-1794-4728-8a4a-b15f72b99821

Hansbarger v. Cook

351 S.E.2d 65

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Hansbarger v. Cook Annotate this Case 351 S.E.2d 65 (1986) L. Clark HANSBARGER, M.D. v. Hon. Jerry COOK, Judge, Etc. David K. HEYDINGER, M.D., Director, West Virginia Department of Health v. Hon. Jerry COOK, Judge, Etc. Nos. 17098, 17099. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. November 26, 1986. *66 Charles G. Brown, Atty. Gen., J. Bradley Russell, David P. Lambert, Asst. Attys. Gen., John S. Haight, Jack Smith, Kay, Casto & Chaney, Charleston, for appellant. Guy Bucci, Charleston, for appellee. McGRAW, Justice: These original proceedings in prohibition, which have been consolidated for decision, arise out of a civil action brought in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County by Dr. L. Clark Hansbarger, then the Director of the West Virginia Department of Health, to enjoin Ida Mae Adkins, doing business as Adkins Rest Home, from operating a nursing home or personal care home in Hamlin, *67 Lincoln County. Dr. Hansbarger and Dr. David K. Heydinger, the current Director of the Department of Health, now seek to prevent the trial of a counterclaim brought by Mrs. Adkins. We conclude that petitioner Hansbarger has demonstrated his entitlement to the relief requested and is entitled to the writ prayed for, but that petitioner Heydinger has failed to make a showing of entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. The facts giving rise to these proceedings are essentially undisputed. On July 17, 1984, Dr. Hansbarger brought suit in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County on behalf of the Department of Health to enjoin the operation of Adkins Rest Home on the grounds that Mrs. Adkins had been operating a nursing home or personal care home without a license, in violation of W.Va.Code § 16-5C-6 (1985 Replacement Vol.), and had subjected the residents of her facility to abuse and/or neglect, in violation of W.Va.Code § 9-6-1 et seq. (1984 Replacement Vol.). Upon these allegations and several affidavits submitted in support thereof, the circuit court issued a preliminary injunction closing the rest home and enjoining its further operation. In addition, the court ordered the residents of the facility transferred to a hospital for medical examinations and appointed a guardian ad litem to represent their interests. During the summer and fall of 1984, the parties conducted discovery in preparation for a hearing on the propriety of a permanent injunction. In December 1984, Mrs. Adkins filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and counterclaimed against Dr. Hansbarger, "individually and in his official capacity as Director of the West Virginia Department of Health", seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] A copy of the answer and counterclaim was mailed to the Attorney General of West Virginia, counsel for Dr. Hansbarger in the original proceeding. In January 1985, Dr. Hansbarger sought to remove the counterclaim to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Along with the petition, Dr. Hansbarger filed, by special appearance, a motion to dismiss the counterclaim against him in his personal capacity on the ground of failure of service of process. Dr. Hansbarger contended that since he had instituted proceedings against Mrs. Adkins only in his official capacity, service by mail upon the Attorney General was insufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction of him as an individual in the counterclaim action. Mrs. Adkins opposed removal of the action to federal court, and, by order entered May 7, 1985, the District Court remanded the counterclaim to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County. On April 15, 1985, while the removal proceedings were pending, Dr. Hansbarger resigned as Director of the Department of Health and subsequently moved to New Mexico. Dr. Heydinger succeeded Dr. Hansbarger as Director of the Department of Health and was substituted as a party to the counterclaim under Rule 25(d)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.[2] Dr. Hansbarger remained a party to the counterclaim in his personal capacity. Further proceedings were had in the circuit court on September 9, 1985, at which *68 time Dr. Hansbarger renewed his objection to the jurisdiction of the court and moved to dismiss the counterclaim against him. On November 5, 1985, the motion to dismiss was denied. Trial on all issues was set for November 19, 1985, but on the first day of trial the court granted, over the objection of Mrs. Adkins, a motion for bifurcation, and trial of the counterclaim was deferred until a later date. The hearing on the permanent injunction against Mrs. Adkins lasted twelve days, during which over 60 witnesses, including Dr. Hansbarger, testified as to the allegations of abuse and neglect practiced upon the residents of Adkins Rest Home. The testimony also indicated that Mrs. Adkins had operated an unlicensed facility for a number of years with the acquiescence of the Department of Health, and that Dr. Hansbarger brought suit against her primarily upon the allegations of abuse and neglect rather than for her failure to have a license. On December 11, 1985, the circuit court submitted special interrogatories to an advisory jury empanelled to decide the factual issues involved in the case. The answers to the special interrogatories were generally favorable to Mrs. Adkins. By order dated March 3, 1986, the court adopted the special interrogatory answers of the advisory jury as part of its findings of fact and concluded that all of the evidence had failed to demonstrate a proper basis for injunctive relief against Mrs. Adkins. The court ordered the temporary injunction dissolved and further ordered Dr. Heydinger and the Department of Health to process with all deliberate speed and fairness Mrs. Adkins' application for a renewal license. Finally, the court set March 26, 1986 as the date for trial on Mrs. Adkins' counterclaim. It is this proceeding that the petitioners seek to prohibit. I Dr. Hansbarger's first contention is that he is not an "opposing party" against whom a counterclaim may be brought under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 13(a), relating to compulsory counterclaims,[3] provides, in part: A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Dr. Hansbarger contends that since he initiated proceedings against Mrs. Adkins only in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, he is not, in his personal capacity, a proper "opposing party" within the meaning of this Rule.[4] We have never had occasion to address the issue of who is an opposing party for purposes of Rule 13(a). The federal courts have discussed the question, however, in relation to Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules *69 of Civil Procedure, the pertinent part of which is identical to our Rule. The general rule appears to be that "unless a person has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court in a capacity by making a claim in that capacity, then he is not an `opposing party' such that a compulsory counterclaim must and a permissive counterclaim may be entered against him in that capacity." 3 J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 13.06. See also 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (2d ed.1986) Civil: § 1404 (1971). Thus, where a plaintiff brings suit in a representative capacity, the defendant may not ordinarily bring a counterclaim against him in his individual capacity under Rule 13. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 658 F.2d 875 (2d Cir.1981); United States v. Timber Access Industries Co., 54 F.R.D. 36 (D.Or.1971); Henkin v. Rockower Bros., Inc., 259 F. Supp. 202 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Lacy, 116 F. Supp. 15 (N.D.Ala.1953), reversed on other grds., 216 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1954); Cravatts v. Klozo Fastener Corp., 15 F.R.D. 12 (S.D. N.Y.1953); Higgins v. Shenango Pottery Co., 99 F. Supp. 522 (W.D.Pa.1951); Chambers v. Cameron, 29 F. Supp. 742 (N.D.Ill. 1939); Kainz v. Lussier, 4 Hawaii App. 400, 667 P.2d 797 (1983). The federal courts have recognized "that it will not always be wise to apply the `opposing party' rule mechanically." Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 658 F.2d at 886, and have declined to follow the rule in certain limited circumstances where the counterclaim defendant is a real party in interest, such as in the case of a derivative suit brought to adjudicate the rights of all stockholders of a closely-held corporation, Berger v. Reynolds Metals Co., 39 F.R.D. 313 (E.D.Pa. 1966); Burg v. Horn, 37 F.R.D. 562 (E.D. N.Y.1965); or a suit brought by a partnership in which the individual partners have a personal, beneficial interest in the claim, see Scott v. United States, 173 Ct.Cl. 650, 664-665, 354 F.2d 292, 300 (1965). See also Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. McMahon, 235 F.2d 142 (2d Cir.1956); Automated Datatron, Inc. v. Woodcock, 84 F.R.D. 408 (D.D.C.1979); Klinzing v. Shakey's, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 32 (E.D.Wis.1970); Abraham v. Selig, 29 F. Supp. 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1939). The federal courts have consistently refused, however, to expand the scope of these limited exceptions to the "opposing party" rule. See, e.g., Tryforos v. Icarian Development Corp., 49 F.R.D. 1 (N.D.Ill.E. D.1970); Twardzik v. Sepauley, 45 F.R.D. 529 (E.D.Pa.1968). We believe the opposing party rule has particular application to the facts of this case. The Director of the Department of Health is the state officer charged with the licensing and regulation of nursing homes and personal care homes in this State. W.Va.Code § 16-5C-3 (1985 Replacement Vol.). It is his duty "to ensure protection of the rights and dignity of those using the services of such facilities." W.Va.Code § 16-5C-1. To this end, he is authorized to bring suit on behalf of the State to force nursing or personal facilities to comply with the health laws. W.Va. Code §§ 16-5C-3(p); 16-5C-15. In this capacity the Director of the Department of Health is a "reputable person" who may bring an action to restrain abuse or neglect of an incapacitated adult under W.Va.Code § 9-6-3 (1984 Replacement Vol.). When the Director of the Department of Health brings such actions, whether upon his own initiative or upon complaints received in his office, he is acting in vindication of the public interest, rather than from any personal motivation. He is acting solely in his representative capacity and should not be held to answer personally absent some showing that he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court in that capacity or will derive some personal benefit from the proceedings. In the case at bar, Dr. Hansbarger was acting in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health and executing the statutory duties of that office when he brought suit against Mrs. Adkins. There is no showing that Dr. Hansbarger submitted to the jurisdiction of the court in his individual capacity or had *70 any personal, beneficial interest in the litigation which would render him a real party in interest in that capacity. Accordingly, we must conclude that Dr. Hansbarger was not an opposing party in his personal capacity for purposes of Rule 13(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the counterclaim against him as an individual cannot be maintained by Mrs. Adkins in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County. Indeed, as an aside dedicated to the interest of judicial economy, we do not sense that any cause of action exists against Dr. Hansbarger for performing his duty by proceeding against an unlicensed nursing home. II Dr. Heydinger challenges the venue of the counterclaim brought against him in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, in reliance on W.Va.Code § 14-2-2 (1985 Replacement Vol.), which provides, in pertinent part: (a) the following proceedings shall be brought and prosecuted only in the circuit court of Kanawha county: (1) Any suit in which the governor, any other state officer or a state agency is made a party defendant.... Dr. Heydinger contends that under this statute the counterclaim against him had to be brought in Kanawha Court and that the Circuit Court of Lincoln County therefore lacks jurisdiction of the counterclaim. Initially, we note that Dr. Heydinger confuses the concepts of venue and subject matter jurisdiction. "`Jurisdiction deals with the power of the court, while venue deals with the place in which an action may be tried.' Syllabus Point 7, Lester v. Rose, 147 W.Va. 575, 130 S.E.2d 80 (1963)." Syllabus Point 2, Vanover v. Stonewall Casualty Co., 169 W.Va. 759, 289 S.E.2d 505 (1982). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver, but venue may be. Vanover v. Stonewall Casualty Co., supra; Lester v. Rose, supra. "Venue is procedural and statutes relating thereto are so treated. Venue is not a jurisdictional question in a strict sense of the word. 92 C.J.S., Venue, § 75; 56 Am.Jur., Venue, § 2 et seq." State ex rel. Chemical Tank Lines, Inc. v. Davis, 141 W.Va. 488, 494-495, 93 S.E.2d 28 , 32 (1956). Despite language to the contrary,[5] W.Va. Code § 14-2-2 is a venue statute. We have repeatedly held that its provisions are exclusive and controlling as to other, more general venue provisions. See Board of Education v. MacQueen, ___ W.Va. ___, 325 S.E.2d 355 (1985); Thomas v. Board of Education, ___ W.Va. ___, 280 S.E.2d 816 (1981); Shobe v. Latimer, 162 W.Va. 779, 253 S.E.2d 54 (1979); State ex rel. Ritchie v. Triplett, 160 W.Va. 599, 236 S.E.2d 474 (1977); Hesse v. State Soil Conservation Committee, 153 W.Va. Ill, 168 S.E.2d 293 (1969). However, the right to have a case heard in a particular venue may be waived by any party, including the State. See 77 Am.Jur.2d Venue § 45 (1975); 92 C.J.S. Venue § 75 (1955). "[T]he right of a defendant touching the county of trial is not primarily jurisdictional, but is a personal privilege which may be waived. Moore v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 124 Va. 628, 634, 98 S.E. 635 [636-37]; 67 C.J.Venue, sec. 212. Where the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, the failure of a defendant to claim the privilege in the proper manner implies a waiver. (Citations omitted)." *71 Vanover v. Stonewall Casualty Co., 169 W.Va. 761, 289 S.E.2d at 506, quoting Hall v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., 122 W.Va. 188, 193, 9 S.E.2d 45, 47 (1940). The proper method of raising the question of improper venue is by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b). Lester v. Rose, supra. In Vanover v. Stonewall Casualty Co., supra, we went on to say: The rule that venue can be waived is embodied in Rule 12(b)(1), R.C.P.: "(h) Waiver or preservation of certain defenses. "(i) A defense of ... improper venue... is waived ... if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsible pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course." 169 W.Va. 762, 289 S.E.2d at 507. The record before this Court reveals no motion to dismiss made by Dr. Heydinger which raised the venue issue, nor does the question of improper venue arise in his answer to the counterclaim or in any other responsive pleading before us. Ordinarily, Dr. Heydinger's failure to object specifically to venue before pleading to the merits constitutes waiver of the objection. See Snyder v. Philadelphia Co., 54 W.Va. 149, 46 S.E. 366 (1903). See generally 77 Am. Jur.2d Venue § 47 (1975). However, even if it could be said that Dr. Heydinger had not waived the exclusive venue provisions of W.Va.Code § 14-2-2 by his failure to plead improper venue under the Rules, we believe he is nonetheless barred from raising the issue. The general rule is that by bringing suit in a particular county or district, the plaintiff submits himself to the jurisdiction of that court for all purposes of that suit, including any counterclaim which the defendant may be required to bring under Rule 13. See Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448 , 52 S. Ct. 238, 76 L. Ed. 389 (1932); Howard Concrete Pipe Co. v. Cohen, 139 Ga.App. 491, 229 S.E.2d 8 (1976). Thus, it has often been held that when a plaintiff brings suit in a particular county or district, he may not thereafter object to the venue of any counterclaim arising out of such suit which is brought in that county or district, even though venue would be improper if the counterclaim had been brought as an independent action. General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U.S. 430 , 53 S. Ct. 202, 77 L. Ed. 408 (1932); Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corp., 144 F.2d 968 (2d Cir.1944); Exchange Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. Abramson, 45 F.R.D. 97 (D.Minn.1968); G & M Tire Co., Inc. v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp., 36 F.R.D. 440 (N.D.Miss.1964); Newell v. O.A. Newton & Son Co., 10 F.R.D. 286 (D.Del 1950); Wasp Oil, Inc. v. Arkansas Oil & Gas, Inc., 280 Ark. 420, 658 S.W.2d 397 (1983); Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Young, 511 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Civ. App.1974). See also 92 C.J.S. Venue § 78 (1955). Since the suit against Mrs. Adkins was instituted on behalf of the Department of Health in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, Dr. Heydinger, the representative of the Department of Health, may not now object to the venue of the counterclaim.[6] Accordingly, we conclude that Dr. Heydinger is not entitled to assert improper venue under W.Va.Code § 14-2-2 as a bar to the counterclaim in the action below. III West Virginia Code § 53-1-1 (1981 Replacement Vol.) provides that the writ of *72 prohibition "shall lie as a matter of right in all cases of usurpation and abuse of power, when the inferior court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter in controversy, or, having such jurisdiction, exceeds its legitimate powers." See State ex rel. West Virginia Secondary School Activities Comm'n v. Wagner, 143 W.Va. 508, 102 S.E.2d 901 (1958); Morris v. Calhoun, 119 W.Va. 603, 195 S.E. 341 (1938). However, "[t]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition is not available to prevent proceeding in a law action pending in a court which has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties litigant, and there is no clear showing that such court has exceeded its legitimate powers." Syllabus, Sidney C. Smith Corp. v. Dailey, 136 W.Va. 380, 67 S.E.2d 523 (1951). See also Fisher v. Bouchelle, 134 W.Va. 333, 61 S.E.2d 305 (1950). For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that petitioner Hansbarger has made a showing which would entitle him to the extraordinary relief requested, but that petitioner Heydinger has not. Accordingly, the writ of prohibition prayed for by petitioner Hansbarger is granted, but petitioner Heydinger's prayer for relief is denied. Writ awarded with respect to petitioner Hansbarger. Writ denied with respect to Heydinger.

cde39eeb82c3b92eec659db7875dd301c2135ccc2a8f794e141b1cfb7d94b907

1986-11-26 00:00:00

5e0ca7d0-3953-4960-9c62-cce16cbfc40a

State of WV v. Harding

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

McCauley Lenox v. McCauley Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA _____________ No. 20487 _____________ EDWARD A. LENOX AND DEBRA L. LENOX, Plaintiffs below, Appellants v. ROBERT EDWIN MCCAULEY AND PEPSI COLA METRO BOTTLING CO., INC. Defendants below, Appellees ___________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wood County Honorable Daniel B. Douglass, Judge Civil Action No. 88-C-378 AFFIRMED ___________________________________________________________ Submitted: September 9, 1992 Filed: October 22, 1992 Robert W. Friend, Esq. Parkersburg, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellants John D. Hoffman, Esq. Campbell, Woods, Bagley, Emerson, McNeer & Herndon Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellees The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1."'"Questions of negligence, due care, proximate cause and concurrent negligence present issues of fact for jury determination when the evidence pertaining to such issues is conflicting or where the facts, even though undisputed, are such that reasonable men may draw different conclusions from them." Syl. pt. 1, Ratlief v. Yokum [167 W.Va. 779], 280 S.E.2d 584 (W.Va. 1981), quoting, syl. pt. 5, Hatten v. Mason Realty Co., 148 W.Va. 380, 135 S.E.2d 236 (1964).' Syllabus Point 6, McAllister v. Weirton Hosp. Co., 173 W.Va. 75, 312 S.E.2d 738 (1983). Syl. Pt. 17, Anderson v. Moulder, 183 W.Va. 77, 394 S.E.2d 61 (1990)." Syllabus Point 1, Waugh v. Traxler, 186 W.Va. 355, 412 S.E.2d 756 (1991). 2."'Violation of a statute is prima facie evidence of negligence. In order to be actionable, such violation must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.' Syl. Pt. 1, Anderson v. Moulder, 183 W.Va. 77, 394 S.E.2d 61 (1990)." Syllabus Point 2, Waugh v. Traxler, 186 W.Va. 355, 412 S.E.2d 756 (1991). 3."'Instructions must be read as a whole, and if, when so read, it is apparent they could not have misled the jury, the verdict will not be disturbed, through [sic] one of said instructions which is not a binding instruction may have been susceptible of a doubtful construction while standing alone.' Syl. Pt. 3, Lambert v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 155 W.Va. 397, 184 S.E.2d 118 (1971)." Syllabus Point 2, Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc., 176 W.Va. 492, 345 S.E.2d 791 (1986). 4."'The permanency or future effect of any injury must be proven with reasonable certainty in order to permit a jury to award an injured party future damages.' Syllabus Point 9, Jordan v. Bero, [158] W.Va. [28], 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974)." Syllabus Point 1, Flannery v. United States, 171 W.Va. 27, 297 S.E.2d 433 (1982). 5."'It is not error to refuse to give an instruction to the jury, though it states a correct and applicable principle of law, if the principle stated in the instruction refused is adequately covered by another instruction or other instructions given.' Syl. pt. 2, Jennings v. Smith, 165 W.Va. 791, 272 S.E.2d 229 (1980), quoting syl. pt. 3, Morgan v. Price, 151 W.Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966)." Syllabus Point 2, McAllister v. Weirton Hospital Co., 173 W.Va. 75, 312 S.E.2d 738 (1983). 6."In an appeal from an allegedly inadequate damage award, the evidence concerning damages is to be viewed most strongly in favor of the defendant." Syllabus Point 1, Kaiser v. Hensley, 173 W.Va. 548, 318 S.E.2d 598 (1983). Per Curiam: Edward A. Lenox and Debra L. Lenox appeal from an award by a jury in the Circuit Court of Wood County for personal injury damages. Mr. and Mrs. Lenox allege that: (1)the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the defendants' theory of the case and erroneously excluded other instructions; (2)the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the issue of future damages; (3)the $3,837.40 award was inadequate; and, (4)the failure to award Mrs. Lenox damages for the loss of consortium requires reversal. We find no error and affirm the jury verdict. On May 7, 1986 an accident occurred north of Parkersburg on Route 2 near Five Mile Run Road when the 1978 Toyota operated by Mr. Lenox was struck in the rear by a Pepsi Cola Metro Bottling Co. truck operated by Robert McCauley. Shortly before his car was struck, Mr. Lenox began slowing down to make a right turn. After the accident Mr. Lenox was treated at the Camden Clark Hospital Emergency room for an abrasion of the left elbow and "probable" muscle strain of the cervical, dorsal and lumbar spine. Mr. Lenox was advised not to work for two days. There are several factual disputes concerning the accident and its effect on Mr. Lenox. The parties disagree about both the circumstances and severity of the accident. Mr. Lenox maintains that the accident occurred after he slowed down and signaled a right turn, which he was about to make. Mr. McCauley said that he never saw a turn signal or brake lights. A witness who was going the opposite way on Route 2 said he saw the turn signal on the car's front; however, this witness admitted that he did not wait at the scene to give the police a statement because he had been drinking beer. The passenger in Mr. Lenox's car said that he saw the dashboard's turn signal indicator light blinking. The State Trooper who investigated the accident testified that when he tested the brake lights on Mr. Lenox's car after the accident, they did not work even though the tail light lenses were not damaged by the accident. Mrs. Lenox testified that the car's brake lights were working on the day after the accident. There is also conflicting testimony concerning the severity of the accident. Mr. Lenox maintains that as a result of the collision his car became airborne for 30 to 40 feet and finally stopped some 140 yards later. Two witnesses for Mr. Lenox testified that the impact propelled Mr. Lenox's car a considerable distance. Mr. McCauley said that after the collision his truck moved about 3 feet and that Mr. Lenox drove his car about 45 feet to pull off the road. There was minimal damage to both vehicles. Mr. Lenox's car had a crease in its rear quarter panel and its bumper was detached on the left, but the lens for its tail lights were not broken. The Pepsi truck's bumper was compressed. Mr. Lenox alleges that as a result of the accident he had substantial medical problems with his back, legs and hearing and he submitted medical bills totaling $20,197.66. One of his expert witnesses was Ermel R. Harris, Jr. a chiropractor, whose extensive treatment of Mr. Lenox began 2 years and 2 months after the accident. Dr. Harris said that the accident resulted in cervical sprain, cervicalgia (neck pain); lumbar sprain; lumbalgia (low back pain), thoracic sprain and pain in the thoracic spine. However, according to Dr. Harris, the only objective evidence of injury was an x-ray finding of a hypolordotic or straight cervical spine. Dr. Harris acknowledged that his opinion was based on Mr. Lenox's complaints of pain and the reports of the chiropractor who treated Mr. Lenox immediately after the accident. On cross-examination Dr. Harris admitted that because of Mr. Lenox's leg length discrepancy, the result of an earlier motorcycle accident, many of Mr. Lenox's misalignments were expected and that Mr. Lenox's degenerative disc disease could also have resulted from his tilted hip and shortened leg. In addition, Mr. Lenox's condition appears to have improved until he had another car accident on September 26, 1986, which at the time of this trial remained in litigation. John W. Ray, M.D., an otolaryngologist, who examined Mr. Lenox almost 4 years after the accident, said that as a result of the accident, Mr. Lenox had some hearing loss in his right ear. Dr. Ray noted that Mr. Lenox said the hearing loss occurred about 4 months after the accident, which is an unusual delay. Dr. Ray also said that Mr. Lenox's first experience with tinnitus occurred about one month after the accident. But medical records introduced by Mr. McCauley show that in 1981 Mr. Lenox complained about tinnitus. The defense challenged the severity of Mr. Lenox's injuries by presenting Wayne Cayton, M.D., the physician who treated Mr. Lenox in the emergency room immediately after the accident. Dr. Cayton said that Mr. Lenox had an abrasion on his elbow and a "probable" strain based on Mr. Lenox's complaints of pain. However, Dr. Cayton found no evidence of a permanent injury. Gary Miller, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, who examined Mr. Lenox in April 1987 after Mr. Lenox's leg went numb causing him to fall and hit his back, found no objective reason for Mr. Lenox's complaints of numbness. Dr. Miller did find that Mr. Lenox had a facet disease (arthritis) of the lumbar spine, which Dr. Miller felt was the result of Mr. Lenox's longstanding leg length discrepancy. The defense also presented evidence from Thomas Durick, M.D. from the Pain Clinic at W.V.U. School of Medicine and Richard Gross, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist. Dr. Durick found no physical reason for Mr. Lenox's complaints of pain. Dr. Gross thought that Mr. Lenox had a somatoform pain disorder that pre-existed the May 19, 1986 accident. The State Trooper who investigated the accident said that Mr. Lenox was wearing a cervical collar in January 1986, about 5 months before the accident. Mr. Lenox testified that he and Mrs. Lenox separated in December 1986 and their divorce was final on October 1, 1987. Mr. Lenox said that although they had problems throughout their marriage, the accident worsened the problems. According to Mr. Lenox the second accident made the problems "a little worse. . . [b]ut that first accident's what really got the ball rolling." Mrs. Lenox testified that before the second accident, Mr. Lenox's problems had improved except for complaints of pain. Mrs. Lenox blamed both accidents for the breakup of their marriage. The record also shows that Mr. Lenox was incarcerated from March 2, 1987 until August 31, 1987 in the Wood County Jail on an unrelated matter. Mr. Lenox submitted documentation of medical expenses in the amount of $20,197.66. However, the defense argued that only the medical expenses incurred immediately after the accident, about $856.85, were reasonable and necessary. The jury found that Mr. Lenox was thirty-five percent (35%) negligent and Mr. McCauley was sixty-five percent (65%) negligent, awarded Mr. Lenox $3,837.40 damages ($2,537.40 for medical expenses) and awarded Mrs. Lenox no damages. I Mr. Lenox contends that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to be instructed on the defendants' theory of the case.See footnote 1 "'"Questions of negligence, due care, proximate cause and concurrent negligence present issues of fact for jury determination when the evidence pertaining to such issues is conflicting or where the facts, even though undisputed, are such that reasonable men may draw different conclusions from them." Syl. pt. 1, Ratlief v. Yokum [167 W.Va. 779], 280 S.E.2d 584 (W.Va. 1981), quoting, syl. pt. 5, Hatten v. Mason Realty Co., 148 W.Va. 380, 135 S.E.2d 236 (1964).' Syllabus Point 6, McAllister v. Weirton Hosp. Co., 173 W.Va. 75, 312 S.E.2d 738 (1983). Syl. Pt. 17, Anderson v. Moulder, 183 W.Va. 77, 394 S.E.2d 61 (1990)." Syllabus Point 1, Waugh v. Traxler, 186 W.Va. 355, 412 S.E.2d 756 (1991). Given the conflicting evidence on the cause of this accident, we find that the factual questions were properly submitted to the jury, who determined that both parties were negligent, Mr. Lenox, thirty-five percent (35%) and Mr. McCauley, sixty-five percent (65%). Therefore, we reject Mr. Lenox's contention that no factual basis exists for finding him negligent. Next, Mr. Lenox argues that some of the defense instructions were incomplete because they failed to require that the jury find the statutory violation be the proximate cause of the accident. "'Violation of a statute is prima facie evidence of negligence. In order to be actionable, such violation must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.' Syl. Pt. 1, Anderson v. Moulder, 183 W.Va. 77, 394 S.E.2d 61 (1990)." Syllabus Point 2, Waugh v. Traxler, supra.See footnote 2 In Syllabus Point 2, Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc., 176 W. Va. 492, 345 S.E.2d 791 (1986), this Court stated: Instructions must be read as a whole, and if, when so read, it is apparent they could not have misled the jury, the verdict will not be disturbed, through [sic] one of said instructions which is not a binding instruction may have been susceptible of a doubtful construction while standing alone. Although some of the defense instructions were incomplete by omitting the proximate cause element, proximate cause was defined in Plaintiffs' Instruction No. 5 and Defendants' Instruction No. 14. "Obviously, legal terms need not be redefined at each point used in an instruction." McAllister v. Weirton Hospital, Co., 173 W. Va. 75, 79, 312 S.E.2d 738 , 742-43 (1983). In addition, the Special Questions for the jury required the negligence to have "proximately caused or contributed to the accident. . . ." When the instructions are read as a whole, we find that the jury was accurately advised on the law.See footnote 3 II Mr. Lenox also alleges that he should have recovered for future effects of his injury even though the injury was not permanent. Specifically Mr. Lenox argues that Defendants' Instruction No. 5 required the jury to find a permanent injury in order to award damages for future effects.See footnote 4 We described future damages in Syllabus Point 2, Flannery v. United States, 171 W. Va. 27, 297 S.E.2d 433 (1982): "Future damages are those sums awarded to an injured party for, among other things: (1)Residuals or future effects of an injury which have reduced the capability of an individual to function as a whole man; (2)future pain and suffering; (3)loss or impairment of earning capacity; and (4)future medical expenses.' Syllabus Point 10, Jordan v. Bero, [158] W.Va. [28], 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974)." The trial court also gave Plaintiffs' Instruction No. 16, which instructed the jury to award damages to compensate Mr. Lenox for future medical expenses, future pain, suffering and mental anguish, future loss of ability to enjoy life, and future lost earnings; provided, however, that the future consequences were the result of the accident. In addition, Defendants' Instruction No. 6 addressed future medical expenses, and Defendants' Instruction Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 addressed loss of future earnings or impairment of earning capacity. Our general rule on the recovery of future damages is contained in Syllabus Point 1, Flannery v. United States, supra: "The permanency or future effect of any injury must be proven with reasonable certainty in order to permit a jury to award an injured party future damages." Syllabus Point 9, Jordan v. Bero, [158] W.Va. [28], 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974). During the trial, Mr. Lenox maintained that he suffered permanent injuries and supported his claim with testimony from Dr. Harris and Dr. Ray. Mr. Lenox did not argue that he had suffered a non-permanent injury that would have future consequences. The defense maintained, principally through the testimony of Drs. Cayton, Durick and Gross that as a result of the accident Mr. Lenox had not suffered a permanent injury or an injury that would have future consequences. Given the evidence presented at trial, we find Mr. Lenox's assignment of error concerning Defendants' Instruction No. 5 to be without merit. We also find that when the instructions are read as a whole they were adequate. See infra Section III. Finally, the jury apparently resolved the conflicting evidence of the extent and duration of Mr. Lenox's injuries primarily in the defendants' favor and we have long held that the resolution of "issues of fact [are] for jury determination when the evidence pertaining to such issues is conflicting. . . ." Syllabus Point 1, in part, Waugh v. Traxler supra. III Mr. Lenox argues that the damage award is inadequate. Although Mr. Lenox submitted evidence that his medical expenses were $20,197.66, the jury awarded only $3,837.40 in damages of which $2,537.40 were for medical expenses and loss of wages. In Syllabus Point 1, Kaiser v. Hensley, 173 W. Va. 548, 318 S.E.2d 598 (1983), we said: In an appeal from an allegedly inadequate damage award, the evidence concerning damages is to be viewed most strongly in favor of the defendant. "Courts are reluctant to set aside a jury's award of damages unless it is clearly shown that the award was inadequate." Delong v. Kermit Lumber & Pressure Treating Co., 175 W. Va. 243, 246, 332 S.E.2d 256 , 259 (1985). See also Delong v. Albert, 157 W. Va. 874, 205 S.E.2d 683 (1974). Viewed most strongly in favor of the defendants, the evidence shows that Mr. Lenox sustained a minor non-permanent injury.See footnote 5 Mr. Lenox's condition improved until he was involved in a subsequent accident. In addition many of Mr. Lenox's physical and emotional problems existed before this accident and the accident does not appear to have exacerbated the pre-existing problems. Given the conflicting evidence, we find that the jury's award of damages is not inadequate when the evidence is viewed most strongly in favor of the defendant.See footnote 6 IV Lastly, Mr. Lenox contends that the failure to award damages for loss of consortium requires reversal. Talkington v. Barnhart, 164 W. Va. 488, 264 S.E.2d 450 (1980); Ellard v. Harvey, 159 W. Va. 871, 231 S.E.2d 339 (1976); King v. Bittinger, 160 W.Va. 129, 231 S.E.2d 239 (1976). In this case, the jury was instructed on the loss of consortium and evidently found the evidence on loss of consortium insubstantial. Mrs. Lenox testified that after the accident Mr. Lenox became mean and slept on the floor or on a reclining chair. Mrs. Lenox also said that after the subsequent accident Mr. Lenox's problems became worse. The jury also knew that Mr. and Mrs. Lenox were separated for a half year while Mr. Lenox was incarcerated. Because the evidence shows several other factors that could have effected the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Lenox, we find that the jury's refusal to award damages for loss of consortium should be affirmed.See footnote 7 For the above stated reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Wood County is affirmed. Affirmed. Footnote: 1 Mr. Lenox objected to Defendants' Instruction Nos. 19, 20, 23 and 25 and maintains that the trial court erred in failing to give Plaintiffs' Instruction Nos. 11 and 12. Footnote: 2Mr. Lenox also assigns error to Defendants' Instruction No. 25 alleging that the jury was instructed that Mr. Lenox was absolutely required by statute to have functional brake lights. Defendants' Instruction No. 23 said: The Court instructs the jury that the violation of a provision of the West Virginia motor vehicle statute is prima facie evidence of negligence. [Citations omitted]. Given that the words "prima facie" were removed from Defendants' Instruction No. 23 at Mr. Lenox's request, we find that the error now alleged by Mr. Lenox was invited. Mr. Lenox also objected to the amended instruction. Footnote: 3Mr. Lenox also alleges that because Mr. McCauley had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, the jury should have disregarded Mr. Lenox's alleged negligence. See Ratlief v. Yokum, 167 W. Va. 779, 280 S.E.2d 584 (1981)("The doctrine of last clear chance is not available to the defendant" (Syllabus Point 4) and because the historical reason for the last clear chance doctrine no longer exists, we "abolish the use of the doctrine of last clear chance for the plaintiff" (Syllabus Point 5)). Footnote: 4Defendants' Instruction No. 5 states: You are further instructed that Edward Lenox may not recover any damages for the future effects of his injury unless he proves with reasonable certainty that the injuries he claims are permanent. If after considering the evidence you find that he has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injuries he claims are permanent in nature, you may not award him damages for the future effects of the alleged injuries, if any. (Citation omitted). Footnote: 5Mr. Lenox, in a separate assignment of error, requests that a new trial be ordered on the sole issue of damages. Because we do not find the jury's award of damages to be inadequate, we refused to require a new trial. Footnote: 6Mr. Lenox also contends that the circuit court should have bifurcated the trial because of prejudice caused by knowledge of Mr. Lenox's conviction and incarceration. The right to order separate trials is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bowman v. Barnes, 168 W. Va. 111, 117, 282 S.E.2d 613 , 617 (1981). Given that Mr. Lenox's credibility was an issue in the liability portion of the trial as well as the damage portion, we find the trial court did not abuse his discretion in refusing to bifurcate the trial. Footnote: 7The plaintiffs' brief lists a number of other assignments of error, but there is no specific discussion of these errors in the brief. Consequently, we apply our customary rule stated in Syllabus Point 6, Addair v. Bryant, 168 W. Va. 306, 284 S.E.2d 374 (1981): Assignments of error that are not argued in the briefs on appeal may be deemed by this Court to be waived.

0b24872f54e682f320fc31c5d4430f64be53a7a9185727065b00de183d92c5af

1992-07-10 00:00:00

29ceb700-fcb3-4f6b-8d47-de076315d8d5

Bryant v. Willison Real Estate Co.

350 S.E.2d 748

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Bryant v. Willison Real Estate Co. Annotate this Case 350 S.E.2d 748 (1986) James L. BRYANT and James E. Bland v. WILLISON REAL ESTATE CO., etc. No. 17124. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. November 20, 1986. *749 Stephen A. Wickland, Clarksburg, for appellants. Boyd L. Warner, Clarksburg, for appellee. MILLER, Chief Justice: James L. Bryant and James E. Bland, the plaintiffs who were purchasers under a real estate sales contract, appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Harrison County denying their claim for rescission of the contract and permitting the defendants/vendors to retain their down payment. The trial court also awarded damages against the purchasers for property loss suffered by third parties as a result of *750 water flowing from a broken water line into two adjacent businesses. This case was heard by the trial court judge without a jury by agreement of the parties. The facts are that on January 4, 1980, the plaintiffs entered into a contract to purchase the O.J. Morrison Building in Clarksburg for $175,000. As required by the sales contract, they paid $10,000 to Willison Real Estate Company, the agent for the vendors, at the time the contract was signed. The balance was to be paid upon delivery of the deed, at which time the purchasers would take possession of the property. No date was set for the closing. On February 18, 1980, before the delivery of the deed, a water line broke in the sprinkler system, permitting water to run throughout the building and into two adjoining businesses. The purchasers had planned to extensively renovate the building for use as a medical office building. The purchasers were informed by an architect and an engineer who inspected the damage that the remodeling of the Morrison Building could be delayed by as much as four to six weeks because the building had to be properly dried out. The purchasers asked the vendors to correct the water damage or to permit the contract to be rescinded. The vendors declined to repair the damage and sold the building to another purchaser in July of 1980 for $140,000. The purchasers then instituted this action for rescission of the contract and return of their down payment. The trial court ruled that the purchasers must bear the risk of loss both to the Morrison Building and for the water damage to the adjoining property owned by third parties. The purchasers contend that the trial court placed undue reliance on the doctrine of equitable conversion and rejected language in the sales contract placing the risk of loss on the vendors.[1] Our law on the doctrine of equitable conversion with regard to real estate sales contracts is rather minimal. The doctrine of equitable conversion[2] provides that where an executory contract for the sale of real property does not contain a provision allocating the risk of loss and the property is damaged by fire or some other casualty not due to the fault or neglect of the vendor,[3] the risk of loss is on the purchaser. This assumes the vendor has good title. *751 Our main case is Maudru v. Humphreys, 83 W.Va. 307, 98 S.E. 259 (1919), where the purchaser was in possession of the property under an executory contract of sale. A fire destroyed a building on the property and this Court found the purchaser to have borne the risk of loss, stating in its single Syllabus: "Where a vendor, having good title and capacity to perform, makes a valid enforceable contract for the sale of land and, thereafter and before a deed is executed passing the legal title, a fire destroys a building thereon, without his fault or neglect, the loss is sustained by the purchaser. In such case there is no implied warranty that the condition of the property at the time of sale shall continue until after deed is made." See also Biddle Concrete Co. v. McOlvin, 90 W.Va. 760, 111 S.E. 843 (1922); Taylor v. Russell, 65 W.Va. 632, 64 S.E. 923 (1909). The Court in Maudru did not make an extensive analysis of the doctrine of equitable conversion, but did state that "[t]here is no warranty or condition in the contract between Mynes and Maudru that the property should be in the same condition when the transaction is completed as it was when the contract was made." 83 W.Va. at 311, 98 S.E. at 261. This appears to be an implied recognition that the parties may allocate the risk of loss in a sales contract and thereby alter the doctrine of equitable conversion. It is rather universally recognized that the parties to a contract of sale for real property may allocate the risk of loss for fire or other casualty occurring before the actual transfer of the legal title. If the contract allocates the risk to the vendor, then the doctrine of equitable conversion, which places the risk of loss on the purchaser, is no longer applicable. E.g., Rector v. Alcorn, 241 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa 1976); Coolidge & Sickler, Inc. v. Regn, 7 N.J. 93, 80 A.2d 554, 27 A.L.R.2d 437 (1951); Bishop Ryan High School v. Lindberg, 370 N.W.2d 726 (N.D.1985); Utah State Medical Ass'n v. Utah State Employees Credit Union, 655 P.2d 643 (Utah 1982); see also 77 Am.Jur.2d Vendor and Purchaser § 363 (1975); 92 C.J.S. Vendor & Purchaser § 295(b)(2) at 176-77 (1955); Annot., 27 A.L.R.2d 444, 459-60 (1953). The trial court was of the view that the contract language stating that "the owner is responsible for said property until the Deed has been delivered to said purchaser" was not sufficient to cast the responsibility on the vendors. This conclusion was based, in part, on testimony of the sales agent for the vendor that this language pertained only to vandalism. We disagree with this conclusion. The contract was on a printed form and the language is free from ambiguity. Cases in other jurisdictions have held language of similar import to place the burden of risk of loss on the vendor. E.g., Rector v. Alcorn, supra; Coolidge & Sickler, Inc. v. Regn, supra; Bishop Ryan High School v. Lindberg, supra. To permit this language to be restricted to acts of vandalism cuts across the plain meaning of its wording and would be contrary to the general rule that forecloses oral modification of contract language which is free from ambiguity. Warner v. Haught, Inc., ___ W.Va. ___, 329 S.E.2d 88 (1985); Mundy v. Arcuri, 165 W.Va. 128, 267 S.E.2d 454 (1980); Syllabus Point 4, Nettles v. Imperial Distributors, Inc., 152 W.Va. 9, 159 S.E.2d 206 (1968); Wyckoff v. Painter, 145 W.Va. 310, 115 S.E.2d 80 (1960); Camden v. McCoy, 48 W.Va. 377, 37 S.E. 637 (1900). Apparently, the trial court also relied on language in the sales contract which provided: "Purchaser to carry enough fire insurance to protect Self." We do not believe that this provision can be read to place the risk of loss on the purchasers. This provision is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the general rule that both parties to an executory contract for the sale of real property have an insurable interest. Ambrose v. Harrison Mutual Ins. Ass'n, 206 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1973); Gilles v. Sprout, 293 Minn. 53, 196 N.W.2d 612 (1972); Hatcher v. Harleysville Mutual *752 Ins. Co., 266 S.C. 548, 225 S.E.2d 181 (1976); 4 J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 2181 (1969); 77 Am.Jur.2d Vendor and Purchaser § 370 (1975); cf. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cameron Clay Products, Inc., 151 W.Va. 269, 151 S.E.2d 305 (1966); McCutcheon v. Ingraham, 32 W.Va. 378, 9 S.E. 260 (1889). The trial court also referred to the sentence in the contract that "[t]his contract is also subject to `As Is' condition" as indicating an intention not to deliver the building in a specific condition. We agree with this conclusion insofar as it would dispel any claim by the purchasers to require the vendors to make any improvements to the building from the condition it was in at the time the contract was signed. There was apparently no dispute that the building had been unoccupied for some period of time and was somewhat deteriorated. However, we do not agree that this language can be read to remove the risk of loss from the vendors. The purpose of this type of provision is not to shift the risk of loss in the event the building is damaged without fault on the part of either party. Rather the use of an "as is" provision in a real estate sales contract is generally intended to negate the existence of any warranty as to the particular fitness or condition of the property. This type of clause simply means that the purchaser must take the premises covered in the real estate sales contract in its present condition as of the date of the contract. Universal Investment Co. v. Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 127 Ariz. 213, 619 P.2d 485 (1980); Lenawee County Bd. of Health v. Messerly, 417 Mich. 17, 331 N.W.2d 203 (1982); Approved Properties, Inc. v. City of New York, 52 Misc.2d 956, 277 N.Y.S.2d 236 (1966); Annot., 97 A.L.R.2d 849 (1964); M. Friedman, Contracts & Conveyances of Real Property § 1.2(n) at 69 (4th ed. 1984). Having determined that the vendors bore the risk of loss under the contract, we believe the purchasers had the right to obtain the return of the initial down payment once the vendors refused to consider an abatement in the sale price as a result of the water damage and then sold the property to a third party.[4] The particular remedies that may be available where there has been partial destruction or damage to buildings to be sold are not easily categorized as they depend upon particular facts and circumstances. It may be generally stated that where the risk of loss is on the vendor and the casualty damage to the property is not substantial, the purchaser is entitled to sue for specific performance, and the purchase price is abated to the extent the property was damaged. On the other hand where the risk of loss is on the vendor and there is substantial damage to the property, the appropriate remedy ordinarily is to terminate the contract and return the down payment to the purchaser. See Dixon v. Salvation Army, 142 Cal. App. 3d 463 , 191 Cal. Rptr. 111 (1983); Anderson v. Yaworski, 120 Conn. 390, 181 A. 205, 101 A.L.R. 1232 (1935); Geist v. Lehmann, 19 Ill.App.3d 557, 312 N.E.2d 42 (1974); Hawkes v. Kehoe, 193 Mass. 419, 79 N.E. 766 (1907); Libman v. Levenson, 236 Mass. 221, 128 N.E. 13, 22 A.L.R. 560 (1920); Skelly Oil Co. v. Ashmore, 365 S.W.2d 582 (Mo.1963); Cameron v. Hurn, 147 Wash. 434, 266 P. 179 (1928); 3A A. Corbin, Contracts § 668 (1960); M. Friedman, supra at § 4.11. See generally Annot., 11 A.L.R.2d at 430 (1950).[5] *753 We have recognized that a purchaser may have specific performance of his contract to purchase real estate with an abatement in the purchase price where the vendor cannot fully perform his agreement.[6] Syllabus Point 7, Lathrop v. Columbia Collieries Co., 70 W.Va. 58, 73 S.E. 299 (1911); Cady v. Gale, 5 W.Va. 547 (1871). However, it appears that we have not had occasion to speak to the remedy where the risk of loss is on the vendor and damage has been done to the building. The purchasers, as we have seen, sued only to recover their down payment. The vendors counterclaimed for the difference in the sales price on the original contract and what they obtained from the subsequent sale of the Morrison Building. The trial court rejected the vendors' counterclaim for reasons that are not entirely clear. However, in view of the risk of loss being placed on the vendors, the trial court's ruling with regard to the vendors' counterclaim would be correct for two reasons. First, the vendors having the risk of loss for the water damage could not require the purchasers to pay the full purchase price. Consequently, the vendors were wrong in concluding that the purchasers had breached the sales contract when they refused to pay the full purchase price. As a result of this erroneous conclusion, the vendors breached the contract when they sold the property to the third party.[7] If the water damage had not been substantial, the vendors could have sued the purchasers for specific performance while offering an abatement in the purchase price. As a second alternative, if the vendors had concluded that the damages were substantial, they could have terminated the sales contract and returned the purchasers' down payment. However, with the risk of loss being on the vendors, they would bear the cost of repairing damage to the building. Under the particular facts of this case, we conclude that where a contract places the risk of loss on the vendor and insubstantial damage to the property occurs without the fault of either party, the purchaser may recover his down payment where the vendor refuses to repair the damage or to give an abatement in the purchase price.[8] Finally, we note that with the risk of loss being placed on the vendors, the vendors were not entitled to recover from the purchasers the sums that they had paid to third parties whose adjacent premises were damaged by the water flowing from the vendors' building. The trial court awarded these damages on the basis that the purchasers bore the risk of loss under the doctrine of equitable conversion, which we have found inapplicable because of the terms of the contract. In conclusion, we observe that we were somewhat handicapped on this appeal because the parties did not supply a transcript of the testimony, but submitted the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial court which were most thorough. It would appear that the purchasers would be entitled to a judgment for the amount of their down payment and interest, but in view of the lack of a complete record, we are reluctant to enter such judgment here. See Syllabus Point 5, Estate of Bayliss by Bowles, Comm'r v. Lee, ___ W.Va. ___, 315 S.E.2d 406 (1984), quoting, Syllabus Point 9, Bluefield Supply Co. v. Frankel's Appliances, Inc., 149 W.Va. 622, 142 S.E.2d 898 (1965). *754 We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Harrison County and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and Remanded.

1788f521f4a14c7fd2fdea1ea98e962dd964a55406cc3c37942ab0e43a587c72

1986-11-20 00:00:00

5feaf95e-7df3-47f2-8cc1-37c8fb4f87ec

Belcher v. Charleston Area Medical Center

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Belcher v. Charleston Area Medical Center Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1992 Term ___________ No. 20481 ___________ LARRY D. BELCHER, SR., ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LARRY D. BELCHER, JR., DECEASED, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER, A CORPORATION, CHARLESTON PEDIATRIC GROUP, A WEST VIRGINIA CORPORATION, AND M. B. AYOUBI, M.D., Defendants Below, Appellees ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County Honorable Charles E. King, Jr., Judge Civil Action No. 88-C-3307 AFFIRMED, IN PART, REVERSED, IN PART, AND REMANDED. ___________________________________________________ Submitted: May 5, 1992 Filed: July 15, 1992 Gerald R. Lacy Charleston, West Virginia Henry C. Bias, Jr. Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellant Ralph C. Dusic, Jr. Karen Speidal Rodgers Kay, Casto, Chaney, Love & Wise Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellee Charleston Area Medical Center Stephen D. Annand Paul L. Weber Shuman, Annand & Poe Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellee M. B. Ayoubi, M.D. CHIEF JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "As a general rule, the conduct of trials and the order of introducing testimony, subject to well established rules of practice and procedure, rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that rule is applicable to the admissibility of evidence in rebuttal which could and should have been introduced by the plaintiff in chief." Syl. pt. 9, Edmiston v. Wilson, 146 W. Va. 511, 120 S.E.2d 491 (1961). 2. Under Rule 611(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, a trial court has broad discretion in permitting or excluding the admission of rebuttal testimony, and this Court will not disturb the ruling of a trial court on the admissibility of rebuttal evidence unless there has been an abuse of discretion. 3. "When a patient asserts that a particular method of medical treatment, such as surgery, was performed by the patient's privately retained physician without the patient's consent, the hospital where that treatment was performed will ordinarily not be held liable to the patient upon the consent issue, where the physician involved was not an agent or employee of the hospital during the period in question." Syl. pt. 7, Cross v. Trapp, 170 W. Va. 459, 294 S.E.2d 446 (1982). 4. Except in very extreme cases, a physician has no legal right to perform a procedure upon, or administer or withhold treatment from a patient without the patient's consent, nor upon a child without the consent of the child's parents or guardian, unless the child is a mature minor, in which case the child's consent would be required. Whether a child is a mature minor is a question of fact. Whether the child has the capacity to consent depends upon the age, ability, experience, education, training, and degree of maturity or judgment obtained by the child, as well as upon the conduct and demeanor of the child at the time of the procedure or treatment. The factual determination would also involve whether the minor has the capacity to appreciate the nature, risks, and consequences of the medical procedure to be performed, or the treatment to be administered or withheld. Where there is a conflict between the intentions of one or both parents and the minor, the physician's good faith assessment of the minor's maturity level would immunize him or her from liability for the failure to obtain parental consent. To the extent that Browning v. Hoffman, 90 W. Va. 568, 111 S.E.2d 492 (1922) and its progeny are inconsistent herewith, it is modified. McHugh, Chief Justice: This case is before the Court upon the appeal of Larry Belcher, Sr., administrator of the estate of Larry Belcher, Jr., and plaintiff below, from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.See footnote 1 The appellees, and defendants below, are Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC), Charleston Pediatric Group, Inc., and M. B. Ayoubi, M.D. I. The decedent, Larry Belcher, Jr. (Larry), who was seventeen years and eight months old, suffered from muscular dystrophy, and was confined to a wheelchair. On December 19, 1986, Larry became choked and stopped breathing. His father, the appellant herein, removed mucus from the decedent's throat and, through mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, revived Larry. Larry was taken to Women & Children's Hospital, part of CAMC, by ambulance. Following an examination by the emergency room physicians, it was determined that Larry had a viral syndrome, or in laymen's terms, a "cold." According to the appellee Ayoubi, because of Larry's muscular dystrophy, the cold had an exaggerated effect on his condition. Later that day, after being admitted to the hospital, Larry had another breathing failure, and was intubated, placed on a respirator, and transferred to the pediatric intensive care unit. On December 22, 1986, Ayoubi discussed with the appellants the likelihood of Larry suffering another respiratory arrest and also discussed his (Ayoubi's) concern that Larry would become "respirator-dependent" if he were to remain on it. Furthermore, long-term respirator support would cause Larry's throat to swell shut, thus requiring a tracheotomy and feeding through a tube. Ayoubi also asked the appellants about whether they would want Larry subjected to resuscitative measures, including reintubation, in the event he suffered another respiratory failure. The next morning, December 23, 1986, Ayoubi contends that the appellants indicated that they had not yet decided on whether Larry should be intubated and placed on a respirator again in the event of another breathing failure. Later that day, December 23, 1986, at 10:30 a.m., Larry was taken off the respirator and was extubated. Small doses of morphine sulphate were prescribed to relieve Larry's pain and anxiety. Ayoubi observed Larry becoming anxious and apprehensive as he was disconnected from the respirator. Ayoubi advised Larry that he could be reintubated, but Larry motioned his head "no," indicating that he did not want to be reintubated. Later that day, December 23, 1986, the appellants told Ayoubi that they decided they did not want Larry reintubated or resuscitated unless Larry requested it. Accordingly, Ayoubi had the appellants sign a progress note stating that Larry was not to be reintubated or resuscitated in the event of a respiratory failure.See footnote 2 The progress note was formalized into a "Do Not Resuscitate" order.See footnote 3 Larry was not involved in this decision because, as Ayoubi contends: (1) he was emotionally immature due to his disease; (2) he was on medication which diminished his capacity; (3) involving him in the decision would have increased his anxiety, thus reducing his chances of survival; and (4) Larry's parents told Ayoubi that they did not want Larry involved. At 3:00 a.m. on December 24, 1986, Larry had another respiratory arrest, suffered cardiac failure, and died. The hospital staff attempted, within the limits of the "Do Not Resuscitate" order, to administer "precordial thumps," repositioned his head, and attempted to blow oxygen into his mouth, all to no avail. The appellants filed this action for wrongful death, alleging medical malpractice, on September 16, 1988, in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellees. In this appeal, the appellants raise issues involving: the circuit court's refusal to allow certain proffered rebuttal evidence; and the circuit court's refusal to allow the case to go to the jury on a theory that Larry should have been consulted prior to the issuance of the "Do Not Resuscitate" order, thus, recognizing the so-called "mature minor" exception to the common law rule of parental consent. II. A. Rebuttal Evidence Primarily, the appellants contend that the circuit court committed error by refusing to allow rebuttal testimony by their medical expert, Dr. Kenneth Schonberg, a pediatrician who specializes in adolescent medicine. The appellants focus on four areas in this regard: (1) Dr. Leon Charash testified for the defense, that in December, 1986, hospitals throughout the United States were not required to have a specific policy on "Do Not Resuscitate" orders. The appellants recalled Schonberg for the purpose of proving that Charash's statement was technically true, but misleading because there was a policy for all procedures (or non-procedures); (2) Dr. Potterfield testified for the defense that the morphine sulphate given to Larry did not harm him because the effects of that drug dissipate from the body within one-half to two hours, and since Larry died five hours after the morphine sulphate injections, then this prescription did him no harm. The appellants recalled Schonberg for the purpose of proving that the effect of the drug was cumulative due to Larry's illness; (3) Dr. Potterfield also testified that at the time of Larry's death, the law provided that only parental consent was necessary to perform an operation. The appellants recalled Schonberg to testify that the standard of care involved obtaining the consent of a mature minor as well as that of the parents, or, in the absence thereof, a court order; and (4) Dr. Ayoubi testified that he was not required to discuss with Larry or his parents the possibilities of long-term respirator support as an alternative to the "Do Not Resuscitate" order. The appellants recalled Schonberg for the purpose of testifying that such respirator support constituted a "reasonable alternative" and therefore, it should have been discussed. We do not agree with the appellant's contentions in this regard. Rather, we agree with the appellees' argument, that the appellants' proffered rebuttal testimony merely amounts to an attempt to reopen their case, and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow this testimony. It is well established that the trial court has broad discretion in permitting or excluding evidence that is offered as rebuttal evidence. Moreover, the trial court's discretion is especially broad in the situation where the plaintiff's proffered rebuttal evidence is such that it could have and should have been part of its case-in-chief. As a general rule, the conduct of trials and the order of introducing testimony, subject to well established rules of practice and procedure, rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that rule is applicable to the admissibility of evidence in rebuttal which could and should have been introduced by the plaintiff in chief. Syl. pt. 9, Edmiston v. Wilson, 146 W. Va. 511, 120 S.E.2d 491 (1961). Professor Cleckley has spoken to this situation: "Here, the plaintiff is merely requesting an opportunity to do in rebuttal what should have been done in the case in chief. This is not true rebuttal. Rather, it is analogous to a request to permit the plaintiff to reopen its case." Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 3.1(A), at 55 (2d ed. 1986). The United States Supreme Court has held the following with respect to the trial court's discretion in permitting or excluding rebuttal testimony: The trial judge must meet situations as they arise and to do this must have broad power to cope with the complexities and contingencies inherent in the adversary process. To this end, he may determine generally the order in which parties will adduce proof; his determination will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Goldsby v. United States, 160 U.S. 70 , 74, 16 S. Ct. 216, 218, 40 L. Ed. 343, 345 (1895); United States v. Martinez-Villanueva, 463 F.2d 1336 (CA9 1972); Nelson v. United States, 415 F.2d 483, 487 (CA5 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1060, 90 S. Ct. 751, 24 L. Ed. 2d 754 (1970). Within limits, the judge may control the scope of rebuttal testimony, United States v. Chrzanowski, 502 F.2d 573, 575-576 (CA3 1974); United States v. Perez, 491 F.2d 167, 173 (CA9), cert. denied sub nom., Lombera v. United States, 419 U.S. 858, 95 S. Ct. 106, 42 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1974); may refuse to allow cumulative, repetitive, or irrelevant testimony, Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 127, 94 S. Ct. 2887, 2912, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590, 626 (1974); Count of Macon v. Shores, 97 U.S. 272 , 24 L. Ed. 889 (1877); and may control the scope of examination of witnesses, United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 , 231, 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2166, 45 L. Ed. 2d 141, 149 (1975); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 83, 62 S. Ct. 457, 470, 86 L. Ed. 680, 706 (1942). If truth and fairness are not to be sacrificed, the judge must exert substantial control over the proceedings. Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 , 86-87, 96 S. Ct. 1330, 1334-35, 47 L. Ed. 2d 592, 598 (1976). The components mentioned above by the United States Supreme Court are now reflected in Rule 611(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.See footnote 4 Rule 611(a) provides: Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation . (a) Control by Court.--The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. The trial court's discretion in permitting or excluding rebuttal evidence comes within the ambit of Rule 611(a). "Reopening of a case, recalling of a witness, and the acceptance or rejection of rebuttal testimony are . . . examples of situations in which the trial judge must . . . determine how the aims of Rule 611(a) can best be implemented. . . . [H]is decision will rarely be disturbed on appeal." 3 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 611[01], at 30-31 (1991) (emphasis supplied) (footnotes omitted).See footnote 5 Accordingly, we hold that under Rule 611(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, a trial court has broad discretion in permitting or excluding the admission of rebuttal testimony, and this Court will not disturb the ruling of a trial court on the admissibility of rebuttal evidence unless there has been an abuse of discretion.See footnote 6 In this case, as we stated previously, we believe that the testimony proffered as rebuttal by the appellants, in reality, amounts to nothing more than an attempt to reopen their case. The substance of the testimony by Dr. Schonberg that the appellants attempted to have admitted as "rebuttal" was already testified to by that witness during the appellants' (plaintiffs') case-in-chief. Concerning the issue of whether there existed a national standard throughout the United States for having a specific policy on "Do Not Resuscitate" orders, Dr. Schonberg testified on direct examination, as part of the appellants' case-in-chief, that not including Larry in the decision to issue that type of order was inappropriate for the following reasons: Because that was the national standard, that mature minors, 17 year olds, for any major position, for an amputation, for chemotherapy, for allowing them to die, if they were mature, if they were capable, if they could understand, they had to be part of the discussion relative to their subsequent care. To give other advice would be in conflict with what is national standard, was national standard in 1986. As part of Dr. Schonberg's proffered rebuttal testimony, he was asked: "[I]n 1986, did the national standard for physicians and hospitals require that the parents and the minor, or the parents or the minor, consent to any treatment or the withholding of any treatment?" Dr. Schonberg replied that "[a] national standard in 1986, that, in dealing with the mature minor, that that mature minor would need to be informed, and one would need to receive his assent to do any major procedure. Here again, regarding Do Not Resuscitate as a major procedure or a nonprocedure." With respect to the testimony regarding whether the morphine sulphate given to Larry harmed him, Dr. Schonberg, on direct examination during the appellants' case-in-chief, testified that "the administration of morphine to a patient with respiratory compromise, a patient who has a high blood carbon dioxide level, the administration of morphine under those circumstances, if you don't intend to resuscitate the patient if they stop breathing, that is contraindicated and that is a mistake." Furthermore, on cross-examination during the appellants' case-in-chief, Dr. Schonberg testified that because Larry was administered the morphine sulphate when his carbon dioxide level was already very high, it "decreased his ability to respond to that, and it was a contributing factor in his downhill course. Now, that the morphine sulphate was gone or, for pharmacologic purposes, gone five hours later, doesn't excuse what it would have done to him physiologically earlier on in the evening[.]" Turning to the testimony concerning the consent of Larry, and whether he was a mature minor so as to give consent to issuing the "Do Not Resuscitate" order, Dr. Schonberg testified on direct examination that the national standard of care was that a mature minor must be involved in such discussions. On cross-examination, Dr. Schonberg testified that a 17-year-old minor cannot be denied his right to give consent to a surgical procedure. Finally, regarding the testimony of whether long-term respirator support would constitute a "reasonable alternative" to the "Do Not Resuscitate" order, Dr. Schonberg testified on direct and cross-examination that informed consent consists of understanding the available alternatives and balancing risks pertaining to such alternatives. As can be plainly seen from the testimony above, which was given during the appellants' case-in-chief, any attempt to testify to these issues again, as proffered rebuttal, is in reality, an attempt to reopen the appellants' case. We agree with the ruling of the circuit court which was issued after hearing the proffered rebuttal testimony. In that ruling, the circuit court stated: I find that during [Dr. Schonberg's] testimony in chief regarding the consent policy and so forth that he went into this morning, proposed to go into regarding CAMC, that that matter was presented by him to the jury during his testimony in chief and that what he proposed to tell the jury today was not in rebuttal, nothing new, nothing significant and new, and nothing that could not have been explored originally if it was felt necessary. Based upon the above, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow admission of the appellants' rebuttal testimony. B. Consent of Minor The appellant also contends that informed consent by Larry, even though he was a minor, should have been required before issuing the "Do No Resuscitate" order. This issue implicates the giving of certain instructions, particularly the Court's Instruction No. 12, which follows this Court's holding in Cross v. Trapp, 170 W. Va. 459, 294 S.E.2d 446 (1982). 1. Liability of CAMC The appellee CAMC points out that the Cross holding stands for the proposition that the medical decisions made by the patient are between the physician and the patient, or the patient's parents/guardians, and not the hospital. We agree. In syllabus point 7 to Cross, we held: When a patient asserts that a particular method of medical treatment, such as surgery, was performed by the patient's privately retained physician without the patient's consent, the hospital where that treatment was performed will ordinarily not be held liable to the patient upon the consent issue, where the physician involved was not an agent or employee of the hospital during the period in question. In Cross, we relied upon the holding of the Court of Appeals of New York in Fiorentino v. Wenger, 280 N.Y.S.2d 373 (1967). In Fiorentino, the New York court stated that "it would not be just for a court, having the benefit of hindsight, to impose liability on a hospital for its failure to intervene in the independent physician-patient relationship." 280 N.Y.S.2d at 379. The appellants urge this Court to move away from this principle. In support of their contention, the appellants cite the case of Felice v. St. Agnes Hospital, 411 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978) for the proposition that the holding enunciated in Fiorentino has been left in doubt. We do not agree with this contention. In Felice, the court stated: Present day hospitals, as their manner of operation demonstrates, do far more than furnish facilities for treatment. . . . Whatever may have been the case in earlier times, today the hospital takes an increasingly active part in supplying and regulating the purely medical care the patient receives. The fact that certain doctors are not employees of a hospital does not mean such institution cannot be held liable for adverse effects of treatment or surgery approved by the doctors. 411 N.Y.S.2d at 907 (citation omitted). However, as the appellants acknowledge, Felice does not deal with the issue of a hospital's liability due to failing to obtain informed consent, but with the general issue of a hospital's liability for the acts of its physicians. The court in Felice says nothing to indicate that the holding of Fiorentino has been left in doubt.See footnote 7 See also Pauscher v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center, 408 N.W.2d 355 , 362 (Iowa 1987) (Hospital has no "duty to inform a patient of matters that lie at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship."); Wilson v. Lockwood, 711 S.W.2d 545 , 549 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986) ("[H]ospital has no duty to inform the patient of risks of surgery and alternative methods of treatment simply because it furnishes a consent-to-surgery form."); Ritter v. Delaney, 790 S.W.2d 29, 32 (Tex. Ct. App. 1990) (Doctor ordering nurse to get patient's signature on permit to operate does not make hospital the doctor's agent, thus imposing upon hospital a duty to obtain informed consent of patient.). The appellee CAMC maintains that the reasoned logic behind syllabus point 7 of Cross is as sound today as it was when Cross was decided ten years ago. Specifically, the appellee CAMC points to the special relationship between a patient and his or her physician, asserting that a requirement to involve the hospital personnel would be disruptive rather than facilitative to the consent process. In this case, the record is clear that the employees of the hospital were aware of the discussions between Dr. Ayoubi and Larry's parents, and that it was apparent that Larry's parents consented to the treatment given. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the appellee Ayoubi was privately retained, and the appellants could have chosen to not seek his treatment for Larry.See footnote 8 We agree with the appellee CAMC on this point, and therefore, we reaffirm our holding in syllabus point 7 to Cross v. Trapp. Consequently, the judgment of the circuit court as to CAMC is affirmed. 2. Liability of Dr. Ayoubi As stated previously, the appellants contend that the minor decedent, Larry, should have been consulted in this case prior to issuance of the "Do Not Resuscitate" order. Consequently, we address the "mature minor" exception to the common law rule that parental consent is required prior to rendering medical treatment to a minor. The traditional common law approach to minors and consent to treatment has undergone a number of modifications. Medical emergencies have provided an inroad, permitting treatment without parental consent in certain situations. The 'mature minor' and 'emancipated minor' rules, in which certain children are considered capable of giving consent, have also gained recognition. Many of these changes have come through case law, but to a certain degree legislative action is accountable for the more enlightened attitude toward the minor and her ability to authorize treatment. Fay A. Rozovsky, Consent to Treatment § 5.2 (2d ed. 1990). The appellee Ayoubi asserts that the appellant is attempting to improperly change the common law where there is no legislative direction by statute. However, the appellee Ayoubi concedes that under appropriate circumstances, the medical standard of care requires that minors be consulted if they are mature and if the circumstances of the particular case do not militate against such consultation.See footnote 9 In Cross v. Trapp, 170 W. Va. 459, 294 S.E.2d 446 (1982), we reiterated in syllabus point 1 thereto the well-established principle concerning consent to medical procedures: "Except in very extreme cases, a surgeon has no legal right to operate upon a patient without his consent, nor upon a child without the consent of its parent or guardian." Browning v. Hoffman, 90 W. Va. 568, 581, 111 S.E. 492, 497 (1922) (emphasis supplied). In this case, the circuit court's instruction to the jury on this point provided: "Ordinarily, a privately retained physician has no legal right to render or withhold medical treatment to a patient without his consent, nor upon a child without the consent of his parents. Under West Virginia law a child is any person under the age of 18 years." (emphasis supplied) Obviously, the circuit court's instruction followed the principle enunciated in Browning. Although we believe that the Browning principle with respect to the consent of minors remains a sound statement of law, a more workable approach would be recognition that minors who are mature may be involved in the medical decisions that affect their livelihood. As Dean Pound has stated: "The law must be stable, but it must not stand still." Roscoe Pound, Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (1922). One of the first reported cases involving a mature minor exception to the general common law rule requiring parental consent to medical treatment of minors was in the 1906 decision in Bakker v. Welsh, 108 N.W. 94 (1906), wherein the Supreme Court of Michigan held that a surgeon was not liable to a father for performing an operation to remove an ear tumor on a seventeen-year-old boy where the boy's father had not given consent and the boy died during the administration of anesthetic. Although it is not clear exactly who gave the consent to surgery, the boy was accompanied by an aunt and a sister, and "they all understood an operation should be performed the following day." Id. at 95. A more recent delineation of the mature minor rule has come from the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Cardwell v. Bechtol, 724 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. 1987). In that case, Tennessee's highest court adopted the mature minor exception to the general common law rule requiring parental consent to medical treatment of minors. In Cardwell, a young woman, seventeen years and seven months old, went to see the defendant doctor on her own initiative, and without her parent's knowledge, seeking relief from back pain. The defendant did not inquire about parental consent prior to rendering manipulative therapy because he believed, based upon the young woman's demeanor, that she was of age, and also that she had sought his treatment because he had previously treated her father. The parents of the young woman brought an action against the defendant after complications from the treatment arose. Following appeals from the lower courts, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the defendant could not be held liable on a theory of battery for failing to obtain the consent of the minor's parents.See footnote 10 In determining the capacity, and ultimately the maturity of a minor, the court in Cardwell stated: Whether a minor has the capacity to consent to medical treatment depends upon the age, ability, experience, education, training, and degree of maturity or judgment obtained by the minor, as well as upon the conduct and demeanor of the minor at the time of the incident involved. Moreover, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the treatment and its risks or probable consequences, and the minor's ability to appreciate the risks and consequences are to be considered. Cardwell, 724 S.W.2d at 748. In adopting the mature minor exception, the Tennessee court acknowledged that that state's legislature has enacted several provisions concerning medical treatment of minors without parental consent, such as treatment for drug abuse and venereal disease. Similarly, in this case, the appellee Ayoubi contends that because this state's legislature has spoken to the same type of exceptions, then this indicates a legislative intent to reject the mature minor rule.See footnote 11 We do not agree. Rather, we agree with the Tennessee Cardwell court's answer to this assertion. "We do not think that the conclusion that these statutes are intended to abrogate judicial adoption of an exception to the general common law rule requiring parental consent to treat minors can be supported by the express terms of any of these provisions." 724 S.W.2d at 744. Rather, that court found "no indication in any of the statutes of any intent on the part of the Legislature to establish a comprehensive statutory scheme to occupy the area of medical treatment of minors in its entirety." Id. (emphasis supplied) The court went on to point out that the statutes where the legislature has expressly provided for only consent by the minor "do no more than provide conditional immunities from certain types of liability in specific situations (where such immunities were not otherwise clear in the law) or promote certain social purposes, such as treatment of drug abuse or venereal disease in minors." Id. We agree with the holding of Cardwell, and we believe that the mature minor exception is part of the common law rule of parental consent of this state. It is difficult to imagine that a young person who is under the age of majority, yet, who has undergone medical treatment for a permanent or recurring illness over the course of a long period of time, may not be capable of taking part in decisions concerning that treatment. See footnote 12 Clearly, this would be a matter for the jury to decide, and not for this Court to speculate. However, we believe that this must also be tempered by a recognition that there is no "hard and fast" rule that would provide a particular age for determining a mature minor.See footnote 13 As the Tennessee court cautioned in Cardwell, "[a]doption of the mature minor exceptions to the common law rule is by no means a general license to treat minors without parental consent and its application is dependent on the facts of each case. It must be seen in the context of the tort in question." Cardwell, 724 S.W.2d at 745. We are aware that this is a very difficult area of the law when put into practice, especially in light of the age-old principle that "hindsight is 20/20." Furthermore, it is obvious that this places the doctor in the difficult position of making the determination of whether the minor at issue is mature. We recognize the delicate nature of this position, and that the decision by the doctor on the maturity level of a minor will often be second-guessed. Consequently, the doctor, as in every other decision with which he or she is faced, must exercise his or her best medical judgment.See footnote 14 However, in spite of the difficulty brought on by this issue, we agree with the observation that "the answer will be found in statutory laws of consent that incorporate an element of the mature minor rule." Rozovsky, supra § 5.2.2, at 265 (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, our holding in this case is nothing more than a recognition that the mature minor exception to the common law rule of parental consent in this state exists. The legislature, of course, may, by statute, prohibit recognition of the principles enunciated herein.See footnote 15 Obviously, application of the mature minor rule would vary from case to case. The focus would be on the maturity level of the minor at issue, and whether that minor has the capacity to appreciate the nature and risks involved of the procedure to be performed, or the treatment to be administered or withheld. "In current practice, judicial application of the 'mature minor' exception where an objective appraisal of the circumstances indicates that the minor was informed and understood the nature and consequences of the procedure in question." Lawrence P. Wilkins, Children's Rights: Removing the Parental Consent Barrier to Medical Treatment of Minors, 1975 Ariz. St. L. J. 31, 52 (1975). Accordingly, we hold that except in very extreme cases, a physician has no legal right to perform a procedure upon, or administer or withhold treatment from a patient without the patient's consent, nor upon a child without the consent of the child's parents or guardian, unless the child is a mature minor, in which case the child's consent would be required. Whether a child is a mature minor is a question of fact. Whether the child has the capacity to consent depends upon the age, ability, experience, education, training, and degree of maturity or judgment obtained by the child, as well as upon the conduct and demeanor of the child at the time of the procedure or treatment. The factual determination would also involve whether the minor has the capacity to appreciate the nature, risks, and consequences of the medical procedure to be performed, or the treatment to be administered or withheld. Where there is a conflict between the intentions of one or both parents and the minor, the physician's good faith assessment of the minor's maturity level would immunize him or her from liability for the failure to obtain parental consent. To the extent that Browning v. Hoffman, 90 W. Va. 568, 111 S.E.2d 492 (1922) and its progeny are inconsistent herewith, it is modified. In this case, the appellee Ayoubi contends that the question of whether Larry should have consented to the withholding of treatment need not even be reached because there was expert testimony that Larry was not mature enough to give such consent. While we make no decision on whether such evidence was sufficient to support the appellee Ayoubi's claim in this regard, the circuit court's error was the failure to instruct the jury that it could consider Larry's maturity level in deciding whether, as a matter of fact, Larry was mature so as to consent to his medical treatment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court on the liability of Dr. Ayoubi, and remand this case to that court so that, consistent with our adoption of the mature minor exception to the common law rule of parental consent to the medical treatment of minors, it may try the issue of whether Larry came within this exception so as to be entitled to consent to the treatment involved. III. In summary, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is affirmed for reasons stated in this opinion in section II(A) with respect to the circuit court's refusal to allow admission of the proffered rebuttal evidence; and section II(B)(1) with respect to the judgment of no liability on the part of CAMC. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is reversed, however, for reasons stated in section II(B)(2), with respect to the mature minor exception, and this case is remanded.See footnote 16 Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded. Footnote: 1Larry Belcher, Sr., and his wife, Drema Belcher, are also plaintiffs below, individually, but not appellants herein in those capacities. However, because the facts of this case involve repeated references to Mr. and Mrs. Belcher, we refer to them as the "appellants" in this opinion so as to avoid confusion. Footnote: 2There is a factual dispute over whether the phrase "or resuscitated" appeared on the progress note before or after the appellants saw and signed it. This factual conflict, however, was before the jury, and no error is raised alleging that the circuit court prohibited it from being developed before the jury. In any event, this point has no bearing on this case because our decision does not address factual discrepancies, but the appropriate legal standard that should have been applied. Footnote: 3The "Do Not Resuscitate" order is also known as a "No 1-2-3" order, which is generally understood to direct hospital personnel to not assist or intervene when the patient is confronted with a life-threatening situation. Footnote: 4Rule 611(a) is identical to Rule 611(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Footnote: 5Professor Cleckley also notes that under Rule 611(a) the trial court has broad discretion in permitting or excluding rebuttal evidence. Cleckley, supra § 3.1(A), at 55 (citing Geders). Footnote: 6In the context of criminal law, we have held that even if the proffered testimony does constitute rebuttal evidence, it is subject to a harmless error analysis. "The admissibility of evidence as rebuttal is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of such discretion does not constitute ground for reversal unless it is prejudicial to the defendant." Syl. pt. 4, State v. Blankenship, 137 W. Va. 1, 69 S.E.2d 398 (1952), overruled on another point, State v. McAboy, 160 W. Va. 497, 498 n. 1, 236 S.E.2d 431 , 432 n. 1 (1977). Accord, syl. pt. 4, State v. Peyatt, 173 W. Va. 317, 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983). Footnote: 7Moreover, even if Fiorentino was expressly overruled, this would not necessarily abrogate the holding of this Court's Cross case. Footnote: 8Liability may be imposed on a hospital where the patient did not choose the treating doctor, but is forced to rely on the hospital's choice. "Where a patient goes to a hospital seeking medical services and is forced to rely on the hospital's choice of physician to render those services, the hospital may be found vicariously liable for the physician's negligence." Syl. pt. 2, Thomas v. Raleigh General Hospital, 178 W. Va. 138, 358 S.E.2d 222 (1987). See also syl. pt. 1, Torrence v. Kusminsky, 185 W. Va. 734, 408 S.E.2d 684 (1991) (Hospital is estopped from denying that its emergency room physicians and other medical personnel are its agents where the hospital makes emergency room treatment available to serve the public as an integral part of its facilities.). Footnote: 9The appellee Ayoubi also contends that the issue of whether Larry should have been consulted has been waived by the appellants because it was not argued as a legal issue in the court below. We do not agree with this assessment. The appellants did offer an instruction stating that the standard of care required the consent of not only the appellants, but of Larry as well. Footnote: 10The appellee Ayoubi points out that Cardwell involved consent to treatment of the mature minor as opposed to assent, that is, affirmatively seeking treatment instead of merely allowing treatment to be administered or withheld. We believe that this distinction is inapposite for purposes of our recognition of the mature minor exception to the common law rule. Our holding herein applies to not only procedures performed, but treatment administered and withheld as well. Footnote: 11See, e.g., W. Va. Code, 16-4-10 [1971] (allowing treatment of minor for venereal disease without parental consent); W. Va. Code, 60-6-23 [1977] (allowing treatment of minor for addiction to or dependency on alcohol without parental consent); and W. Va. Code, 60A-5-504(e) [1973] (allowing treatment of minor for addiction to or dependency on controlled substance without parental consent). See also W. Va. Code, 16-30-3(a) [1991] (allowing a competent person "eighteen years of age or older" to execute a living will); and W. Va. Code, 16-30A-2(b) [1990] (recognizing that "capable adult" may execute a medical power of attorney). We note that the legislature has already spoken to the treatment of minors in emergency situations where parental consent is not obtained. W. Va. Code, 16-4C-17 [1984] provides, in relevant part: No emergency medical services personnel may be subject to civil liability, based solely upon failure to obtain consent in rendering emergency medical services to any individual regardless of age where the patient is unable to give his consent for any reason, including minority, and where there is no other person reasonably available who is legally authorized to consent to the providing of such care or who is legally authorized to refuse to consent to the providing of such care. Footnote: 12It has been observed: Children today are more 'streetwise' and knowledgeable than children were even a few decades ago. Some children of very tender years exposed to continuous types of care are able to give or refuse consent. They may be far more skilled at discussing the pros and cons, the risks and benefits of bone marrow transplants or chemotherapy than a first-year medical student. However, there are also teenagers and young adults who lack the maturity to understand the risks of pregnancy from casual sex and the importance of contraception. Rozovsky, supra § 5.2.2, at 265. Footnote: 13In Cardwell, the court discussed the so-called "Rule of Sevens," which is often applied in the area of tort liability. Recently, this Court discussed the "Rule of Sevens" as it applied to the law of negligence. Syl. pts. 1-3, Pino v. Szuch, 185 W. Va. 476, 408 S.E.2d 55 (1991) (child under age of seven conclusively presumed incapable of negligence; rebuttable presumption that child between seven and fourteen is incapable of negligence; and child fourteen or older is presumed capable of negligence). While this rule may be instructive as a starting point in determining minor maturity, the ultimate determination will vary from case to case. Footnote: 14This case is another of many illustrations of the need for good record-keeping in the medical profession. Needless to point out, once the doctor has determined that the minor is mature, this determination should be duly noted as part of the patient's records. In this type of case, there is little room for variations in progress notes and treatment orders, such as the notation disputed in this case. See note 2 supra. Footnote: 15We note that under W. Va. Code, 49-7-27 [1977], "[a] child over the age of sixteen may petition a [circuit] court to be declared emancipated." If such petition is granted, "[a]n emancipated child shall have all of the privileges, rights and duties of an adult[.]" Other states have legislation which actually provides the mature minor exception which we today recognize. See Ark. Code Ann. § 20-9-602(7) [Michie 1981]; Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-3(h) [1984]. Footnote: 16We decline to address assignments of error concerning other instructions inasmuch as they are without merit.

c8f7c75e9e9969c4cb5997ec06e746e6734cd20108a5f113e24f77b27fbe8939

1992-07-15 00:00:00

5630d6de-843d-4b23-9626-39431390b136

Willard et al. v. Whited

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

, v. Whited Willard et al., v. Whited Annotate this Case Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2001 Term __________ FILED RELEASED No. 29327 __________ RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA November 30, 2001 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA December 3, 2001 GERALDINE WILLARD AND DENZIL RHODES, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ALMA WHITED, DECEASED, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants v. GARY EUGENE WHITED, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DELBERT R. WHITED, DECEASED, Defendant Below, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County Honorable Charles E. McCarty, Judge Civil Action No. 99-C-110 AFFIRMED __________________________________________________________________ Submitted: November 7, 2001 Filed: November 30, 2001 Joseph C. Hash, Jr., Esq. Ravenswood, West Virginia Attorney for Appellants Kennad Lee Skeen, Esq. Skeen & Skeen Ripley, West Virginia Attorney for Appellee The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM. CHIEF JUSTICE MCGRAW and JUSTICE ALBRIGHT dissent and reserve the right to file dissenting opinions. JUSTICE STARCHER concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Before the prosecution of a lawsuit may be barred on the basis of res judicata, three elements must be satisfied. First, there must have been a final adjudication on the merits in the prior action by a court having jurisdiction of the proceedings. Second, the two actions must involve either the same parties or persons in privity with those same parties. Third, the cause of action identified for resolution in the subsequent proceeding either must be identical to the cause of action determined in the prior action or must be such that it could have been resolved, had it been presented, in the prior action. Syllabus Point 4, Blake v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., 201 W.Va. 469, 498 S.E.2d 41 (1997). 2. An adjudication by a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties is final and conclusive, not only as to the matters actually determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated as incident thereto and coming within the legitimate purview of the subject-matter of the action. It is not essential that the matter should have been formally put in issue in a former suit, but it is sufficient that the status of the suit was such that the parties might have had the matter disposed of on its merits. An erroneous ruling of the court will not prevent the matter from being res judicata. Syllabus Point 1, Sayre's Adm'r v. Harpold, 33 W.Va. 553, 11 S.E. 16 (1890). Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Shrewsbury v. Hrko, 206 W.Va. 646, 527 S.E.2d 508 (1999). 3. A declaratory judgment action can not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal. Syllabus Point 3, Hustead on Behalf of Adkins v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 197 W.Va. 55, 475 S.E.2d 55 (1996). i Per Curiam: This case is before this Court upon appeal of a final order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County entered on June 29, 2000. In that order, the circuit court granted a motion to dismiss filed by the appellee and defendant below, Gary Eugene Whited, Executor of the Estate of Delbert R. Whited, deceased, in this action filed by the appellants and plaintiffs below, Geraldine Willard and Denzil Rhodes, Co-executors of the Estate of Alma Whited, deceased, seeking declaratory judgment to settle the estate of Alma Whited. In this appeal, the appellants contend that the circuit court erred by dismissing the case. This Court has before it, the petition for appeal, the entire record, and the briefs and argument of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the final order of the circuit court is affirmed. I. Delbert and Alma Whited were married on April 18, 1982. This was the second marriage for both of them and each had previously acquired numerous assets. During their marriage, Delbert and Alma Whited continued to maintain the majority of their assets separately although they did establish some joint banking accounts. On December 8, 1994, Alma Whited died at the age of 81. Before her death, Alma Whited executed a will which bequeathed $500 to her husband and the rest and residue of her estate to her brothers and sisters. After his wife s death, Delbert Whited 1 sought his elective share of her estate rather than taking the bequest made to him in her will. Accordingly, he brought an action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Whited v. Willard, et al., Civil Action No. 96-C-49, to determine his elective share of his wife s estate pursuant to W.Va. Code § 42-3-1 (1995). The matter was referred to a special commissioner who determined that Delbert Whited s statutory share was 38% of the augmented estate. See W.Va. Code § 42-3-1 (1995). The augmented estate included Alma Whited s net probate estate totaling $117,801.00 and her reclaimable estate totaling $84,923.00. Using the elective share formula, Delbert Whited s elective share was calculated to be $77,035.00. On June 9, 1998, the special commissioner issued a written report which stated, in pertinent part: That judgment by award of the elective share should be rendered as follows: Based on the numbers provided at the hearing and in all other forms offered by respective counsel, and upon calculation through the elective share formula, the amount should be $77,035.00, as of the date of the hearing. In calculating the final amount due and owing, counsel must exchange proof of all interest earned on the accounts held by the estate in order that 38% percent [sic] of that income will also be paid as part of the elective share due Plaintiff. On August 6, 1998, the circuit court entered a final order in the action approving the June 9, 1998 report of the special commissioner and directing the parties to carry out and implement its provisions. Subsequently, Delbert Whited died. 2 On August 27, 1999, Geraldine Willard, et al., the appellants herein,1 filed a motion requesting the court to fix and determine certain matters pertaining to the special commissioner s report. The circuit court determined that it no longer had jurisdiction as the judgment had been in effect for over a year and the motion for relief from judgment was not timely within the meaning of Rule 60 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the motion was denied. Thereafter, the appellants filed the complaint in the case sub judice. The complaint was brought pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, W.Va. Code §§ 55-13-1 to -16 (1941), and alleged that the appellants were entitled to credits or offsets on the elective share amount of $77,035.00 for those assets over which they had no control or access, namely the joint banking accounts of Alma and Delbert Whited. In other words, the appellants claimed that Delbert Whited maintained control over certain bank accounts he held jointly with his wife and that these accounts were never a part of Alma Whited s estate. Nonetheless, these accounts were included in the special commissioner s calculations to determine the amount of Delbert Whited s elective share. The appellants asserted that because they never had control of these assets as the executors of Alma Whited s estate, the total amount of these assets should be offset or credited against Delbert Whited s elective share. 1 It appears that Geraldine Willard, Denzil Rhodes, and other brothers and sisters of Alma Whited were parties in the first action. However, the complaint in this case was only filed by Geraldine Willard and Denzil Rhodes as the co-executors of Alma Whited s estate. 3 On January 7, 2000, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the case should be dismissed under the theory of res judicata. The circuit court determined that the case had in fact already been adjudicated and granted the motion to dismiss. This appeal followed. II. The appellants contend that they were entitled to bring this action pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, W.Va. Code § 55-13-1 to -16 (1941). In particular, the appellants rely upon W.Va. Code § 55-13-2 which provides: Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. The appellants maintain that this statute was designed to settle controversies like the one in the case at bar where counsel for the respective parties have been unable to carry out the terms of a court order which presumed that the parties would be able to resolve the matter. 4 In response, the appellee asserts that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act cannot be used to reopen matters that have already been concluded. We agree. The order of the circuit court entered on August 6, 1999 in the prior civil action constituted a final adjudication on the merits with regard to Delbert Whited s elective share. Any attempt to collaterally challenge the amount owed to Delbert Whited s estate is barred by the principles of res judicata. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suitinvolving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action. Porter v. McPherson, 198 W.Va. 158, 166, 479 S.E.2d 668, 676 (1996), quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 n. 5, 58 L.Ed.2d 552, 559 n. 5 (1979) (footnote omitted). In Syllabus Point 4 of Blake v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., 201 W.Va. 469, 498 S.E.2d 41 (1997), this Court held that: Before the prosecution of a lawsuit may be barred on the basis of res judicata, three elements must be satisfied. First, there must have been a final adjudication on the merits in the prior action by a court having jurisdiction of the proceedings. Second, the two actions must involve either the same parties or persons in privity with those same parties. Third, the cause of action identified for resolution in the subsequent proceeding either must be identical to the cause of action determined in the prior action or must be such that it could have been resolved, had it been presented, in the prior action. As noted above, there was a final adjudication on the merits in the previous action. In addition, this case involves the same parties who participated in the firstaction. Finally, the issue presented in this case could have been resolved had it been presented in the prior action. 5 While the appellants claim that the issue sought to be resolved in this declaratory judgment action did not arise until the previous case had been concluded, it is clear that the appellants could have litigated this matter in the prior suit. The appellants obviously knew before the final order was entered in the previous case that the joint banking accounts of Alma and Delbert Whited were never going to be made a part of Alma Whited s estate. As this Court observed in Syllabus Point 1 of State ex rel. Shrewsbury v. Hrko, 206 W.Va. 646, 527 S.E.2d 508 (1999): An adjudication by a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties is final and conclusive, not only as to the matters actually determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated as incident theretoand coming within the legitimate purview of the subject-matter of the action. It is not essential that the matter should have been formally put in issue in a former suit, but it is sufficient that the status of the suit was such that the parties might have had the matter disposed of on its merits. An erroneous ruling of the court will not prevent the matter from being res judicata. Syllabus Point 1, Sayre's Adm'r v. Harpold, 33 W.Va. 553, 11 S.E. 16 (1890). Moreover, this Court has previously determined that a collateral attack on a final judgment in a civil action through a declaratory judgment action after the doctrine of res judicata has attached is not permissible. In Hustead on Behalf of Adkins v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 197 W.Va. 55, 475 S.E.2d 55 (1996), the guardian ad litem of infant plaintiffs in an airpollution lawsuit brought a declaratory judgment action to have a court-approved settlement agreement invalidated. The final order approving the settlement in the previous action had been entered ten months earlier and the guardian admittedly chose not to file a direct appeal from the circuit court s final order. Having determined that the guardian was attempting to use the declaratory judgment action as a substitute for a direct appeal, this Court stated: 6 There is, however, no law in West Virginia that permits a declaratory judgment action to be used as a collateral attack on a final civil judgment. Moreover, we agree with other jurisdictions that have expresslyruled that [a]bsent special circumstances, an action for a declaratory judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal.... School Comm., 482 N.E.2d at 801; accord Alabama Public Serv. Comm'n v. AAA Motor Lines, Inc., 272 Ala. 362, 131 So.2d 172, 177, cert. denied 368 U.S. 896, 82 S.Ct. 173, 7 L.Ed.2d 93 (1961) (stating that declaratory judgment cannot be made a substitute for appeal ); see Hospital Underwriting Group, Inc. v. Summit Health Ltd., 63 F.3d 486, 495 (6th Cir.1995)(citing Shattuck v. Shattuck, 67 Ariz. 122, 192 P.2d 229, 235-36 (1948)) (stating that under Arizona law, judgments are not set aside by collateral declaratory judgment actions ); Tri-State Generation and Transmission Co. v. City of Thornton, 647 P.2d 670, 676-77 n. 7 (Colo.1982)(stating that a party may not seek to accomplish by a declaratory judgment what it can no longer accomplish directly.... ); Fertitta v. Brown, 252 Md. 594, 251 A.2d 212, 215 (1969)(stating that [d]eclaratory proceedings were not intended to and should not serve as a substitute for appellate review or as a belated appeal ). Hustead, 197 W.Va. at 61, 475 S.E.2d at 61. Thus, we held in Syllabus Point 3 of Hustead that [a] declaratory judgment action can not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal. 2 While there may be other ways that the appellants can dispute the specific amount owed, and by whom, to Delbert Whited s estate to satisfy his elective share, a declaratory judgment action is not a viable option. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we find that the circuit court properly dismissed this case. Accordingly, the final order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County entered on June 29, 2000 is affirmed. Affirmed. 2 We note that we are disappointed that neither party cited the Hustead case in their briefs or during oral argument. 7 8

0c45e0fbb1f32808454185e9c6acfaf0c31326f5f033f0aa99ae9d9b9ff672bc

2002-06-17 00:00:00

bd2299d0-1ad6-44ed-a603-0f5c6a50b4c4

Nellas v. Loucas

191 S.E.2d 160

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Nellas v. Loucas Annotate this Case 191 S.E.2d 160 (1972) Victoria Paparodis NELLAS et al., etc. v. George E. LOUCAS, Deceased, and Emmanuel B. Loucas, as Exec., etc. No. 13044. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted May 2, 1972. Decided September 6, 1972. *161 McCamic & McCamic, Jeremy C. McCamic, Wheeling, for appellants. Goodwin, Mead & Goodwin, Thomas A. Goodwin, Wheeling, for appellee. HADEN, Judge: This is an appeal from a final order of the Circuit Court of Hancock County, West Virginia, setting aside a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs below, (hereinafter called the Paparodis heirs). That final order entered May 20, 1970, permitted the appellee, George E. Loucas, (hereinafter called the "lawyer" or "defendant"), to amend his answer pursuant to Rule 15(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter cited as W.Va. R.C.P.), and affirmatively plead the statute of limitations as a complete bar to the action. In the same order, judgment was entered for the lawyer and costs awarded in his favor. During the pendency of this appeal the defendant, George E. Loucas, died and this action has been *162 revived in the name of his executor, Emmanuel B. Loucas. The case arose when the Paparodis heirs, Ohio residents, sued the lawyer, a West Virginia resident and one of the attorneys handling their deceased father's estate, for either a breach of an employment contract or the tort of malpractice arising from a failure of the lawyer to file a timely federal estate tax return resulting in loss to the estate in form of penalties assessed in addition to tax due. The language of the complaint is vague and less than specific as to whether it sounds in tort or contract. The Paparodis heirs' decedent died December 13, 1956. The estate's federal tax return was due to be filed on March 13, 1958. It was not filed until sometime subsequent to October 1, 1958. This resulted in a penalty of $5,484.83 being assessed against the estate. About five years later on February 14, 1963, the Paparodis heirs instituted this civil action against the lawyer to recover damages based on allegations that he had agreed to perform for compensation, legal services necessary for the prompt, proper, efficient and judicious handling of the administration of the estate then being undertaken by the Ohio attorney Mauro, as local counsel, and that the defendant breached the agreement in that he failed, omitted and neglected to perform it according to its terms. The lawyer's answer and counterclaim denied a breach of any agreement, denied that he failed, omitted and neglected to perform any of his duties in connection with the estate and asserted a counterclaim for $3,000.00 for services performed. The answer did not raise the defense of statute of limitations. No significant development occurred in the case until December 30, 1968 when a pretrial order defining issues, stated the Paparodis heirs' contention that the lawyer, as an attorney representing the estate, had failed to file a timely federal estate tax return which resulted in penalties being assessed against the estate, all of which actions the plaintiffs contended were negligence on the part of the lawyer. The defendant lawyer contended he was only assisting Ohio counsel who had complete charge of the estate administration and any failure to file the return was the obligation of the Ohio counsel and not of the defendant who, consequently, denied liability. Nine months later, on September 29 and 30, 1969, the case was tried. During the trial the issue of the statute of limitations was suggested by Loucas' counsel for the first time at the close of plaintiff's evidence, whereupon counsel for the Paparodis heirs retorted that inasmuch as this issue was not raised by answer, motion to dismiss, or at two pretrial conferences, and was not jurisdictional in nature, it was waived. No action was taken by the trial court. The record is then silent as to the issue of statute of limitations until the close of defendant's evidence, when the lawyer's counsel sought leave of the court to interpose a plea of statute of limitations by amending and supplementing his answer. The trial court stated that he was of the opinion that the evidence presented sounded in tort, not in contract and that under the Ohio statute of limitations, the action was barred at the time it was filed but, that his ruling, saving exceptions, was to be reserved in view of the juries' presence, until counsel had time to adequately brief the question of the statute of limitations, which the court took to be one of law. Subsequently counsel for defendant raised the defense of the statute of limitations by formal motion for directed verdict and the trial court overruled the motion and took the plea of the statute of limitations under advisement. Judgment in the amount of $5,484.83 was entered on the jury verdict September 30, 1969. Pursuant to a motion to set aside the jury verdict and enter judgment in favor of the defendant filed October 6, 1969, the *163 trial court entered the order which is the subject of this appeal. After a successful verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, did the trial court abuse its discretion and thereby commit error: (1) in permitting amendment of defendant's pleading to assert the defense of the statute of limitations, and (2) disposing of the case in favor of the defendant on this ground without the granting of a new trial? This is the question presented for decision and it turns on the parameters of the trial court's discretion and the rules of pleading. A motion to amend a pleading is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion. Perdue v. S. J. Groves and Sons Company, 152 W.Va. 222, 161 S.E.2d 250 (1968); Payne v. Kinder, 147 W.Va. 352, 127 S.E.2d 726 (1962); Grottendick v. Webber, 132 W.Va. 539, 52 S.E.2d 700 (1949); Dickinson v. Rand, 102 W.Va. 574, 136 S.E. 42 (1926). The allowance of an amendment of a pleading by a trial court is not subject to review on appeal except for abuse of discretion. 3 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 15.08 [4] (2d Ed.1968). This is a general rule! The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which, under Rule 8(c), must be pleaded. Harrison v. Thompson, 447 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1971); Jones v. Rogers Memorial Hospital, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 442 F.2d 773 (1971); Eastridge v. Fruehauf Corporation, 52 F.R.D. 129 (D.C.Ky. 1971); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1270 (1969) and cases cited therein. This too, is a general rule! A failure to plead an affirmative defense results in the waiver of that defense and its exclusion from the trial of the case. Skeen v. C and G Corporation, W.Va., 185 S.E.2d 492 (1971); Investors Loan Corporation v. Long, 152 W.Va. 673, 166 S.E.2d 113 (1969); 5 Wright & Miller, supra, § 1278 and cases cited therein. This is also a general rule recognized by this Court! If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits. Rule 15(b), W.Va. R.C.P. Leave granted by the court to amend the pleadings shall be freely given when justice so requires. Rule 15(a), W.Va. R.C.P. Perdue v. S. J. Groves and Sons Company, supra. These general rules, in the words of the procedure which govern the trial of civil cases in this jurisdiction, appear to be clearly contradictory to the previous two rules set forth immediately above. In a nutshell, a trial court's discretion to allow a pleading amendment is error on review only when that court goes beyond the leeway granted it by law. The federal cases construing Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which is identical to Rule 8(c), W.Va. R.C.P., say that the statute of limitations as a bar to an action should only be considered in trial when raised by an 8(c) pleadingan affirmative defense. Otherwise this defense is waived. But Rule 15 indicates that when justice so requires and the merits will be served, any amendment to a pleading, which was seasonable when the action began, shall be permitted. The trial court has permitted an amendment, accepted the plea of the statute of limitations and disposed of the case in favor of defendant though the verdict and judgment went against him. Was the court so wrong that we must declare his action error? Yes, we think so. A trial court must recognize that "trial by ambush", if ever *164 encouraged by common law pleading practices, is rejected now. Since the adoption of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, a litigant should sleep well in the knowledge that his claim or defense may be asserted by "notice" and that he will not be sabotaged in the presentation of his case. So long as his opponent is fairly apprised and presented with the opportunity to contradict, he should not lose the merits of his position by imprecise and less than conclusive pleading. This Court has not previously passed upon the question of whether the statute of limitations must be pleaded affirmatively in defense under Rule 8(c), W.Va. R.C.P. if it is to be a successful bar to an action. We have, however, been presented with this question as it relates to other defenses listed under Rule 8(c). In the case of Investors Loan Corporation v. Long, supra, we held that Rule 8(c) requires that usury must be affirmatively pleaded, and that this Court would not consider this defense when raised for the first time on appeal. In our decision in the case of Dunning v. Barlow & Wisler, Inc., 148 W.Va. 206, 133 S.E.2d 784 (1963), we adverted to the requirement that the doctrine of assumption of risk was not asserted in defendant's answer as required by Rule 8(c) nor apparently tried by express or implied consent of the parties allowable by Rule 15(b) and, therefore, this Court would not on appeal consider this nonjurisdictional question not determined at the trial level. We held in the case of Skeen v. C and G Corporation, supra, that if a party wishes to assert the affirmative defense of waiver it must be pleaded as required in Rule 8(c) or it cannot be considered at trial or as a basis for error on appeal. This decision standing alone would certainly indicate a strict approach to the requirement that under Rule 8(c) affirmative defenses must be pleaded or waived. Since an affirmative defense would defeat plaintiffs' claim if it is accepted by the Court, Rule 8(c) by requiring the defendant to plead his defense or risk waiving it, serves the purpose of giving the opposing party notice of the defense and an opportunity to argue why his claim should not be barred completely. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 , 91 S. Ct. 1434, 28 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1971). For this reason alone the application of the rule is sound. We hold that the statute of limitations with other listed defenses set forth in Rule 8(c) are defenses which should be set forth affirmatively or the pleader risks the court's denial to assert that defense in bar at trial. The admission of the defense of statute of limitations absent proper pleading rests in the sound discretion of the trial court in accordance with the rules set forth in Rule 15, W.Va.R.C.P. We must, however, recognize that the rules are to be construed liberally to do justice for claimant and defendant alike. In this case before us, the Paparodis heirs came to court with a claim against their lawyer based on alleged failure to file their decedent's estate tax return which cost them money. Perhaps they came with more than slight awareness that their claim might be stale in tort but viable in contract. Knowing also that the claim possibly would not be barred unless the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations was raised by the defendant, they had nothing to fear or prepare for until the bar was raised. They waited until the pleadings closed, the pretrial conference concluded and then they presented their best case, which they apprehended to sound in torta malpractice. Then and only then, when they were wholly committed by the presentation of all their evidence and had closed their case, their opponent exclaimed: Limitations bar the action and I am free of prosecution. The trial court then agreed. The salutary spirit of notice pleading is not subserved by this turn of events. True enough, the defendant's merits of the case *165 will be approached and possibly concluded if limitations may be pleaded in bar. But where is the notice and fair opportunity to respond? Certainly if defendant should ultimately prevail by asserting a claim late in the proceedings, his interests and justice's should be recognized. But the claimant as well, should be given every opportunity to recover from surprise and prosecute his claim to success if the law so provides. In Ohio, an action by a client against his lawyer for a breach of the relationship is treated as a malpractice action governed by a one year statute of limitations. Ohio Rev.Code, § 2305.11 (1954). Section 2, Article 2A, Chapter 55, West Virginia Code, 1931, as amended, provides that where a claim accrues beyond state boundaries, the shorter limitation, West Virginia or foreign, shall govern such action. But according to Ohio case law a cause of action against an attorney for malpractice involving a failure to make application for federal and state tax refunds accrues at the latest when the attorney-client relationship finally terminates. Keaton Co. v. Kolby, 27 Ohio St.2d 234, 56 O. O.2d 139, 271 N.E.2d 772 (1971). The Paparodis heirs had no opportunity to recover and present any evidence they may have had that the lawyer's relationship with them terminated after long negotiation and less than a year before action was instituted. Their proof may not have told this story or presented any matter which would have established that the action was not barred by statute. But the court, treating limitation as a matter of law, precluded any factual defense to limitation such as tolling or waiver or any other possibilities which may occur to the fruitful and inventive legal mind. Rule 15 recognizes there are instances, as in the case before us, when justice would seem to require an amendment to assert an 8(c) defense during or even after trial. Though an amendment to present an affirmative defense may be received orally or in writing, and permitted as a plea as long as the trial court retains jurisdiction of the case, it will not be permitted over objection unless certain strict tests of fairness are met. According to the plain language of Rule 15(b), W.Va.R.C.P., an amendment over the objection of the opposing party to assert an affirmative defense should not be accepted unless (1) it promotes the presentation of the merits of the action; (2) the adverse party will not be prejudiced by the sudden assertion of the defense; and (3) the adverse party is given ample opportunity to meet the issue. 4 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1278, and cases cited therein; 5 Wright & Miller, supra, § 1492, and cases cited therein. Inasmuch as the statute of limitations if successfully asserted will dispose of the action involving the Paparodis heirs and the lawyer, the first requirement of promoting the presentation of the merits of the action is satisfied. The discretion of the trial court in this civil action is tested however by the second and third requirements relating to prejudice by the sudden assertion of the defense and the opportunity of the adverse party to respond. A recent case concerning this situation was presented in a review of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the Blonder-Tongue decision, supra, which involved a patent infringement. There, petitioner because of a prior ruling in a lower appellate court, did not assert a defense allowable in a subsequent decision during the pendency of the patent case. For this reason the Supreme Court remanded the case to allow petitioner to amend his pleadings, assert the affirmative defense and to permit the adverse party the opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of such a plea with controverted evidence. We believe the reasoning set forth in that case is appropriate to the case at hand. Rule 15(a) and (b), W.Va.R.C.P. gives the trial court the right to exercise discretion *166 and permit amendment to pleadings so long as such court retains jurisdiction of the case, but the court cannot thereby conclude a party's right to controvert an amended plea with evidence which will defeat it. The cases recognize limitations of action are generally evidentiary matters. See Scarborough v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 190 F.2d 935 (4th Cir. 1951). In the spirit of Rule 15 which provides that pleadings shall be freely amended when justice so requires, we hold that the trial court was correct and did not abuse its discretion by permitting a pleading amendment to assert the affirmative defense of statute of limitations over objection of the opposing party. But we also hold that the trial court abused its discretion and consequently erred by not giving the adverse party, the Paparodis heirs, the opportunity to respond with any evidence they may have to challenge the appropriateness of the pleading of the statute of limitations. The question before the court involving the statute of limitations was not one of law but rather of fact, and it is possible that the Paparodis heirs may have evidence if given the opportunity to present the same, which will show that the applicable statute of limitations had not run against them or that some other legal reason could bar its assertion as a defense. For these reasons, that part of the final order of the Circuit Court of Hancock County which permitted the defendant to amend his answer to plead the statute of limitations is affirmed, but that part of the order which entered judgment and costs in favor of the defendant is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court with directions in accordance with the principles set forth in this opinion. Reversed in part; affirmed in part; and remanded with directions.

8ca49625af258a4662fe1696b5f7cf82a5e363152feeb97d4174bf23da7511f1

1972-09-06 00:00:00

255314fb-5afb-44ca-b748-7a824034aacb

Pullano v. City of Bluefield

342 S.E.2d 164

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Pullano v. City of Bluefield Annotate this Case 342 S.E.2d 164 (1986) Joseph M. PULLANO, et al., etc. v. CITY OF BLUEFIELD, W. Va., a Municipal Corporation. No. 16698. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. March 20, 1986. *166 Stanley M. Hostler, James F. Wallington, Hostler & Segal, Charleston, for appellants. J.W. Feuchtenberger, Bluefield, for appellee. *165 MILLER, Chief Justice: This case involves the statutory rights of municipal police officers and firefighters[1] to holiday pay under W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a.[2] We are also *167 presented with a question concerning the calculation of overtime pay for firefighters. On April 30, 1980, Joseph Pullano, a police officer, and Martin Fivars, a firefighter, filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Mercer County on behalf of themselves and all other police officers and firefighters employed by the city of Bluefield. In this action, the following general questions were raised: 1. Are municipalities required to recognize as legal holidays the days recommended by a governor in memoranda to all State spending units as nonworking days for State employees in calculating holiday pay for their police officers under W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and their firefighters under W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a? 2. Is holiday pay under W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, to be paid in addition to the regular or overtime pay also earned on that holiday? 3. Did the city of Bluefield correctly calculate overtime pay for its firefighters? The circuit court held that the nonworking days for State employees recommended by the governor in various executive memoranda did not constitute legal holidays under W.Va.Code, 2-2-1 (1980). Consequently, the city was not required to give holiday pay for these days to its police officers and firefighters. Furthermore, the circuit court generally approved of the city's methods for calculating holiday and overtime pay. The police officers and firefighters challenge the circuit court's rulings as being inconsistent with the applicable statutes. The relevant facts and rulings of the circuit court will be discussed in more detail under each heading. I.LEGAL HOLIDAYS It is apparent that by enacting W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a,[3] the legislature intended to accord equal time off or additional compensation to a municipal police officer or firefighter who either worked on a legal holiday or did not work on a legal holiday because it fell on his regular scheduled day off.[4] The two statutes are almost identical, except for the fact that W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, is applicable to "any municipal police officer" while W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, is applicable to "any member of a paid fire department." The threshold question is what legal holidays trigger these additional benefits. To answer this question, we must examine W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, our legal holiday statute, because both the police officers' and firefighters' holiday pay statutes specifically refer to this statute as initiating the right to holiday pay.[5] *168 W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, after enumerating certain specified days as legal holidays, goes on to provide as additional legal holidays "all days which may be appointed or recommended by the governor of this state, or the president of the United States, as days of thanksgiving, or for the general cessation of business." It is this language over which the legal holiday issue is fought in this case. The appellants argue the circuit court erred in ruling that the days recommended by the governor as nonworking days for State employees are not included in calculating holiday pay under these two statutes. In their stipulation of facts in the circuit court, the parties identified the specific days recommended by then Governor John D. Rockefeller, IV, as days for which State employees were allowed off. Essentially, these days were the Governor's and President's inauguration days, Martin Luther King Day, Good Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, and one-half day on the day before Christmas and New Year's Day. The language of W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, is clear that once the governor of this State or the president of the United States designates a day for thanksgiving or for the general cessation of business, such a day becomes a legal holiday to the same degree that the statutorily enumerated days are legal holidays under W.Va.Code, 2-2-1. The dispute in the present case is how does a governor exercise this authority to appoint or recommend legal holidays. The city argues that the various memoranda issued by the governor are directed only to State spending units and that there is no language indicating that the governor intended to declare a legal holiday for all employees who work in this State. Furthermore, the city points out that the memoranda do not use the term "legal holiday" nor is there any reference to W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, which forms the basis for a governor's right to declare a legal holiday. We have not had occasion to consider the question of what procedure a governor must follow in appointing or recommending a legal holiday under the general provisions of W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, thereby creating a legal holiday in addition to those specifically identified in this statute. Legal holidays are generally created either by legislative enactments or by gubernatorial or presidential proclamations authorized by general legislation. See generally 73 Am.Jur.2d Sundays and Holidays § 5 (1974); 40 C.J.S. Holidays § 2 (1944). Of course, there are holidays other than legal holidays, since the term "holiday," as one court stated, "has reference to a day set apart for worship, for reverence to the memory of a great leader and benefactor of humanity, to rejoice over some great national or historical event, or rekindle the flame of an ideal." Vidal v. Backs, 218 Cal. 99, 105, 21 P.2d 952, 955 (1933). Most of the cases we have decided involving legal holidays have focused on the effect a legal holiday has in computing a time period in which a certain legal act must be completed. W.Va.Code, 2-2-1 through -3, provide that when the last day on which a *169 legal act must be performed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period of time will be extended to the next ensuing day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. See, e.g., Crawford v. Erwin, ___ W.Va. ___, 297 S.E.2d 206 (1982) (per curiam); Dixon v. Dixon, 73 W.Va. 7, 79 S.E. 1016 (1913); Logan v. Ballard, 61 W.Va. 526, 57 S.E. 143 (1907). Under common law, Sunday has traditionally been treated as a nonjudicial day. See State ex rel. Varney v. Ellis, 149 W.Va. 522, 142 S.E.2d 63 (1965). Even though Sunday is a nonjudicial day, it is not defined as a legal holiday under W.Va.Code, 2-2-1.[6] A majority of states have general legal holiday statutes similar to W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, listing specific holidays and granting the governor of that state the authority to recommend additional legal holidays. In the few cases which involve a governor's authority to recommend a legal holiday, there is very little discussion on the issue of what procedure a governor must follow to create a legal holiday. See, e.g., Anselmo v. James, 449 F. Supp. 922 (D.Mass.1978); Reed v. Herren, 423 So. 2d 139 (Ala.1982); Los Angeles City Employees Union Local 347 v. City of El Monte, 220 Cal. Rptr. 411 (1985); Mandel v. Hodges, 54 Cal. App. 3d 596 , 127 Cal. Rptr. 244, 90 A.L.R.3d 728 (1976); Farrell v. Bendix Corp., 232 So. 2d 419 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1970); Brown v. Bernard, 374 So. 2d 127 (La.Ct.App.1979). In City of El Monte, the governor of California in an executive order had declared the third Monday in January as a day in honor of the achievements of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In his executive order, the governor made specific reference to California's general legal holiday statute, which empowers the governor to create legal holidays. A municipal employee's union sued the city of El Monte for holiday pay it claimed was due as a result of this additional legal holiday created by the governor. The California appellate court held in favor of the union. The court's holding was largely premised on the fact that the governor based his order on his authority under California's general legal holiday statute. By citing this statute in the order, the court concluded the governor had evidenced his intent to create a legal holiday applicable to all citizens in the state and not simply to employees of the state. In the present case, we have the affidavit submitted by Governor Rockefeller and copies of the memoranda he sent to all State spending units with regard to the days granted off. An examination of these memoranda reveals that Governor Rockefeller did not cite W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, as the authority for his actions. There also is no indication in these memoranda that the governor intended to recommend a day of thanksgiving or for the general cessation of business for all of the citizens in the State rather than simply for State employees, which is the language used in W.Va.Code, 2-2-1.[7] Therefore, we conclude Governor Rockefeller was not exercising his authority under W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, to appoint or recommend additional legal holidays when he recommended that State employees be *170 given additional time off. Although the statute does not explain what procedure must be followed, we conclude when a governor intends to appoint or recommend an additional legal holiday applicable to all the citizens in this State pursuant to W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, he must make such intent clear in the order or proclamation by either citing W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, or by using the applicable language of W.Va.Code, 2-2-1. Absent this clear intent by a governor to appoint or recommend an additional legal holiday pursuant to W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, no legal holiday is created when he simply recommends that State employees be given all or part of a day off. Therefore, the extra compensation provisions provided in W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, relating to municipal police officers, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, relating to members of a paid fire department, were not triggered by Governor Rockefeller's memoranda because these statutes are predicated on the existence of a legal holiday. Consequently, the circuit court's ruling on this issue is affirmed. Martin Luther King Day presents a different question as it centers on an interpretation of W.Va.Code, 2-2-1a (1977), which provided: "The governor shall, by proclamation, declare the third Saturday in January as a special memorial day to be known as Martin Luther King Day." We note that the legislature did not empower the governor to proclaim Martin Luther King Day as a legal holiday, but instead authorized the governor to proclaim the third Saturday in January as a "special memorial day." Obviously the legislature could have made Martin Luther King Day a legal holiday by amending the legal holiday statute, W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, to include Martin Luther King Day. As we have previously pointed out, the holiday pay statutes involved in this case refer only to W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, as the legal holidays that bring the right to extra pay. We are constrained to hold that the legislature's failure to include Martin Luther King Day within the legal holiday statute, W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, forecloses this day from triggering the special holiday pay provisions of W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a.[8] II.CALCULATION OF HOLIDAY PAY FOR MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS The circuit court did find and there is no disagreement between the parties that the city did not compensate the appellants for two legal holidays occurring by virtue of special elections which are recognized in W.Va.Code, 2-2-1.[9] There is, however, a disagreement as to how such holiday pay is to be calculated. Under both W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, if either a police officer or firefighter is required to work during a legal holiday or if it "falls on ... [his] regular scheduled day off, he shall be allowed equal time off at such time as may be approved by [his superior] under whom he serves, or in the alternative, shall be paid at a rate not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay."[10] The question raised by the appellants is whether holiday pay must be paid in addition to the regular wages earned on that holiday. The parties do not dispute the holiday pay calculation until January 1, 1979, when the city adopted a new method of compensating the police officers for holiday pay. Under this system, a police officer who worked on a legal holiday received eight hours of pay at his regular rate of pay in *171 his regular biweekly check. In December of each year, this officer would receive in a supplemental check four hours of pay at the regular rate of pay for each eight hours worked on a legal holiday.[11] A police officer who did not work on a legal holiday because it fell on his regular scheduled day off received the same compensation as a police officer who worked. Thus, under this new system, both the police officer who worked on a holiday and the officer who did not work on a holiday received eight hours of pay at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. We begin our analysis of W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, by acknowledging, as have other courts, that holiday pay statutes are designed to provide enhanced benefits to those employees who are required to work on a holiday when most employees are off. See City of Fort Smith v. Brewer, 255 Ark. 813, 502 S.W.2d 643 (1973); Narragansett Food Services, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Labor, 420 A.2d 805 (R.I.1980). Both of the holiday pay statutes are designed to cover two classes of employees: first, the police officer or firefighter who is required to work on a legal holiday; second, the police officer or firefighter who has his regular scheduled day off fall on a legal holiday. The statutes also give the municipalities two options with regard to the enhanced benefit. Municipalities can either give the police officer or firefighter equal time off or they can pay the police officer or firefighter "not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay." Neither of these holiday pay statutes states that holiday pay must be paid in addition to the regular wages earned on that holiday. In examining holiday pay statutes in other jurisdictions, we have found several that explicitly state that holiday pay must be paid in addition to the regular wages earned on that holiday. See, e.g., Ark.Stat.Ann. § 19-1721 (1985); Cal.Educ.Code § 45203 (West 1985); La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 33:1999 (West 1968). The compensatory language in our two holiday pay statutes requires payment at "not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay." We believe this language is clear and, therefore, apply our traditional rule expressed in Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. Underwood v. Silverstein, ___ W.Va. ___, 278 S.E.2d 886 (1981): "`Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation.' Syllabus Point 2, State v. Elder, 152 W.Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968)." We conclude under W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, police officers and firefighters must be paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay when they are required to work on a legal holiday or when such holiday falls on their regular scheduled day off, provided they are not accorded equal time off. The circuit court found that the city complied with this method of compensating its police officers and we affirm this finding. A similar analysis can be applied to the method used by the city to compensate its firefighters for holiday pay. Originally, the city gave its firefighters equal time off for legal holidays, as provided in W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, rather than additional compensation. Although on appeal the firefighters contend the circuit court erred in its ruling on the question of whether the firefighters had been given adequate time off, we conclude the circuit court ruled correctly. Essentially, the circuit court ruled that if any firefighter could establish as a matter of fact that he had not been granted sufficient time off during the time period in question, then that firefighter would be entitled to additional time off. We believe the circuit court's resolution of this issue was appropriate since it did accord *172 relief if specific facts could be shown to warrant it. Beginning January 1, 1980, the city changed its method of compensating firefighters for holidays. Instead of receiving additional time off, a firefighter who worked on a legal holiday received one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for the number of hours worked. A firefighter who did not work on a legal holiday because it fell on his regular scheduled day off received one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for sixteen hours. This sixteen-hour figure represented the maximum number of hours a firefighter could work in a shift on a legal holiday under the firefighters' work schedule. The logic we used in analyzing holiday pay for the police officers is also applicable to the firefighters under W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, regarding whether holiday pay must be paid in addition to regular wages earned on that legal holiday. As we have earlier stated, both W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, are similarly worded. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court's ruling that the city's method of compensating its firefighters for holiday pay at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay was acceptable under W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a.[12] However, we disagree with the circuit court's ruling on how holiday pay must be computed where overtime compensation is also earned on that holiday. After January 1, 1980, the city only paid a firefighter who worked overtime on a legal holiday one and one-half times his regular rate of pay which, in effect, meant that he received no additional compensation as holiday pay. In Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 531, 170 S.E.2d 217 (1969), we held that municipal firefighters are entitled to overtime compensation as provided in W.Va.Code, 21-5C-3(a), of our wage and hour law. This section currently mandates that when an employee works more than forty hours in a workweek, compensation for overtime shall be at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay.[13] Overtime pay is independent of holiday pay since the former is found in our general wage and hour law and the holiday pay provisions are special statutes relating to police officers and firefighters. In Narragansett Food Services, the Rhode Island Supreme Court had the same problem of determining whether employees who worked overtime on a legal holiday were entitled, as to the overtime hours, to obtain not only the overtime pay provisions in its wage and hour law, but also the additional holiday pay premium which was one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. The court held that they were, stating: "Section 28-12-4.1, enacted in 1974, clearly requires that employers pay employees time and one-half `for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.' Thus, when the Legislature amended § 5-23-2 to provide that employers shall pay `no less than time and a half' for Sunday and holiday employment, employees who worked overtime on Sundays and holidays were receiving premium compensation for those hours under § 28-12-4.1. The Legislature is presumed to know the state of existing relevant law when it enacts or amends a statute. Flather v. Norberg, R.I., 377 A.2d 225 (1977); Bailey v. Huling, R.I., *173 377 A.2d 220 (1977). We therefore must presume that the Legislature knew in 1976 when it amended § 5-23-2 that employees covered by § 28-12-4.1 already received premium compensation for overtime hours worked on Sundays and holidays." 420 A.2d at 808. The Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded since both statutes were independent of each other, both must be given effect. It approved a calculation that applied the premium pay increment in each statute to the underlying regular rate of pay. Both statutes provided, in effect, for a premium rate of fifty percent of the regular rate of pay which when added together would be a premium of one hundred percent above the regular rate or double the regular rate of pay. The reasoning of the Rhode Island Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. In 1976 when the legislature enacted both W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, setting extra holiday pay at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay, it must have been aware then that under W.Va.Code, 21-5C-3, which was enacted in 1966, our general wage and hour law required employees in an overtime status to be paid at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. We have consistently stated that: "The Legislature, when it enacts legislation, is presumed to know its prior enactments." Syllabus Point 12, Vest v. Cobb, 138 W.Va. 660, 76 S.E.2d 885 (1953). See also Marion v. Chandler, 139 W.Va. 596, 81 S.E.2d 89 (1954); State v. Hinkle, 129 W.Va. 393, 41 S.E.2d 107 (1946). If a firefighter works overtime on a legal holiday, then he is entitled to the premium compensation provided under the holiday pay statute and our wage and hour law. The premium payment of fifty percent of the regular rate of pay for overtime is independent of any enhanced benefit arising from the extra pay under W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a. The premium payment for holiday pay is also fifty percent of the regular rate of pay. When the two enhanced benefits are added together, they are one hundred percent of the regular rate of pay which when added to the regular rate doubles it. Therefore, we conclude where a firefighter works overtime under W.Va.Code, 21-5C-3(a), and such overtime work is performed on a legal holiday under W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, he is entitled to two times his regular rate of pay for the overtime hours worked. III.CALCULATION OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR FIREFIGHTERS The final issue involves the city's method of calculating overtime compensation for its firefighters. The firefighters and the city devote most of their arguments on the issue of how the regular rate of pay should be determined, but we think the parties misconceive the issue. The parties stipulated that the work schedule for the firefighters was established to average fifty-six hours per workweek over a six-week period. This average fifty-six-hour workweek was apparently adopted to comply with W.Va.Code, 8-15-10, which prescribes that firefighters "shall not be required to remain on duty in excess of one hundred twelve hours during any fourteen consecutive days' period."[14] Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is the federal counterpart to our wage and hour law, an employer may establish a workweek that exceeds the forty-hour workweek provided the employees are compensated at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over forty hours. Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 , 62 S. Ct. 1216, 86 L. Ed. 1682 (1942); Yadav v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc., 538 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir.1976) (per curiam); Brennan v. Valley Towing Co., 515 *174 F.2d 100 (9th Cir.1975). We endorsed this concept in Local 313, International Association of Firefighters v. City of Morgantown, ___ W.Va. ___, 323 S.E.2d 604 (1984), where the Morgantown firefighters' work schedule was also found to average fifty-six hours per workweek. In Syllabus Point 1 of Local 313, we observed: "Our wage and hour law found in W.Va.Code, 21-5C-1, et seq., is modeled to some extent on the federal minimum wage law contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq." The firefighters place much reliance on Local 313 where we stated in Syllabus Point 2: "Under W.Va.Code, 21-5C-3(a), where employees are compensated on a lump sum basis, absent explicit proof of another mutually agreed upon rate of pay, a court must infer that the regular rate actually paid was that obtained by dividing the weekly wage paid by the number of hours actually worked." Our decision in Local 313 was issued after the circuit court in the present case had made its final decision. However, the circuit court anticipated our decision in Local 313 and held a hearing to determine whether or not the firefighters had agreed with the city's method for calculating the regular rate of pay. After this hearing, the circuit court concluded essentially the firefighters had agreed to the city's method of calculating the regular rate of pay and as a result could not subsequently challenge it. The problem in Local 313 was evident in the city's pay schedules for firefighters which listed each firefighters' salary on an annual, monthly, biweekly, and hourly basis. The city of Morgantown contended the annual salary included a firefighter's regular and overtime pay. However, it was apparent from the pay schedules that the amount of the annual salaries was equal to the hourly rate of pay multiplied by the basic forty-hour work-week over fifty-two weeks and included no compensation for overtime. Since the Morgantown firefighters worked an average fifty-six-hour workweek, the annual salary did not reflect any compensation for the sixteen hours of overtime worked each week. Consequently, the only way to determine an hourly rate which would accommodate the actual overtime compensation without increasing the stated annual salary would be to make retrospective calculations based on what amounted to hypothetical regular hourly rates. We rejected the city of Morgantown's attempt to perform this hypothetical calculation based on federal cases construing the Fair Labor Standards Act, which we found to be similar to our wage and hour law in this area, and concluded: "This type of post hoc or hypothetical and retrospective computation of a wage rate structure is foreclosed under federal cases. Marshall v. Chala Enterprises, Inc., [645 F.2d 799 (9th Cir.1981)]; Brennan v. Valley Towing Co., Inc., [515 F.2d 100 (9th Cir.1975)]. As stated in Brennan, `[i]t is the "actual fact" of a stepped-up rate for overtime which propogates the goals of the Act, and not the hypothetical retrospective construction of such a rate structure.' 515 F.2d at 106." ___ W.Va. at ___, 323 S.E.2d at 609. In Local 313, we remanded the case for a determination of whether there was a mutual agreement between the city of Morgantown and its firefighters on the method of calculating the regular rate of pay. In the present case, the wage schedules of the city do not present this problem.[15] When any of the listed hourly rates are multiplied by forty, representing the number of regular hours worked each week, and that product is added to one and one-half times the hourly rate multiplied by sixteen, representing the number of overtime hours worked each week, the total of these two figures annualized equals the designated annual salary. Because there is *175 an amount set for the regular rate of pay that fully compensates each firefighter for his regular and overtime pay, the principle stated in Syllabus Point 3 of Local 313 is not applicable: "Where a fixed salary is paid and there is no express agreement or formula shown that sets an amount for regular pay and an overtime rate at least one and one-half times the regular rate, such an agreement or formula may not be inferred from hypothetical or retroactive calculations." In this case, the circuit court found essentially that the parties had agreed on the pay formulation. We cannot say that this finding was plainly wrong. See Syllabus Point 2, Powers v. Goodwin, ___ W.Va. ___, 324 S.E.2d 701 (1984); Syllabus, Jenkins v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 287 S.E.2d 521 (1982) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 8, Sanders v. Roselawn Memorial Gardens, 152 W.Va. 91, 159 S.E.2d 784 (1968). We recognize that to a certain extent overtime for firefighters contains certain novel features that are not present in the ordinary case. This is because of their historical work cycle involving as it does lengthy periods of living at the firehouse. Legislative recognition of this fact is contained in W.Va.Code, 8-15-10, where there is a limitation placed on the number of hours firefighters can be required to work in a fourteen-day cycle. This statute also provides that a paid firefighter "shall not remain on duty for more than twenty-four consecutive hours except in the case of an emergency." Finally, this statute states that members of such fire department "shall, by a majority vote, determine the schedule of hours to be worked in any twenty-four-hour period...."[16] These provisions impact on a firefighter's work hours which in turn have an effect under the wage and hour law. It is apparent that a municipality with a paid fire department does not have an unfettered hand in setting the work schedule for its firefighters. Furthermore, it does appear, as the circuit court found, that the firefighters in the present case knew their regular hourly rate in advance as well as their total annual salary and their agreed average workweek, which averaged fifty-six hours of which sixteen hours were overtime. There also is no dispute that a firefighter also got compensated at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for any additional overtime worked in excess of the sixteen hours of overtime worked each week. The listed annual salary simply reflected what a firefighter's annual salary would be without the addition of this extra overtime or holiday pay. We conclude the provisions of our wage and hour law, W.Va.Code, 21-5C-3(a), will be satisifed where: (1) firefighters know in advance their regular hourly rate of pay, their average number of weekly hours to be worked each week, including a definite number of overtime hours over the forty-hour regular workweek, and their total annual salary; and (2) the forty regular hours when multiplied by the regular rate of pay is combined with the overtime hours scheduled to be worked each week compensated at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay and this sum when annualized equals the stated annual pay.[17] Finding this rule to have been met in the *176 present case, we affirm the circuit court's decision on this issue. We believe, however, that the circuit court erred in attempting to make a distinction between the regular rate of pay to be used for the sixteen hours of overtime ordinarily worked each week and the regular rate of pay for any additional overtime worked. W.Va.Code, 21-5C-3(a), mandates that the regular rate of pay must be used in determining the rate of pay for all overtime hours as it states that overtime pay is "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed." Furthermore, we find nothing in the wage and hour statute which draws any distinction as to overtime pay rates between regularly scheduled overtime and additional overtime. Before closing this discussion, we are constrained to make several observations with regard to wage and hour cases where the employees are working irregular hours in their workweeks. The federal government has handled these problems by issuing detailed regulations authorized under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19. These regulations have assisted the federal courts in applying the rather general language of the federal act. The United States Supreme Court commented on the efficacy of administrative regulations in the federal wage and hour law in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 , 139-40, 65 S. Ct. 161, 164, 89 L. Ed. 124, 129 (1944): "[T]he Administrator's policies are made in pursuance of official duty, based upon more specialized experience and broader investigations and information than is likely to come to a judge in a particular case. They do determine the policy which will guide applications for enforcement by injunction on behalf of the Government.... "We consider that the rulings, interpretations and opinions of the Administrator under this Act, while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance." Under W.Va.Code, 21-5C-6, the commissioner of labor is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations "as shall be needful to give effect to the provisions of this article." Furthermore, the commissioner is empowered under W.Va.Code, 21-5C-8(b), to file legal actions on behalf of any employee whose wages have not been paid consistent with the wage and hour law, and with the consent of the employee, "shall have the power to settle and adjust any claim to the same extent as might the employee." The wage and hour director, as indicated in W.Va.Code, 21-5C-9, serves under the commissioner of labor and is authorized to "carry out such duties and functions as are necessary to effectuate the provisions of this article." We have examined the regulations issued by the commissioner of labor. They are few in number and do not address many of the problems that are covered in the federal regulations. While there are distinctions between our wage and hour law and the federal counterpart, there are a number of similarities such that the federal regulations could be used as models for our State regulations. Of particular interest is W.Va.Code, 21-5C-3(d)(3), which offers a procedure whereby an employer can obtain advance approval for its pay schedule by obtaining the commissioner's approval through a regulation.[18] At the present time, the commissioner *177 has not promulgated any regulations pursuant to this provision. Under its counterpart in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207(g)(3), the administrator has promulgated several regulations to enable employers to comply with this section in the federal act. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 548.1 through 548.502; see also 5 Employment Coordinator (RIA) ¶ C-16,325 through C-16,349 (1986); 2 Labor Law Reporter: Wage-Hours (CCH) ¶ 25,530.40 (1980). The advantage of using this procedure is that cases such as the present one could be avoided by having the compensation arrangement approved in advance. The ultimate benefit is the avoidance of prolonged and expensive litigation in a matter where all too frequently there is an insufficient record to make a final determination of the case. See Local 313, International Association of Firefighters v. City of Morgantown, supra; Wells v. City of Fairmont, ___ W.Va. ___, 318 S.E.2d 463 (1984) (per curiam). In summary, we affirm the circuit court's conclusion that the Governor's recommendations in memoranda of days off for State employees did not constitute legal holidays under W.Va.Code, 2-2-1, and, therefore, holiday pay was not required to be paid under W.Va.Code, 8-14-2a, and W.Va.Code, 8-15-10a, for those days. The circuit court was also correct in finding that for regular hours worked on a legal holiday, police officers and firefighters were entitled to be compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. However, we find the circuit court erred regarding the payment of holiday pay to firefighters who worked overtime. Where firefighters worked overtime on a legal holiday, they were entitled to two times their regular rate of pay for the overtime hours worked. We also agree with the circuit court's finding that the city had established an agreed pay schedule for firefighters that properly compensated them for overtime. However, we disagree with the circuit court's holding that any additional overtime above the sixteen hours scheduled to be worked each week should be calculated at a different regular rate of pay. The same regular rate of pay must be used in both circumstances. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Circuit Court of Mercer County's rulings, in part, and reverse them, in part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Affirmed, in part, Reversed, in part, and Remanded.

6e13b8440397e00d4d052c0aa1090d0f705bed46dec0ce59a7ef6aee3a83a616

1986-03-20 00:00:00

51b4b4f0-bd36-4fa8-87cc-5bc27bd57275

In the Matter of: Magistrate William Tom Toler

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

m. No. 31797 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM TOM TOLER, MAGISTRATE FOR WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING SUSPENDED AND OTHER SANCTIONS Submitted: November 15, 2005 Filed: December 2, 2005 Charles R. Garten, Esq. Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Judicial Investigation Commission Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for Complainant Donald R. Jarrell, Esq. Wayne, West Virginia Attorney for Respondent JUSTICE MAYNARD delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Supreme Court of Appeals will make an independent evaluation of the record and recommendations of the Judicial [Hearing] Board in disciplinary proceedings. Syllabus Point 1, West Virginia Judicial Inquiry Commission v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 233, 271 S.E.2d 427 (1980). Syllabus Point 1, In re Browning, 192 W.Va. 231, 452 S.E.2d 34 (1994). 2. The purpose of judicial disciplinary proceedings is the preservation and enhancement of public confidence in the honor, integrity, dignity, and efficiency of the members of the judiciary and the system of justice. Syllabus, In the Matter of Gorby, 176 W.Va. 16, 339 S.E.2d 702 (1985). 3. Under the authority of article VIII, sections 3 and 8 of the West Virginia Constitution and Rule [4.12] of the [West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure], the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia may suspend a judge, who has been indicted for or convicted of serious crimes, without pay, pending the final disposition of the criminal charges against the particular judge or until the underlying disciplinary proceeding before the Judicial Investigation Commission has been completed. Syllabus, In the Matter of Grubb, 187 W.Va. 228, 417 S.E.2d 919 (1992). 4. Pursuant to article VIII, section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution, this Court has the inherent and express authority to prescribe, adopt, promulgate and amend rules prescribing a judicial code of ethics, and a code of regulations and standards of conduct i and performances for justices, judges and magistrates, along with sanctions and penalties for any violation thereof [.] Syllabus Point 5, Committee On Legal Ethics v. Karl, 192 W.Va. 23, 449 S.E.2d 277 (1994). Syllabus Point 4, Matter of Troisi, 202 W.Va. 390, 504 S.E.2d 625 (1998). 5. Pursuant to Article VIII, Sections 3 and 8 of the West Virginia Constitution and Rule 4.12 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, it is clearly within this Court s power and discretion to impose multiple sanctions against any justice, judge or magistrate for separate and distinct violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and to order that such sanctions be imposed consecutively. ii Per Curiam: This judicial disciplinary proceeding arises from a complaint filed with the Judicial Investigation Commission (hereinafter, the Commission ) alleging that Wayne County Magistrate William Tom Toler violated several Canons of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct. Throughout the period of this disciplinary proceeding, Mr. Toler was suspended without pay as a result of allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct while performing his duties as a Magistrate of Wayne County. The Commission found probable cause that Mr. Toler violated Canon 1(A), Canon 2(A), Canon 2(B), Canon 3(A), and Canon 3(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The matter was then forwarded to the Judicial Hearing Board (hereinafter, the Board ). The Board concluded that Mr. Toler violated Canon 1(A) and Canon 2(A) and recommended: (1) censuring Mr. Toler; (2) suspending him for one year without pay; (3) fining him $5,000.00; (4) requiring that Mr. Toler pay the costs of the proceedings before the Judicial Hearing Board; and (5) providing that the sanctions be imposed separately for each of the four violations committed by Mr. Toler. Having reviewed the recommendation, all matters of record, and the briefs and arguments of counsel, we find that Mr. Toler violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, the sanctions recommended by the Board are hereby adopted and imposed by this Court. 1 I. FACTS On July 8, 2004, the Acting Administrator of this Court filed a complaint against William Tom Toler, Magistrate of Wayne County, with the Judicial Investigation Commission alleging among other things that Mr. Toler had been charged with the commission of serious criminal offenses which would also constitute a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Attached to the complaint was a letter from the Chief Judge of the Twenty-fourth Judicial Circuit stating that on July 7, 2004, a Wayne County grand jury indicted Mr. Toler on eight felony counts of sexual abuse, a count of demanding a bribe, and a misdemeanor count of indecent exposure. On July 7, 2004, pursuant to Rule 2.14(d)(1)1 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, the Chief Justice of this Court ordered the suspension of Mr. Toler without pay while the criminal matter against him was pending. On July 16, 2004, a separate order was entered by this Court stating that there was probable cause to believe that Mr. 1 Rule 2.14(d)(1) of our Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure provides that, [i]f the judge has been convicted of a serious offense or has been indicted or otherwise charged with a serious offense, the Chief Justice may order that the judge not hear any further civil or criminal matters or perform other judicial functions while the matter is pending, with or without pay. 2 Toler engaged in, or was engaging in, a serious violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. That order also provided that Mr. Toler was suspended without pay and prohibited from hearing any further civil or criminal cases or performing any other judicial functions pending the resolution of the matter. Following those orders, we remanded the complaint back to the Judicial Investigation Commission for the filing of formal charges, and held that such charges would be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the criminal charges against Mr. Toler. On August 5, 2004, the initial formal charges against Mr. Toler were filed with the Judicial Hearing Board alleging violations of Canon 1(A), Canon 2(A), Canon 2(B), Canon 3(A), and Canon 3(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. On July 14, 2005, the formal charges were amended to include two additional counts against Mr. Toler which had been filed in a superceding criminal indictment in the Circuit Court of Wayne County. During the general election on November 4, 2004, while criminal charges were pending against him, Mr. Toler was re-elected to his post as magistrate. On February 24, 2005, Mr. Toler was acquitted by a jury of the criminal charges against him in the Circuit Court of Wayne County. Thereafter, on March 4, 2005, Mr. Toler filed a motion with this Court seeking reinstatement as magistrate with back pay. On June 1, 2005, this Court again held Mr. Toler s motion for reinstatement in abeyance pending the full development of the 3 record through the judicial investigation process. See In re Toler, 216 W.Va. 743, 613 S.E.2d 604 (2005). On July 13, 2005, and July 14, 2005, the complaint against Mr. Toler was heard before the West Virginia Judicial Hearing Board. The Commission called four witnesses during its presentation of the case who claimed they were victims of Mr. Toler s inappropriate behavior. All four witnesses testified that prior to the criminal trial wherein Mr. Toler was accused of sexual assault and other charges, that none of the four individuals knew each other and none had discussed any of the allegations between and/or among themselves. The first witness, a corrections officer in Wayne County, stated that on one occasion while she and Mr. Toler were alone in the magistrate s office, that Mr. Toler began walking toward her and stood very close to her face, followed by him putting his hand and his finger on her breasts. He then asked her if he could go downtown on her. Mr. Toler further asked if she had anybody who could do that to her. She understood Mr. Toler s suggestion as a solicitation for oral sex. The Commission s second witness testified that on the evening of March 2, 2001, that her husband beat her up and she left her house and went to her sister s residence to stay for the night. The witness explained that she and her husband were going through a 4 divorce at the time. She said the next morning she went to see Mr. Toler in hopes of filing a domestic violence petition against her husband. While she was being assisted by a magistrate assistant in filling out the domestic violence petition, Mr. Toler entered the office with her husband. He then awarded the marital home to her husband and gave her four hours to remove her belongings from the house. Minutes later, she and Mr. Toler were alone in his office. Mr. Toler told her that he could help her if she would help him. He added that he would help her get a lawyer and would see to it that her husband paid dearly. According to this witness, he then grabbed her blouse and pulled it up along with her bra exposing her breasts and put his hands on her breasts. Mr. Toler then removed one hand from her breast and grabbed her between the legs and told her he wanted to f**k her. This behavior continued until she was able to leave his office. A third witness described one occasion when she and Mr. Toler were alone in his office because she was inquiring about a case she had filed against another individual in magistrate court during a previous month. Mr. Toler said he did not know anything about the case, but stated that he could cure her problems. When she said she did not understand what he meant, he explained that men only want one thing and began walking toward her. She said he grabbed her breasts with both hands and she angrily told him to get his hands off her. Mr. Toler then laughed and sat down on the corner of his desk. After Mr. Toler attempted this same behavior a second time she immediately left his office. 5 The fourth witness testified that she went to Mr. Toler to complete a domestic violence petition following a fight with her boyfriend which required her to seek medical attention. While she and Mr. Toler were alone in his office, he asked her if she liked sex and if she was any good at performing oral sex. She completed the necessary paperwork for the domestic violence petition and proceeded to the elevator. Mr. Toler entered the elevator with her and kissed her on the mouth as soon as the doors closed. He then grabbed her hands and told her he wanted to show her something and he forced her hands between his legs. While he held her hands on his crotch he asked her if she liked his penis. She pulled away from Mr. Toler, exited the elevator, and left the building. On August 22, 2005, the Judicial Hearing Board filed its Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Disposition with regard to the charges against Mr. Toler. The Board found that Mr. Toler had committed inappropriate sexual contact with four different women on four separate occasions while performing his official duties as a magistrate. It recommended that Mr. Toler be censured; that he be suspended for one year without pay; that he be fined $5,000.00; and that he pay the costs of the proceedings before the Judicial Hearing Board. In addition to those specific recommendations against Mr. Toler, the Board recommended that the sanctions be imposed consecutively for each of the four separate violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct committed by Mr. Toler against the four female victims. The Board further stated that if it had lawful authority it would recommend the removal of Mr. Toler from the Office of Magistrate of Wayne County 6 because he had violated the public s trust and diminished the public s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In cases in which this Court is asked to discipline judicial officers,2 we independently review the record to determine if the findings of fact and recommendations of the Hearing Board are appropriate. As we stated in Syllabus Point 1 of In re Browning, 192 W.Va. 231, 452 S.E.2d 34 (1994), [t]he Supreme Court of Appeals will make an independent evaluation of the record and recommendations of the Judicial [Hearing] Board in disciplinary proceedings. Syllabus Point 1, West Virginia Judicial Inquiry Commission v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 233, 271 S.E.2d 427 (1980). Included within this independent evaluation is the right to accept or reject the disciplinary sanction recommended by the Board. Matter of Crislip, 182 W.Va. 637, 638, 391 S.E.2d 84, 85 (1990). Moreover, pursuant to Rule 4.5 of the West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, the burden of proof to be applied in judicial disciplinary proceedings is that the allegations of the formal charge must be proved by clear and convincing evidence 2 Magistrates are judges within the meaning of the Code of Judicial Conduct and are subject to its Canons. Canon 6, Code of Judicial Conduct (1995). 7 in order to recommend the imposition of discipline on any judge. See Syllabus Point 4, In re Pauley, 173 W.Va. 228, 314 S.E.2d 391 (1983) ( Under Rule III(C)(2) (1983 Supp.) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for the Handling of Complaints Against Justices, Judges and Magistrates, the allegations of a complaint in a judicial disciplinary proceeding must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. ) Therefore, this Court must review both the record and the law in this case de novo and determine if clear and convincing evidence exists to prove the allegations in the complaint against Mr. Toler. Additionally, in accordance with the directives found in Browning, we do note, however, that substantial consideration should be given to the Hearing Board s findings of fact. This consideration does not mean that this Court is foreclosed from making an independent assessment of the record, but it does mean that absent a showing of some mistake or arbitrary assessment, findings of fact are to be given substantial weight. 192 W.Va. at 234, n. 4, 452 S.E.2d at 37, n. 4. Applying the foregoing standards, we now review the charges against Mr. Toler and the Board s recommended sanctions. III. DISCUSSION 8 The Judicial Investigation s Counsel states that Mr. Toler violated Canon 1(A)3 and Canon 2(A)4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and urges this Court to adopt the Judicial Hearing Board s recommended sanctions and impose them upon Mr. Toler consecutively. Conversely, Mr. Toler argues that the recommended sanctions are not appropriate because there were only two verified complaints filed against him in this action and both are now barred by the statute of limitations. He further maintains that the other witnesses listed in the Judicial Investigation Commission s Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Disposition, never actually filed complaints against him and therefore evidence from those witnesses should not be considered in the underlying proceedings by this Court. With regard to Mr. Toler s statute of limitations defense, the Judicial Counsel explains that the case before this Court arises out of a complaint filed by the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts on July 8, 2004, one day after learning that Mr. Toler 3 Canon 1(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides: An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective. 4 Canon 2(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides: A judge shall respect and comply with the law, shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge s activities, and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 9 had been charged in the Circuit Court of Wayne County in a nine count indictment returned July 7, 2004. On August 5, 2004, formal charges were filed by the Judicial Investigation Commission against Mr. Toler, while on July 14, 2005, amended formal charges were filed by the Commission against Mr. Toler. After carefully reviewing the facts of this case, it is clear to us that all of the actions taken by the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts in filing the original complaint and all actions taken by the Commission to file formal charges as directed by this Court were done well within the two-year limitations period. Rule 2.12 of our Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure provides that, [a]ny complaint filed more than two years after the complainant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, shall be dismissed by the Commission. The record in this case shows that the initial complaint was filed within one day of the indictment against Mr. Toler, while the amended formal charges were filed one year and seven days after that indictment. We find that there is no violation of Rule 2.12 with regard to the two-year statute of limitations on the filing of complaints. Having found Mr. Toler s argument with regard to the statute of limitations to be without merit, we now consider whether the evidence supports the Commission s findings that Mr. Toler violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. 10 It is well settled that under the West Virginia Constitution, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has the authority to censure or temporarily suspend a magistrate. W.Va. Const., Article VIII, § 8. Moreover, the West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure Rule 4.12 enumerates the sanctions that the Judicial Hearing Board may recommend and that this Court may impose for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Possible sanctions include: (1) admonishment; (2) reprimand; (3) censure; (4) suspension without pay for up to 1 year; (5) a fine of up to $5,000.00; and (6) involuntary retirement in limited circumstances. Additionally, this Court can assess the cost of the disciplinary proceedings against a judge. Id. The purpose of judicial disciplinary proceedings is the preservation and enhancement of public confidence in the honor, integrity, dignity, and efficiency of the members of the judiciary and the system of justice. Syllabus, In the Matter of Gorby, 176 W.Va. 16, 339 S.E.2d 702 (1985). Thus, [u]nder the authority of article VIII, sections 3 and 8 of the West Virginia Constitution and Rule [4.12] of the [West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure], the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia may suspend a judge, who has been indicted for or convicted of serious crimes, without pay, pending the final disposition of the criminal charges against the particular judge or until the underlying disciplinary proceeding before the Judicial Investigation Commission has been completed. Syllabus, In the Matter of Grubb, 187 W.Va. 228, 417 S.E.2d 919 (1992). 11 In this case, we have made an independent and exhaustive evaluation of the record by reviewing the formal charges filed against Mr. Toler; the amended formal charges; the Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Proposed Disposition filed by the Judicial Hearing Board; the briefs filed by both parties in this case; the exhibits; transcripts; orders; motions; and all other remaining information contained in the record before this Court. After carefully reviewing such evidence, we have determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Toler violated Canon 1(A) and Canon 2(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As discussed above, four women testified about the sexual misconduct committed by Mr. Toler after they went to the Magistrate Court of Wayne County seeking assistance from that court. The testimony of those witnesses was direct, clear, and concise, and we find it to be truthful and credible. Having determined that Mr. Toler s actions did, in fact, violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, we now turn to the issue of whether or not he should receive the sanctions recommended by the Judicial Hearing Board. The Judicial Hearing Board recommended the following sanctions be imposed by this Court against Mr. Toler: 1.) That Mr. Toler be censured for his conduct; 2.) That Mr. Toler be suspended for one year without pay; 3.) That Mr. Toler be fined $5,000.00; 12 4.) That Mr. Toler pay the costs of the proceedings before the Judicial Hearing Board; 5.) That the above sanctions be imposed for each of the four violations Mr. Toler committed against the four female victims and that the violations be consecutive for each of the two Canons violated. After fully reviewing the circumstances of this case, we agree with, and therefore, adopt and impose the Board s recommended actions with regard to sanction numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. Given the clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Toler violated Canon 1(A) and Canon 2(A), we find that he should be censured for his actions; suspended for one year without pay; fined $5,000.00; and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Judicial Hearing Board. We must now proceed to consider the Judicial Hearing Board s recommended sanction number 5 which provides that the sanctions be imposed consecutively for each of the four violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct committed by Mr. Toler against the four female victims. This is a matter of first impression before this Court. The Judicial Investigation Counsel points out that there were four separate acts of sexual misconduct committed against four different individuals at four different times. Moreover, all of the misconduct occurred while the women had gone to Mr. Toler to seek help from the magistrate court for various reasons. On each of the four separate occasions 13 not only did Mr. Toler engage in improper sexual touching of the women or forcing them to touch him, he engaged in outrageous and inappropriate talk about sex or sexual conduct. The Judicial Counsel contends that the Judicial Hearing Board s recommended sanctions must be imposed consecutively for such egregious conduct as that of Mr. Toler s separate and distinct violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In Syllabus Point 4 of Matter of Troisi, 202 W.Va. 390, 504 S.E.2d 625 (1998), we explained that, [p]ursuant to article VIII, section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution, this Court has the inherent and express authority to prescribe, adopt, promulgate and amend rules prescribing a judicial code of ethics, and a code of regulations and standards of conduct and performances for justices, judges and magistrates, along with sanctions and penalties for any violation thereof [.] Syllabus Point 5, Committee On Legal Ethics v. Karl, 192 W.Va. 23, 449 S.E.2d 277 (1994). Moreover, as discussed earlier in this opinion, W.Va. Const., Art. VIII, § 8, in part, provides: Under its inherent rule-making power . . . the supreme court of appeals is authorized to censure or temporarily suspend any justice, judge or magistrate having the judicial power of the State, including one of its own members, for any violation of any such code of ethics, code of regulations and standards. . . . . (Emphasis added). In addition, Rule 4.12 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure provides for the specific sanctions which may be imposed for a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The relevant section of 14 Rule 4.12 for purposes of the resolution of this issue is as follows: The Judicial Hearing Board may recommend or the Supreme Court of Appeals may impose any one or more of the following sanctions for a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. . . . (Emphasis added). It is clear to us that Rule 4.12 of the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure sets forth available sanctions for a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. It is equally apparent that W.Va. Const., Art. VIII, § 8 provides authorization for this Court to sanction a judicial officer for any violation of the Code. In this case, the Judicial Hearing Board recommended sanctions against Mr. Toler for each of the four separate violations against each of the four victims in this case. Having found that Mr. Toler did, in fact, violate the Code of Judicial Conduct on at least four different occasions, in four completely separate and distinct situations, and against four separate individuals, it simply would make little or no sense to find in any other manner than to impose sanctions against Mr. Toler for each of the separate violations and to impose such sanctions consecutively. Given the nature and extent of the misconduct in this case, to rule otherwise would diminish public confidence in the judiciary, impugn the judicial disciplinary process, and would have a chilling effect on the willingness of victims of domestic violence to seek help from the judicial system. Thus, pursuant to Article VIII, Sections 3 and 8 of the West Virginia Constitution and Rule 4.12 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, it is clearly within this Court s power and discretion to impose multiple sanctions against any justice, 15 judge or magistrate for separate and distinct violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and to order that such sanctions be imposed consecutively. To hold a violator of the Code of Judicial Conduct who has committed only one offense to the same exact standard and subject that offender to the same sanctions as a violator who has committed four, five, or fifty separate acts of misconduct would suggest unreasonable disparate treatment and this Court must give proper consideration and weight to the severity of each of the independent acts of judicial misconduct when deciding appropriate sanctions. These four victims went to the magistrate court to seek the court s help during times of stress and vulnerability. Imagine going to a magistrate s office to fill out a domestic violence petition after being beaten so badly that you required medical attention and then having the magistrate grab you and engage in revolting and inappropriate sexual contact. Such conduct cannot and will not be tolerated by this Court. On each of the four different occasions Mr. Toler engaged in improper touching of the women as well as grossly inappropriate talk about sex or sexual conduct. Moreover, on each occasion, Mr. Toler subjected each individual to grossly inappropriate sexual misconduct while he was performing his official duties as magistrate. Four separate complaints could have been presented to the Judicial Hearing Board and the Board could have recommended and this Court could have imposed sanctions in each of the four complaints. Thus, we see nothing that would preclude us from adopting, and therefore we hereby do adopt, the Judicial Hearing Board s recommendation to impose the sanctions against Mr. Toler consecutively. 16 Accordingly, this Court finds that Mr. Toler should be censured for his actions; that Mr. Toler be suspended for one year without pay; that Mr. Toler be fined $5,000.00; that Mr. Toler pay the costs of the proceedings before the Judicial Hearing Board; and that the aforementioned sanctions be imposed consecutively for each of the four violations Mr. Toler committed against the four female victims which resulted in four separate and distinct violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We further hold that Mr. Toler s four-year suspension as Magistrate begins from July 14, 2005, the date of the amended formal charges filed by the Judicial Investigation Commission. We believe the recommended sanctions are fair and meet the objectives of preserving public confidence in the legal profession and the judicial process. Finally, we note that Mr. Toler has a motion pending for back pay as a result of the February 24, 2005, acquittal to the criminal charges filed against him in the Circuit Court of Wayne County. On July 7, 2004, this Court suspended Mr. Toler from his position as Magistrate of Wayne County, without pay, until the resolution of those criminal charges against him. Following his acquittal, Mr. Toler filed a motion for back pay and reinstatement as magistrate. On June 1, 2005, we held Mr. Toler s motion for reinstatement with back pay in abeyance until the Judicial Investigation Commission determined whether to proceed with the charges against him. On June 8, 2005, the Judicial Hearing Board rejected Mr. Toler s motion to dismiss the charges against him and the Board filed a motion to allow it to conduct a disposition hearing on this matter. Such hearing was conducted on July 13, 2005, and July 17 14, 2005, and on September 6, 2005, the Board filed its Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Disposition with this Court. After thoroughly reviewing the facts of this matter, we have determined that Mr. Toler is due back pay from July 7, 2004, until June 8, 2005, the date when the Judicial Investigation Commission decided to proceed with the investigation of the charges against him. Mr. Toler s award of back pay, however, shall be offset by the imposition of the four separate $5,000.00 sanctions we have adopted and imposed against Mr. Toler as well as the expenses resulting from the costs of the proceedings before the Judicial Hearing Board. Such costs are to be determined by the Judicial Hearing Board and the Judicial Investigation Commission and certified to this Court within thirty days of this Opinion. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the recommended sanctions as set forth by the Board and order that Magistrate William Tom Toler be publicly censured; that he be suspended for one year without pay; that he be fined $5,000.00; that he pay the costs of the proceedings before the Judicial Hearing Board; and that each of the sanctions herein levied be imposed consecutively for each of the four violations Mr. Toler committed against the four female victims which resulted in four separate and distinct violations of the Code of 18 Judicial Conduct. We further hereby order that the four consecutive $5,000.00 fines, as well as the costs assessed against Mr. Toler for the Judicial Hearing Board s proceedings, shall be offset against any back pay owed to Mr. Toler and that all reasonable costs and expenses of the proceedings against him shall be determined by the Judicial Hearing Board and by the Judicial Investigation Commission and certified to this Court within thirty days of the issuance of this Opinion. Moreover, such costs shall include, but not be limited to, all costs for staff, attorneys, travel, etc., for investigating and prosecuting the matter as well as all costs necessary to conduct the hearing against Mr. Toler. Finally, we hold that the date of Mr. Toler s suspension shall begin on July 14, 2005, and shall continue thereafter for a period of four years from and after that date.5 Public Censure, Fine, One Year Suspension Without Pay, Costs, With Each of these Sanctions to be Imposed Consecutively. 5 We note that as a practical matter Mr. Toler s term in office ends December 31, 2008, while our four year suspension imposed upon him extends beyond that date by nearly six months. We decline to address at this time whether or not Mr. Toler s suspension would continue should he be re-elected in 2008. 19

e077cdad04c468ef56cbd5235b228ff4aa9ab7e3820b1c91205e6e9b0746d03a

2005-06-01 00:00:00

7b95c6d3-75f7-495f-8670-949b9eacfb1b

Hulmes by Vest v. Catterson

388 S.E.2d 313

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Hulmes by Vest v. Catterson Annotate this Case 388 S.E.2d 313 (1989) Mary Elizabeth HULMES, etc., who Sues by her Mother and Next Friend, Karen VEST; and Karen Vest, Individually v. S. Eileen CATTERSON, M.D.; and Alessandra Kazura, M.D. No. 18991. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 20, 1989. Richard E. Hardison, Beckley, for Mary Elizabeth Hulmes, Karen Vest. W.H. File, Jr., File, Payne, Scherer & Brown, Beckley, for Alessandra Kazura, M.D. David L. Shuman, Shuman, Annand & Poe, Charleston, for S. Eileen Catterson, M.D. PER CURIAM: Mary Elizabeth Hulmes, an infant, by her mother and next friend, Karen Vest, and Karen Vest, individually, appeal from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County's order dated May 18, 1988. That order dismissed with prejudice, under Rule 37(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action against Alessandra Kazura, M.D., because the plaintiffs had failed to comply with a discovery order.[1] On or about July 5, 1985, Karen Vest took her six-year-old daughter, Mary Elizabeth *314 Hulmes, to the Rhodell Pediatric Clinic for medical examination and treatment of physical symptoms which included vomiting, fever, and abdominal pain. S. Eileen Catterson, M.D., accepted Mary as a patient, began medical treatment, and then allowed her to go home. Nonetheless, the child continued to suffer from the symptoms and returned for treatment on July 8, 1985. She was then attended by Dr. Kazura, who diagnosed gastroenteritis. Dr. Kazura treated Mary again on July 10, 1985. Because her condition did not improve, Mary returned to the Clinic on July 12, 1985. Once again she was examined by Dr. Catterson, who diagnosed prolonged gastroenteritis and had her admitted to Raleigh General Hospital. Dr. Catterson then consulted with a surgeon who diagnosed appendical abscess with perforation and a possible leaking abscess and recommended surgery. On July 16, 1985, exploratory surgery revealed peritonitis with a ruptured appendix and an abscess. Following the operation, the girl required additional hospitalization and surgery. On July 2, 1987, the plaintiffs filed a civil action for medical malpractice against Drs. Catterson and Kazura. The complaint alleged that the doctors' failure to properly diagnose and treat Mary resulted in a ruptured appendix with peritonitis. The doctors filed separate answers generally denying the allegations. On July 21, 1987, Dr. Kazura filed a set of thirty-nine interrogatories and a request for production of documents. The plaintiffs did not object to the interrogatories. On January 13, 1988, Dr. Kazura filed a motion to compel answers to the interrogatories and a motion to compel production.[2] After a hearing, by order entered February 10, 1988, the circuit court granted Dr. Kazura's motion to compel and instructed the plaintiffs to answer the discovery request on or before February 24, 1988. Counsel for the plaintiffs signed the order and then forwarded it to counsel for Dr. Kazura to sign and mail to local counsel for Dr. Catterson. On March 9, 1988, counsel for Dr. Kazura, believing that the order had not been entered, asked counsel for the plaintiffs to sign another order. Counsel for the plaintiffs complied with the request, and a second order compelling responses to discovery was entered. Plaintiffs still did not respond to the interrogatories or to the request for production of documents. On April 27, 1988, Dr. Kazura filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs for failure to comply with the order compelling discovery.[3] Dr. Kazura asked the court to dismiss the action, require the plaintiffs to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, and impose any other sanctions the court determined to be *315 appropriate. A hearing was set for May 6, 1988. When plaintiffs' counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, the circuit court, after learning that plaintiffs' counsel was in the courthouse, sent the bailiff to find him. After plaintiffs' counsel was brought before the trial court, he stated that he had not received notice of the hearing. Instead of continuing the matter, the trial court conducted the sanctions hearing immediately. When plaintiffs' counsel was questioned as to why he had failed to comply with the discovery order, he responded: "The big reason is because I don't, I don't have an expert's report which is mostly what the interrogatories are directed to. As farI am speaking off the top of my head, Your Honor I don't even." The circuit court found that plaintiffs' counsel was guilty of gross negligence by failing to answer the interrogatories and by failing to comply with the court order. Consequently, the trial court rendered a default judgment against the plaintiffs. On May 18, 1988, the plaintiffs made a motion to set aside the default judgment and requested an opportunity to develop a record on why they had failed to comply with discovery. In an order dated June 1, 1988, the circuit court denied the plaintiffs' request. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the interrogatories required answers from a medical expert and that at the time of the May hearing the plaintiffs had not retained an expert. In Syllabus Point 3 of Michael v. Henry, ___ W.Va. ___, 354 S.E.2d 590 (1987), we held: "Under W.Va.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i), a party is required to disclose to another party the identity of persons whom that party intends to call as expert witnesses at trial only when that party has determined within a reasonable time before trial who his expert witnesses will be." The plaintiffs contend that our holding in Syllabus Point 3 of Michael v. Henry, supra, controls. It appears that none of the parties informed the court of this case. In Michael, interrogatories were addressed to the plaintiff in a medical malpractice suit. The interrogatories asked the plaintiff to identify each expert he would call at trial and to identify the subject matter of the expert's testimony, including a summary of each opinion. The plaintiff responded by stating that the experts were unknown at that time. Upon a motion for sanctions for the failure to disclose the expert's identity, the trial court awarded attorney's fees against the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff could not depose the defendant doctors until he answered the interrogatories. Justice Neely, speaking for a unanimous court, outlined the law in this area derived, in part, from federal sources which have a similar rule, stating in conclusion that the "great majority of courts that have construed this rule agree that expert witnesses need not be identified until the later stages of discovery."[4] ___ W.Va. at ___, 354 S.E.2d at 594. In the present case, most of the defendant's interrogatories were directed at obtaining detailed information about the expert's testimony.[5] We believe that under Michael, the reasonable time before trial rule was applicable. It does not appear that a pretrial conference or trial date had been set. We also note that since Michael and the order in this case, Rule 16 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure has *316 been amended, effective October 31, 1988, to provide for a variety of scheduling and planning techniques, including time limits for completion of discovery. Rule 16(b)(3), W.Va.R.Civ.P. We stated in Bell v. Inland Mut. Ins. Co., ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 332 S.E.2d 127 , 134, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 936 , 106 S. Ct. 299, 88 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1985), that "the rendering of judgment by default as a sanction under Rule 37(b) should be used sparingly and only in extreme situations." (Citations omitted). Cf. Chandos, Inc. v. Samson, 150 W.Va. 428, 146 S.E.2d 837 (1966). We then explained that "`[t]he essential reason for the traditional reluctance of the courts to default a party is the "policy of the law favoring the disposition of cases on their merits." Richman v. General Motors Corp., 437 F.2d 196, 199 (1st Cir.1971) (citing cases).'" ___ W.Va. at ___, 332 S.E.2d at 134, quoting from Affanato v. Merrill Bros., 547 F.2d 138, 140 (1st Cir.1977). We do not suggest that Michael can be read to countenance any amount of delay in responding to discovery. Furthermore, it is limited to discovery of experts. The adoption of amendments to Rule 16 makes it plain that a scheduling order controlling time on discovery is appropriate. We believe, however, that Michael is controlling in this case and that consequently the court erred in dismissing Dr. Kazura from the action. Although we have found the dismissal of plaintiff's case to be unwarranted, we do not foreclose the trial court from imposing less severe sanctions under Rule 37 on remand. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County. Reversed and Remanded.

273be50527eafc1118dd276ed8a0b2e6600c412abf3ef83fb5f08df3a026db86

1989-12-20 00:00:00

cdca0471-8a0d-4250-8c93-eca4fafe8ad9

State v. Dolin

347 S.E.2d 208

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

State v. Dolin Annotate this Case 347 S.E.2d 208 (1986) STATE of West Virginia v. Floyd D. DOLIN. No. 16736. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. June 5, 1986. Dissenting Opinion July 16, 1986. *210 James B. Lees, Jr., Preiser & Wilson, Charleston, for appellant. Bethany Boyd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. *209 MILLER, Chief Justice: Floyd Dolin was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County of first degree sexual assault. His main contentions are that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of collateral sexual offenses *211 committed by the defendant upon the same victim and erred in its instruction to the jury on this evidence. In the indictment returned in September, 1982, the defendant was charged with two counts of first degree sexual assault and one count of incest. The first count charged the defendant with forcing his daughter, who was then less than eleven years old, to perform oral sex on him. This count did not identify any specific dates, but merely alleged the acts had been committed within ten years prior to the date of the indictment. The second count charged the defendant with forcing his daughter to perform oral sex on him in January, 1981. The third count charged that the defendant had committed incest with his daughter under W.Va.Code, 61-8-12 (1931), within three years prior to the date of the indictment. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the second count because of a variance between the facts alleged in the indictment and the evidence presented at trial. The jury acquitted the defendant on the third count, but convicted him on the first count of first degree sexual assault. Prior to trial, the parties and the trial court agreed that the relevant time period under the first count which charged sexual intercourse with a person under the age of eleven years was between August, 1976, and August, 1978. This agreement was based on the fact that the sexual assault provision, W.Va.Code, 61-8B-3 (1976),[1] did not become effective until June, 1976. Consequently, the defendant could not be charged with acts committed prior to its effective date. The outer limit of August, 1978, resulted from the fact that his daughter's eleventh birthday was August 31, 1978. The only evidence presented against the defendant was the uncorroborated testimony of his daughter, who was sixteen years old at the time of the trial in 1984. She related to the jury her version of the sexual activity forced upon her by her father. Generally, the daughter was unable to recall specific details as far as the time and the place of the sexual encounters relevant to the first count of the indictment. The daughter was asked by the prosecutor whether she had performed oral sex on her father at any time between August, 1976, and August, 1978. In response to this question, she stated, "Maybe once or twice every three months. I can't say just exactly, you know." She also explained that during this time period the defendant ordinarily did not force her to perform oral sex, but usually rubbed his sex organ on her. During cross-examination, the daughter was unable to recall any specific instance during the relevant time period when the defendant forced her to perform oral sex on him.[2] *212 The daughter testified in more detail regarding an incident that occurred in her home in January, 1981, when she was thirteen years old. She testified that before noon on that date, the defendant entered the house and forced her to join him in one of the bedrooms. The defendant penetrated her sex organ with his sex organ, rubbed his sex organ on her stomach, and ejaculated. The daughter stated this was the last time the defendant sexually assaulted her. The defendant's former wife testified that they were divorced November 9, 1977, and that the defendant was granted the right to visit his daughter. She also verified that the defendant did take their daughter to Parkersburg on one occasion and also verified another trip where the defendant was alone with their daughter. The daughter informed her mother for the first time on April 9, 1981, of the defendant's sexual activity with her. After the former wife testified, the State rested its case. The defendant took the stand and denied each specific instance of sexual activity alleged by his daughter. He also testified that he was at work on the occasion in January, 1981, when the daughter testified he had vaginal intercourse with her. This alibi was also supported by another defense witness. Furthermore, he denied the general allegation that he had forced his daughter to perform oral sex on him between August, 1976, and August, 1978. The defendant testified that he had never made any advances of a sexual nature toward his daughter. The defendant's chief complaint is that the trial court erred in permitting the daughter to testify about additional sexual offenses allegedly committed by the defendant on her which were collateral to the charges contained in the indictment. Once again we are presented with the difficult issue of whether evidence of collateral crimes should have been presented to the jury. The general rule, as summarized in Syllabus Point 11 of State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640, 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974), is that subject to certain exceptions evidence of collateral crimes is inadmissible: "Subject to exceptions, it is a well-established common-law rule that in a criminal prosecution, proof which shows or tends to show that the accused is guilty of the commission of other crimes and offenses at other times, even though they are of the same nature as the one charged, is incompetent and inadmissible for the purpose of showing the commission of the particular crime charged, unless such other offenses are an element of or are legally connected with the offense for which the accused is on trial." In State v. Harris, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 272 S.E.2d 471 , 474 (1980), we explained some of the policy reasons behind this general rule: "The rationale for the rule announced in Thomas is that when one is placed on trial for the commission of a particular offense, he is to be convicted, if at all, on evidence of the specific charge against him. The purpose of the rule excluding evidence in a criminal prosecution of collateral offenses is to prevent a conviction for one crime by the use of evidence tending to show that the accused engaged in other legally unconnected criminal acts, and to prevent the inference that because the accused engaged or may have engaged in other crimes previously, he was more liable to commit the crime for which he is being tried." Another reason underlying this rule is that the admission of collateral crime *213 evidence is highly prejudicial and can result in a jury convicting a defendant based on his past misdeeds rather than on the facts of the present offense with which he is charged.[3] Such evidence of past misconduct "cannot be used to demonstrate the character of ... the accused, in order to show that he has acted in conformity with his past acts." F. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 6.3(A) at 343 (2d ed. 1986). We acknowledged in Thomas that there are exceptions to the general rule prohibiting evidence of collateral crimes, which most jurisdictions, including our own, recognize. In Syllabus Point 12 of Thomas, we summarized some of these exceptions: "The exceptions permitting evidence of collateral crimes and charges to be admissible against an accused are recognized as follows: the evidence is admissible if it tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial." Although we attempted to summarize the exceptions in Syllabus Point 12 of Thomas, we stated in its text "`that there are so many exceptions to the rule [barring collateral crimes] that it is difficult to determine which is more extensivethe rule or its acknowledged exceptions.'" 157 W.Va. at 654-55, 203 S.E.2d at 455. (Citations omitted). Many federal courts have similarly held that in applying Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence,[4] the exceptions to the admission of collateral crimes listed in the rule are not meant to be exhaustive. E.g., United States v. Lewis, 701 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir.1983); United States v. Morris, 700 F.2d 427 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 947, 103 S. Ct. 2128, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1306 (1983); United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980, 97 S. Ct. 493, 50 L. Ed. 2d 589 (1976); United States v. Woods, 484 F.2d 127 (4th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 979, 94 S. Ct. 1566, 39 L. Ed. 2d 875 (1974); 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 404[08] (1985); McCormick on Evidence § 190 (3d ed. 1984). Before a trial court can determine that evidence of collateral crimes is admissible under one of the exceptions, we have established a procedure that should be followed. In State v. Nicholson, 162 W.Va. 750, 252 S.E.2d 894 (1979), overruled on other grounds, State v. Petry, W.Va. , 273 S.E.2d 346 (1980), we pointed out that an in camera hearing is necessary to allow a trial court to carefully consider the admissibility of collateral crime evidence.[5]*214 Furthermore, we explained in Nicholson that an in camera hearing enables a trial court to properly balance the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effect, as stated in Syllabus Point 15 of Thomas: "In the proper exercise of discretion, the trial court may exclude evidence of collateral crimes and charges if the court finds that its probative value is outweighed by the risk that its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice or confuse the issues or mislead the jury or unfairly surprise a party who has not had reasonable ground to anticipate that such evidence would be offered."[6] In the present case, the trial court did hold an in camera hearing prior to trial to consider the admissibility of the collateral crime evidence. However, at the hearing, the specific collateral sexual offenses the State planned to present at trial and the possible applicable exceptions were simply discussed in general terms. The in camera hearing is rendered meaningless if a trial court is not informed specifically of the details surrounding each collateral offense and is not informed of which exception is applicable. A trial court needs such information so that it can examine the similarities and differences between the collateral offenses and the present offense and can apply the balancing test to determine whether the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect of such evidence. A further procedural point made by many courts is that a collateral crime need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Manning v. Rose, 507 F.2d 889 (6th Cir.1974); United States v. Wormick, 709 F.2d 454 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. Wilford, 710 F.2d 439 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1039, 104 S. Ct. 701, 79 L. Ed. 2d 166 (1984); State v. Spargo, 364 N.W.2d 203 (Iowa 1985); State v. Ohnstad, 359 N.W.2d 827 (N.D.1984); State v. Parton, 694 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1985). We believe this is a sound rule and hereby adopt it. Finally, in examining the similarities and differences between collateral crimes and the present offense charged, we have emphasized that the collateral crimes must have occurred reasonably close in point of time to the present offense. See, e.g., State v. Messer, W.Va. , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522, 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376, 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1, 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584, 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). In examining the more narrow question of whether prior sexual offenses committed on the victim can be shown in the State's case in chief, we find that our case law is not entirely harmonious. In several of our earlier cases, which involved rape against a female under the age of consent, we indicated, without any extensive discussion of the legal rationale, that such testimony was permissible to show an improper or lustful disposition toward the victim. Syllabus Point 3, State v. Beacraft, 126 W.Va. 895, 30 S.E.2d 541 (1944); State v. Lohm, 97 W.Va. 652, 661, 125 S.E. 758, 761 (1924); Syllabus Point 8, State v. Driver, 88 W.Va. 479, 107 S.E. 189 (1921). In Syllabus Point 3 of Beacraft, the Court noted that the acts had to be "identical or closely similar" and were admissible to show an "improper disposition toward prosecutrix and to corroborate evidence of the *215 particular act relied upon."[7] It should be noted that in none of these cases did the Court discuss the rule prohibiting the introduction of collateral crimes. In several later cases, we held without referring to these earlier cases that the introduction of such evidence was inadmissible under the general rule prohibiting the admission of collateral crimes. State v. Simmons, W.Va. , 337 S.E.2d 314 (1985) (per curiam); State v. Moubray, 139 W.Va. 535, 81 S.E.2d 117 (1954);[8]State v. Gargiliana, supra. In these cases, the collateral crimes did not fall into any of the exceptions permitting the admission of collateral crimes and, therefore, were found to be inadmissible. The improper or lustful disposition of the defendant toward the victim is not mentioned in these cases. In other jurisdictions, cases can be found where courts have created what basically amounts to a sexual propensity exception under which other sexual acts not necessarily with the same person or dealing with the same type of sexual offense are permitted to be introduced.[9] We believe this approach contradicts the fundamental premise upon which the collateral crime rule is based. To recognize a sexual propensity exception in addition to the numerous exceptions to the collateral crime rule would provide a convenient path to damage a defendant's character and would sweep additional sexual offenses into evidence which would obviously prejudice and confuse a jury in its consideration of the crime charged in the indictment. What renders the reasoning of those courts which have adopted a sexual propensity exception so anomalous is their failure to acknowledge that sexual crime cases are by their very nature likely to be highly offensive to the average jury. Thus, the ability to further prejudice the jury by admitting additional collateral sexual offenses is even more apparent. Bearing on this problem is the fact that the guilt of a defendant in a sexual offense case can be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. We held in Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Beck, W.Va. , 286 S.E.2d 234 , 31 A.L.R.4th 103 (1981), that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim in a sexual offense case is sufficient to uphold a conviction, unless the testimony is inherently incredible. See also Syllabus Point 4, State v. Green, 163 W.Va. 681, 260 S.E.2d 257 (1979); State v. Golden, 90 W.Va. 496, 111 S.E. 320 (1922). For this reason, courts should be particularly wary of collateral sexual offense evidence and should be cautious in admitting such evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude it is impermissible for collateral sexual offenses to be admitted into evidence solely to show a defendant's improper or lustful disposition toward his victim. This holding is not only in accord with our decisions in Simmons, Moubray, and Gargiliana, but also is supported by many commentators in the evidence field.[10] Furthermore, several *216 other courts have refused to adopt this propensity exception in sexual offense cases, choosing instead to analyze evidence of collateral sexual offenses under the general exceptions to the collateral crime rule. See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal. 3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal. Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So. 2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66, 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411, 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). We have consistently adopted a restrictive approach in admitting evidence of collateral crimes in criminal trials. For example, although the commentators contend that courts generally are quite liberal in admitting collateral crime evidence in narcotics cases,[11] we have refused to admit such evidence in a number of narcotics cases. See, e.g., State v. Ruddle, W.Va. , 295 S.E.2d 909 (1982); State v. Underwood, 168 W.Va. 52, 281 S.E.2d 491 (1981); State v. Messer, supra; State v. Harris, supra. In a related area, we have held that a criminal defendant who testifies at trial may not be impeached by evidence of prior criminal convictions unless the convictions were for perjury or false swearing or making false statements with intent to deceive, which relate to his capacity for truthfulness. Syllabus Point 9, State v. Clements, W.Va. , 334 S.E.2d 600 , cert. denied, U.S. , 106 S. Ct. 165, 88 L. Ed. 2d 137 (1985); Syllabus Point 1, State v. McAboy, 160 W.Va. 497, 236 S.E.2d 431 (1977). This position is more restrictive than Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See generally 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, supra, ¶ 609[04].[12] It is apparent that if we are to remain consistent with the restrictive view we have adopted with regard to collateral crime evidence, we must not permit a defendant's character to be assailed by broadening the exceptions to the collateral crime rule. To the extent that Beacraft, Lohm, and Driver allow collateral sexual offenses to be admitted into evidence to show an improper or lustful disposition toward the victim, they are overruled. It must be remembered that from a procedural standpoint evidence admitted under one of the collateral crime exceptions is thought to be relevant to some aspect of the State's case. Such evidence is not admitted as proof of the ultimate guilt of the defendant. For this reason, it is customary to give the jury a limiting instruction with regard to its consideration of a collateral crime. This instruction generally provides that the evidence of a collateral crime is not to be considered as proof of the defendant's guilt on the present charge, but may be considered in deciding whether a given issue or element relevant to the present charge has been proven. When a defendant requests this limiting instruction, it must be given. State v. Pancake, ___ W.Va. ___, , 296 S.E.2d 37 , 41 (1982). In the present case, the basis for admitting the evidence of the collateral sexual offenses was to show intent, motive, and system. Each of these words carries a distinct and separate meaning and must not be used as blanket passports permitting the introduction of all collateral crime evidence. The term "intent" refers to the criminal intent of the defendant which is a *217 material element of proof in many crimes. However, it is quite clear that there are certain crimes where criminal intent is not an element of the crime. We have held this to be the case under our former incest statute, W.Va.Code, 61-8-12 (1931), which was one of the charges in this case. State v. Moubray, supra. Similarly, no specific showing of criminal intent was necessary as an element for the crime of rape since proof of doing the acts that constituted the offense was all that was required. See generally State v. Burton, 163 W.Va. 40, 254 S.E.2d 129 (1979); 75 C.J.S. Rape § 9 (1952). Furthermore, criminal intent is not a necessary element of our first degree sexual assault statute, W.Va.Code, 61-8B-3 (1976), under which the defendant was indicted in two separate counts.[13] Thus, we believe that in the present case, the evidence of collateral crimes should not have been admitted on the issue of intent because intent was not an element of any of the crimes charged in the indictment. A good summary of the motive exception to the collateral crime rule can be found in 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, supra, ¶ 404[14] at 404-108 through -111, supported by a number of cases: "Motive has been defined as `supply[ing] the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge the criminal intent.' Two evidentiary steps are involved. Evidence of other crimes is admitted to show that defendant has a reason for having the requisite state of mind to do the act charged, and from this mental state it is inferred that he did commit the act. Evidence of another crime has been admitted to show the likelihood of defendant having committed the charged crime because he needed money, sex, goods to sell, was filled with hostility, sought to conceal a previous crime, or to escape after its commission, or to silence a potential witness." (Footnotes omitted). This motive exception sometimes arises in cases involving a charged offense that is not sexual in nature, such as kidnapping or murder, where the underlying motive was to obtain some sexual favor. E.g., United States v. Bradshaw, 690 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210, 103 S. Ct. 3543, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1392 (1983); United States v. Free, 574 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 873, 99 S. Ct. 209, 58 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1978); United States v. Weems, 398 F.2d 274 (4th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1099, 89 S. Ct. 894, 21 L. Ed. 2d 790 (1969). In State v. Miller, W.Va. , n. 8, 336 S.E.2d 910 , 916 n. 8 (1985), we recognized that authority existed under kidnapping statutes similar to ours, which refer to taking the victim for any concession or advantage, that "sexual gratification is a sufficient `concession or advantage' or `thing of value' to satisfy the kidnapping statute." (Citations omitted). In this situation, the collateral crime, i.e., the sexual offense, would be admissible. However, where, as here, the main offense charged is sexual in nature, we do not believe that motive can be inferred from the fact that on prior occasions the defendant committed similar sexual acts *218 with the same victim. Therefore, we conclude the collateral sexual offenses should not have been admitted to show motive. The final theory on which the collateral crimes were sought to be introduced was to show a "system." This term is too broad to permit any rational analysis. In Syllabus Point 12 of Thomas we used the phrase "a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others." We discussed this exception at some length in State v. Frasher, 164 W.Va. 572, 265 S.E.2d 43 (1980), which involved an embezzlement scheme where several of the defendant's personal checks used in the embezzlement scheme had been shown to be worthless. We concluded that while worthless checks might constitute a separate crime, this did not violate the collateral crime rule because the checks were introduced as an integral part of the proof of the embezzlement scheme. We also pointed out in Frasher that proof of a collateral crime could occur in situations in the greater and lesser included offense area. The State in proving the greater offense could collaterally show the lesser offense and this would not violate the collateral crime rule simply because the State may ultimately decide to go to the jury on the lesser included offense. This was recognized in Syllabus Point 11 of Thomas, where we said "unless such other offenses are an element of or are legally connected with the offense for which the accused is on trial." See also State v. Wallace, W.Va. , 337 S.E.2d 321 (1985). We think Thomas`s phraseology of "common scheme or plan" is the more appropriate terminology and conclude the collateral sexual offenses introduced in this case, varying as they do as to time and manner of the acts committed, should not have been admitted to show a common scheme or plan.[14] Based on the grounds urged for the admissibility of the collateral crimes in this case, we conclude they were not admissible.[15] We recognize, however, that trial counsel may not have made a sufficiently particularized objection when this matter was brought before the trial court in the defendant's motion in limine. However, we conclude the trial court committed reversible error in improperly instructing the jury on this issue. The defendant offered an instruction informing the jury that any collateral sexual offenses committed by the defendant could only be considered in relation to the relevant considerations listed in Syllabus Point 12 of Thomas. Over the defendant's objection, the trial court amended this instruction so that not all of the collateral offenses were covered.[16] *219 We find this instruction to be flawed because the trial court cited only the collateral sexual offenses that occurred in Tennessee, Parkersburg, and prior to August 30, 1976, as falling into this collateral crime category. The problem with limiting the instruction to these specific collateral sexual offenses is that the jury was not told for what purposes the remaining instances of collateral crimes were to be considered.[17] This error was particularly egregious because the jury might have considered the fifth incident, where the daughter was forced to perform oral sex when she was twelve or thirteen years old, as being included in the acts charged in count one of the indictment. By failing to limit all of the collateral crimes, the trial court confused the issue and left the jury free to consider the acts not mentioned as proof of the substantive charges.[18] We believe that this constituted reversible error.[19] Therefore, because the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on the evidence of collateral sexual offenses, we reverse the defendant's conviction in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County and remand this case for a new trial to be held in accordance with the principles discussed herein. Reversed and Remanded. McHUGH, Justice, dissenting: I respectfully dissent with the majority's decision that evidence of collateral sexual offenses to show a defendant's improper or lustful disposition toward the victim was inadmissible. Generally, the admission of evidence of collateral offenses is barred in a criminal case. There is merit to this general rule, in that it advances the premise that the accused should only be tried for the crime for which he or she is charged. This general rule also prohibits an attack on the defendant's character to show that the defendant acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. See W. Va.R.Evid. 404. This Court, however, has recognized the validity of carving out an exception in regard to sexual offenses: In a prosecution for an attempt to commit rape on a female under the age of consent, evidence of former attempts by the defendant upon the same female is admissible to show the lustful disposition of the defendant toward her, and the existence and continuance of illicit relations between them. Syl. pt. 8, State v. Driver, 88 W.Va. 479, 107 S.E. 189 (1921). This holding was affirmed in State v. Lohm, 97 W.Va. 652, 125 S.E. 758 (1924), and State v. Beacraft, 126 W.Va. 895, 30 S.E.2d 541 (1944). The majority opinion expressly overrules Driver, Lohm and Beacraft.[*] The majority has rejected the view that the introduction of evidence of the defendant's collateral offenses falls within any of the Thomas exceptions argued by the State as being applicable. Syl. pt. 12, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640, 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). However, the majority recognizes that the exceptions to the rule may be more extensive than the rule of exclusion itself, and that federal courts have held that the list of exceptions is not exhaustive. *220 Even if the majority is correct that none of the Thomas exceptions are applicable in this case, there remains a legitimate reason for the admission of evidence of collateral acts for this type of offense, which other jurisdictions have recognized. This specific exception authorizes the admission of evidence as to the defendant's lustful disposition toward the victim and is designed, in part, to reduce the incredibility of the victim's isolated testimony. The Supreme Court of Nebraska, in State v. Craig, 219 Neb. 70, 76, 361 N.W.2d 206 , 212 (1985), held that "examined as an isolated episode unconnected with any background or antecedent events, incredibility engendered by the very improbability of the episode would cause the mind to boggle and recoil in disbelief." Similar rationale has been applied in Michigan: "Had not the victim been allowed to testify about the prior similar act, her testimony of her father's actions... might well appear incredible." People v. Bailey, 103 Mich.App. 619, 625, 302 N.W.2d 924, 927 (1981). See also State v. Bernier, R.I. , 491 A.2d 1000 (1985); Jenkins v. State, 474 N.E.2d 84 (Ind.1985); State v. Jerousek, 121 Ariz. 420, 590 P.2d 1366 (1979); State v. Spaulding, 313 N.W.2d 878 (Iowa 1981); State v. Acliese, 403 So. 2d 665 (La.1981). The case now before us, like most cases of its kind, is one which ultimately depends upon credibility. The State's primary witness is the victim, and the events that transpired did so over a period of several years. As noted by the majority, this Court, in syl. pt. 5 of State v. Beck, W.Va. , 286 S.E.2d 234 (1981), held that unless the victim's testimony is inherently incredible, it alone is sufficient to convict the defendant in an offense of this nature. Consequently, the victim's testimony as a crucial element of the State's case must be examined in context in order to establish a complete record of events, thereby reducing the incredibility of the victim's testimony. Therefore, carving out a sexual propensity exception allows the finder of facts to weigh the credibility of the victim's unabridged testimony. Other authorities have also essentially supported the admission of testimony of collateral sexual offenses. "In prosecutions for statutory rape, or rape of a female under the age of consent, or an attempt to commit such rape, evidence which shows or tends to show prior offenses of the same kind committed by the defendant with the prosecuting witness is generally admissible." 65 Am.Jur.2d Rape § 72 (1972). See also 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 691(29) (1961); annot., 77 A.L.R.2d 841 (1961). For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the trial judge did not err in admitting the testimony relating to other sexual offenses. I am authorized to state that Justice BROTHERTON joins me in this dissent.

526c2f7148613867cb20608af0c3702ee8673fbab1fa53946d73b92a57c33a26

1986-07-16 00:00:00

69f744ce-fb31-4e40-bac7-10132c223612

Rozas v. Rozas

342 S.E.2d 201

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Rozas v. Rozas Annotate this Case 342 S.E.2d 201 (1986) George Stephen ROZAS v. Cheryl L. ROZAS. No. 16644. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. March 25, 1986. *204 William C. Garrett, Garrett, Garrett & Nostrand, Webster Springs, for appellant. William W. Talbott, Talbott & Alsop, Webster Springs, for appellee. *202 *203 NEELY, Justice: This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Webster County's 5 August 1983 order returning Elizabeth May Rozas to the custody of her mother Cheryl Rozas. Today, we address two issues: (1) whether the circuit court's custody order is supported by the weight of the evidence; and, (2) whether the circuit court erred by refusing to make the report of a 7 July 1983 psychological examination of Cheryl Rozas available for the litigants' inspection. Because the trial court erred in both of these respects, we reverse. I On 16 November 1982 twelve-month-old Elizabeth May Rozas underwent a mastoidectomy at the West Virginia University Hospital. Following the operation, Elizabeth had a one-inch incision behind her left ear to allow for proper drainage. To protect her ears from infection, they were dressed and bandaged. During the days following the surgery, the dressing around Elizabeth's ears repeatedly fell off and the incision bled recurrently. Furthermore, the incision widened from one to two inches and "[t]wo vertical scratches, one in front and one behind" her left ear appeared on 2 December 1982. These events had no explanation, but a review of the hospital's nursing notes and staff progress notes revealed that at each bleeding incident Mrs. Rozas was alone with, or in the vicinity of, the child. Concerned for his child's safety, on 9 December 1982 George Stephen Rozas, Cheryl L. Rozas' ex-husband, petitioned the circuit court to remove custody of the child from Cheryl Rozas. On 10 December 1982, Mr. Rozas obtained a temporary custody order that barred Cheryl Rozas from visiting Elizabeth. Subsequently, the wound healed quickly and there were no more bleeding episodes. Pending the hearing on Mr. Rozas' petition, the circuit court transferred temporary custody of the child to the Department of Welfare. After an evidentiary hearing, on 5 August 1983 the circuit court held that George Rozas had, by a preponderance of the evidence, established that Cheryl Rozas physically abused Elizabeth while the child was a patient in the West Virginia University Hospital from 15 November 1982 through 12 December 1982. However, the court made no finding as to Cheryl Rozas' fitness as a mother. Furthermore, the circuit court concluded that it would be in the best interests of Elizabeth May Rozas for the court to return her to the custody of Cheryl Rozas provided that they both lived in the home of Cheryl Rozas' parents, Jessie and Fannie Woods. From the events that took place at the hospital, the trial court concluded that Mrs. Rozas physically abused her child in a manner that posed a significant risk to the child's health and welfare. Our reversal of this case is required because we find it difficult not to conclude that the court was in error when it failed to find Mrs. Rozas an unfit parent. The physical abuse that Mrs. Rozas visited upon her child is a prima facie, although not conclusive, case of parental misconduct. Such misconduct would serve as grounds for a transfer of custody. Syl., State ex rel. Kiger v. Hancock, 153 W.Va. 404, 168 S.E.2d 798 (1969). Accordingly, the first question that the trial court must answer on remand is whether Cheryl Rozas is a fit parent. The circuit court may have believed that although *205 there were isolated instances of child abuse arising from the stressful circumstances under which Mrs. Rozas was living as a result of the deterioration of her marriage, she is now a fit parent because her abusive behavior is unlikely to recur. Our problem in this case, however, is that the circuit court's findings of fact and conclusions of law come to us as final pronouncements rather than as explanations. And the circuit court has not forwarded a transcript of the proceedings below. On the basis of the record we have received, we cannot make a determination of Mrs. Rozas' fitness. The trial court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Rozas is an unfit parent. Absent a showing that a natural parent is unfit, a natural parent's right to custody outstrips that of a grandparent. Hatfield v. Hatfield, ___ W.Va. ___, 300 S.E.2d 104 (1983); Leach v. Bright, 165 W.Va. 636, 270 S.E.2d 793 (1980). If Mrs. Rozas is unfit, the hybrid arrangement the trial court devised where Mrs. Rozas has custody so long as both she and the child reside with Mrs. Rozas' parents cannot stand. The courts cannot use the best interest of the child doctrine to strip a fit natural parent of his child. Syl. Pt. 3, Hammack v. Wise, 158 W.Va. 343, 211 S.E.2d 118 (1975); Leach v. Bright, 165 W.Va. 636, 270 S.E.2d 793 (1980) (award of nominal custody to fit parent improper if it has the practical effect of placing care and control in the grandparents while denying it to the other fit parent). Because there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Rozas' fitness as a parent was extensively examined below, on remand the trial court must make an evaluation of his fitness. If at the end of the proceedings, the evidence shows that one parent is fit, and the other parent unfit, the trial court must award the child to the fit parent. However, if the trial court finds that both parents are fit, the trial court may apply the "primary caretaker parent" rule, Garska v. McCoy, ___ W.Va. ___, 278 S.E.2d 357 (1981), or if there is no primary caretaker, examine the best interests of the child. In such an examination, the trial court may consider the affect that the child's respective sets of grandparents will have on the child's welfare should custody be awarded to one parent or the other. II The trial court made an additional finding of fact that Webster County Mental Health's 7 July 1983 examination of Cheryl Rozas should not be made part of the record. George Rozas contends that the trial court erred by refusing to admit the report into evidence, by refusing to allow him to cross-examine the report's preparer, and by refusing to make the report available for his inspection. A The court ordered the examination of Mrs. Rozas pursuant to W.Va.Code, 49-6-4(a) [1984], which states in pertinent part: At any time during proceedings under this article the court may, upon its own motion or upon motion of the child or other parties, order the child or other parties to be examined by a physician, psychologist or psychiatrist, and may require testimony from such expert, subject to cross-examination and the rules of evidence: ... W.Va. Code, 49-6-4(a) [1984] leaves no doubt that despite the less formal evidentiary rules and practices in child custody cases, all psychiatric or psychological evidence shall be heard in open court and comport with all the requirements of due process. It has long been established that if the trial court wishes to use the report of an independent investigator in making a decision in a child custody case, all parties to the proceeding will be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine of the report's preparer. Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 W.Va. 708, 715, 68 S.E.2d 361 , 366 (1951), overruled on other grounds, J.B. v. A.B., *206 161 W.Va. 332, 242 S.E.2d 248 (1978).[1] The present case differs, however, because the trial court ruled that the report not be made part of the record. If an expert's report is not introduced into evidence, there is no right to cross-examine the report's preparer in open court. In Interest of S.C., ___ W.Va. ___, 284 S.E.2d 867 , 870 (1981) (State Department of Welfare's decision not to call social workers to testify at hearing on neglect petition, or to offer their reports into evidence, did not violate mother's statutory right to cross-examine witnesses where mother was afforded, and exercised her opportunity to cross-examine each witness presented by the State). This rule does not change when the party who proffers the report is a court appointed, independent agency rather than a litigant. A trial court may exclude a report prepared pursuant to W.Va. Code 49-6-4(a) [1984] from the record because the court believes that the report is not competent, relevant, or probative. Even though a court appointed independent agency proffers the report, the report must meet the standards of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.[2] In the present case, it was within the trial court's discretion to exclude the report. After administering a battery of psychological tests to Mrs. Rozas, Phyllis M. Maher of Webster County Mental Health, the report's preparer, concluded that: "... the psychological tests indicate results of questionable validity." She added: "... I do not feel I can make an accurate assessment of her capabilities as a mother." Phyllis Maher had great doubts about the usefulness of the report. W.Va.R.Evid. 702 provides for the admission of expert testimony, such as Ms. Maher's, when the expert's "knowledge will assist the trier of fact ... to determine a fact in issue." It does not require the admission of all proffered expert testimony. Under Fed.R.Evid. 702, (which is identical to W.Va.R.Evid. 702), a the trial judge has broad discretion to decide whether expert testimony should be admitted, and where the evidence is unnecessary, cumulative, confusing or misleading the trial judge may properly refuse to admit it. U.S. v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694 F.2d 312 (4th Cir.1982) (in a Sherman Act prosecution of a paving company, expert testimony that did little more than correlate higher contracting costs with longer hauling distances was excludable at the trial judge's discretion), citing, Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31 , 35, 82 S. Ct. 1119, 1122, 8 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1962). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "the trial judge has broad discretion in the matter of the admission or exclusion of expert evidence, and his action is to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous", Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. at 35, 82 S. Ct. at 1122, cited in, 3 Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 702[02] (1985). We follow our federal brethren and conclude that the circuit court judge did not abuse his discretion. By its own admission, the report on Mrs. Rozas was of questionable validity. It was well within the trial court's discretion to decide that an extended cross examination of the report in open court would be unnecessary. Given the report's low probative value, and the substantial danger that it would serve only to confuse the issues, the report was properly excluded. W.Va.R.Evid. 403;[3]United States v. Wright, 489 *207 F.2d 1181, 1186 (D.C.Cir.1973). In the present case, the probative value of the report is so low, we can find no reason to disturb the trial court's ruling. B But even though a trial judge may exclude a court appointed expert's testimony or opinion from the record, he may not abrogate each party's right to inspect the court appointed expert's findings. West Va.R. of Evid. 706 states: (a) AppointmentThe court may on its own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may request the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties and may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the court unless he consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of his duties by the court in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of his findings, if any; his deposition may be taken by any party; and he may be called to testify by the court or any party. He shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling him as a witness. [Emphasis supplied by the Court]. The parties to an action where the court has appointed an expert retain all their discovery rights in the expert's report.[4] Mr. Rozas had a right to inspect Ms. Maher's findings. Although Mr. Rozas may not be able to introduce Ms. Maher's findings into the record, he retains this limited right of review. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand the trial court will make Ms. Maher's report available to both parties. Reversed and remanded.

c54daafa57bae269c98f9607cec8bbf835bf9c9b62bf157c328fec31be31bdb4

1986-03-25 00:00:00

684b0e22-7f2b-4ae0-8436-9ad2c799b9e5

King v. KAYAK MFG. GORP

387 S.E.2d 511

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

King v. KAYAK MFG. GORP Annotate this Case 387 S.E.2d 511 (1989) Clifford KING v. KAYAK MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. No. 18910. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. November 9, 1989. *513 Richard E. Hamstead, Jacques R. Williams, Hamstead & Williams, Morgantown, for Kayak Mfg. Corp. Darwin F. Johnson, Morgantown, Peter Perlman, Peter Perlman Law Offices, P.S.C., Lexington, Ky., for appellee. *512 MILLER, Justice. In this product liability case, we are asked to determine whether the trial court was correct in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability at the conclusion of all the evidence. The plaintiff became a quadriplegic after he dove into an above-ground swimming pool which contained approximately four feet of water. The defendant's chief defense was that the plaintiff, having used the pool on several occasions shortly before his final dive, was aware of the shallow depth and either assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent. I.A. Besides rejecting these defenses as a matter of law, the trial court appeared to be of the view that following the adoption of the doctrine of comparative contributory negligence, the doctrine of assumption of risk had lost its vitality.[1] When we adopted our rule for product liability in Morningstar v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 162 W.Va. 857, 253 S.E.2d 666 (1979),[2] we *514 recognized that assumption of risk was an available defense: "It does appear that the defense of assumption of risk is available against the plaintiff, where it is shown that with full appreciation of the defective condition he continues to use the product. The hallmark of this defense is actual knowledge on the part of the plaintiff.... "To this defense, some courts have added the further requirement that the plaintiff's conduct in proceeding to use the admittedly defective product must be unreasonable...." 162 W.Va. at 890, 253 S.E.2d at 683-84. (Citations omitted). See also Star Furniture Co. v. Pulaski Furniture Co., ___ W.Va.___, 297 S.E.2d 854 (1982). After our decision in Morningstar, we reviewed the doctrine of contributory negligence in Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979), and determined that it should be modified, as many other jurisdictions had done, to permit a form of comparative contributory negligence. We outlined our rule in Syllabus Point 3 of Bradley: "A party is not barred from recovering damages in a tort action so long as his negligence or fault does not equal or exceed the combined negligence or fault of the other parties involved in the accident." In Bradley, we used the term "comparative negligence" as a shorthand method of referring to comparative contributory negligence. It is clear, however, from Syllabus Point 3 of Bradley that the plaintiff's contributory negligence is compared with the "negligence or fault ... of the other parties involved" and so long as the plaintiff's negligence or fault "does not equal or exceed" that of the other actors, the plaintiff is not barred from recovery because of his contributory negligence.[3] Thus, under Bradley, it is not initially necessary for the jury to make a comparison of each individual defendant's negligence. The first determination is whether the plaintiff's percentage of contributory negligence bars recovery. On this issue, the jury is instructed to determine if the defendants are liable to the plaintiff. Then the percentage, or degree, of the plaintiff's contributory negligence is compared to that of all of the other parties involved in the accident.[4] In Adkins v. Whitten, ___ W.Va. ___, 297 S.E.2d 881 (1982), we held that a jury should be instructed on the effect of the comparative negligence doctrine and the fact that if the plaintiff is more than 50 percent negligent, he may not recover damages. This instruction enables the jury to understand the mechanics of the comparative contributory negligence rule.[5] The question of the defendant's right to comparative contribution, i.e., allocation of each defendant's separate degree of fault, is a secondary issue. Obviously, it need not be addressed if the jury finds that the plaintiff's contributory negligence bars recovery, as none of the defendants is then liable in damages. Moreover, if one or more of the defendants are found not to be guilty of any primary negligence, such defendant is not liable for any contribution.[6] Furthermore, the right of comparative *515 contribution is not automatic, but must be requested by one of the defendants. Thus, the jury should not be asked to consider a defendant's individual degree of negligence until it has first considered the primary issues of the defendants' liability to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's degree of contributory negligence. We reviewed the principles of comparative contribution in Sitzes v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 169 W.Va. 698, 289 S.E.2d 679 (1982), where we acknowledged that such a right existed between joint tortfeasors. We recognized, as have other courts, that it is only equitable that a defendant should have a right of contribution against fellow joint tortfeasors if such defendant is required to pay the plaintiff more than his allocated share of fault.[7] We also held in Sitzes that the right of comparative contribution was not automatic, as "it can only be invoked by one of the joint tortfeasors in the litigation ... by requesting ... special interrogatories pursuant to Rule 49(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure[.]" 169 W.Va. at 713, 289 S.E.2d at 688. The right of joint tortfeasors to obtain comparative contribution inter se does not alter the plaintiff's right to joint and several liability on a judgment that is obtained against joint tortfeasors. This right was reaffirmed in Sitzes.[8] B. We have not had an opportunity since Bradley to determine whether, in light of our adoption of comparative contributory negligence, the doctrine of assumption of risk should be modified. In Pack v. Van Meter, ___ W.Va. ___, 354 S.E.2d 581 (1986), we limited the availability of the defense of assumption of risk where the defendant had breached a duty imposed by a statutory safety scheme. In the course of discussing the assumption of risk doctrine, we stated in note 11 of Pack, ___ W.Va. at ___, 354 S.E.2d at 587: "The parties do not raise and, therefore, we do not address the question of whether in view of our comparative negligence law established in Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979), there is a need to retain the doctrine of assumption of risk. There is a split of authority on this issue elsewhere. Annot., 16 A.L.R.4th 700 (1982)." See also Ventura v. Winegardner, ___ W.Va.___, ___ n. 3, 357 S.E.2d 764 , 767 n. 3 (1987). Our doctrine of assumption of risk has been acknowledged to be related to contributory negligence, and the "distinction is sometimes a troublesome matter[.]" Spurlin v. Nardo, 145 W.Va. 408, 417, 114 S.E.2d 913 , 919 (1960). Nevertheless, in Syllabus Point 5 of Spurlin, we made this delineation: "Contributory negligence and assumption of risk are not identical. The essence of contributory negligence is carelessness; of assumption of risk, venturousness. Knowledge and appreciation of the danger are necessary elements of assumption of risk. Failure to use due *516 care under the circumstances constitutes the element of contributory negligence." In Hollen v. Linger, 151 W.Va. 255, 263, 151 S.E.2d 330 , 335 (1966), we summarized the doctrine in these terms: "The doctrine of assumed or incurred risk is based upon the existence of a factual situation in which the act of the defendant alone creates the danger and causes the injury and the plaintiff voluntarily exposes himself to the danger with full knowledge and appreciation of its existence." Our assumption of risk doctrine requires actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, in accordance with the general rule elsewhere.[9]See also Ventura v. Winegardner, supra; Cross v. Noland, 156 W.Va. 1, 190 S.E.2d 18 (1972); Korzun v. Shahan, 151 W.Va. 243, 151 S.E.2d 287 (1966). In recent years, with the almost universal adoption of comparative contributory negligence, courts have reconsidered whether the assumption of risk defense should operate as an absolute bar to the plaintiff's recovery. It appears that a majority of those jurisdictions which have adopted comparative contributory negligence have also adopted comparative assumption of risk.[10] The result is that under a comparative assumption of risk system, the defense of assumption of risk, if established, no longer operates as a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery. Instead, the plaintiff's degree of fault arising from the assumption of risk is determined by the jury, and the total award of damages is then diminished accordingly. This result has been achieved by acknowledging that both contributory negligence and assumption of risk focus on the fault of the plaintiff. There is a further recognition that both doctrines had their origins in the common law and were unduly harsh because if the plaintiff's fault contributed in any degree to the injuries, there could be no recovery.[11] We recognized the harshness of the common law rule of contributory negligence in Bradley, as well as the fact that it had been abrogated in a majority of other jurisdictions. The same situation exists with the doctrine of assumption of risk. It also appears that when comparative assumption of risk has been adopted in a given jurisdiction, it parallels the formulation of that jurisdiction's comparative contributory negligence doctrine. In Bradley, we selected a form of comparative contributory negligence in which the plaintiff could recover damages so long as his fault did not "equal or exceed the combined negligence or fault of the other parties involved in the accident." Syllabus Point 3, *517 in part, Bradley.[12] We spent a considerable amount of time in Bradley reviewing the "pure" comparative negligence concept judicially adopted in several other states.[13] We found this rule to be a too "radical break from the common law's tort-fault methodology" and concluded: "[W]e are not willing to abandon the concept that where a party substantially contributes to his own damages, he should not be permitted to recover for any part of them." 163 W.Va. at 341, 256 S.E.2d at 885.[14] We still believe our apportionment rule to be a correct balancing of interests, and we adopt it for purposes of comparative assumption of risk. As we noted earlier, some jurisdictions have merged their assumption of risk doctrine into their comparative contributory negligence doctrine.[15] This result has usually been justified on the ground that there are substantial similarities between the two concepts. We do not find that such similarities exist in this jurisdiction. The predicate of assumption of risk is that the plaintiff has full knowledge and appreciation of the dangerous condition and voluntarily exposes himself to it. This is a high standard, and in several cases we have held that, as a matter of law, an assumption of risk instruction should not have been given. Cross v. Noland, supra; Hollen v. Linger, supra. Thus, we retain the defense of assumption of risk, but modify it to bring it in line with the doctrine of comparative contributory negligence set out in Bradley. We hold that a plaintiff is not barred from recovery by the doctrine of assumption of risk unless his degree of fault arising therefrom equals or exceeds the combined fault or negligence of the other parties to the accident.[16] As in the case of comparative contributory negligence under Bradley, where assumption of risk has been shown, the instructions should only require that the plaintiff's degree of fault be ascertained.[17] *518 There appears to be no substantial disagreement[18] among those jurisdictions that have adopted comparative assumption of risk that it is applicable to a product liability case based on strict liability in tort.[19] We, therefore, confirm Morningstar's statements that the defense of assumption of risk is available against a plaintiff in a product liability case where it is shown that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the defective or dangerous condition, fully appreciated the risks involved, and continued to use the product. However, the plaintiff is not barred from recovery unless his degree of fault under assumption of risk equals or exceeds the combined fault of the other parties to the accident. In Bradley, we recognized that in adopting the principle of comparative contributory negligence, we could not anticipate every issue that might arise. We did, however, attempt to deal with several key issues, and we believe it advisable to do so in addressing comparative assumption of risk. First, we have in the past recognized that the defense of assumption of risk is not available where the defendant's conduct is willful, malicious, or grossly negligent. Korzun v. Shahan, supra; Stone v. Rudolph, 127 W.Va. 335, 32 S.E.2d 742 (1944). A common counterpart to this rule is found where one athlete sues another for injuries received as a result of physical contact occurring during athletic events. In these situations, some courts have concluded that assumption of risk may act as a bar to recovery unless there is proof that the defendant acted in a willful, wanton, or reckless manner. E.g., Kuehner v. Green, 436 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1983); Ridge v. Kladnick, 42 Wash. App. 785, 713 P.2d 1131 (1986).[20] Other courts have looked at this question from the standpoint of the duty owed. These courts hold that a participant owes only a duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct with regard to a fellow participant. E.g., Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 931, 100 S.Ct. *519 275, 62 L. Ed. 2d 188 (1979); Santiago v. Clark, 444 F. Supp. 1077 (N.D.W.Va.1978); Nabozny v. Barnhill, 31 Ill.App.3d 212, 334 N.E.2d 258 (1975); Gauvin v. Clark, 404 Mass. 450, 537 N.E.2d 94 (1989); Ross v. Clouser, 637 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1982); Kabella v. Bouschelle, 100 N.M. 461, 672 P.2d 290 (1983); Turcotte v. Fell, 115 A.D.2d 727, 496 N.Y.S.2d 543 (1985), aff'd, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 502 N.E.2d 964 (1986).[21] We prefer the participant contact rule where no assumption of risk question is involved and the key is the limited duty owed, i.e., not to willfully, wantonly, or recklessly injure a fellow participant. The participant contact rule is to be distinguished from the situation where a spectator or participant is injured as a collateral consequence of the activity, such as being struck by a foul ball or a stray hockey puck. In this situation, most courts find that the park operator's duty is limited to screening the most dangerous section of the arena. E.g., Quinn v. Recreation Park Ass'n, 3 Cal. 2d 725 , 46 P.2d 144 (1935); Maytnier v. Rush, 80 Ill.App.2d 336, 225 N.E.2d 83 (1967); Brisson v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Ass'n, 185 Minn. 507, 240 N.W. 903 (1932); Crane v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition, 168 Mo.App. 301, 153 S.W. 1076 (1913); Erickson v. Lexington Baseball Club, 233 N.C. 627, 65 S.E.2d 140 (1951); Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531 (1981); Cincinnati Baseball Club v. Eno, 112 Ohio St. 175, 147 N.E. 86 (1925); Lang v. Amateur Softball Ass'n of America, 520 P.2d 659 (Okla.1974); Jones v. Three Rivers Management Corp., 483 Pa. 75, 394 A.2d 546 (1978); Friedman v. Houston Sports Ass'n, 731 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.App. 1987); Hamilton v. Salt Lake City Corp., 120 Utah 647, 237 P.2d 841 (1951); Leek v. Tacoma Baseball Club, 38 Wash. 2d 362 , 229 P.2d 329 (1951); Annot., 91 A.L.R.3d 24 (1979). Here, again, the emphasis is not on assumption of risk, but on the limited duty owed. Admittedly, in some of these cases, courts speak of the spectator assuming the ordinary hazards incident to the particular activity, but such statements are not made in the traditional formulation of assumption of risk.[22] The more appropriate analysis acknowledges that the owner of the facility has no duty to protect an invitee against the ordinary hazards of the sports activity. This same analysis extends to a participant. Thus, a ski slope that becomes ice-covered or an ice skating rink where the ice is gouged by other skaters should not usually result in the owner becoming liable to those injured because of these conditions.[23] C. In Bradley, after adopting the comparative contributory negligence rule, we embarked on a rather lengthy discussion on whether the new rule would be made fully retroactive, i.e., available to those cases that were presently pending or that had been tried and the issue of comparative assumption of risk was preserved *520 for appeal. We identified in Syllabus Point 5 of Bradley the various factors that are utilized to determine full retroactivity.[24] We summarized these factors in Sitzes, 169 W.Va. at 703-04, 289 S.E.2d at 683: "(1) [W]hether the issue involves a settled area of the law where retroactivity would be less justified or a changing area where retroactivity would be more likely and whether the new rule is foreshadowed; (2) procedural rules are more likely to be afforded retroactivity than substantive points; (3) common law rule changes are more likely to be applied retroactively; (4) substantial public policy changes are less likely to be applied retroactively; (5) the more radical departure from prior law the less likelihood for retroactivity; and (6) analogous decisions of other jurisdictions." The comparative contributory negligence rule in Bradley involved the tort lawan area traditionally subject to modification. The new rule did not effect a radical change because it did not abolish contributory negligence. Furthermore, we found the rule was limited in scope because it primarily affected private parties on a case-by-case basis, and involved a limited time period, i.e., the two-year statute of limitations. As a consequence, we made the new rule fully retroactive for personal injuries. We also observed that other jurisdictions had made their new comparative contributory negligence rules fully retroactive. The same analysis is applicable to our rule of comparative assumption of risk, and for the same reasons we conclude that the doctrine of comparative assumption of risk should be made fully retroactive. Consequently, comparative assumption of risk is available in all cases tried after the date of this opinion, including those on retrial. Additionally, it applies on appeal if the point was preserved at trial. D. In this case, the central issue is whether the trial court was correct in holding, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict of liability, despite the defendant's claims of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Our standard for directing a verdict on liability is found in Syllabus Points 4 and 5 of Sommerville v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 151 W.Va. 709, 155 S.E.2d 865 (1967): "4. When the material facts are undisputed and reasonable men can draw only one conclusion from them, the question of negligence is a question of law for the court. "5. Where the evidence given on behalf of the defendant is clearly insufficient to support a verdict for him so that such verdict, if returned by a jury, must be set aside, and the evidence of the plaintiff is clear and convincing, it is the duty of the trial court, when so requested, to direct a verdict for the plaintiff." See also Jones, Inc. v. W.A. Wiedebusch Plumbing & Heating Co., 157 W.Va. 257, 201 S.E.2d 248 (1973). There are several material factual disputes that exist in this case. The plaintiff testified that he dove with his arms outstretched above his head. As he leveled off near the bottom of the pool, he struck *521 his head on the drain outlet that protruded approximately one and one-half or two inches above the bottom. He admitted that he was aware that the water was approximately four feet deep. The plaintiff had only swum once or twice a year in the five years before the accident. He was neither an expert swimmer nor a diver, and he had only swum in an above-ground pool once before. He had seen other people, including his brother, dive into the pool and denied knowledge that such a dive could cause so severe an injury. He testified that he did not see the two "No Diving" signs, which were approximately six inches long and two and one-half inches wide.[25] The defendant produced testimony that the plaintiff, besides knowing the depth of the pool, had elected to make a so-called "sailor's dive," by diving into the pool with his arms at his side rather than above his head. This act, in light of the plaintiff's knowledge of the pool depth, could constitute contributory negligence. Courts in other jurisdictions have indicated that making a deep dive into a shallow pool constitutes a failure to exercise reasonable care for one's own safety. E.g., Schenck v. Pelkey, 176 Conn. 245, 405 A.2d 665 (1978); Caruso v. Aetna Ins. Co., 186 So. 2d 851 (La.App.1966); Vallillo v. Muskin Corp., 212 N.J.Super. 155, 514 A.2d 528 (1986), cert. denied, 109 N.J. 496, 537 A.2d 1287 (1987); Smith v. Stark, 67 N.Y.2d 693, 499 N.Y.S.2d 922, 490 N.E.2d 841 (1986); Benjamin v. Deffet Rentals, Inc., 66 Ohio St.2d 86, 419 N.E.2d 883 (1981). An assumption of risk analysis yields much the same result. The jury could have believed that the plaintiff made a sailor's dive and that he was aware of the rather shallow depth of the pool because he was in it prior to the last dive. The jury could then reasonably have concluded that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the risk of serious injury. In view of these factual conflicts, we believe it was error for the court not to give an assumption of risk instruction. This same defense was at issue in Ventura v. Winegardner, ___ W.Va. ___, 357 S.E.2d 764 (1987), where a motel guest was engaged in horseplay at night and, while running in an unlit area, fell over a bank, injuring herself. We concluded that the trial court erred in refusing to give an assumption of risk instruction, stating this principle in Syllabus Point 2: "`Where [in a trial by jury] there is competent evidence tending to support a pertinent theory in the case, it is the duty of the trial court to give an instruction presenting such theory when requested to do so. McAllister v. Weirton Hospital Co., ___ W.Va.___, ___, 312 S.E.2d 738 , 744 (1983) (citations omitted).' Syl. pt. 2, Brammer v. Taylor, ___ W.Va. ___, 338 S.E.2d 207 (1985)." In light of the foregoing, we hold that the trial court erred by directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. II. Other errors are alleged by the defendant, and, in view of the retrial, we will discuss them. *522 A. The defendant contends that the trial court erred by prohibiting the plaintiff's treating physician, George Nugent, M.D., from testifying during cross-examination as to the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. In vouching the record out of the jury's presence, Dr. Nugent testified that the lacerations on top of the plaintiff's head and the compression fracture sustained by the plaintiff indicated that he dove into the pool head first. The defendant contends that this testimony would have discredited the plaintiff's testimony that he suffered his injury while swimming parallel to the bottom of the pool. The trial court refused to allow Dr. Nugent to render his opinion because of the physician-patient privilege and because Dr. Nugent was not qualified to render an opinion on the cause of the plaintiff's head injury. We find that the trial court erred in refusing this testimony. We have never explicitly recognized the physician-patient privilege in West Virginia. State v. Cheshire, ___ W.Va.___, ___, 313 S.E.2d 61 , 66 (1984); State v. Simmons, ___ W.Va.___, ___ n. 6, 309 S.E.2d 89 , 95 n. 6 (1983); F. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 5.4(6) (2d ed. 1986). Even if we assume that such a privilege exists, the plaintiff waived it by offering Dr. Nugent as a witness and questioning him about the plaintiff's injuries and medical treatment. Mohr v. Mohr, 119 W.Va. 253, 193 S.E. 121 (1937) (if plaintiff had offered physician as a witness, his offer would have been a waiver of any confidential information). See also State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 730 P.2d 238 (1986); Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla.App.1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1977); Knighton v. Knighton, 253 So. 2d 846 (Miss. 1971); People v. Wilkins, 65 N.Y.2d 172, 490 N.Y.S.2d 759, 480 N.E.2d 373 (1985); State v. Olsen, 271 Or. 369, 532 P.2d 230 (1975); see generally Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 255 (3d ed. 1984); 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 277 (1976). We also find that the defendant's cross-examination of Dr. Nugent regarding his opinion as to the possible causation of the plaintiff's injury would be admissible. We have consistently held that it is permissible for a physician to testify as to the causal connection between the accident and the manner in which the plaintiff was injured. E.g., Serbin v. Newman, 157 W.Va. 71, 198 S.E.2d 140 (1973); Pygman v. Helton, 148 W.Va. 281, 134 S.E.2d 717 (1964). Of course, if the questioning seeks information that is beyond the expertise of the physician, he may so state and decline to answer. B. The defendant also complains that the trial court erred by allowing the plaintiff to introduce advertising and promotional material which showed persons diving into similar Kayak-made, above-ground pools. The defendant advances two objections: (1) that this material had not recently been a part of their promotional campaign and (2) that the plaintiff never saw the material. In a product liability case, the manufacturer's advertising or promotional material concerning the uses of the product are a part of reasonable use of the product and may be admitted into evidence even though the user is not aware of the material. E.g., Hiller v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A., 671 P.2d 369 (Alaska 1983); Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co., 196 Cal. Rptr. 117 , 148 Cal. App. 3d 374 (1983); Palmer v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo.1984); Garesche v. Textured Coatings of America, Inc., 352 So. 2d 1207 (Fla.App.1977); Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp., 67 Ohio St.2d 456, 424 N.E.2d 568 (1981). The Alaska Supreme Court in Hiller encountered a similar argument and disposed of it in note 2, 671 P.2d at 373, as follows: "We reject Kawasaki's suggestion that the advertisement was irrelevant because it was not seen by Hiller and not even aired until after Hiller's accident. The advertisement indicates a use of the machine Kawasaki was able to foresee. `Foreseeable use' in products liability cases focuses on what is foreseeable to the manufacturer, rather than on the *523 subjective knowledge held by the consumer. See Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh, 131 Ariz. 344, 641 P.2d 258, 262-63 (Ariz. App.1981); Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 555 P.2d 48 , 56-57 (Okl. 1976)." In Syllabus Point 6 of Morningstar, we focused on the intended use of the product: "The question of what is an intended use of a product carries with it the concept of all those uses a reasonably prudent person might make of the product, having in mind its characteristics, warnings and labels." This statement was not meant to be an exclusive formulation. Certainly, as foregoing courts have recognized, the manufacturer's suggested uses for a product contained in its advertising or other literature are admissible on the issue of what is an appropriate, intended use of a product. As to the staleness of the advertising material, there was no evidence as to when this material was withdrawn. Nor was it shown that pool purchasers had been subsequently notified by the defendant to disregard the withdrawn advertisements or that diving was dangerous. Consequently, we do not believe that the trial court committed any error in admitting this material. C. The defendant also claims that the trial court erred by foreclosing a discovery deposition of the plaintiff's expert. The court's order, in fact, foreclosed each side from obtaining a discovery deposition of the other's expert. It is apparent from the language of Rule 26(b)(4) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure that there is no absolute right to take a discovery deposition of the other party's testifying expert witness. The rule requires interrogatories to be utilized first and leaves to the discretion of the trial court whether further discovery is warranted.[26] Our rule is patterned after Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This summary is made in 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 2029 at 250-51 (1970): "Rule 26(b)(4) divides experts into four classes and deals separately with each. "(1) Experts a party expects to use at trial. The opponent may learn by interrogatories the names of these trial witnesses and the substance of their testimony but further discovery concerning them can be had only on motion and court order. "(2) Experts retained or specially employed in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial but not expected to be used at trial. Except as provided in Rule 35 for an examining physician, the facts and opinions of experts in this category can be discovered only on a showing of exceptional circumstances. "(3) Experts informally consulted in preparation for trial but not retained. No discovery may be had of the names or views of experts in this category. "(4) Experts whose information was not acquired in preparation for trial. This class, which includes both regular employees of a party not specially employed on the case and also experts who were actors or viewers of the occurrences that gave rise to suit, is not included within Rule 26(b)(4) at all and facts and opinions they have are freely discoverable as with any ordinary witness." (Footnote omitted). See also 4 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice Civil § 26.66 (1989). *524 It appears that the court here concluded that the defendant had not made a good faith effort in complying with some of the discovery requests. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant had delayed the request for the discovery deposition so that it could not be obtained before the previously ordered discovery deadline. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. D. The final error argued is that the defendant was restricted in the cross-examination of the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Gabrielson. The limitation was imposed because the witness had an airplane reservation. We have reviewed the transcript of his testimony, and the defendant had an extensive cross-examination. The judge remarked toward the end of the cross-examination that defense counsel had been dilatory, and gave him five minutes to complete the examination. The defendant asserts that the purpose of further cross-examination was to explore inconsistencies between the expert's present testimony and statements he had made in prior cases. Early in the cross-examination, the defense had referred to the doctor's testimony in several other pool cases, but was unable to obtain any inconsistent admissions and appeared to have abandoned this tactic. We do not doubt that a party is entitled to an adequate cross-examination. However, this does not mean that a court can set no time constraints. Rule 611(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence recognizes the right of a trial court to impose limitations: "Control by Court.The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment."[27] Even before the adoption of the Rules of Evidence, we had a similar rule giving the trial court discretion to control the extent of the cross-examination of a witness. See Syllabus Point 4, State v. Carduff, 142 W.Va. 18, 93 S.E.2d 502 (1956); Syllabus Point 4, Nees v. Julian Goldman Stores, 109 W.Va. 329, 154 S.E. 769 (1930). We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is set aside, and a new trial is awarded. Reversed and remanded.

2125ebd78e6006d3f38e669fbb5f47e0ad562b29557a11f292101041b2771821

1989-11-09 00:00:00

539e25d2-f85d-4fc6-b5a5-cf1e787dba74

City Nat. Bank of Charleston v. Wells

384 S.E.2d 374

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

City Nat. Bank of Charleston v. Wells Annotate this Case 384 S.E.2d 374 (1989) The CITY NATIONAL BANK OF CHARLESTON v. Leonard B. WELLS v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, et al., and Bud Young Toyota, Inc. No. 18409. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. August 2, 1989. *377 Gregory E. Elliott, Hann & Elliott, Charleston, for Bud Young. Otis O'Connor, Charleston, for City Nat. Bank. C. Page Hamrick, III, Charleston, for Leonard Wells. G.W. Lavendar, III, Charleston, for Mid Atlantic Toyota Distr. and Toyota Motor Sales. *375 *376 MILLER, Justice: This is an appeal by Bud Young Toyota, Inc. (defendant) from a final order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, dated June 29, 1987, which upheld a jury verdict in the amount of $10,333.00 in favor of Leonard B. Wells (plaintiff) in a breach of warranty action. The dispute between these parties arose out of the plaintiff's purchase of an allegedly defective automobile. The defendant asserts on appeal (1) that the trial court erred in not ruling that the plaintiff was not entitled to cancel the contract of sale, (2) that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider the alleged impairment of the plaintiff's credit rating as an element of consequential damages, (3) that the verdict was excessive, and (4) that the trial court erred in not ordering the vehicle manufacturer and distributor to indemnify the defendant. On *378 cross-assignment of error, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to award him prejudgment interest on the verdict and attorney's fees. We find no error warranting reversal of the jury's verdict, but we remand for an award of attorney's fees. The defendant was a retail automobile dealership located in Nitro, Kanawha County. On September 28, 1982, the plaintiff purchased a 1982 four-wheel-drive Toyota truck from the defendant for $8,520.00. Before purchasing the truck, the plaintiff, a stonemason, advised the salesman that he needed the vehicle for use in his business. The plaintiff gave a $1,000.00 downpayment, and the remainder of the transaction was financed by the defendant. The defendant and the plaintiff executed a document entitled "MOTOR VEHICLE CONTRACT, SECURITY AGREEMENT, NOTE AND DISCLOSURES," which listed the plaintiff's total obligation, with finance and other charges, as $11,242.56. On September 30, 1982, the defendant assigned this instrument to the City National Bank of Charleston (Bank). The truck was protected by a limited twelve-month/12,500-mile warranty issued by the manufacturer, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota). The evidence at trial shows that shortly after the plaintiff took possession of the truck, the engine began to "miss," and the vehicle began to emit heavy, blue smoke when driven uphill. As required under the terms of the warranty, the plaintiff returned the truck to the defendant for repairs. The defendant's employees cleaned and tested the spark plugs and made a number of minor adjustments to the engine. The problems persisted, however, and the plaintiff testified that he returned to the defendant on at least two other occasions seeking to have them corrected. The plaintiff testified that on the last occasion, one of the defendant's employees had become rude and that he had left without further repairs. In March, 1983, the plaintiff took the truck to another dealership, Tag Galyean Imports, for repairs. The Tag Galyean mechanics corrected the problem of the engine "missing" by replacing the spark plugs, but were unable to correct the smoke emissions. After another unsuccessful attempt to have the vehicle repaired, the plaintiff left the truck at Tag Galyean Imports on June 2, 1983, with instructions to "call me when it is fixed." The truck had been driven approximately 12,000 miles at that time. The plaintiff testified that when he checked with the Tag Galyean service manager in the following weeks, he was told that parts would have to be ordered from Japan, that the wrong parts had been sent, and that repairs would require authorization from the manufacturer or distributor. The plaintiff testified that he telephoned the distributor, Mid-Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc. (Mid-Atlantic), several times without getting authorization and that it was only after officers of the Bank interceded on his behalf that the repairs were authorized. At the end of June, 1983, upon being advised that the truck would not be repaired in the near future, the plaintiff purchased a new vehicle. The plaintiff advised the Bank that he intended to cease payments on the Toyota truck. At the end of August, 1983, Tag Galyean Imports advised the plaintiff that the Toyota truck had been repaired. The work order indicated that the engine had been rebuilt and that the oil rings and guides in the cylinder heads had been replaced. By letter dated September 3, 1983, the Bank advised the plaintiff that it had repossessed the vehicle and that it would be sold to satisfy the outstanding indebtedness of $7,418.09. By a subsequent letter dated September 27, 1983, the Bank advised the plaintiff that the vehicle had been sold for $6,200.00, leaving a deficiency of $1,329.57 for which he was responsible. In November, 1983, the Bank instituted proceedings against the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to recover the deficiency. The plaintiff responded by filing a third-party complaint against Toyota, Mid-Atlantic, and the defendant, seeking cancellation of the contract of sale and damages for breach of express and implied warranties under the Uniform Commercial *379 Code (UCC), W.Va.Code, 46-2-101, et seq., and the Magnuson-Moss WarrantyFederal Trade Commission Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss Act), 15 U.S.C. § 2310 (1975). The plaintiff also filed a counterclaim against the Bank on similar grounds on the authority of W.Va.Code, 46A-2-103.[1] The defendant, Bud Young Toyota, Inc., subsequently filed a cross-claim against Toyota and Mid-Atlantic, alleging that any injury or damage suffered by the plaintiff was a result of a defect in the design or manufacture of the vehicle and seeking indemnification from them for any judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. Prior to trial, the Bank, Toyota, and Mid-Atlantic settled their claims with the plaintiff and were dismissed from his case with prejudice. On April 6, 1987, the case proceeded to trial on the plaintiff's claims against the defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $10,333.00. In a separate finding, the jury ruled against the defendant on its claim for indemnification from Toyota and Mid-Atlantic. The plaintiff's post-trial motions for prejudgment interest and attorney's fees were denied, and, by order dated June 29, 1987, the trial court overruled the defendant's motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. I. The defendant's first contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying its motions for summary judgment, directed verdict, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of cancellation. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff failed to make a timely revocation of his acceptance of the truck within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 46-2-608, and was, therefore, not entitled to cancel the contract of sale.[2] In Syllabus Point 1 of Kesner v. Lancaster, ___ W.Va.___, 378 S.E.2d 649 (1989), we set forth the showing a buyer must make to revoke his acceptance of goods under the UCC: "W.Va.Code, 46-2-608, requires several conditions to be met before a buyer may revoke his acceptance of goods for nonconformity to a contract of sale: (1) the nonconformity must have substantially impaired the value of the goods to the buyer; (2) the goods must have been accepted on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be cured, and it was not, or accepted without discovery of the nonconformity, either because of the difficulty of discovery or because of the seller's assurances; (3) the revocation must have occurred within a reasonable time after discovery of the defect and before any substantial change in the condition of the goods; and (4) the revocation is not effective until the buyer *380 has notified the seller. A buyer making a revocation after acceptance on these terms has the same rights and duties under the Uniform Commercial Code as one who had rejected the goods originally."[3] Here, it is conceded that the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of his intention to revoke his acceptance of the truck until the filing of the third-party complaint in December, 1983. The defendant asserts that this notice was not timely and deprived it of the right to cure the nonconformity within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 46-2-508. A. With respect to the seller's right to cure the nonconformity, the defendant relies on Reece v. Yeager Ford Sales, Inc., 155 W.Va. 453, 184 S.E.2d 722 (1971), wherein the Court stated, at Syllabus Point 2: "Rescission of a contract of sale cannot be made by the buyer where the defects relied on for the rescission are minor defects and an offer is made by or on behalf of the seller to repair all of the defects complained of and the buyer refuses to accept such offer." In note 3, in part, of Kesner, ___ W.Va. at ___, 378 S.E.2d at 652, however, we recognized that in reaching this result, the Court in Reece "discussed W.Va.Code, 46-2-508(1), which covers the seller's right to cure defects where the buyer has initially rejected the seller's `tender or delivery ... because nonconforming and the time for performance was not yet expired....' This section is generally not applicable where the buyer accepts the goods and then wishes to revoke because of after-discovered defects. See 1 J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code 425 (3d ed. 1988)." Thus, the rights of the seller with respect to revocation of acceptance are controlled by the provisions of W.Va.Code, 46-2-608. Because this statute does not expressly give the seller the right to cure nonconformities in the goods, it is often held that where the buyer justifiably revokes his acceptance, he is not required to afford the seller the opportunity to cure or repair the defects.[4]E.g., Bonebrake v. Cox, 499 F.2d 951 (8th Cir.1974); American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Boyd, 475 So. 2d 835 (Ala.1985); Jensen v. Seigel Mobile Homes Group, 105 Idaho 189, 668 P.2d 65 (1983); Linscott v. Smith, 3 Kan.App.2d 1, 587 P.2d 1271 (1978); Gappelberg v. Landrum, 666 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.1984). See generally 4 R. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-608:15 (3d ed. 1983); 1 J. *381 White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code 424 (3d ed. 1988); 67A Am.Jur.2d Sales § 1198 (1985). This is especially true where, as here, the seller has previously been given the opportunity to correct the defect and has either failed or refused to do so. See Jorgensen v. Pressnall, 274 Or. 285, 545 P.2d 1382 (1976); Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, Inc., 12 Wash. App. 161, 528 P.2d 992 (1974), rev'd on other grounds, 86 Wash. 2d 256 , 544 P.2d 20 (1975). See generally Anderson, supra § 2-608:15. Here, the rights of the parties were clearly controlled by the provisions of W.Va.Code, 46-2-608(1)(b). The defendant had previously been given several opportunities to correct the defect and had failed to do so. Consequently, the defendant cannot now complain that the revocation was ineffective because it was not given yet another opportunity to cure the nonconformity. B. Nor can we conclude that the trial court was clearly wrong in not ruling that the plaintiff's revocation was untimely. Pursuant to W.Va.Code, 46-2-608(2), "[r]evocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it." The defendant argues that the plaintiff's failure to revoke his acceptance of the truck until fourteen months after he first discovered the defect must be deemed to be a waiver of his rights under W.Va.Code, 46-2-608. It is generally recognized, however, that where delay in revoking acceptance is attributable to efforts or promises to correct the defect or nonconformity in the goods, revocation even after a relatively lengthy period of time may still be timely within the statute. Tiger Motor Co. v. McMurtry, 284 Ala. 283, 224 So. 2d 638 (1969) (12 months); Dopieralla v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 255 Ark. 150, 499 S.W.2d 610 (1973) (40 months); Regents of Univ. of Colorado v. Pacific Pump & Supply, Inc., 35 Colo.App. 36, 528 P.2d 941 (1974) (over 22 months); Conte v. Dwan Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 172 Conn. 112, 374 A.2d 144 (1976) (14 months); Fablok Mills, Inc. v. Cocker Mach. & Foundry Co., 125 N.J.Super. 251, 310 A.2d 491 , certification denied, 64 N.J. 317, 315 A.2d 405 (1973) (24 months); Ybarra v. Modern Trailer Sales, Inc., 94 N.M. 249, 609 P.2d 331 (1980) (48 months); Cardwell v. International Housing, Inc., 282 Pa.Super. 498, 423 A.2d 355 (1980) (21 months); Vista Chevrolet, Inc. v. Lewis, 704 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.App.1985), rev'd on other grounds, 709 S.W.2d 176 (Tex.1986) (20 months). The seller's continuing obligation to repair may also justify a delay in revocation. 67A Am.Jur.2d Sales § 1213; Annot., 65 A.L.R.3d 354, 362-63 (1975). What is a reasonable time for revoking acceptance is a question of fact and depends on the circumstances of each case. W.Va.Code, 46-1-204(2). See Frontier Mobile Home Sales, Inc. v. Trigleth, 256 Ark. 101, 505 S.W.2d 516 (1974); Irrigation Motor & Pump Co. v. Belcher, 29 Colo.App. 343, 483 P.2d 980 (1971); Solomon Refrigeration, Inc. v. Osburn, 148 Ga.App. 772, 252 S.E.2d 686 (1979); Fablok Mills, Inc. v. Cocker Mach. & Foundry Co., supra; Warren v. Guttanit, Inc., 69 N.C.App. 103, 317 S.E.2d 5 (1984); Cardwell v. International Housing, Inc., supra. Here, it seems clear that the plaintiff discovered the defect in October, 1982, shortly after buying the truck. He returned it to the defendant, an authorized Toyota dealership, several times for repairs under the terms of the Toyota warranty. On each occasion, the defendant was unwilling or unable to correct the problems reported by the plaintiff. There is evidence that on the last occasion, the defendant's employees were rude to the plaintiff and, perhaps, guilty of refusing to honor Toyota's warranty. The plaintiff subsequently took the truck to another authorized Toyota dealer for repairs. It was only after several additional failed attempts to cure the defect that the plaintiff abandoned the vehicle and notified the defendant of his intent to revoke his acceptance. *382 The question of whether the plaintiff's revocation was timely under the circumstances was properly submitted to the jury. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot say that their finding in favor of the plaintiff on this point was clearly wrong. II. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider evidence that the plaintiff's credit rating was impaired following his default on the note. The defendant argues that this is not a proper element of consequential damages recoverable by the buyer under the UCC. As a general rule, a buyer who justifiably revokes his acceptance of nonconforming goods is entitled to recover any incidental and consequential damages flowing therefrom. W.Va.Code, 46-2-711(1); W.Va.Code, 46-2-713(1).[5]See Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 130 Ariz. 596, 638 P.2d 210 (1981); International Paper Co. v. Farrar, 102 N.M. 739, 700 P.2d 642 (1985); Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 280 N.C. 385, 186 S.E.2d 161 (1972); McGinnis v. Wentworth Chevrolet Co., 295 Or. 494, 668 P.2d 365 (1983); Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., 83 Wis.2d 406, 265 N.W.2d 513 (1978). See generally 67A Am.Jur.2d Sales § 1328. Consequential damages are described in W.Va.Code, 46-2-715(2): "Consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach include "(a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and "(b) injury to person or property approximately resulting from any breach of warranty."[6] It is recognized that this provision is broad enough to encompass a variety of losses, including lost profits,[7] interest *383 and finance charges,[8] and extra overhead, labor and expenses incurred as a result of the seller's breach.[9] "To recover consequential damages, the buyer must establish: (1) causation, (2) foreseeability, (3) reasonable certainty as to amount, and (4) that he is not barred by mitigation doctrines." White & Summers, supra at 309. The burden of proving consequential damages is on the buyer. Kohlenberger, Inc. v. Tyson's Foods, Inc., 256 Ark. 584, 510 S.W.2d 555 (1974); Stair v. Gaylord, 232 Kan. 765, 659 P.2d 178 (1983); Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., supra. See generally Anderson, supra § 2-715:14; 67A Am. Jur.2d Sales § 1313. The plaintiff here sought consequential damages pursuant to W.Va.Code, 46-2-715(2)(a). The evidence at trial showed that in July, 1985, a St. Albans bank had refused to finance the plaintiff's purchase of an automobile for personal use. The notice from the bank listed "Delinquent credit obligations" and "Insufficient Equity" as reasons for the refusal, based on information received in a report from the Credit Bureau of Charleston, a consumer reporting agency. When the plaintiff inquired further, he learned that his default on the loan for the Toyota truck had been made a part of his credit history. The plaintiff testified that he filed a letter of rebuttal, explaining the circumstances of the default, with the Credit Bureau and was subsequently able to obtain financing from a bank which did not require a credit check. In June, 1986, however, the plaintiff applied for a loan to purchase earth-moving equipment for use in his business. The plaintiff testified that he was refused the loan because of his damaged credit rating. The plaintiff testified that he needed the equipment immediately for a job he had contracted to do and was forced to pay other contractors with appropriate equipment $3,000.00 to perform the work until he was able to obtain financing one month later. The defendant contends that any loss sustained by the plaintiff was attributable either to the Bank's action in reporting the default to the Credit Bureau or to the plaintiff's own conduct in defaulting on the obligation. Consequently, the defendant argues that any loss suffered was not the proximate result of any breach on its part. The defendant further asserts that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his losses by either continuing to make the payments or by returning the truck to the defendant for repairs. In ACME Pump Co., Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 32 Conn.Supp. 69, 337 A.2d 672 (1974), the purchaser of a bookkeeping machine sued the seller for breach of warranty when the machine proved defective. The plaintiff had financed the transaction through a lease arrangement with a third party, Granite Equipment Leasing Corporation (Granite). When it became apparent that the machine was defective, the plaintiff ceased making payments. Granite repossessed the unit and obtained a deficiency judgment against the plaintiff. In its breach of warranty action against the seller, the plaintiff sought to recover the amount of the deficiency judgment as consequential damages. In ruling that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on this claim, the court in ACME *384 Pump, 32 Conn.Supp. at 76, 337 A.2d at 677, stated: "In this case, the defendant's breach of warranty was the proximate cause of the Granite lawsuit. The judgment obtained by Granite ... was in a reasonable amount. It could not have been avoided by any reasonable or prudent effort on the part of the plaintiff. Obviously, it would have been unfair to compel the plaintiff to continue payments on a machine which was wholly defective. The plaintiff's resulting default led to the repossession by Granite.... "`If a breach of contract is the cause of litigation between the plaintiff and third parties that the defendant had reason to foresee when the contract was made, the plaintiff's reasonable expenditures in such litigation are included in estimating his damages.' Restatement, 1 Contracts § 334. Since the defendant helped to arrange the lease between the plaintiff and Granite, the defendant had reason to anticipate that if the machine were defective, the plaintiff might breach its lease with Granite and Granite thereafter might sue the plaintiff." See Lycos v. Gray Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 76 Mich.App. 165, 256 N.W.2d 63 (1977). We conclude that this approach is correct.[10] Except insofar as we have already addressed the issue in Section I of this opinion, the defendant here does not contest that the plaintiff justifiably revoked his acceptance of the Toyota truck under W.Va.Code, 46-2-608. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to cancel the contract of sale. W.Va.Code, 46-2-711. Thus, the defendant's breach of warranty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's default on the obligation held by the Bank. That, in turn, produced the bad credit which ultimately required the plaintiff to incur the expense of hiring additional men and equipment when he was turned down on another loan. As we have already noted, such expenses are recognized as a loss for which consequential damages may be awarded. See note 9, supra. In addition, there was evidence that the loss was foreseeable within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 46-2-715. The plaintiff advised the defendant when he purchased the truck that he intended to use it in his business. The defendant was intimately involved in the financing arrangement and, thus, had reason to know that if the vehicle were defective, the plaintiff might legitimately refuse to make any further payments. In such circumstances, it is not unreasonable to assume that the plaintiff might suffer an impaired credit rating and incur additional business expenses. The amount of those expenses was reduced to a reasonably certain sum. Nor do we find any failure on the part of the plaintiff to mitigate damages which would warrant reversal of the judgment. The buyer's duty to mitigate damages does not require him to undertake undue or oppressive burdens. See Kirby v. Chrysler Corp., 554 F. Supp. 743 (D.Md. 1982); Lake Village Implement Co. v. Cox, 252 Ark. 224, 478 S.W.2d 36 (1972); Hall v. Miller, 143 Vt. 135, 465 A.2d 222 (1983); Barnard v. Compugraphic Corp., 35 Wash. App. 414, 667 P.2d 117 (1983). As we have already stated, the plaintiff here justifiably revoked his acceptance of the defective truck and had no obligation to afford the defendant yet another opportunity to repair it. Moreover, the plaintiff's testimony indicates that he was financially unable to pay for two vehicles at once. In these circumstances, we cannot say that the plaintiff's failure to allow the defendant an opportunity to cure or refusal to continue payments on the defective vehicle constituted an unreasonable failure to mitigate damages. In sum, we conclude that the plaintiff's evidence of losses due to an impaired credit rating satisfies all the requirements of consequential *385 damages recoverable under the UCC. W.Va.Code, 46-1-106(1), provides that "[t]he remedies provided by this chapter shall be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed...." Accordingly, we conclude that the issue of whether the plaintiff could recover consequential damages for the alleged impairment of his credit rating was properly submitted to the jury, and we find no grounds for reversing the judgment of the circuit court. III. The defendant next contends that the verdict was excessive. At trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence of the value of the truck and of his payments to the defendant and the Bank of approximately $4,800.00. In addition, the plaintiff introduced evidence of the $3,000.00 in expenses resulting from the impairment of his credit rating and of $2,000.00 in lost earnings.[11] The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $10,333.00. In Syllabus Point 4 of Muzelak v. King Chevrolet, Inc., ___ W.Va.___, 368 S.E.2d 710 (1988), we stated: "`Courts must not set aside jury verdicts as excessive unless they are monstrous, enormous, at first blush beyond all measure, unreasonable, outrageous and manifestly show jury passion, impartiality, prejudice or corruption.' Syl. Pt. 6, Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, ___ W.Va.___, 345 S.E.2d 791 (1986)." We find no evidence that the verdict in this case meets this test of excessiveness. Accordingly, we find no grounds for reversal. IV. Finally, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in not setting aside that part of the jury's verdict finding in favor of Toyota and Mid-Atlantic on the defendant's claim for indemnification. At trial, the defendant offered an instruction on its indemnity theory and argued the question to the jury. Toyota and Mid-Atlantic made no appearance and offered no evidence or argument at trial.[12] In Sydenstricker v. Unipunch Products, Inc., 169 W.Va. 440, 445, 288 S.E.2d 511 , 515 (1982), we recognized that "[t]here are two basic types of indemnity: express indemnity, based on a written agreement, and implied indemnity, arising out of the relationship between the parties." See Valloric v. Dravo Corp., ___ W.Va. ___, 357 S.E.2d 207 (1987); Hill v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., 165 W.Va. 22, 268 S.E.2d 296 (1980).[13] The defendant here asserts an additional, statutorily created right of indemnity[14] in reliance on W.Va. Code, 17A-6A-15, which provides: *386 "Notwithstanding the terms of any dealer agreement, a manufacturer or distributor shall indemnify and hold harmless its dealers against any judgment for damages, including court costs and attorney's fees, arising solely out of complaints, claims or actions which relate to the manufacturer [sic], assembly or design of a new motor vehicle, or other functions by the manufacturer or distributor beyond the control of the dealer, including, without limitation, the selection by the manufacturer or distributor of parts or components for the vehicle, or any damages to merchandise occurring in transit to the dealer if the carrier is designated by the manufacturer or distributor, if the new motor vehicle dealer gives timely notice to the manufacturer or distributor of the complaint, claim or action." (Emphasis added). This provision is part of a comprehensive statute intended to regulate the relationship and conduct of business between motor vehicle dealers on the one hand, and automobile manufacturers and distributors on the other. W.Va.Code, 17A-6A-1, et seq. A number of other jurisdictions have similar statutes granting an automobile dealer a right of indemnity against the manufacturer or distributor for judgments arising out of defective manufacture or design of motor vehicles.[15] None has apparently had occasion to apply its provision in a context such as this. In Louisiana, however, the courts have discussed a similar statutorily created right of redhibition. Redhibition is an action under civil law and is defined as "the avoidance of a sale on account of some vice or defect in the thing sold, which renders it either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that it must be supposed that the buyer would not have purchased it, had he known of the vice." La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 2520 (West 1952). See Black's Law Dictionary 1149-50 (5th ed.1979). Redhibitory defects do not include "[a]pparent defects, that is, such as the buyer might have discovered by simple inspection ...," La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 2521, or "latent defects which the seller has declared to [the buyer] before or at the time of sale...." La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 2522. La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 2531 (West Supp. 1989) provides that a seller who was unaware of the vices or defects in goods is bound to repair only apparent defects and goes on to provide: "In any case in which the seller is held liable because of redhibitory defects in the thing sold, the seller shall have a corresponding and similar right of action against the manufacturer of the thing for any losses sustained by the seller, and further provided that any provision of any franchise or manufacturer-seller contract or agreement attempting to limit, diminish or prevent such recoupment by the seller shall not be given any force or effect." Reading these statutes together, the Louisiana courts have concluded that a seller has no right of action against a manufacturer under article 2531 when the seller's own negligence "is a substantial factor in aggravating or maintaining the defect." Guyon v. Camper Village, Inc., 428 So. 2d 1014, 1017 (App.), writ denied, 431 So. 2d 1 (La.1983). In Guyon, 428 So. 2d at 1017, the court further stated: "Indemnification has been denied on the basis of the dealer's tardiness in repairing *387 the vehicle and notifying the owner of the progress of the repairs, even though the defects arise at the time of manufacture and were attributable to the manufacturer. Lehn v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc., 400 So. 2d 317 (La. App. 4th Cir.1981), writ denied, 406 So. 2d 608 (La.1981). In addition, the dealer has been denied indemnity when, through his dereliction, a minor defect becomes redhibitory in nature. Daigle v. Robinson Brothers, Inc., 368 So. 2d 186 (La. App. 1st Cir.1979). Further, a claim for indemnity has been defeated when the dealer has failed to correct easily remediable defects. Perrin v. Read Imports, Inc., 359 So. 2d 738 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978)."[16] See LaFrance v. Abraham Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 462 So. 2d 1291 (App.), writ denied, 467 So. 2d 531, 467 So. 2d 532 (La. 1985); Griffin v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc., 424 So. 2d 1116 (La.App.1982); Dearing v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc., 423 So. 2d 19 (La.App.1982); Bagwell v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc., 391 So. 2d 1260 (La. App.1980). We believe these principles are equally applicable to the provisions of W.Va.Code, 17A-6A-15. The statute clearly contemplates indemnification of the seller by the manufacturer and/or distributor only for damages resulting from defects in the design or manufacture of the vehicle "beyond the control of the dealer...." Where the defect or nonconformity can be easily repaired by the dealer, the opportunity to prevent injury or loss to the buyer as a result of such defect or nonconformity is clearly a matter within the control of the dealer. If the dealer fails or refuses to correct such defects, we do not believe it is the intention of the legislature to permit the dealer to shift responsibility for the consequences to the manufacturer or distributor by way of indemnity.[17] We conclude, therefore, that W.Va.Code, 17A-6A-15, requires an automobile manufacturer or distributor to indemnify and hold harmless its dealers against any judgment for damages, including court costs and attorney's fees, resulting from defects in the design, assembly, or manufacture of a motor vehicle which are beyond the control of the dealer. Where, however, the dealer fails or refuses to correct easily remediable defects, it is not entitled to the benefit of this statutorily created indemnity right. Whether a dealer is entitled to indemnity in such circumstances is ultimately a question of fact for the jury. Griffin v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc., supra. See Pearson Ford Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 273 Cal. App. 2d 269 , 78 Cal. Rptr. 279 (1969); Dearing v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc., supra; Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 232 Kan. 458, 657 P.2d 517 (1983); Dumond v. Houma Toyota, Inc.A.M.C. Jeep, Inc., 470 So. 2d 484 (La.App.1985); Otis Elevator Co. v. Wood, 436 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.1968). Here, there was evidence indicating that the defect in the Toyota truck was not easily repairable. There was some testimony that the engine had to be taken apart to effect repairs, and it is clear that the plaintiff lost the use of it for over a month in the process. Considerable delay and expense in effecting repairs or obtaining parts required by the manufacturer would support a dealer's claim for indemnity. See W.Va.Code, 17A-6A-15. On the other hand, the evidence also clearly shows that once the truck was repaired, it ran well, and two subsequent owners had no complaints about the engine. This fact tends to weigh against indemnification under the statute. We conclude this issue was one of fact for the jury. The instruction offered by the defendant on this issue advised the jury to grant indemnity unless it found that the *388 defendant had contributed to the defect in the vehicle. "`"An erroneous instruction is presumed to be prejudicial and warrants a new trial unless it appears that the complaining party was not prejudiced by such instruction." [Citations omitted].' Syllabus Point 6, Ratlief v. Yokum, [167 W.Va. 779], 280 S.E.2d 584 (1981)." Syllabus Point 3, Cunningham v. Martin, ___ W.Va. ___, 294 S.E.2d 264 (1982). Here, the indemnity instruction was more favorable to the defendant than an instruction containing a correct statement of the law. Because this instructional error inured to the benefit of the defendant, he cannot claim reversible error. See Addair v. Huffman, 156 W.Va. 592, 195 S.E.2d 739 (1973); First Nat'l Bank of Peterstown v. Hansbarger, 129 W.Va. 418, 40 S.E.2d 822 (1947). V. The plaintiff makes a cross-assignment of error challenging the trial court's denial of his motions for attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. A. With respect to attorney's fees and costs, we recently stated, in Muzelak v. King Chevrolet, Inc., ___ W.Va. at ___, 368 S.E.2d at 716-17, that the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2), upon which the plaintiff relies, "allows costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees on actual time expended when there is a breach of ... warranty under state law: "`If a consumer finally prevails in any action brought under paragraph (1) of this subsection, he may be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of cost and expenses (including attorneys' fees based on actual time expended) determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the plaintiff for or in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action, unless the court in its discretion shall determine that such an award of attorneys' fees would be inappropriate. [`] [Emphasis Added]" It appears that courts have not interpreted the phrase "breach of warranty" in a limited manner. Instead, they have taken the view that a consumer who prevails on a claim for revocation of acceptance and cancellation of a contract of sale in an action for breach of the seller's warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code, W.Va.Code, 46-2-101, et seq., may recover reasonable attorney's fees under the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2) (1975). Tuppens, Inc. v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 541 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. App.1989); Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., supra; Guerdon Industries, Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So. 2d 1202 (Miss.1988); Troutman v. Pierce, Inc., 402 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 1987); Costa v. Volkswagen of America, 551 A.2d 1196 (Vt.1988). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees. B. With respect to the claim for prejudgment interest, the plaintiff relies on cases interpreting W.Va.Code, 56-6-31 (1981).[18] This provision was amended after our decision in Bond v. City of Huntington, 166 W.Va. 581, 598, 276 S.E.2d 539 , 548 (1981), where we extended the rule permitting prejudgment interest for pecuniary loss in personal *389 injury actions on the ground that "the purpose of awarding interest as a part of the damages, where there is an ascertainable pecuniary loss, is to fully compensate the injured party for the loss of the use of funds that have been expended." See Grove v. Myers, ___ W.Va. ___, 382 S.E.2d 536 (1989); Bell v. Inland Mut. Ins. Co., ___ W.Va.___, 332 S.E.2d 127 , cert. denied, 474 U.S. 936 , 106 S. Ct. 299, 88 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1985); Kirk v. Pineville Mobile Homes, Inc., ___ W.Va. ___, 310 S.E.2d 210 (1983). However, W.Va.Code, 56-6-31, does not specifically apply to contract actions. In Thompson v. Stuckey, ___ W.Va. ___, 300 S.E.2d 295 (1983), we stated that in contract claims, the right to prejudgment interest is dependent on the provisions of W.Va.Code, 56-6-27 (1923), which leaves the determination to the jury.[19] In Syllabus Point 4 of Thompson, we stated: "In an action founded on contract, a claimant is entitled to have the jury instructed that interest may be allowed on the principal due, W.Va.Code, 56-6-27 [1923], but is not entitled to the mandatory award of interest contemplated by W.Va.Code, 56-6-31 [1981], since this statute does not apply where the rule concerning interest is otherwise provided by law." Thus, the plaintiff here is not entitled to an award of prejudgment interest after trial, although he could have demanded an instruction to that effect in order to submit the issue to the jury. His failure to do so must be deemed a waiver of that right. See McAllister v. Weirton Hosp. Co., ___ W.Va.___, 312 S.E.2d 738 (1983); Berkeley Homes, Inc. v. Radosh, ___ W.Va.___, 310 S.E.2d 201 (1983). VI. In conclusion, we find no error warranting reversal of the jury's verdict, but conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the plaintiff attorney's fees. Accordingly, we remand the case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County with directions to award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees under the Magnuson-Moss Act. Remanded.

9bc58809c526d852d6939033f42a53db8ac7476569ce86c8e8b6d58f046a4580

1989-08-02 00:00:00

56653408-25b9-432c-818d-ff84f21f6bd5

State v. Bongalis

378 S.E.2d 449

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

State v. Bongalis Annotate this Case 378 S.E.2d 449 (1989) STATE of West Virginia v. George BONGALIS. No. 17971. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. February 17, 1989. *451 Francis M. Curnutte, III, Madison, for George Bongalis. Charles G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Charleston, for State. *450 MILLER, Justice: The defendant, George Bongalis, appeals his conviction of second degree murder in the Circuit Court of Boone County. He assigns as error: (1) that the evidence shows no malice and, therefore, cannot support a second degree murder conviction; (2) that his self-defense instruction was rejected; and (3) that one member of the jury was a convicted felon. He further assigns several evidentiary errors. I. The defendant killed a Mike Hendricks as a result of an altercation with him in front of a bar. The State sought to show that the defendant had a romantic involvement with Ronda Hendricks, who was the ex-wife of the victim and who worked for the defendant at his bar. Sometime prior to the shooting, it is alleged that Ms. Hendricks began to see her ex-husband and this upset the defendant. About eleven days before the homicide, the defendant fired Ms. Hendricks as he believed she was giving free drinks and money to her friends. On the night of the shooting, Ms. Hendricks, her ex-husband, and Tommy Clay, along with several friends, were drinking at "Gene's," a local bar. The defendant came into the bar with Rick DeBoard and began staring at Ms. Hendricks. She became upset and moved to the bar where she stared at the defendant and began verbally harassing the defendant. This led to the bartender asking her to leave and she, along with her friends, left the bar. There was evidence that in the bar parking lot, Ms. Hendricks' ex-husband, the victim, tried to calm her down and to this end slapped her in the face. *452 They decided to leave the parking lot and Tommy Clay took Ms. Hendricks in his vehicle. The victim drove Ms. Hendricks' roommate, Teresa, to Ms. Hendricks' house, but Ms. Hendricks was not home. They decided to return to "Gene's." There was testimony that Rick DeBoard's vehicle was seen following the victim's car on the return trip to "Gene's." As the victim and Teresa arrived at the bar, Tommy Clay and Ms. Hendricks also drove up. While the bar was closed, the two women were let in to purchase a bottle of liquor. The victim stayed in his car and Mr. Clay sat with him. Mr. Clay testified that the victim appeared drunk as he did not respond to his conversation and had his eyes closed. Mr. Clay also testified that he went to the bar to try to get some help to get the victim home, but could not gain entrance. When he walked back to the victim's car, Rick DeBoard was parking his truck behind the car. Mr. Clay testified that he approached the truck and asked Mr. DeBoard for help. At this point the defendant, who was a passenger in Mr. DeBoard's truck, pulled a gun from underneath the floor mat. He spoke about the trouble that had earlier occurred at his bar. In reference to the victim, the defendant stated, as he got out of the truck, "I believe I'll whip his ass." Mr. Clay testified that the defendant pointed the gun at his face and told him to get on up the road. Mr. Clay got in his vehicle and, as he drove away, he saw the defendant reaching in the car shaking the victim as if he was trying to wake him. While these events were occurring, Ms. Hendricks and Teresa were inside "Gene's." The bartender heard two noises that sounded like "backfire." Ms. Hendricks left the bar and saw the victim on the ground with two people standing near him. She stated that she was hysterical and did not recognize them. She ran back into the bar to get help. When she returned, the vehicle behind the victim's car was gone. A neighbor heard a vehicle rapidly drive away after hearing a shot. The State's forensic expert established that the victim died from two bullet wounds fired from a 9 mm. pistol belonging to the defendant. He also stated that one shot was fired point blank and estimated that the other was fired from two to two and one-half feet away. The State also introduced the defendant's statement in which he admitted having the gun in his back pocket and engaging in a fight with the victim. It was the defendant's position that during the fight, they both ended up lying on the street. He further contended that the gun was also on the street and that he heard a shot, but did not initially know who was shot. II. The defendant claims there was insufficient evidence of malice and, this being an essential element of second degree murder, the verdict must be set aside. There is no disagreement that malice is an essential element of second degree murder, as stated in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Clayton, 166 W.Va. 782, 277 S.E.2d 619 (1981): "`Malice, express or implied, is an essential element of murder in the second degree, and if absent the homicide is of no higher grade than voluntary manslaughter.' Syllabus Point 1, State v. Galford, 87 W.Va. 358, 105 S.E. 237 (1920)." The term "malice" has been described in various ways. For example, in State v. Starkey, 161 W.Va. 517, 524, 244 S.E.2d 219 , 223-24 (1978), we quoted from our earlier case, State v. Douglass, 28 W.Va. 297, 299 (1886), which defines it as "an action flowing from a wicked and corrupt motive, a thing done malo animo, where the fact has been attended with such circumstances as carry in them the plain indication of a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief." We were careful in State v. Morris, 142 W.Va. 303, 314-15, 95 S.E.2d 401 , 408 (1956), to point out: "This term, it has been said, implies a mind under the sway of reason. It excludes the idea of sudden passion aroused by an unanticipated and unprovoked *453 battery inflicted by the assailant without the fault of the person assailed. If in such case the death of the aggressor results, even if intentional, it cannot be traced to a malignant heart but is imputable to human frailty." Certainly, malice can, as indicated by the Defendant's Instruction No. 16, include "not only anger, hatred and revenge, but other unjustifiable motives.... It may be inferred from any deliberate and cruel act done by the defendant without any reasonable provocation or excuse, however sudden."[1]See State v. Matney, ___ W.Va. ___, 346 S.E.2d 818 (1986); State v. Slonaker, 167 W.Va. 97, 280 S.E.2d 212 (1981). In this case, we find there was sufficient evidence of malice. The State's evidence demonstrates that shortly prior to the shooting, the defendant exhibited ill-will toward the victim, Mike Hendricks, by stating to his companion, Mr. Clay, "I believe I'll whip his ass." This was done as he got out of the truck to go toward the vehicle where the victim, according to Mr. Clay, was passed out. Mr. Clay was forced to leave the scene by the defendant threatening him with his gun. Before he left, however, Mr. Clay saw the victim being shaken by the defendant. It is clear from the State's evidence that the defendant was the aggressor. The jury could easily conclude that he returned to the vicinity of the bar with the purpose of finding the victim. Although the defendant argued that there was a fight and the gun went off accidentally, the medical and other expert testimony contradict this conclusion. The victim died after having been shot twice.[2] Given the State's case and the weight accorded to it on appeal, as set out in Syllabus Point 1 of Starkey, supra, we find that the jury verdict of second degree murder must stand: "In a criminal case, a verdict of guilt will not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, where the state's evidence is sufficient to convince impartial minds of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. To warrant interference with a verdict of guilt on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the court must be convinced that the evidence was manifestly inadequate and that consequent injustice has been done."[3]III. Another assignment of error is that the trial court refused the defendant's instruction on self-defense. This was based on the trial court's conclusion that the evidence did not warrant such an instruction, as there was nothing to show that the victim was about to inflict death or serious bodily harm to the defendant. This fact is critical to a self-defense claim, as we have *454 held in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Baker, ___ W.Va. ___, 356 S.E.2d 862 (1987): "The amount of force that can be used in self-defense is that normally one can return deadly force only if he reasonably believes that the assailant is about to inflict death or serious bodily harm; otherwise, where he is threatened only with non-deadly force, he may use only non-deadly force in return." See also State v. Clark, ___ W.Va. ___, 331 S.E.2d 496 (1985); State v. Phelps, ___ W.Va. ___, 310 S.E.2d 863 (1983); State v. W.J.B., 166 W.Va. 602, 276 S.E.2d 550 (1981); State v. Green, 157 W.Va. 1031, 206 S.E.2d 923 (1974). Here, the evidence did not reveal that the victim was engaged in any conduct that would have led the defendant to believe that the victim was about to inflict death or serious bodily harm on him. The defendant did not testify at trial. His statement to the police which was placed in evidence was to the effect that the victim "hit me with his fist and knocked me down on the pavement. We were wrestling around on the ground. I had a gun in my back pocket ... I remember seeing the gun laying on the street. I heard a shot and I did not know who got shot." No defense witnesses testified as to any acts of the victim that would give rise to any inference that the victim was attempting to utilize any force that would create an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the defendant.[4] IV. The defendant's next assignment of error is that the indictment should have been dismissed because of misstatements to the grand jury by one of the investigating officers. Under Rule 12(b)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure "[t]he following must be raised prior to trial: ... (2) Defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or information (other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense which objections shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceedings)[.]"[5] Our rule is identical to the federal rule, and the federal courts have uniformly concluded that challenges to the indictment based on irregularities during grand jury deliberations must be raised under Rule 12(b)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P., prior to trial.[6]E.g., United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d 268 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Burreson, 643 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 847, 102 S. Ct. 165, 70 L. Ed. 2d 135 (1981); United States v. Nunez, 668 F.2d 1116 (10th Cir.1981); see generally 8 Moore's Federal Practice: Criminal ¶ 12.03(2) (2d ed. 1987). In a related area, we have concluded that where trial counsel has filed a motion under Rule 12, the failure to press for a ruling on the motion prior to trial amounts to a waiver of the objections contained *455 in the motion. See State v. McKinney, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 358 S.E.2d 596 , 601 (1987); State v. Moran, 168 W.Va. 688, 691, 285 S.E.2d 450 , 453 (1981). Other courts have reached a similar conclusion. People v. Thibudeaux, 54 Ill.Dec. 275, 98 Ill.App.3d 1105, 424 N.E.2d 1178 (1981); Boone v. State, 291 So. 2d 182 (Miss.1974). In this case, a motion was filed on July 7, 1985, complaining in general about prejudicial remarks made by Deputy Sheriff Rose about the defendant to the grand jury in response to their questions. However, the record does not disclose that the motion was ever brought on for hearing before the trial court. In view of the foregoing law, we find this point to have been waived.[7] V. The defendant's final assignment of error is that one of the jurors had been convicted of a felony and, under W.Va. Code, 52-1-2 (1957), was disqualified from serving.[8] This fact was not discovered until several months after trial. An affidavit was obtained from the juror which indicates that during the deliberations, he and three other jurors were inclined toward acquitting the defendant. When he revealed that he was an ex-felon, the other three jurors then shifted to a guilty verdict. He also agreed to the guilty verdict. Two other juror affidavits tended to support these facts. The record at trial reveals that after the verdict was announced, the jurors were individually polled and all agreed with the verdict. It also appears that the court asked several questions about the qualifications of the jury, but the jury was not asked if any of them had been previously convicted of a felony. Counsel was permitted an individual voir dire, but this question was not asked. Initially, we observe that the statute uses the term "infamous crime." The State appears to concede that a felony is an "infamous crime" as it is punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary, and we have so held in State v. Maynard, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 289 S.E.2d 714 , 718 (1982): "At common law `infamous' crimes were treasons or felonies which were deemed to render their perpetrators infamous.... In Isaacs v. Board of Ballot Commissioners, 122 W.Va. 703, 12 S.E.2d 510 (1940), we followed this definition and concluded that `infamous' crimes were felonies or offenses punishable by death or imprisonment in the state penitentiary." (Citations omitted). Where a disqualified juror sits on a case and an attempt is made to set aside the verdict, several principles come into play. First, W.Va.Code, 56-6-15, provides that "[n]o exception shall be allowed against a *456 juror, after he is sworn upon the jury, on account of his age or other legal disability, unless by leave of court." Second, notwithstanding the discretion given to the trial court to entertain the exception, we have formulated the rule that the disqualification must not have been disclosed on voir dire and could not have been discovered by reasonable diligence. Finally, it must be shown that the disqualification resulted in some substantial prejudice to the defendant. These points are set out in Syllabus Point 9 of State v. Hayes, 136 W.Va. 199, 67 S.E.2d 9 (1951): "`The general rule, inhibiting allowance of a new trial for matter constituting a principal cause of challenge to a juror, existing before the juror was elected and sworn, unknown to the complaining party until after verdict, not disclosed on a thorough voir dire examination, and undiscoverable by the exercise of ordinary diligence, unless it appears from the whole case that the complainant suffered injustice by reason of the disqualification; applies in criminal cases * * *.' State v. Harris, 69 W.Va. 244, Syl. [71 S.E. 609]." See also State v. Kilpatrick, 158 W.Va. 289, 210 S.E.2d 480 (1974); Watkins v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 130 W.Va. 268, 43 S.E.2d 219 (1947); State v. Jones, 128 W.Va. 496, 37 S.E.2d 103 (1946). It would seem apparent that where there is a recognized statutory or common law basis for disqualification of a juror, a party must during voir dire avail himself of the opportunity to ask such disqualifying questions. Otherwise the party may be deemed not to have exercised reasonable diligence to ascertain the disqualification. In this case, no question was directed at the jury panel as to whether any member had been convicted of a felony. Courts in other jurisdictions have also reached the conclusion that the failure to ask voir dire questions relative to statutory or common law grounds for disqualification of jurors constitutes lack of diligence, and forecloses utilizing such disqualification to attack the jury verdict. Winn v. State, 44 Ala.App. 271, 207 So. 2d 138 (1968); People v. Crespin, 635 P.2d 918 (Colo.App.1981); Vaughn v. State, 173 Ga. App. 716, 327 S.E.2d 747 (1985); State v. Baxter, 357 So. 2d 271 (La.1978); Commonwealth v. Fudge, 20 Mass.App. 382, 481 N.E.2d 199 , appeal denied, 396 Mass. 1102, 484 N.E.2d 102 (1985); State v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111, 462 A.2d 182 (1983); Perkins v. State, 695 P.2d 1364 (Okla.Crim. 1985); State v. Benson, 235 Or. 291, 384 P.2d 208 (1963); Commonwealth v. Shirey, 333 Pa.Super. 85, 481 A.2d 1314 (1984); Vivion v. Brittain, 510 P.2d 21 (Wyo. 1973).[9] Because the defendant did not on voir dire raise the question as to the juror's prior felony conviction, we find that he has waived this error. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County. Affirmed. McGRAW, J., participated and concurred in this decision, but departed from the Court prior to the preparation of the opinion. WORKMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

dd970d10dc5a5332cac2352bc8c3ea630c523cba271eae6e4b223f64cc5c649d

1989-02-17 00:00:00

25c205b1-c40a-4242-bdfd-e1cfc243b827

Powell v. Time Ins. Co.

382 S.E.2d 342

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Powell v. Time Ins. Co. Annotate this Case 382 S.E.2d 342 (1989) John Albert POWELL, Jr. v. TIME INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 18224. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. June 16, 1989. *344 H. John Rogers, Martinsville, for Powell, Jr. Paul T. Tucker, Bachmann, Hess, B & Garden, Wheeling, for Time Ins. Co. *343 MILLER, Justice: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Wetzel County, rendered on March 17, 1987, which directed a verdict in favor of Time Insurance Company (Time) in an action brought by the plaintiff below, John Albert Powell, Jr., to recover life insurance benefits. The plaintiff contends that the lower court erred in directing the verdict. We find no error warranting reversal, and we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. On January 19, 1983, John Albert Powell, Sr., father of the plaintiff, applied for a life insurance policy from Time through David Miles, an independent insurance agent in New Martinsville, Wetzel County. On the application, Mr. Powell denied having been treated for any respiratory disorder.[1] In addition, the application listed no regular physician for Mr. Powell and bore the following handwritten notation: "Applicant states he was never treated, or examined." (Emphasis in original). The application was signed by both Mr. Powell and Mr. Miles. On January 21, 1983, Time referred Mr. Powell to Ricaredo Suyao, M.D., for a medical examination. The medical examination report form, furnished by Time and designated as "PART 2" of the application, contained negative responses to a number of questions concerning Mr. Powell's health history and medical treatment[2] and was *345 signed by both Mr. Powell and Dr. Suyao. Although Dr. Suyao noted that Mr. Powell smoked one pack of cigarettes every three days, he found no evidence of any respiratory abnormality. Time subsequently issued Mr. Powell a life insurance policy, dated January 21, 1983, providing for a death benefit of $25,000 and naming the plaintiff as the sole beneficiary. Mr. Miles received the policy on February 12, 1983, and delivered it to Mr. Powell on February 28, 1983. On March 24, 1983, Mr. Powell died at the age of sixty-five. The death certificate listed carcinoma of the lung of two months' duration as the immediate cause of death, with pulmonary emphysema listed as an unrelated condition contributing to death. The plaintiff subsequently filed a claim against his father's life insurance policy. Time, however, refused to honor the policy and, instead, refunded to the plaintiff the premiums Mr. Powell had paid before his death. In October, 1983, the plaintiff instituted a civil action in the Circuit Court of Wetzel County to recover the proceeds of the insurance policy. The complaint also sought compensatory and punitive damages on the ground that Time had acted in bad faith in refusing to honor the policy. In its answer, Time asserted that Mr. Powell had misrepresented the facts in his application, thereby barring recovery by the plaintiff. Trial commenced in the circuit court in March, 1985, but ended in a mistrial. A second trial, limited by stipulation of the parties to the issue of Time's liability under the policy, was conducted before a jury on March 16 and 17, 1987. The evidence at trial centered on Time's defense of misrepresentation. Mr. Miles testified that when Mr. Powell had appeared at his office to apply for the insurance policy, he seemed healthy, although he smoked heavily. Mr. Miles testified that he had personally asked Mr. Powell every question on the application and accurately recorded Mr. Powell's responses. Mr. Miles further testified that after completing the application, he gave it to Mr. Powell and read through it aloud before Mr. Powell signed it. Mr. Miles stated that Mr. Powell was referred to Dr. Suyao only after he asserted that he had never been examined by a doctor and asked Mr. Miles to recommend a physician for the required medical examination. Mr. Miles testified that he was unaware of Mr. Powell's illness until he visited him in the hospital on March 15, 1983. Time also introduced evidence that Mr. Powell had sought treatment for breathing difficulties at the Veteran's Administration (VA) Hospital in Clarksburg as early as 1967, at which time he was given a chest x-ray and an electrocardiogram and was diagnosed as suffering from obstructive pulmonary emphysema. Records indicate that Mr. Powell returned to the VA Hospital with similar complaints in 1974, 1975, and 1977, and, after similar tests, was treated for pulmonary emphysema on each occasion. Dr. Arturo Mardones, a physician at the VA Hospital, testified that he had treated Mr. Powell for advanced pulmonary emphysema several times in 1981 and 1982 and had ordered chest x-rays on each occasion. Dr. Mardones characterized Mr. Powell's condition as chronic and of long standing, and testified that he had informed Mr. Powell several times that he had emphysema and should stop smoking. Time also offered evidence that on February 1, 1983, Mr. Powell had consulted Terry T. Tallman, M.D., complaining of a chronic cough and shortness of breath that had worsened in the previous two months. Dr. Tallman's notes indicate that Mr. Powell gave a history of chronic obstructive lung disease of two years' duration, for which he had been treated at the VA Hospital. Dr. Tallman referred Mr. Powell for x-rays and a biopsy, which confirmed his suspicions that Mr. Powell was suffering from lung cancer. John Hildebrandt, manager of Time's underwriting department, testified that in determining *346 whether to issue an insurance policy, Time relied on the information contained in the policy application and ordinarily conducted no independent investigation of the representations therein unless there was some indication that further information was needed. Mr. Hildebrandt testified that a notation of treatment by a physician within the previous five years would have triggered such an investigation and that Time would have required further information, such as a doctor's report, before approving the application. Mr. Hildebrandt also testified that the diagnosis of emphysema made Mr. Powell uninsurable and that had Time been aware of his long history of pulmonary disease, it would never have issued the policy. The plaintiff presented evidence that Mr. Powell had a tenth-grade education, was occasionally employed as a house painter, and had an excellent reputation in the community for truthfulness. The plaintiff's evidence showed that Mr. Powell had never told family members that he was suffering from a respiratory condition and that emphysema and cancer are unrelated diseases. The plaintiff admitted that he had occasionally driven his father to the VA Hospital when he had a cold or for a checkup, but stated that until the diagnosis of lung cancer in March of 1983, the only serious medical problem his father had ever exhibited was a loss of hearing in the last year of his life. The plaintiff also attempted to introduce evidence that his father had previously obtained a life insurance policy from another company, but had voluntarily allowed the policy to lapse in October, 1982. As the prior policy allegedly had been in effect long enough to have become incontestable by the insurer, the plaintiff argued that the evidence was relevant to demonstrate the absence of fraud on the part of Mr. Powell. The trial court, however, refused to allow the plaintiff to introduce this evidence. At the close of the evidence, Time moved for a directed verdict. The circuit court found that the evidence showed material misrepresentations and/or omissions in the application and that Time, in good faith, would have refused to issue the policy had it been aware of the truth. On this basis, the court directed the jury to return a verdict in Time's favor. I. At common law, the effect of false statements made in an insurance application upon the validity of a policy was dependent, in large part, on whether such statements were characterized as warranties or representations. In Myers v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 83 W.Va. 390, 395, 98 S.E. 424, 426 (1919), the Court stated the difference: "Representations are in their nature no part of the contract of insurance. Their relation thereto is collateral. They are facts presented to the insurer before or at the time of making the contract as a presentation of the elements upon which the risk is to be accepted or rejected. They furnish a basis for the contract on the faith of which it is entered into, and if false in any respect material to the risk the contract may be avoided. A warranty, on the other hand, is a part of the contract itself. It defines by way of particular stipulation and condition the precise limits of the obligations which the insurer undertakes to assume, and no liability can arise outside of such limits." See Cook v. Farmers Mut. Fire Ass'n of West Virginia, 139 W.Va. 700, 81 S.E.2d 71 (1954). Warranties had to be literally true, while representations needed only to be substantially true. Myers, 83 W.Va. at 398, 98 S.E. at 427; Logan v. Provident Sav. Life Assurance Soc'y of New York, 57 W.Va. 384, 50 S.E. 529 (1905). The mere fact that a warranted statement was false afforded an insurer grounds for avoiding liability under the policy, without regard to the character of the statement or the knowledge or intent of the applicant at the time it was made. Layfield v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 120 W.Va. 564, 199 S.E. 450 (1938); Shamblen v. Modern Woodmen of America, 105 W.Va. 252, 142 S.E. 447 (1928); Marshall v. Locomotive Engineers Mut. Life & Accident Ins. Ass'n, 79 *347 W.Va. 121, 90 S.E. 847 (1916); Schwarzbach v. Ohio Valley Protective Union, 25 W.Va. 622 (1885). A false representation, on the other hand, generally had to be shown to be material to the risk or fraudulently made before the insurer would be allowed to defeat the policy. Christian v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 144 W.Va. 746, 110 S.E.2d 845 (1959); Clark v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 107 W.Va. 380, 148 S.E. 319 (1929); Woody v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 105 W.Va. 215, 141 S.E. 880 (1928); Myers, 83 W.Va. at 396, 98 S.E. at 426; Schwarzbach, 25 W.Va. at 655. Warranties were not favored at common law, and courts would generally construe misstatements in insurance applications to be representations rather than warranties whenever possible. See Layfield, 120 W.Va. at 570, 199 S.E. at 453; Myers, 83 W.Va. at 396, 98 S.E. at 426; Marshall, 79 W.Va. at 127, 90 S.E. at 849; Logan, 57 W.Va. at 388, 50 S.E. at 530; Schwarzbach, 25 W.Va. at 654. However, when expressly stipulated as such in the insurance contract, statements of fact in the application would be considered as warranties and strictly construed against the insured. See Cook, 139 W.Va. at 707-08, 81 S.E.2d at 76; Saltesz v. Sovereign Camp of Woodmen of the World, 110 W.Va. 513, 159 S.E. 513 (1931); Shamblen, 105 W.Va. at 258, 142 S.E. at 449. All of this was limited by the statutory rule that unless the application was attached to and made a part of the policy, the insurance company could not rely on any misrepresentations in the application to avoid liability. We spoke to this point in Leftwich v. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co., 123 W.Va. 577, 580, 17 S.E.2d 209, 210 (1941), where we said: "Construing and applying this statute [W.Va.Code, 33-6-2 (1931)], Bowyer v. Casualty Co., 72 W.Va. 333, 78 S.E. 1000, holds that an application for insurance in order to be a part of the insurance contract must be attached to the policy[.]" This provision is currently found in W.Va.Code, 33-6-6(a) (1957).[3] II. The common law rules with regard to false statements in an application for an insurance policy must now be read in light of W.Va.Code, 33-6-7 (1957).[4] Oddly enough, this provision has not been given any extensive review by this Court. We do have several federal district court cases where it is stated, without any analysis of our prior law or the statute itself, that W.Va.Code, 33-6-7, does not alter the common law with respect to misrepresentations in the application for insurance. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riffe, 325 F. Supp. 190 (S.D.W.Va.1971); Federal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Deal, 239 F. Supp. 618 (S.D.W.Va.1965). It should be noted that our statute appears not to be unique. It is substantially similar to the statute considered by the Maine Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. Ingeneri, 479 A.2d 897 (Me.1984).[5] There, the court, after reviewing *348 the common law distinction between warranties and representations, focused on the following statutory language: "All statements and descriptions in any application for insurance ... shall be deemed to be representations and not warranties." In Ingeneri, the court concluded that one of the purposes of the statute was to abolish the common law concept of warranties in insurance applications. See also Smith v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 107 Ariz. 112, 483 P.2d 527 (1971); Pearce v. Union Bankers Ins. Co., 259 So. 2d 81 (La.App. 1972). See generally 12A J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice §§ 7251, 7253 (1981); 7 Couch on Insurance 2d § 35:17 (Rev. ed. 1985). The plain language of our statute brings us to the same conclusion. We, therefore, hold that W.Va.Code, 33-6-7 (1957), has abolished the common law concept of warranties with regard to statements by an insured in an application for insurance. Cases such as Christian v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 144 W.Va. 746, 110 S.E.2d 845 (1959); Kent v. General American Life Ins. Co., 120 W.Va. 58, 195 S.E. 670 (1938); Shamblen v. Modern Woodmen of America, 105 W.Va. 252, 142 S.E. 447 (1928), and Myers v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 83 W.Va. 390, 98 S.E. 424 (1919), are overruled to the extent that they express a contrary view. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that such statutes, which are designed to alleviate the harshness of the common law, are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured. See Vernon v. Aetna Ins. Co., 301 F.2d 86 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 819, 83 S. Ct. 33, 9 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1962); Patrons Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rideout, 411 A.2d 673 (Me.1980); Sterling Ins. Co. v. Dansey, 195 Va. 933, 81 S.E.2d 446 (1954). See generally 12A Appleman, supra, §§ 7251, 7253; 7 Couch, supra, § 35:22; 45 C.J.S. Insurance §§ 473(4)(d), 595b. (1946); 43 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 1034 (1982). It is apparent that the legislature, in enacting W.Va.Code, 33-6-7, intended to codify the circumstances in which an insurance policy could be revoked for misrepresentations made in the application. The second sentence in the statute sets the general rule: "Misrepresentations, omissions, concealments of facts, and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy unless...." Clearly, this language is designed to indicate that not all misrepresentations will avoid the policy, but only those specifically identified in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of the statute.[6] Moreover, it is a general rule of statutory construction that subsidiary clauses which limit the generality of a rule are to be narrowly construed, as they are exceptions to it. See Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 680 P.2d 877 (1984); Martin v. Rent Control Bd. of Cambridge, 19 Mass.App. 745, 477 N.E.2d 426 (1985); State ex rel. Simpkins. v. Harvey, ___ W.Va. ___, 305 S.E.2d 268 (1983). See generally 1A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 20:22 (4th ed. 1985); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:11 (4th ed. 1984); 73 Am.Jr.2d Statutes § 313 (1974). The three statutory exceptions that will give rise to the right to avoid an insurance policy are stated in the alternative, but carry some duplication. The first, contained in W.Va.Code, 33-6-7(a), arises where the representation is "fraudulent." We have recognized in our prior law that "[f]raud on the part of the insured in the procurement of the policy ... is sufficient to defeat a recovery in an action on such policy." Christian v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 144 W.Va. at 753, 110 S.E.2d at 849-50. It does not appear that we have had occasion to define what acts will constitute fraud in this context. Our *349 traditional rule with regard to fraud is found in Syllabus Point 1 of Lengyel v. Lint, 167 W.Va. 272, 280 S.E.2d 66 (1981): "The essential elements in an action for fraud are: `(1) that the act claimed to be fraudulent was the act of the defendant or induced by him; (2) that it was material and false; that plaintiff relied upon it and was justified under the circumstances in relying upon it; and (3) that he was damaged because he relied upon it.' Horton v. Tyree, 104 W.Va. 238, 242, 139 S.E. 737 [738] (1927)." See also Muzelak v. King Chevrolet, Inc., ___ W.Va. ___, 368 S.E.2d 710 (1988). This rule does not differ markedly from what other courts have considered fraud sufficient to avoid an insurance policy, "usually consisting of knowingly or wilfully making false statements with the intention of deceiving or defrauding the insurer." 12A Appleman, supra at 390.[7] Moreover, in accordance with our rule in Lengyel, it is also generally agreed that fraudulent misrepresentations must relate to a material fact and that the insurer must have had no knowledge of their falsity. 12A Appleman, supra § 7303.[8] Indeed, because false representations partake of fraud, many courts do not make any clear distinction between a false representation and a fraudulent one. Typical is Hollinger v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 192 Colo. 377, 381, 560 P.2d 824 , 827 (1977), where the court stated: "[I]n order to avoid a life insurance policy on the basis of misrepresentations in the application, the insurer must prove that (1) the applicant made a false statement of fact or concealed a fact in his application for insurance; (2) the applicant knowingly made the false statement or knowingly concealed the fact; (3) the false statement of fact or the concealed fact materially affected either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the insurer; (4) the insurer was ignorant of the false statement of fact or concealment of fact and is not chargeable with knowledge of the fact; (5) the insurer relied, to its detriment, on the false statement of fact or concealment of fact in issuing the policy." (Footnote omitted). We have in the past adopted a similar rule which closely parallels Lengyel's general definition of fraud, as indicated by Syllabus Point 1 of Woody v. Continental Life Ins. Co., supra: "A misrepresentation in insurance is a false representation of a material fact by one of the parties to the other, tending directly to induce such other to enter into the contract, or to do so on less favorable terms to himself, when without such representation such other party might not have entered into the contract at all, or done so on different terms." Consequently, we hold that in order to be fraudulent under W.Va.Code, 33-6-7(a), misrepresentations, omissions, concealments of facts, and incorrect statements on an application for insurance by an insured must be knowingly made with an intent to deceive the insurer and relate to material facts affecting the policy. When we turn to subsections (b) and (c) of the statute, there appears to be some duplication. W.Va.Code, 33-6-7(b), relates to misrepresentations that are "[m]aterial either to the acceptance of the risk, or the hazard assumed by the insurer." Ordinarily, in determining whether a misrepresentation is material to the risk or the hazards assumed by the insurer, courts will utilize a test that is explained in 12A Appleman, supra at 368: "The most general accepted test of materiality is whether or not the matter misstated could reasonably be considered material in affecting the insurer's decision as to whether or not to enter into the contract, in estimating the degree or *350 character of the risk, or in fixing the premium rate thereon." See also Fecht v. Makowski, 172 So. 2d 468 (Fla.App.1965); General Assurance Corp. v. Roberts, 92 Ga.App. 834, 90 S.E.2d 70 (1955); American States Ins. Co. v. Ehrlich, 237 Kan. 449, 701 P.2d 676 (1985); Maryland Indem. & Fire Ins. Exch. v. Steers, 221 Md. 380, 157 A.2d 803 (1960); Transamerican Ins. Co. v. Austin Farm Center, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 503 (Minn.App. 1984); Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Dingus, 219 Va. 706, 250 S.E.2d 352 (1979); Berger v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 723 P.2d 388 (Utah 1986). W.Va.Code, 33-6-7(c), closely follows this language, providing that a misrepresentation is material if the insurer "in good faith would either not have issued the policy, or would not have issued a policy in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required by the application for the policy or otherwise."[9] Consequently, we hold that under W.Va.Code, 33-6-7(b) and (c), in order for a misrepresentation to be material, it must relate to either the acceptance of the risk insured or to the hazards assumed by the insurer. Materiality is determined by whether the insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy, or would not have issued a policy in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required either by the application for the policy or otherwise. It should be noted that these subsection (c) criteria are based on an objective standard that an "insurer in good faith" would have taken alternative action had the "true facts been known." Appleman observes that three different tests have evolved to determine whether a fact is regarded as material: "(1) whether a fact is regarded material by all similar insurers (2) what a reasonable and prudent insurer would regard as material (3) whether a particular individual insurer regarded the undisclosed facts as material to the contract." 12A Appleman, supra at 314. It is apparent that W.Va.Code, 33-6-7, adopts the test of whether a reasonably prudent insurer would consider the misrepresentation material to the contract. There is little doubt that W.Va.Code, 33-6-7, changes our prior law with respect to materiality. It was formerly held that where a specific answer was sought on an application, the fact elicited thereby became a material one. See Syllabus, Faulkiner v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 144 W.Va. 193, 107 S.E.2d 360 (1959); Syllabus Point 2, Woody v. Continental Life Ins. Co., supra. The statute clearly confines materiality to the circumstances described in subsection (c). III. In this case, Time relies on the provisions of W.Va.Code, 33-6-7(c), arguing that it "in good faith would ... not have issued the policy ... if the true facts had been made known" by Mr. Powell. It is generally held that where an insurer seeks to avoid the policy based on a material misrepresentation, this assertion is in the nature of an affirmative defense which the insurer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. See Houseman v. Home Ins. Co., 78 W.Va. 203, 88 S.E. 1048 (1916); Logan v. Provident Sav. Life Assurance Soc'y of New York, 57 W.Va. at 390, 50 S.E. at 531. See generally 21 J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice § 12122 (1980); 21A J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice § 12428 (1980). There can be little question that Time presented substantial evidence that Mr. Powell had made a number of misstatements in his application for insurance. The application indicated that Mr. Powell had never had (1) indications of lung or respiratory problems; (2) chest x-rays, electrocardiograms, *351 blood studies, or hospital confinement; (3) shortness of breath, emphysema, or other respiratory disorders; or (4) a prior medical examination.[10] Time produced medical records showing that Mr. Powell was treated at the VA Hospital as early as 1967 for obstructive pulmonary emphysema, a diagnosis which was confirmed by chest x-rays and electrocardiograms obtained from Mr. Powell during recurring visits after 1974. A physician at the VA Hospital also indicated that he had treated Mr. Powell for advanced pulmonary emphysema several times in 1981 and 1982 and had ordered x-rays taken at those times. In addition, the fact that Mr. Powell received frequent treatment for the disease over a long period of time and had been advised that he had emphysema several times within the applicable period is considered strong evidence that he knew or reasonably should have known of the existence of the disease at the time he filled out the application. See Piccinini v. Teachers Protective Mut. Life Ins. Co., 316 Pa.Super. 519, 463 A.2d 1017 (1983); Dye v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co., 128 W.Va. 112, 35 S.E.2d 865 (1945); Kent v. General American Life Ins. Co., 120 W.Va. at 61, 195 S.E. at 671-72; Leadman v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 112 W.Va. 53, 163 S.E. 716 (1932); Saltesz v. Sovereign Camp of Woodmen of the World, 110 W.Va. at 514-15, 159 S.E. at 513-14. See generally 1A J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice § 247 (1981); 21A Appleman, supra § 12430. Moreover, Dr. Tallman's notes state that Mr. Powell gave a history of chronic pulmonary disease of two years' duration less than two weeks after filling out the application. These factors indicate that the misrepresentation was not unintentional. Finally, Time also offered evidence that if it had known Mr. Powell suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary emphysema, it would not have issued the policy. This evidence was uncontradicted and there can be little question that the information was material to the risk insured, i.e., Mr. Powell's life. Moreover, while lung cancer and pulmonary emphysema are not related diseases, they can be caused by many of the same factors, including cigarette smoking. See Gray's Attorneys' Textbook of Medicine ¶ 204.33 (3d ed. 1987); Lawyers' Medical Cyclopedia, §§ 33.45, 33.58, 33.75 (3d ed. 1984). We believe that Time not only met its burden of proving a material misrepresentation, but, in the absence of any controverting evidence, was entitled to a directed verdict. Our law with regard to a directed verdict is set out in Syllabus Point 3 of Roberts v. Gale, 149 W.Va. 166, 139 S.E.2d 272 (1964): "When the plaintiff's evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, fails to establish a prima facie right of recovery, the trial court should direct a verdict in favor of the defendant." See also Troy Mining Corp. v. Itmann Coal Co., ___ W.Va. ___, 346 S.E.2d 749 (1986); Hinkle v. Martin, 163 W.Va. 482, 256 S.E.2d 768 (1979). IV. We find that the trial court was correct in directing a verdict for the defendant at the close of the evidence. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Wetzel County is, therefore, affirmed. *352 Affirmed. McGRAW, J., participated in this decision, but departed from the Court prior to the preparation of the opinion. WORKMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

c76af3cdbd6267bb7961336474b01f01f0afab73d9287aa274e8a797bd4d433e

1989-06-16 00:00:00

bb4fb03d-f5a4-4bdd-a05e-8b313877ae5d

Teller v. McCoy

253 S.E.2d 114

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Teller v. McCoy Annotate this Case 253 S.E.2d 114 (1979) Judy TELLER and Barbara Hager v. Martin McCOY. No. CC900. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Decided December 12, 1978. Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part January 30, 1979. Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part February 21, 1979. *117 Roxanne Rogers, Elkview, Daniel F. Hedges, Charleston, for plaintiffs. Bailey & Parks, Thomas R. Parks, Logan, for defendant. *115 *116 McGRAW, Justice: This proceeding is before us on certified question. Pursuant to W.Va. Code § 58-5-2, the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia, certified to this Court the following questions of law upon the joint motion of the plaintiffs and defendant, after first denying plaintiffs' motions for "partial summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings": 1. Whether failure of a landlord to maintain rental premises in a habitable condition and otherwise remedy defects to the premises which render the residence uninhabitable is in violation of a landlord's implied warranty of habitability to a tenant? And if so, whether it is subject to waiver? 2. Whether a landlord's warranty of habitability and the tenant's covenant to pay rent are mutually dependent? 3. Whether failure of a landlord to maintain the premises in habitable condition constitutes a failure of consideration and a breach of the rental agreement? 4. Whether a landlord's breach allows to the tenant one or more of the following remedies: (a) a right of action or setoff for the difference between the agreed rent and the fair rental value of the premises in their defective condition; (b) after reasonable notice and opportunity to a landlord to correct the defective conditions, to repair the defects himself and deduct the repair cost from the rent; and (c) vacation of the premises terminating a tenant's obligation to pay rent? (d) what damages, if any, are recoverable by the landlord or tenant in the event of breach of either party. 5. Whether a breach of the implied warranty of habitability is a defense to a landlord's action for rent, damages, or unlawful detainer?I At common law, a lease for real estate was considered a conveyance or sale of an estate in land for a term. 2 R. Powell, The Law of Real Property § 221(1) (Rohan ed. 1977). A burden of inspection was placed upon the tenant and "[f]raud apart, there [was] no law against letting a tumble-down house." Robbins v. Jones, 15 C.B.N.S. 221, 240, 143 Eng.Rep. 768, 776 (1863).[1] The only way that a tenant at common law could assure the fitness of a leasehold was by exacting an express covenant from the landlord that the property was to be fit for the purpose intended. Cowan v. One Hour Valet, Inc., 151 W.Va. 941, 157 S.E.2d 843 (1967); Lennox v. White, 133 W.Va. 1, 54 S.E.2d 8 (1949); Redden v. McCreery, 123 W.Va. 367, 15 S.E.2d 150 (1941); Charlow v. Blankenship, 80 W.Va. 200, 92 S.E. 318 (1917); Kline v. McLain, 33 W.Va. 32, 10 S.E. 11 (1889); Arbenz v. Exley, 52 W.Va. *118 476, 44 S.E. 149 (1903). Absent a statute to the contrary, it was uniformly held that there was no implied warranty of habitability or fitness for the purpose leased. Clifton v. Montague, 40 W.Va. 207, 21 S.E. 858 (1895); see Wilkinson v. Searls, 155 W.Va. 475, 184 S.E.2d 735 (1971); 1 American Law of Property § 3.45 (Casner ed. 1952); 2 R. Powell, The Law of Real Property § 225 (Rohan ed. 1977); 3 Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 122-23 (5th ed. 1966). "The common law focused on possessions rather than service. The ideal landlord delivered possession, then did nothing more; the ideal tenant paid his rent and demanded nothing more than possession." Note, 56 Cornell L.Rev. 489, 490 (1971). The acceptance of such rules in this state, as well as in most American common law jurisdiction, is exemplified by syllabus point 1 of Charlow v. Blankenship, supra, which provides: There is no implied covenant upon the part of the landlord in a lease that the premises are tenantable or reasonably suitable for occupation. In the absence of fraud or concealment by the lessor of the condition of the property at the date of the lease, the rule of caveat emptor applies. These rules developed out of an agrarian economy beginning in the Middle Ages at a time when the land, not the simple buildings and fixtures, was the focal point of the transaction. The right to possession of the land was the chief element of the exchange. The rent was deemed to issue from the land itself "without reference to the condition of the buildings or structures upon it." Hart v. Windsor, 12 M. & W. 68, 81, 52 Eng.Rep. 1114, 1119 (1843). Thus, the rent was due even if the buildings were not habitable or fit for occupancy.[2] 2 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, The History of English Law 131 (2d ed. 1923). This strict application of caveat emptor was consistent with the agrarian social setting under which the leasehold interests were created. It was accepted that the small, simple structures affixed to realty would be repaired by the farmer-tenant.[3] The condition of such premises normally was as readily apparent to the prospective tenant as it was to the landlord. Latent defects were not likely to exist due to the lack of the complicated, often imperceptible, modern refinements that characterize residential structures today. See the excellent historical discussion in Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 3d 616 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168 (1974) (en banc). But as society evolved, so did the setting under which the common law landlord-tenant relationship existed. English and American courts began to relax somewhat the settled common law rules.[4] The courts, *119 recognizing that some tenants primarily seek living quarters and not land, implied a warranty of habitability into short-term leases of furnished dwellings. Smith v. Marrable, 11 M. & W. 5, 152 Eng.Rep. 693 (Ex.1843); Ingalls v. Hobbs, 156 Mass. 348, 31 N.E. 286 (1892);[5]Young v. Povich, 121 Me. 141, 116 A. 26 (1922); Pines v. Perssion, 14 Wis.2d 590, 111 N.W.2d 409 (1961). Where the lease was for an apartment or room that later was totally destroyed by fire, the courts discharged the tenant from future rent, again recognizing that the tenant's true object in such cases was not land, but a place to live. Graves v. Berdan, 26 N.Y. 498 (1863); see Arbenz v. Exley, 52 W.Va. 476, 44 S.E. 149 (1903) & W.Va.Code § 37-6-28. And where a lease, restricting the lessee to a particular use, was accepted before the premises were completely constructed or altered, the courts made an exception to the no-implied warranty rule. See, e. g., Woolford v. Electric Appliances Co., 24 Cal. App. 2d 385 , 75 P.2d 112 (1938); J. D. Young Corp. v. McClintic, 26 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ.App.1930), rev's on other grounds, 66 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Comm'n App. 1933); Hardman Estate v. McNair, 61 Wash. 74, 111 P. 1059 (1910). A further historical adjustment to the no-repair rule occurred when the establishment of "a well recognized exception," Weaver Mercantile Co. v. Thurmond, 68 W.Va. 530, 70 S.E. 126 (1911), concerning premises used in common or remaining under the landlord's control. Charlow v. Blankenship, supra. "[T]he law imposes on a landlord the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain in reasonably safe condition, premises owned by him and used in common by different tenants . . the duty arises from the tenancy . . ." syl. pt. 1, Marsh v. Riley, 118 W.Va. 52, 188 S.E. 748 (1936); accord, Lennox v. White, 133 W.Va. 1, 54 S.E.2d 8 (1949); syl. pt. 2, Barker v. Withers, 141 W.Va. 713, 92 S.E.2d 705 (1956). At common law the lease was a conveyance of possession of real property for a term. The covenants in a lease were deemed to be independent, not dependent. Thus the duty of a tenant in possession to pay rent was accepted as essentially absolute. See, e. g., King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.Ct.App.1973). But the courts implied into leases a "covenant of quiet enjoyment" to relieve a tenant from the obligation to pay rent when he was deprived of possession or disturbed by hostile claimants or defects in title. Under this doctrine, the landlord, through his acts or omissions, was deemed to "evict" the tenant by depriving him of the beneficial enjoyment of the demised premises. Dyett v. Pendleton, 8 Cow. 727 (N.Y.1826); Edgerton v. Page, 20 N.Y. 281 (1859); see Wilkinson v. Searls, 155 W.Va. 475, 184 S.E.2d 735 (1971). Thus a tenant compelled to vacate any or all of an unfit and uninhabitable dwelling was deemed to be constructively "evicted" under law and was relieved from further rent liability.[6] This doctrine *120 of constructive eviction was created by the courts to serve as a "substitute for the dependency of covenants in a large class of cases . . ." Lemle v. Breeden, 51 Haw. 426, 462 P.2d 470 (1969) quoting Lesar, Landlords and Tenant Reforms, 35 N.Y. U.L.Rev. 1279, 1282 (1960). See also King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 , 69-70 (Mo.Ct. App.1973); 1 American Law of Property § 3.50 at 278 (Casner ed. 1952). "This rule allowed the court to mitigate some of the injustices stemming from strict application of the independent covenants rule without repudiating the rule's basic premise that the lease was essentially a conveyance of a possessory interest in land for a term and not a contract for a dwelling suitable for human occupation." Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 189-90, 293 N.E.2d 831 , 837 (1973). Certified Question No. 4(c) asks whether the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a fit and habitable condition would allow the tenant to vacate the premises thereby terminating the allegation to pay rent. Constructive eviction, recognized in Wilkinson v. Searls, supra, would afford the tenant that remedy. Since W.Va.Const. art. 8, § 21 and such cases as Cunningham v. County Court, 148 W.Va. 303, 308, 134 S.E.2d 725 (1964) hold that drastic changes in the common law can be made only by the Legislature, we must next review those relevant changes that have been effectuated by statute. In W.Va.Code § 29-3-2 the Legislature declared and found that "[a] significant part of the population of this State needs improved fire prevention and control . ." and that "[a]dequate fire prevention and control are not likely to become a reality unless certain administrative functions and procedures are enacted by law . . . ." A State Fire Commission was created, W.Va.Code § 29-3-3, and was granted the power to "promulgate, amend and repeal regulations for the safeguarding of life and property from the hazards of fire and explosion. . ." which regulations "shall have the force and effect of law" statewide. W.Va.Code § 29-3-5. W.Va.Code § 29-3-12(c) provides that the State Fire Marshal shall enforce these regulations. We take judicial notice that these regulations, in June, 1976, were filed in the office of the Secretary of State and that the State Fire Commissioner therein adopted, as its regulations, the National Fire Code published by the National Fire Protection Association, the National Building Code, and promulgated itself certain additional regulations covering topics such as explosives, liquified petroleum gases, schools, high rise buildings, fire alarms, sprinklers and delapidated buildings. These voluminous and detailed regulations, which fill eighteen separate volumes and thousands of pages, deal with such things as electricity, heating, plumbing, roofing, building materials, lights, ventilation, stairways, doors, basements, chimneys and walls. Section 2.02 provides that, "no person shall occupy or use, or permit the occupation or use of a building or structure or any part thereof which has been erected or altered in violation of the provisions of these regulations." This prohibition appears with equal force in W.Va.Code § 29-3-14(a) as follows: No person shall erect, construct, reconstruct, alter, maintain or use any building, structure or equipment or use any land in such a way to endanger life or property from the hazards of fire or explosion, or in violation of any regulation, or any provision or any change thereof promulgated by the state fire commission under the authority of this article. *121 Our Legislature in W.Va.Code § 16-1-7 gave the State Board of Health "The power to promulgate such rules and regulations . . . as are necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of [chapter 16] and prevent the circumvention and evasion thereof . . . Such rules and regulations shall include, but not be limited to, the regulation of . . the sanitary conditions of . . . sources of water supply, sewerage facilities and plumbing systems . . . and the design of all water systems, plumbing systems [and] sewerage systems." Pursuant to this, effective February 1, 1975, the West Virginia State Board of Health adopted the following regulations: "3.1 . . . [E]very dwelling or establishment whether publicly or privately owned where persons reside, assemble, or are employed, shall be provided with toilet facilities and a sanitary system of sewage or excreta disposal. 2.5 Dwelling [definition] A building structure or place used or intended to be used for human occupancy as a single family or multi-family residence. 2.19 Sewage [definition] Any liquid waste containing animal, vegetable and/or mineral matter in suspension or solution including, but not limited to, waste from water closets, urinals, lavatories, bathtubs, laundry tubs, washing machines, drinking fountains, sinks, kitchen equipment and other sanitary fixtures or facilities." W.Va.Code § 8-12-13 grants to municipalities the plenary power to regulate the plumbing, wiring, erection, construction, repair, and alteration of structures. In W.Va. Code § 8-12-16 municipalities are granted the plenary power and authority "to adopt ordinances regulating the repair, alteration or improvement, of the vacating, and closing or removal or demolition, or any combination thereof, of any dwelling or other buildings unfit for human habitation . ." On March 6, 1978, effective ninety days thereafter, our Legislature passed an amendment and reenactment of W.Va.Code 7-1-37 which therein confers upon county commissions of counties with a population of 45,000 or more the power "to adopt building and housing codes establishing and regulating minimum building and housing standards for the purpose of improving the health, safety and well-being of its citizens."[7] The Legislature "in order to promote and protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the public," W.Va.Code § 16-15-2, provided for the creation of a corporate housing authority where the governing body of a city or county finds that "unsanitary or unsafe inhabited dwelling accommodations exist" or "that there is a shortage of safe or sanitary dwelling accommodations in such city or county" upon consideration of such factors as "the sanitary facilities, and the extent to which conditions exist in such buildings which endanger life or property by fire or other cause." W.Va. Code § 16-15-3. Such authority has the power "to investigate into living and housing conditions in the city and into the means and methods of improving such conditions; to determine where unsanitary or substandard housing conditions exist; to study and make recommendations concerning. . . areas in which unsanitary or substandard conditions exist . . ." W.Va.Code § 16-15-7, and to establish and operate housing projects that provide "decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations." W.Va.Code § 16-15-17. The Legislature passed the Housing Cooperation Law in an attempt to aid in the establishment of housing projects and declared "that there exist[s] in the State unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions and a shortage of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations for persons of low income; that these conditions necessitate excessive *122 and disproportionate expenditures of public funds for crime prevention and punishment, public health and safety fire and accident protection, and other public services and facilities; and that the public interest requires the remedying of these conditions." W.Va.Code § 16-16-2 (emphasis added). This Housing Corporation Law granted to state public bodies the power to enter into agreements to repair, close, or demolish unsafe, unsanitary or unfit housing projects. W.Va.Code § 16-16-4. Also, the Legislature, finding "a serious shortage of sanitary, decent and safe residential housing," W.Va.Code § 31-18-2(a), enacted the West Virginia Housing Development Fund Act in an effort to make available more housing of that nature. Thus, the Legislature, having declared, "that the public interest requires the remedying of these conditions," W.Va.Code § 16-16-2, has for some time been aware of the problems that emanate from uninhabitable dwellings and has made substantial efforts to deal with them by providing appropriate habitable housing, by having the State Fire Commission and State Department of Health impose requirements upon landlords, and by empowering municipalities and county commissions to enact and enforce building codes and health regulations. The Legislature has clearly embarked on a course to change the common law no-repair rule and its correlative doctrine of caveat emptor by recognizing that urban tenants seek not just space, but a habitable place to live.[8]See King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.Ct.App.1973) and Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 189-90, 293 N.E.2d 831 , 840-2 (1973) where these courts faced with similar state statutes reached the same conclusion. We therefore are compelled to agree completely with the following often-quoted passage from one of the pioneer American cases recognizing the implied warranty of habitability: Legislation and administrative rules, such as the safeplace statute, building codes and health regulations, all impose certain duties on a property owner with respect to the condition of his premises. Thus, the legislature has made a policy judgment that it is socially (and politically) desirable to impose these duties on a property owner which has rendered the old common law rule obsolete. To follow the old rule of no implied warranty of habitability in leases would, in our opinion, be inconsistent with the current legislative policy concerning housing standards. The need and social desirability of adequate housing for people in this era of rapid population increases is too important to be rebuffed by that obnoxious legal cliche, caveat emptor. Permitting landlords to rent `tumbledown' houses is at least a contributing cause of such problems as urban blight, juvenile delinquency and high property taxes for conscientious *123 landowners. Pines v. Perssion, 14 Wis.2d 590, 595-96, 111 N.W.2d 409, 412-13 (1961). We, therefore, hold that in a written or oral lease of residential premises,[9] there is an implied warranty that the landlord shall at the commencement of a tenancy, deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition, and shall thereafter maintain the leased property in such condition.[10] II The Legislature's progressive abrogation of the common law no-repair rule was crystallized on March 11, 1978, when it added to our landlord-tenant law W.Va.Code § 37-6-30, a new section which requires the landlord to deliver and maintain the rental dwelling unit in a fit and habitable condition.[11] This Court today, by implying a warranty of habitability into residential *124 leases, intends in no way to impose upon the landlord a greater burden than that set forth by the Legislature in our new statute. The landlord's duty under the implied warranty and the statute are identical. That the case at bar arose before the effective date of the new statute is, then, of little consequence insofar as the landlord's duty is concerned. But in order to answer fully the questions certified to us, we must deal with several topics not covered by the statute. Our treatment of these topics is intended, however, to guide not only the lower court which certified these questions to us but all courts of this state that will undoubtedly be called upon to deal with the new statute and these attending topics. A. Mutual Dependency of Covenants A lease under real property law was viewed as a conveyance for a term, and its covenants were not mutually dependent. Under such an interpretation, the duty to pay rent was not dependent upon the landlord's compliance with the terms of the lease. Thus, even if a landlord agreed in the lease to keep the premises in good repair, his failure to do so would not relieve the tenant of his independent duty to pay rent. But this common law approach arose before the development in contract law of mutually dependent covenants. The authorities agree today that the modern lease is both a conveyance and a contract.[12] Corbin on Contracts, § 686 (1960 ed.); Thompson on Real Property, § 1110 (1959 replacement); Williston on Contracts, § 890 (3rd ed. Jaeger); Lesar, op. cit. supra. The cases adopting the implied warranty have likewise recognized that a residential lease must be treated as a contract. See, e. g., First National Realty Corp., supra, Green v. Superior Court, supra; Lemle v. Breeden, supra; Mease v. Fox, supra; Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, supra; King v. Moorehead, supra; Marini v. Ireland, supra. *125 Of the many cases that have implied a warranty of habitability into nonagrarian leases, none can be found which hold the implied warranty and the duty to pay rent to be independent. See Restatement (Second) of Property § 5.1 Comment b (1977). Thus, our Legislature along with many American courts has acknowledged that the land is no longer the value sought by an urban tenant. What is sought is a place to live, not an estate in land. As Judge Skelly Wright said in Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 138 U.S.App.D.C. 369, 372-373, 428 F.2d 1071, 1074-75, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 925, 91 S. Ct. 186, 27 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1970), a leading case adopting the implied warranty of habitability: When American city dwellers, both rich and poor seek `shelter' today, they seek a well known package of goods and services a package which includes not merely walls and ceiling, but also adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation, and proper maintenance.. . . In our judgment the trend toward treating leases as contracts is wise and well considered. Additionally, the growth in the number and detail of specific covenants in clauses found in leases regulating the use of the property further attests to their contractual nature. 2 R. Powell, Real Property ¶ 221[1] (1977); Lesar, op. cit. supra. In response to the second certified question, we hold that since a lease of a residential dwelling unit is to be treated and construed as any other contract, the covenant to pay rent and the warranty of habitability are mutually dependent.[13]Franklin v. Pence, 128 W.Va. 353, 36 S.E.2d 505 (1945); Jones v. Kessler, 98 W.Va. 1, 126 S.E. 344 (1925). B. Contractual Remedies Upon recognizing that a lease for urban living quarters is essentially a contract, the courts have uniformly made available to the tenant faced with the material breach of warranty the same common law contract remedies of damages, reformation and rescission, see, e. g., Mease v. Fox, supra; Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, supra; Fritz v. Warthen, supra; King v. Moorehead, supra; Restatement (Second) of Property §§ 5.1-5.4 (1977), "a more consistent and responsive set of remedies. . ." Lemle v. Breeden, 51 How. 426, 462 P.2d 470 (1969). We, too, so hold.[14] Therefore in further answer to Certified Question No. 4(c) as to whether the tenant faced with the landlord's breach of the warranty can vacate the premises and thereby terminate his obligation to pay rent, we need look only to the longstanding contract law of rescission. Breach of contract "so substantial as to tend to defeat the very object of the contract," syl. pt. 1, Holderby v. Harvey C. Taylor Co., 87 W.Va. 166, 104 S.E. 550 (1920); see J. W. Ellison, *126 Son & Co. v. Flat Top Grocery Co., 69 W.Va. 380, 71 S.E. 391 (1911) permits the injured party to rescind the contract. The warranty of habitability, a covenant upon which the very duty to pay rent depends, is certainly a vital and essential provision of the lease. Breach of this covenant, upon which the vitality of the lease depends, would entitle the lessee to rescind the lease, to vacate the premises and to be relieved of any further rental obligation. Because the typical residential tenant enters into a lease in order to obtain a habitable place to live, his failure to receive such a place to live would unquestionably justify rescission. Certified Question 5 asks whether a breach of the implied warranty of habitability is a defense to a landlord's action for rent or damages. As is the case with many of the questions certified, the answer is to be found in the long-standing contract law of this jurisdiction. The answer to this particular question appears cogently in Franklin v. Pence, 128 W.Va. 353, 357, 36 S.E.2d 505, 508 (1945): "When the covenants are dependent and mutual, as here, a party who violates the contract cannot recover damages which result from its violation by the other party." Thus, breach by the landlord of the implied warranty of habitability, a material covenant upon which the duty to pay rent depends, may be raised as a defense in a landlord's action for rent. When the landlord sues for damages to the premises allegedly caused by the tenant, the tenant may raise breach of the implied warranty as a defense only to show that the damage to the premises resulted from and were caused by the landlord's breach of the implied warranty. When the landlord sues for damages and the tenant contends that the warranty of habitability was breached, but does not maintain that the damages were directly caused by the breach, the tenant could counterclaim for damages reasonably arising from the breach of the implied warranty of habitability. As to the "repair and deduct" inquiry in Certified Question 4(b), our research reveals that only one of the many cases adopting the implied warranty, Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130, 265 A.2d 526 (1970), allows the tenant this remedy. We feel at this time, as have apparently the majority of courts dealing with the issue, that the wide range of contract remedies available to the tenant are adequate to enforce fulfillment of the implied warranty. Along with these contractual remedies, of course, the tenant has certain responsibilities under the lease. For example, "Since the basic contract remedies are available to tenant, the basic contract duties are imposed upon him. The tenant is under an obligation to give landlord notice of a deficiency or defect not known to the latter." Mease v. Fox, 200 N.W.2d 791 , 797 (Iowa 1972). Furthermore, "The contract principle that a person may not benefit from his own wrong will exonerate a landlord for a defect or deficiency caused by a tenant's wrongful conduct." King v. Moorehead, supra at 76, citing Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, supra, 138 U.S.App. D.C. 380 at n. 62, 428 F.2d 1082 at n. 62; Hinson v. Delis, 26 Cal. App. 3d 62 , 70, 102 Cal. Rptr. 661, 666 (1972); Mease v. Fox, supra at 797. C. Unlawful Detainer W.Va.Code § 55-3-1 et seq. provides for the action for unlawful detainer, the common remedy used to evict tenants who violate the lease in one respect or another. It provides the method for recovering possession or damages from the tenant who ". . . detain[s] the possession of any land, building, structure, or any part thereof after his right has expired . . ." At common law, under the property principles discussed above, the landlord would prevail upon a mere showing that rent was not paid according to the lease and that possession was withheld. But when the covenants of a lease are viewed under contract law as being mutually dependent, the tenant's right to possession may not necessarily expire upon his failure to pay rent. The landlord's breach of warranty becomes directly related to the issue of possession. *127 The tenant affirmatively alleging as a defense breach by the landlord of the implied warranty should be accorded the opportunity to show that his right to possession has not expired. In response to the fifth certified question, we hold that breach of the implied warranty is a defense to an action for unlawful detainer.[15]Accord, e. g., Javins v. First National Realty Corp., supra; Green v. Superior Court, supra; Jack Spring, Inc. v. Little, supra; Rome v. Walker, 38 Mich.App. 458, 196 N.W.2d 850 (1972); Fritz v. Warthen, supra; Foisy v. Wyman, supra. D. The Measure of Damages But while it is widely accepted that a residential lease is to be treated as a contract and that the common law remedies for breach are applicable, the courts addressing the issue have had great difficulty formulating an appropriate measure of damages applicable to a breach of implied warranty. See generally M. Moskovitz, The Implied Warranty of Habitability: A New Doctrine Raising New Issues, 62 Cal.L.Rev. 1444, 1464-73 (1974). Some courts adopt the "difference in value" approach. Under this method, the "`tenant's damages [is] measured by the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted and the fair rental value of the premises as they were during occupancy by the tenant in the unsafe and unsanitary conditions'." Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 3d 616 , 638, 111 Cal. Rptr. 704, 719, 517 P.2d 1168, 1183 (1974); Mease v. Fox, 200 N.W.2d 791 , 797 (Iowa 1972); accord, Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 192, 293 N.E.2d 831 , 845 (1973); see W.Va.Code § 46-2-714(2). If the fair market value of an apartment in its defective condition is $100, yet would be worth $200 but for the breach of warranty, then the tenant sustains $100 per month in general damages. The actual monthly rent contracted for is irrelevant under this approach, except perhaps as evidence of the apartment's fair market value. The other approach to ascertaining damages is the "percentage reduction of use" method first set forth in Academy Spires, Inc. v. Brown, 111 N.J.Super. 477, 268 A.2d 556 (Dist.Ct.1970) under which the court reduced the tenant's rental obligation by a percentage corresponding to the relative reduction of use of the leased premises caused by the landlord's breach. Under this method, if the tenant, due to the landlord's breach, is denied the use of ten percent of an apartment renting for $200, then the tenant sustained damages of $20.00 per month.[16] *128 We feel that neither approach should be the exclusive mode of assessing damages in such cases. Of the two, the "difference in value approach" is far more widely accepted and we adopt it, in part, as the measure of damages in cases involving the breach of the implied warranty of habitability. But, money damages so assessed, while appropriate in the commercial cases, are inadequate in most residential landlord-tenant tenant cases, since the residential tenant who endures a breach of the warranty of habitability normally does not actually lose only money. The typical residential tenant rents a dwelling for shelter, not profit. When the warranty is breached, he loses, instead, such intangibles as the ability to take a bath or use hot water as frequently as he would like, he may be forced to worry about the health of his children endangered by rats, roaches, or other undesirable pests, or he may be denied the use of certain rooms in the apartment because there is odor, severe water leakage, or no heat. "When [the measure of damages] is difficult to apply because the property in question is not used commercially, it may be necessary to formulate a measure of damages that is more uniquely adapted to the plaintiff's injury." Jarrett v. E. L. Harper & Son, Inc., W.Va., 235 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (1978). We recently addressed this precise issue in Jarrett v. E. L. Harper & Son, Inc., supra, where the plaintiff's water well was destroyed by the defendant, a contractor building a sewer for a public service district. The plaintiffs, without water for five weeks while a new well was being completed, sued for "annoyance, inconvenience, and `general unpleasantness'." We held in that case at syllabus point 3 that, "Annoyance and inconvenience can be considered as elements of proof in measuring damages for loss of use of real property." We feel that the true nature of the damages suffered by a tenant faced with a breach by the landlord of the warranty are not adequately measured by the exclusive use of the "difference in value" standard. Furthermore, the need for expert testimony under this approach could serve to deny the intended relief from a large number of low and middle income tenants who could not afford to litigate. Academy Spires, Inc. v. Brown, 111 N.J.Super. 477, 486, 268 A.2d 556 , 562 (Dist.Ct.1970); Steinberg v. Carreras, 74 Misc.2d 32, 38, 344 N.Y.S.2d 136, 144 (N.Y. City Civ.Ct.1973). Therefore, in response to the fourth certified question, we hold that when the warranty of habitability is breached, the tenant's damages are measured by the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted and the fair rental value of the premises as they were during the occupancy by the tenant in the unsafe and unsanitary condition. However, the tenant may additionally recover damages for annoyance and inconvenience proven to have resulted from the breach. E. The Implied Warranty at Trial The finder of fact in an action where the warranty of habitability is in issue must determine two things: (1) whether the implied warranty of habitability or fitness has been materially breached, and (2) how much of the tenant's rental obligation was abated or offset by virtue of the breach. Under (1) the determination of whether a landlord breached the warranty is a question of fact to be determined by the circumstances of each case. The breach must be of a substantial nature rendering the premises uninhabitable and unfit. Thus minor housing code violations or other deficiencies which individually or collectively do not adversely affect the dwelling's habitability or fitness would not entitle the tenant to a reduction in rent.[17] In making the *129 determination of whether the premises were uninhabitable and unfit, housing code violations and deficiencies should be scrutinized in light of such things as their nature, the length of time they persisted, their effect on safety and sanitation, the age of the structure, and the amount of rent charged. Under (2), if no material breach of the implied warranty is found, then a judgment for possession, rent, or damages may issue for the landlord. In an action for unlawful detainer, if the finder of fact concludes that the tenant's entire obligation to pay rent was suspended because of a total breach by the landlord, then the action for unlawful detainer will fail. And in an action for unlawful detainer, when it is found by applying the measure of damages set forth above that part, but not all, of the tenant's obligation for rent is suspended, the tenant must be given an opportunity to pay that part of the rent that is due. If the tenant fails to pay that sum within a reasonable period of time, then the Court should enter judgment on behalf of the landlord. Whenever breach of the implied warranty is raised as a defense to the landlord's action for rent or as a defense or counterclaim to a landlord's action for damages, the properly instructed finder of fact should apply the measure of damages as set forth above and determine the amount of money owed the tenant due to the breach. This amount should be deducted from the total amount of rent or damages the tenant is found to owe the landlord, or, where the tenant has counterclaimed, may result in a money award to the tenant. In some instances the tenant may maintain his own action for damages arising from the landlord's knowing breach of the warranty of habitability. In such cases, the measure of damages set forth above shall be used. But in such cases the landlord is permitted to raise as a defense that the tenant owes rent or is himself responsible for the unsanitary or unsafe condition of the premises. And, cases were the tenant affirmatively sues for breach of warranty, the landlord can counterclaim to recover for damages to the premises wrongfully caused by the tenant. F. Protective Orders In order to protect the landlord from the assertion of a frivolous implied warranty claim by a tenant in possession, to assure the landlord that any rent money adjudicated as owed to him will be available, and to encourage the landlord to make timely repairs so as to minimize a tenant's damages, several courts have held that the trial court, upon request, after determining that a fact questions exists as to a breach of warranty of habitability, may, during the pendency of the action, require the tenant in possession to make future rent payments or part thereof unto the court as they become due. Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 138 U.S.App.D.C. 369, 428 F.2d 1071, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 925, 91 S. Ct. 186, 27 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1970); Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 3d 616 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168 (1974); Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 213 N.W.2d 339 (1973); King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.Ct.App.1973); Restatement (Second) of Property § 10.3 (1977). See Moscowitz, op. cit., supra at 1473-1486; Note, 28 Stan.L.Rev. 729, 769-772 (1976). *130 The courts are sharply divided over whether these protective escrow orders should be allowed, and, where they are allowed, whether they should be the exception or the rule. We adopt the compromise approach set out in the leading case of Bell v. Tsintolas Realty Co., 139 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 430 F.2d 474 (1970). Such protective orders are not favored, but are permitted "only in limited circumstances, only on motion of the landlord, and only after notice and opportunity for a hearing on such a motion." Id. at 106, 430 F.2d at 479. According to Bell, the burden is on the landlord to show "an obvious need for such protection." Id. at 111, 430 F.2d at 484. When ruling upon the motion for the protective order, the trial court may consider: ". . . the amount of rent alleged to be due, the number of months the landlord has not received even a partial rent payment, the reasonableness of the rent for the premises, the amount of the landlord's monthly obligations for the premises, whether the tenant has been allowed to proceed in the forma pauperis, and whether the landlord faces a substantial threat of foreclosure." The "obvious need" of the landlord of the protective order is to be balanced against "the apparent merits of the tenant's defense." If the landlord proves his "obvious need," then the court may require the tenant in possession to make payments into the court pending disposition of the case. If the court believes that the tenant has a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits, the court might refuse to enter a protective order. And if it both appears that the landlord has an "obvious need" and the tenant's claim some "apparent merit," the court might order that an amount less than the monthly contract rent be paid into the escrow account. See Blanks v. Fowler, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 244, 437 F.2d 677 (1971). The trial court, in lieu of establishing a court-administered escrow account, or the parties by mutual agreement might establish a private escrow arrangement that adequately protects the landlord. Fritz v. Warthen, supra. This escrowed money represents rent only for the period between the filing of suit and trial. At trial, the escrowed amount should be apportioned between the parties consistent with the final judgment. Finally, the courts have been very reluctant to allow the turnover order, that is, the pre-judgment award to the landlord of part or all of an escrow account. We agree with this position. Courts may not invade escrow accounts before final judgment without the consent of the parties. G. Waiver Allowing a tenant to "waive" the warranty could be tantamount to permitting the landlord to violate some statute, regulation or code enacted for the benefit of not only that tenant, but future tenants, adjoining tenants and landowners as well. Certainly no one can waive the obligations imposed by law upon landlords, and no one, by contract or otherwise, can agree to permit a landlord to violate the law. A waiver by the tenant, the one normally most likely to detect, endure, and report such violations, would tend to insulate the landlord from liability for his illegal conduct. If a tenant is allowed to waive his rights arising from the landlord's breach of such ordinances, codes, statutes and regulations, a dilemma would ensue. If a tenant, after waiving the warranty, were to thereafter report violations of the law to the authorities charged with enforcement; the building could be condemned or appliances, water or utilities shut off leaving him with little or no civil recourse against the landlord. Since the tenant who has waived the implied warranty could suffer these severe consequences by reporting on illegality, it is not likely that he would be inclined to report the violations. Additionally, since "[i]t is fair to presume that no individual would voluntarily choose to live in a dwelling that had become unsafe for human habitation" Bowles v. Mahoney, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 155, 161, 202 F.2d 320, 326 (1952) (Bazelon, J. *131 dissenting) we hold that waivers of the implied warranty of habitability are against public policy. Given the proliferation of "form leases" and the current scarcity of habitable dwellings, there exists a distinct danger that such waivers would become routine. If tenants seeking the scarce available shelter are compelled to waive their rights and accept uninhabitable dwellings, then the protection accorded by the implied warranty and the statutes could become meaningless. III. This Court, along with many others, has concluded that the harsh common law rules of property, riddled historically with numerous exceptions, no longer exclusively govern the residential lease in light of legislative enactments and intent. Since the rights and duties of the landlord and residential tenant must be viewed under contract principles, the tenant's duty to pay rent is dependent upon the landlord's fulfillment of the implied warranty of habitability. There are several ways a tenant might enforce the implied warranty. A tenant may raise breach of warranty as a defense to an unlawful detainer action since the landlord's breach directly affects the right to possession even when the tenant is in arrears of rent. He may continue to pay rent and bring his own action later to recover damages caused by the landlord's breach with difference in value, annoyance and inconvenience being elements of proof, or, after vacating the premises and suspending rent payments, he may raise breach of warranty as a defense to an action by the landlord for rent. Accordingly, the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motions for "judgment on the pleadings and for partial summary judgment" is reversed and, as both parties have requested, the case is to be remanded to the Circuit Court of Logan County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed. NEELY, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part:[1] It is a basic principle of American jurisprudence that a court cannot gratuitously pronounce what they envisage the law should be but must limit themselves to rulings in the context of a justiciable case or controversy. U.S.Const., art. 111, § 2; W.Va.Const., art. 8, § 3. The case at bar arose before the effective date of W.Va. Code, 37-6-3 [1978] and the justiciable question presented was limited to whether under prior evolving common law there had developed any implied covenant of habitability in residential leases, and if such covenant existed, what remedies were available to enforce it. I do agree with the majority's resolution of these questions insofar as they hold that before W.Va.Code, 37-6-30 [1978] became effective it would be proper to imply a covenant of habitability and that such covenant was not independent of the duty to pay rent. Everything else in the majority opinion is pure dicta and represents nothing more than the philosophy of the majority writer; its gratuitous pronouncements, arising as they do dehors of a justiciable case or controversy, cannot constitutionally *132 be considered the decisional law of this State and the lower courts are not properly bound to follow them, nor should they. The majority opinion would imply that everyone has a natural law right to accommodations which would reflect credit on the Ritz Hotel. Experience in the last thirty years, however, adequately demonstrates that the creation of new law does not usually create new wealth; in fact, wealth can be equitably redistributed only after, not before, it has been created. Numerous recently decolonized, underdeveloped countries have learned to their chagrin that the social philosophy of the London School of Economics which stressed wealth redistribution over wealth generation might have been applicable to the United Kingdom of the 20th century but does not apply to primitive nations operating at the level of production which England enjoyed the day William I put the arrow through Harold the Saxon's eye. The inability to redistribute wealth which does not exist which inexperienced administrators in former colonies found to their disappointment to be an unrepealable law of nature in the 1960s will daunt the majority's effort to create first class housing in West Virginia. The leading cases adopting an implied covenant of habitability arose predominantly in urban areas plagued by extensive ghettos in which slum dwellers were charged almost as much for slum housing as "middle class" people were charged for acceptable housing. Part of this phenomenon was the result of de facto racial discrimination, part of the urge of the poor to live in a hospitable community, and part of a lack of social skills which would permit the exploited to seek alternative accommodations. See Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973) (Boston, Massachusetts); Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 3d 616 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168 (1974) (San Francisco, California); Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 138 U.S.App.D.C. 369, 428 F.2d 1071 (1970) (Washington, D.C.).[2] Most of these areas make West Virginia's largest city of Charleston, which has a population well under eighty thousand, look like a virtual suburban haven. To the extent that deplorable conditions such as those found in Boston Housing Authority, Green and Javins[3] exist in West Virginia they should be corrected; no person should be required to pay the same amount of money for a shack that he would pay for a modern apartment and no one should be permitted to be exploited in the market place because he is a different color or has any other background which engenders prejudice. However, a covenant of habitability cannot serve to correct every conceivable inconvenience that interferes with a tenant's enjoyment of leased premises. In my estimation, a covenant of habitability amounts only to a landlord's promise that if something is provided with a leased premise then it will work absent some specific disclaimer. For example, if an elevator is provided, the tenant can expect it to operate; if a toilet is provided, the tenant can expect it to flush; if a heater is provided, the tenant can expect it to heat; but, a *133 tenant cannot expect a landlord to increase the size of rooms, provide elaborate lighting, or install the most expensive heating system ever devised by man. I do not dispute for a moment that it would be wonderful if everyone could inhabit housing meeting both his taste and his budget but, unfortunately, the majority opinion cannot build houses, lower rents, or in any other way create more housing than already exists. Many people live in quarters which are less than luxurious because they cannot afford to pay more than what they already pay for rent. Ritz Hotel type housing cannot be provided where none otherwise exists unless someone pays for it. In our economy that means either (1) the landlord, (2) the tenant, or (3) the government. The government is trying to do its share, but its resources are limited.[4] The landlord cannot make substantial renovations without passing his costs on to the tenant, and the tenant may then find that he has been given more luxury than he can afford. It is very much as if one were to write an opinion which implied that everyone had a natural law right to a Rolls Royce and that an action in warranty would lie against all other automobile manufacturers if they provided anything less elegant. Many damage awards might follow, but eventually all other automobile manufacturers would be out of business, notwithstanding that very few Rolls Royces had come into the hands of those whom the opinion was intended to help. We do not do the people of this State a favor by taking delapidated houses off the rental market if concomitantly we cannot provide alternative housing.[5] Furthermore, we should not place ourselves in the position of the totalitarians who, allegedly, come the Revolution, intend to force feed strawberries and cream down the throats of everyone, notwithstanding any individual's abhorrence of strawberries and cream.[6] *134 While I find the greater portion of the majority opinion to be distasteful, I am especially distressed by the gratuitous pronouncements concerning both payment of rent into court and waivers, as neither question in the context of the new statute was fairly raised. I feel compelled to address these issues because they were addressed by the majority, if only to demonstrate that far greater refinement will be required of this area of the law as the court is educated by arguments made in the context of well developed records. First among the tasks of the future will be the development of a detailed typology of differing substandard housing situations to which we may apply rules calculated at all times to maximize availability of housing while minimizing exploitation. In that regard, a judicial definition of exploitation is itself a Herculean task; certainly it has vexed economists since time out of mind. The majority obviously does not understand the purport of W.Va.Code, 37-6-30(c) [1978] which will apply to all future cases which provides: None of the provisions of this section [warranty of habitability] shall be deemed to require the landlord to make repairs when the tenant is in arrears in payment of rent. This section, in my opinion, effectively precludes the requirement that a landlord make a motion and present supporting proof before rent must be paid into the court during an action based on a covenant of habitability. Even absent that section, logic and practical economics dictate automatic payment of rent into court as a condition precedent to asserting the defense of violation of the covenant of habitability in an eviction proceeding. Clearly the tenant expected to pay rent when he leased the premises; therefore, he is faced with no unforeseen expense and does not stand to suffer since if he is successful all or part of the amount paid will be returned to him. On the other hand, the landlord stands to suffer significantly if a displeased tenant can avoid rental payment simply by pleading breach of a covenant of habitability without providing any security for payment to a landlord who may be ultimately vindicated. In reality, the majority has inadvertently increased the costs to all tenants by forcing landlords to pass along to all tenants, where the elasticity of demand for housing is low, the cost of tenants who do not pay rent. Under the majority opinion, if a landlord seeks to evict a nonpaying tenant, the tenant can file a frivolous answer based on a breach of covenant, demand a hearing, and deprive the landlord of rent until final resolution of the dispute, absent a motion by the landlord. In those circuits where the trial judges are impartial, there will be a liberal granting of these motions and a requirement that money be paid into court; nonetheless, the cost of doing business has increased considerably. I predict landlords will exact higher deposits where they can, and that where landlords find themselves vexed by unwarranted lawsuits they will push up everyone's rent to cover their costs. In this regard the neutrality of the process has not been improved; the burden of lack of neutrality has merely shifted from the lessee to the lessor. Under prior law, where the covenants to maintain the premises and the covenant to pay rent were considered independent, the tenant suffered the burden of the process as he could seldom sustain an ancillary lawsuit to recover rent paid for inadequate dwellings after an eviction proceeding. Now, however, the landlord is burdened because most tenants are judgment proof; it is not practical to sue absconding tenants in an effort to get blood from proverbial stones. As tenants know this, they will soon become accustomed to awaiting an eviction proceeding, filing an answer claiming breach of warranty, demanding a hearing, and delaying the landlord in his eviction proceeding for at least four months. In that event the process not the merits of the case either way *135 will deny just landlords of their rightful recompense. However, if the tenant is required to pay money into court immediately, while the landlord is inconvenienced with regard to his cash flow, he is secure in his ultimate payment if he is without fault. Furthermore, there is much less likelihood that the process will be abused and that frivolous answers will be filed merely for the purpose of extending free tenancies. Moreover, the tenant will also be protected in a way he never was before. Thus either by an irrepressible desire to make a populist speech or an enormously unrefined thought process the majority opinion has deprived us of an opportunity to improve the total process rather than merely shifting the burden of its imperfections. The majority's holding that waivers are per se contrary to public policy goes farther than necessary to avoid the slum ghetto problem. It is in this regard that we shall be required to develop a detailed typology of different substandard housing situations. Printed leases which automatically provide a pro forma waiver of all implied covenants of habitability should not be automatically enforceable; however, where two intelligent parties actually bargain for less than elegant premises, the amount of the rent charged reflects that bargain in a reasonable way, and the court can infer from the surrounding circumstances that no unfair advantage has been taken of a tenant based on the landlord's exploitation of the inelasticities of demand for housing, the contract should be able to provide for a waiver. In this area the Court should be able to go behind the printed contract on grounds akin to those which recognize special rules with regard to contracts of adhesion. This is in consonance with a similar holding of ours in the field of arbitration, Board of Education of the County of Berkeley v. W. Harley Miller, Inc., W.Va., 236 S.E.2d 439 (1977) where we distinguished between arbitration clauses which are thrust upon unsuspecting consumers and arbitration clauses for which the parties bargain. While with regard to residential rental property the contract usually has a non-commercial consumer on one side and an experienced businessman lessor on the other, the parties can nonetheless intelligently bargain for a waiver, and the primary evidence of such bargaining process is a rent which reasonably reflects the value of the property. The courts are aware of the inelasticity of demand for housing in some parts of West Virginia and the cases cited by the majority have properly attempted to avoid outrageous exploitation of market rigidities in comparable circumstances in other jurisdictions where lessors charge high rents from unfortunate people and provide nothing in return. Consequently a court should be able to look to certain objective evidence in determining whether the accommodations were bargained for or whether the landlord has exploited the distress of his tenants. Such factors as the price of the residence, the employment record of the tenant, the age group of the tenant, the level of social skills of the tenant, the length of the lease, and the overall return on the rented premises should all bear on the problem. Where tenants are routinely of a class of itinerants who rent month to month, or taking a lease, routinely leave upon no notice, then the landlord must obviously rent at a higher monthly rental than if he had tenants who have been in the same dwelling for years. If the community is composed of renters who present peculiar problems, such as students or persons with very low social skills who routinely tear the place apart, then this unpleasant fact of life must bear upon the cost of doing business and must be reflected in the rent; however, where most tenants are retired persons who have owned their own homes, have a high sense of responsibility, and routinely provide their own minor maintenance, then the market rent should be appropriately lower. The reader may object in this regard that I have unfairly characterized some classes of tenants and quite possibly I have. That merely reinforces the preeminent deficiency of the majority opinion, i. e., making law which exceeds the requirements of the factual context in which it arose. Ultimately a competent circuit court should have the opportunity to develop the question of whether any particular subsample of tenants *136 present peculiar problems; until that time I must rely upon my own quite inadequate experience to point out the need for further development of the rules if we are not to achieve a result entirely contrary to what we intended. While the amount of rent alone is not entirely dispositive of the issue of whether objectively the waiver was intelligently bargained for, nonetheless, it is the starting point. Where delapidated premises are rented to persons for prices which are equal to or almost equal to those charged for adequate housing, then the burden should be upon the landlord to show the market conditions which require him to charge the rents he charges and to justify the contract by demonstrating that due to peculiar conditions his overall rate of return to capital and his own labor does not exceed a fair rate of return. I believe that the majority opinion is a philosophical speech which is not only uncalled for, but which demonstrates a totally deficient lack of refinement. As with all populist pronouncements in the modern world, the majority opinion has attempted to use a cudgel wielded by a cyclops to do work which can be accomplished only by a skilled athlete using a rapier. There is substantial wisdom to the common law tradition which countenances evolution of the decisional law only in the context of real cases and controversies. Discrete changes predicated on detailed development of factual situations helps preclude cyclopsesque blundering, i. e., the making of grandiose policy upon insufficient information. MILLER, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I find myself in basic agreement with the majority opinion that this Court may properly, as have other courts, fashion an implied covenant of habitability and determine what remedies are available under the doctrine. However, it is in the area of the available remedies that I diverge from the majority opinion. I am distressed that the majority fails to accord the tenant the right to repair the defect and deduct this cost from his rent, a remedy that is almost universally accorded in this situation. I am further concerned that Syllabus Point 5,[1] relating to the measure of damages, is not the correct damage rule and may ultimately cause much mischief. I I find the majority's rejection of a repair and deduct remedy rather strange, particularly since there are no reasons given why this remedy should not be allowed. Most courts which have adopted the implied warranty of habitability doctrine have sanctioned this remedy.[2] The implied warranty of habitability is bottomed on the premise that there are certain minimal standards of habitability arising from a residential lease which the law implies. This is analogous to the common law warranty or covenant of the landlord to keep the leased premises in a reasonable state of repair. The covenant to repair had to be expressly extended, but upon its breach by the landlord the tenant could, after due notice to the landlord, repair the defect and deduct the cost of repairs from his rent, as stated in 49 Am.Jur.2d Landlord and Tenant § 842: "It is well established that upon the breach by a landlord of his covenant to *137 repair, the tenant may make the repairs and recover the reasonable expense or cost thereof from the landlord or charge it against the rent." This was not the only remedy available to the tenant where the landlord breached his covenant to repair. The remedies are summarized in 28 A.L.R.2d 446, 452 (1953), and bear a striking similarity to the remedies made available on breach of an implied warranty of habitability: "In one recent case the court has summarized the remedies of a tenant where the landlord has breached a covenant to repair, as follows: `Three remedies are available to a tenant where a landlord fails to perform a lease covenant: (1) Upon the landlord's failure of performance, the tenant can perform it at his own expense and defalk the cost of such performance from the amount of rent due and payable; or (2) The tenant can surrender the possession of the premises to relieve himself from any further payment of rent; or (3) He can retain possession of the premises and deduct from the rent the difference between the rental value of the premises as it would have been if the lease had been fully complied with by the landlord and its rental value in the condition it actually was.' Siddall v. Burke (1940, Pa.) 29 Del.Co. 530." This law is not foreign to our jurisdiction, as demonstrated by the case of Cheuvront v. Bee, 44 W.Va. 103, 105-106, 28 S.E. 751, 752 (1897): "`Where a landlord has agreed to repair the demised premises, and does not do so, the tenant has several remedies. He may abandon the premises, if by reason of the nonrepair they are rendered untenantable, or he may make the repairs, and deduct the cost from the rent. The tenant may also sue for damages.' 12 Am. & Eng.Enc.Law, 727. . . . The tenant, however, having the right to make the repairs at the expense of, and charge them to, the landlord, and deduct them from the rent, could regard them as payments on the rent, and file an account thereof with his plea of payment. Or he could file his special plea of recoupment, in its nature a plea of offsets, limited to such sums as he had the right to recoup against the rent. . . ." Cheuvront also requires the tenant to give the landlord a reasonable notice to make the repairs before the tenant can undertake the repairs: "Where the landlord covenants to repair, and neglects to do so, after having been notified, the tenant may, after a reasonable time, make the repairs and charge the landlord." [44 W.Va. at 106, 28 S.E. at 752] A repair and deduct remedy provides a simple and expeditious means of alleviating a breach of an implied warranty of habitability.[3] It is not unjust to the landlord, since he must be given prior notice of the defect and an opportunity to repair it before the tenant can do so. It hardly seems likely that the tenant would be extravagant in his repairs, since it is his money that must be used initially. II Of more major concern is the damage rule announced in Syllabus Point 5, and more fully explained beginning at page 127 of the majority opinion. It is manifestly unfair to permit the tenant to recover damages based not on the actual rent he is paying, but on the hypothetical figure of the fair rental value of the property as it would be without any breach of the warranty of habitability. The historical and fundamental rule underlying all compensatory damages is that the law seeks to redress for one's actual losses, but not to bestow a profit on the *138 injured party. 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages §§ 11-13; 25 C.J.S. Damages § 17; 5B M.J. Damages §§ 7, 18. This is true whether the injury arises by virtue of a tort or breach of contract. Stenger v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 139 W.Va. 549, 561-66, 80 S.E.2d 889 , 897-99 (1954); Horn v. Bowen, 136 W.Va. 465, 469, 67 S.E.2d 737 , 739 (1951). While there may be some exceptions to this rule in the case of commercial contracts or leases where lost profits on the contract can be considered, certainly these considerations are not warranted in a purely residential lease. The doctrine of implied warranty of habitability is exclusively confined to residential leases. Again, some analogy can be made to the measure of damages where there is a breach on the part of the landlord of his covenant to keep the premises in repair. Admittedly, some of the cases in this area are concerned with commercial property and may involve an element of an advantageous bargain on the actual rent, such that the courts are willing at times to permit a showing of value above the actual rent. I do not believe this element can be considered with respect to an implied warranty of habitability on residential property. Without an extensive review of individual cases, I believe that where there is a breach of a covenant to repair, the rule is that the measure of damages is the actual rent less the rental value in the defective condition. 49 Am.Jur.2d Landlord and Tenant § 844; 51 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 373(5); Annot., 28 A.L.R. 1448 (1924); 28 A.L.R.2d 446 (1953). Indeed, the plaintiffs do not appear to contend for a different rule, since they state in their Brief at page 40: "The plaintiff[s] submit[s] that absent a total breach, the plaintiff[s] should be allowed a right of action or setoff of, at the option of the tenant, (1) the difference between the agreed rent and the fair market value of the premises in their defective condition, or (2) the percentage reduction of use and enjoyment." Furthermore, I am persuaded that this is the majority rule in those cases where the courts have adopted the doctrine of the implied warranty of habitability, as illustrated by Kline v. Burns, 111 N.H. 87, 93-94, 276 A.2d 248, 252 (1971): "If a material or substantial breach of the implied warranty of habitability is found, the measure of the tenant's damages is the difference between the agreed rent and the fair rental value of the premises as they were during their occupancy by the tenant in the unsafe, unsanitary or unfit condition. In other words, the tenant's rent liability will be the reasonable rental value of the premises in their condition while occupied. Pines v. Perssion, 14 Wis.2d 590, 597, 111 N.W.2d 409, 413 (1961); William J. Davis, Inc. v. Slade, 271 A.2d 412 , 416 (D.C.Ct.App. 1970); 11 Williston, Contracts s. 1343 (3d ed. W.H.E. Jaeger 1968); see Coos Lumber Co. v. Builders Supply Co., 104 N.H. 404, 408, 188 A.2d 330, 332 (1963)." See King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 , 76 (Mo.App.1973). The majority cites Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 3d 616 , 638-39, 111 Cal. Rptr. 704, 719, 517 P.2d 1168, 1183 (1974), which set its damage formula in a most peripheral fashion without analysis to any general damage rule. It relied primarily on Mease v. Fox, 200 N.W.2d 791 , 797 (Iowa 1972). Green did cite Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973), and Academy Spires, Inc. v. Jones, 108 N.J.Super. 395, 261 A.2d 413 (1970), but they do not support the Green and Mease rule. Boston Housing suggested that the actual rent may be evidence of the value as warranted. [363 Mass. at 203, 293 N.E.2d at 845] In Academy Spires, supra, McKenna v. Begin, 362 N.E.2d 548 (Mass.App.1977), and Glyco v. Schultz, 35 Ohio Misc. 25, 62 Ohio Ops.2d 459, 289 N.E.2d 919 (Sylvania Mun.Ct. 1972), the courts adopted a percentage reduction in the actual rent based on a reduction in the use of the premises resulting from the breach of the implied warranty, a point acknowledged by the majority in this case at page 127. This rule is not materially different from the one I have discussed. *139 By using the actual rent and deducting from it the fair rental value of the leased premises with the breaches of the implied warranty of habitability, a closer approximation of the actual damages incurred can be obtained. To use the majority's illustration, if a tenant leased property at $150 a month and it was found that as a result of various breaches of the implied warranty of habitability its fair rental value is only $100 a month, then the tenant's damages are $50 a month. The majority would calculate the tenant's damages at $100 a month based on the hypothetical fair rental value of the premises if there were no breach of the implied warranty of habitability, which is $200 a month, and subtract the value in its present state with the breach, which is $100. The tenant is not paying $200 in rent, but only $150, and thus he obtains $50 a month in damages over what he is actually out-of-pocket. A moment's reflection will reveal that there are residential apartments which a landlord will rent that are neither new nor in perfect condition, and as a consequence he is willing to take a realistic rental for them. He should not be penalized, nor the tenant rewarded, on the basis of a damage rule which begins with the basic assumption that the parties dealt on the theory that the apartment was without any defect or breach of an implied warranty of habitability. Common sense dictates an awareness that there are tenants who do not possess sufficient funds to rent an apartment which is completely free of any defects, and landlords who, because of modest financial circumstances, cannot offer the most modern residential apartments. This more realistic damage rule does not mean that the tenant is waiving any breach of the implied warranty of habitability, since the rule relates only to the measure of damages he can recover from the landlord. He can still utilize the breach of implied warranty of habitability as a defense to an action for unlawful detainer or as an offset by way of damages in the landlord's suit for rent. He can leave the premises and end his obligation to pay rent or bring his own action for damages. What he ought not to be able to do is obtain monetary damages that bear no relationship to his actual rent when contrasted with the actual condition of the premises. This is completely contrary to any recognized rule for calculating compensatory damages. I do not sense that the majority is holding that because there may be breaches of the implied warranty of habitability, the landlord may not regain possession of the premises upon the expiration of the term of the lease. This is the traditional function of an unlawful entry and detainer action to regain possession at expiration of the term. W.Va.Code, 55-3-1; Lewis v. Welch Wholesale Flour & Feed Co., 90 W.Va. 471, 111 S.E. 158 (1922); Hukill v. Guffey, 37 W.Va. 425, 450-56, 16 S.E. 544, 552-54 (1892), writ of error dismissed, 163 U.S. 690, 16 S. Ct. 1202, 41 L. Ed. 306 (1895). At common law, in the absence of statute or an express provision in the lease, the non-payment of rent did not operate to confer on the landlord the right to regain possession of the premises. Gale v. Oil Run Petroleum Co., 6 W.Va. 200 (1873); 49 Am. Jur.2d Landlord and Tenant § 1029. However, since the inception of this State, the right to re-enter for rent arrearage has been controlled by statute, W.Va.Code, 37-6-19, which permits re-entry through the use of an unlawful detainer action if the rent becomes in arrears. Kincaid v. Patterson, 129 W.Va. 234, 239-41, 39 S.E.2d 920, 924-25 (1946). It is this statutory authorization for the use of unlawful entry and detainer for the non-payment of rent which is interdicted by the implied warranty of habitability until the habitability-rent issue is settled. Where the landlord seeks an unlawful entry and detainer to regain the possession of the premises on the basis that the term of the lease has expired, I would not view the implied warranty of habitability as preventing the exercise of such remedy.[4] *140 Based on the considerations that I have suggested, I do not believe the implied warranty of habitability does any great violence to our existing landlord-tenant law. Since the Legislature has left open the damage question in setting the various implied warranties of habitability under W.Va.Code, 37-6-30, it may be possible to rectify the damage rule espoused by the majority under this statute or an interpretation thereof.

eafa2eb183b4c5d07440e65b928243b7eb3361fbff2cc1780662bee5c319de23

1979-02-21 00:00:00

07a303aa-c045-45df-9c0e-d51fc3c61b7d

Haynes v. City of Nitro

240 S.E.2d 544

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Haynes v. City of Nitro Annotate this Case 240 S.E.2d 544 (1977) Mae L. HAYNES v. The CITY OF NITRO, etc., Appellant, Penn Central Transportation Co., etc., et al., Appellees. No. 13624. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 20, 1977. Rehearing Denied February 6, 1978. *545 Betty L. Caplan, Charleston, for appellant. Kay, Casto & Chaney, Robert H. C. Kay and George S. Sharp, Charleston, for appellees. HARSHBARGER, Justice: On January 19, 1972 Mae Haynes was a passenger in an automobile operated by her daughter-in-law, Linda K. Workman, who drove it off Wilson Street in the City of Nitro, Kanawha County, and onto Penn Central Transportation Company's tracks that were more than a foot below street level. *546 Wilson Street was a public street, at least to the point where it entered the Penn Central right-of-way. But even there it was paved across the right-of-way a distance of about 27 feet to a point within three feet of the tracks. A crossing had been maintained for some years, but the planks that formed the crossing had been removed apparently at the time the street paving was completed in 1962 or 1963. Mrs. Haynes sued Mrs. Workman, the city, and Penn Central's trustees for her personal injuries. Evidence elicited of plaintiff's witnesses revealed that the crossing had in earlier times accommodated a farm road; and, an affidavit in the record made by one of the railroad's lawyers indicates he thought that from sometime prior to August 15, 1944 until March 1963, then unpaved Wilson Street (or Wilson Avenue) existed; but that when the railroad in March, 1963 built a storage track at that point, it removed the farm crossing which, he allowed, was "located in the proximity of Wilson Street". He stated that the railroad never acknowledged any street or farm crossing at Wilson Street and erected no signs to warn the public of approaching trains, nor did it erect any barricades. There was evidence that the railroad knew about the pavement, and in fact successfully protested an assessment against it to pay for the pavement on its right-of-way. But there was no evidence about why for ten years the railroad allowed a paved roadway, to all appearances part of a street, to extend 27 feet upon its right-of-way and lead directly to within three feet of the rails, there to terminate without warning at the brink of the declivity created by the lower elevation of the railroad roadbed and tracks. Plaintiff prosecuted her action on the theory that the city and Penn Central were concurrently negligent and, therefore, joint tort-feasors for failing to abate or warn travelers of the foot-deep dropoff from the end of the pavement to the railroad tracks. When plaintiff closed her evidence the defendant railroad moved for a directed verdict. The motion was sustained over objections by all the other parties. A jury found for plaintiff against the City of Nitro. The judgment has been satisfied by the city. Defendant Workman was acquitted of responsibility for her mother-in-law's injuries. The city prosecutes this appeal from the trial court's dismissal of the railroad. The questions presented are whether the trial court erred in granting Penn Central's motion for a directed verdict; and, if so, whether the City of Nitro can complain about the dismissal on the ground that the city was thereby deprived of its right of contribution from the railroad. I. When the trial court granted Penn Central's motion for a directed verdict, it determined that the railroad owed no duty of care to the general public. This was error. Penn Central established by affidavit and it was later stipulated that the right-of-way in question was created in behalf of Penn Central's predecessor in title by deed dated January 20, 1882. The deed also established a private farm crossing across the railroad right-of-way. The court held the deed to be dispositive in determining that the railroad owed a duty of reasonable care only to the class that stands in the position of the original beneficiaries of the farm crossing, but not to the general public. The trial court's ruling that the scope of duty and standard of care owed by a railroad to the public is controlled by its real property rights, is wrong. Plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant railroad on several theories of negligence, one or all of which should have gone to the jury. First, prima facie negligence was established by the railroad's failure to observe an ordinance of the City of Nitro, which provides in relevant part: At every point where the tracks or switches of a railroad company cross any unpaved public thoroughfare or street, it *547 shall be the duty of the railroad company to construct proper crossings and approaches thereto on such a grade that it shall not exceed two percent, and under the direction and in accordance with plans and surveys made by the City Engineer as so required by the Council . . Whenever any street is paved by the City up to a line parallel with the property line of the railroad company's right-of-way on both sides of any railroad crossing, it shall be the duty of the railroad company forthwith to pave said crossing the entire distance of its right-of-way with the same materials and in the same manner that the rest of the street on either side of the street is paved or with other materials to be approved by the City Engineer. See Vandergrift v. Johnson, W.Va., 206 S.E.2d 515 (1974); Costello v. City of Wheeling, 145 W.Va. 455, 117 S.E.2d 513 (1961). Second, the railroad has a duty to maintain all of its property so as to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm, especially where the risk of harm is serious and the cost of prevention slight. Baker v. City of Wheeling, 117 W.Va. 362, 185 S.E. 842 (1936); Cox v. United States Coal and Coke Co., 80 W.Va. 295, 92 S.E. 559 (1917); Ross v. Kanawha and Michigan Ry. Co., 76 W.Va. 197, 85 S.E. 180 (1915). If it violated its duty those injured as a result of its dereliction are entitled to recover. Plaintiff made prima facie showings of negligence against Penn Central that were wholly unrelated to the question whether the crossing was public or private, or whether there was historically any crossing there at all. II. We now reach the question, does a defendant have an inchoate right to contribution from joint tort-feasors, entitling such defendant to appeal the dismissal before judgment of an alleged joint tort-feasor. W.Va.Code, 55-7-13, states: Where a judgment is rendered in an action ex delicto against several persons jointly, and satisfaction of a judgment is made by any one or more of such persons, the others shall be liable to contribution to the same extent as if the judgment were upon an action ex contractu. This statute was originally enacted in 1872-73. It appears to foreclose any doubt that when a judgment is found against joint tort-feasors, any defendant who pays it can collect from the others. But somehow, this Court and the federal courts have found that the statute forecloses contribution between joint tort-feasors in the absence of a joint judgment. It does not. It merely provides that any one or more of joint tort-feasors who are in judgment and who pay it, have rights of contribution against their fellow joint tort-feasors. The statute was cited for the proposition that there is no right of contribution in the absence of a joint judgment in Bluefield Sash and Door Company, Inc. v. Corte Construction Co., W.Va., 216 S.E.2d 216 (1975). The Court's brief analysis of West Virginia contribution law, 216 S.E.2d at 218, states: Under West Virginia law there is no right of contribution between joint tort-feasors in the absence of a joint judgment, Code, 55-7-13. Therefore, a joint tort-feasor cannot implead a third party defendant who is a joint tort-feasor under Rule 14(a). See Wolfe v. Johnson, 21 F.R.D. 280 (N.D.W.Va.1958); Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Saunders, 159 F.2d 481 (4 Cir. 1947); Rouse v. Eagle Convex Glass Specialty Company, 122 W.Va. 671, 13 S.E.2d 15, 132 A.L.R. 1421 (1940).[1] Wolfe v. Johnson, 21 F.R.D. 280 (N.D.W. Va.1958), was written by Judge Watkins and involved a fact situation wherein the diversity jurisdiction of the federal court would have been defeated by permitting the husband of plaintiff to be made a third-party defendant in plaintiff's suit, both plaintiff and her husband being residents of *548 Maryland. Defendant claimed the husband, driver of an automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger that collided with defendant's auto, was responsible for plaintiff's personal injuries. The court recognized that earlier in Crum v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 29 F. Supp. 90 (S.D.W.Va.1939), it had allowed one tort-feasor to bring in a joint tort-feasor as a third-party defendant under Fed. Rules Civil Proc., rule 14, citing substantive West Virginia case law entitling one joint tort-feasor to contribution from another joint tort-feasor except where the act is malum in se. Judge Watkins, however, believed the more recent case of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Saunders, 159 F.2d 481 (4th Cir. 1947) controlled his decision in Wolfe. The Fourth Circuit in Saunders interpreted Code, 55-7-13, to allow contribution only when a joint judgment has already been obtained and to prohibit any inchoate right to contribution. The Saunders case further relied on Rouse v. Eagle Convex Glass Specialty Co., 122 W.Va. 671, 13 S.E.2d 15 (1940) which held that under Code, 56-4-34,[2] a defendant in tort would not have an alleged joint tort-feasor made a party to the action. Examination of Rouse is desirable, it having been relied upon both by the Fourth Circuit and this Court to promote the "no contribution" rule. The author of the opinion cited no authority to support the case's rule. Indeed, Judge Hatcher wrote:[3] The writer of this opinion would construe the statute as permitting a defendant in tort to have an alleged joint tort-feasor made a party to the action. The majority say not. They take this position: The practice is settled that the plaintiff in tort can sue one or all who have jointly wronged him, and if less than all, can select whom he will sue. The practice permitted here would allow a defendant to select in part those to be sued; would force the plaintiff into uncontemplated and perhaps undesired litigation with every added defendant; and would many times inject an issue, as here, between the original defendant and an added one, which might overshadow the issues between them and plaintiff. In a tort action the general disadvantage to a plaintiff and the general confusion thus resulting would overweigh so completely the advantage to the defendant of having determined therein whether another shall *549 share his liability, that it will be presumed the statute was not intended to apply in such case. 13 S.E.2d at 15-16. We do not know how to explain the strange reliance by the Fourth Circuit in Saunders upon a statute (Code, 55-7-13) which does not, in any way, say what that court said it says, and upon a case by our own Court (Rouse) in which no precedent for the proposition it stands for is cited, and which ignores our own cases to the contrary. As Judge Watkins observed in Crum, supra, contribution between joint tort-feasors is allowed in West Virginia. "Such was the law in Virginia before the state of West Virginia was formed. Thweatt's Adm'r v. Jones, 1 Rand. 328, 10 Am.Dec. 538. Such has been the law of West Virginia since the formation of the state."[4] 29 F. Supp. at 92 . The right to contribution is set forth in early opinions of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Buskirk v. Sanders, 70 W.Va. 363, 73 S.E. 937 (1912); Payne v. Charleston National Bank, 112 W.Va. 251, 164 S.E. 252 (1932); Hutcherson v. Slate, 105 W.Va. 184, 142 S.E. 444 (1928). In Payne, supra, this Court wrote: Plaintiffs have appealed from a decree dismissing the bill on demurrer. The grounds of demurrer are: (1) That the law will not enforce contribution among joint tort-feasors; and (2) that payment by plaintiffs of the judgment against the agent, Drehert, was voluntary. We cannot share the views of defendants upon either ground. "The general law provides that one joint tort-feasor may ordinarily require contribution from another, except where the wrong is malum in se." [citations omitted]. "While the decisions upon the subject are as yet infrequent and meager, we may safely say that they maintain that where two or more persons are jointly and equally answerable for negligence, and one of them has been compelled to discharge the whole liability, he is entitled to contribution from the others, provided the circumstances are not such that he must be presumed to have intended to do an unlawful act or an intentional wrong . . [W]here the neglect is joint, as where it consists of the omission of a duty which each of the parties was equally bound, both in law and in good conscience, to discharge, then each is entitled to contribution from the other. 164 S.E. at 252-253. The Hutcherson case is directly on point. This Court considered the forerunner of Code, 55-7-13, and held that it did not limit the general right to contribution: Counsel for Slate say that a joint tort-feasor, as defendant, has no right to complain of an error in favor of his codefendant. They refer to the general law that a plaintiff can sue joint wrongdoers separately as well as jointly, can take separate judgments for the wrong, and can enforce which judgments he elects. They contend that the plaintiffs in these cases have the sole right to object to the verdicts in favor of Slate and point to the fact that they are not complaining. Section 8 of Chapter 136, Code, provides for contribution by tort-feasors in the payment of a joint judgment. The general law provides that one joint tort-feasor may ordinarily require contribution from another, except in cases where the wrong is malum in se. . . . [citations omitted; emphasis added.] The sum of the judgment in these cases is $12,000. Had joint verdicts and judgments been rendered herein, the company would ultimately have been mulcted for only $6,000. As it is now, the verdict relieves Slate from contribution, and the company must pay the entire amount. If the verdict in favor of Slate is based on an erroneous instruction, then the company is prejudiced thereby, because it is *550 entitled to insist that its right to demand contribution be extinguished only after the jury has considered the facts under proper instructions. In Virginia Ry. & P. Co. v. Hill, 120 Va. 397, 405, 91 S.E. 194, 197, the court well said: "If one joint tort-feasor should obtain an erroneous instruction which improperly fixes the liability on another, the latter has the right to except. Any other rule would be indefensible." Here the instruction not only benefitted Slate, but prejudiced the company; consequently the right of the latter to complain cannot be gainsaid. 142 S.E. at 447. In Buskirk v. Sanders, supra, this Court held that to deprive one of his right of recourse upon or contribution from one with whom he may have cooperated in the wrongful act of cutting timber from another's lands, the act must have been malum in se. These cases clearly establish that when a plaintiff names two joint tort-feasor codefendants, and there is no possibility of joint judgment because of trial court error, the codefendant is still entitled to seek contribution. These cases have not been overruled and are the law of this State.[5] We find that the trial court erred in dismissing Penn Central and that the City of Nitro has a valid cause of action for contribution against Penn Central. In doing so we further hold that Bluefield Sash and Door Company, Inc., v. Corte Construction Co. and Rouse v. Eagle Convex Glass Specialty Co. do not correctly state the West Virginia law about contribution between joint tort-feasors, and on that point are overruled. Reversed and remanded.

3a8803ad0dd11227705fbe5a020da6976d0aa72450fe19721235b4e9bf70c2b9

1977-12-20 00:00:00

85e3e05c-a699-4dfe-9213-7e5a9baca9ab

STATE EX REL. KANAWHA CTY., ETC. v. Paterno

233 S.E.2d 332

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

STATE EX REL. KANAWHA CTY., ETC. v. Paterno Annotate this Case 233 S.E.2d 332 (1977) The STATE of West Virginia ex rel. of the KANAWHA COUNTY BUILDING COMMISSION, a Public Corporation of the State of West Virginia v. Vincent M. PATERNO, President of the Kanawha County Building Commission. No. 13805. Supreme Court of West Virginia. March 22, 1977. *334 Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, James K. Brown, Lee O. Hill, Gregory R. Gorrell, Charleston, for relator. Goodwin, Goodwin, Bryan & Lobert, Joseph R. Goodwin, Stephen P. Goodwin, Charleston, for respondent. *333 McGRAW, Justice: Petitioner, Kanawha County Building Commission, invokes the original mandamus jurisdiction of this Court, praying for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the respondent, Vincent M. Paterno, as President of the Kanawha County Building Commission, to forthwith execute an agreement, dated August 25, 1976, between the County Commission of Kanawha County and said Building Commission, whereby the Building Commission would construct a county judicial annex building to be leased to the said County Commission on terms stated in and pursuant to provisions of the agreement. W.Va. Constitution, Article VIII, § 3; Rule XVIII, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court of Appeals. Respondent has demurred and filed his answer to petitioner's application for the writ. Petitioner's verified application sets forth circumstances which warrant invocation of the original jurisdiction of this Court instead of applying for the writ in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, one of the beneficiaries of the projected county judicial annex contemplated in this litigation. Petitioner also avers that the application "raises only issues of law and not issues of fact and the taking of evidence will not be necessary for a proper disposition" of this cause. Paragraph 17 of petitioner's application asserts: "The execution of the aforesaid Agreement by Respondent is an action which the Building Commission had the clear legal right and power to authorize and direct said Respondent to perform and is a purely ministerial act involving no exercise of discretion by said Respondent." In Paragraph 17 of respondent's answer, he states: "The Respondent, upon information and belief, denies that the Kanawha County Building Commission can lawfully authorize and direct the execution of the agreement between the Building Commission and the Kanawha County Commission whereby the Building Commission would be obligated to construct a proposed Judicial Annex and thereafter lease the Judicial Annex to the County Commission, and whereby, pursuant to such agreement, the County Commission will dedicate and pledge all monies theretofore and thereafter deposited in the County Coal Severance Tax Revenue Fund solely to the payment of rentals to the Building Commission for the leasing of the Judicial Annex; however, if the statute in question (Chapter 11, Article 13, § 2-1 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended) and if each and all of the determinations made and the actions authorized and directed to be taken by and pursuant to the August 25, 1976, Order are valid and in full conformity with all the requirements of the laws and the Constitution of the United States of America, then he admits the allegations of Paragraph No. 17 and further admits that the Building Commission has the clear right to authorize and direct him to execute the aforesaid agreement between the Building Commission and the County Commission and that he has the clear ministerial duty to execute said agreement as directed."[*] *335 The pleadings and the briefs of counsel well define the legal issuesprimarily constitutional issuesto be resolved. The County Building Commission law was enacted as Chapter 11, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session of 1968, and is now W.Va. Code, Chapter 8, Article 33, as last amended in 1976. Section 4 defines the powers and authority of a building commission in the following language: "Each commission shall have plenary power and authority to: (a) Sue and be sued; (b) Contract and be contracted with; (c) Adopt, use and alter a common seal; (d) Make and adopt all necessary, appropriate and lawful bylaws and rules and regulations pertaining to its affairs; (e) Elect such officers, appoint such committees and agents and employ and fix the compensation of such employees and contractors as may be necessary for the conduct of the affairs and operations of the commission; (f) (1) Acquire, purchase, own and hold any property, real or personal, and (2) acquire, construct, equip, maintain and operate public buildings, structures, projects and appurtenant facilities, of any type or types for which the governmental body or bodies creating such commission are permitted by law to expend public funds (all hereinafter in this article referred to as facilities); (g) Apply for, receive and use grants-in-aid, donations and contributions from any source or sources including but not limited to the United States of America, or any department or agency thereof, and accept and use bequests, devises, gifts and donations from any source whatsoever; (h) Sell, encumber or dispose of any property, real or personal; (i) Issue negotiable bonds, notes, debentures or other evidences of indebtedness and provide for the rights of the holders thereof, incur any proper indebtedness and issue any obligations and give any security therefor which it may deem necessary or advisable in connection with exercising powers as provided herein; (j) Raise funds by the issuance and sale of revenue bonds in the manner provided by the applicable provisions of article sixteen [§ 8-16-1 et seq.] of this chapter, without regard to the extent provided in section five [§ 8-33-5] of this article, to the limitations specified in said article sixteen, it being hereby expressly provided that for the purpose of the issuance and sale of revenue bonds, each commission is a "governing body" as that term is used in said article sixteen only; (k) Subject to such reasonable limitations and conditions as the governmental body or all of the governmental bodies creating and establishing such building commission may prescribe by ordinance or by order, exercise the power of eminent domain in the manner provided in chapter fifty-four [§ 54-1-1 et seq.] of this Code for business corporations, for the purposes set forth in subdivision (f) of this section, which purposes are hereby declared public purposes for which private property may be taken or damaged; (l) Lease its property or any part thereof, for public purposes, to such persons and upon such terms as the commission deems proper, but when any municipality or county commission is a lessee under any such lease, such lease must contain a provision granting to such municipality or county commission the option to terminate such lease during any fiscal year covered thereby; and (m) Do all things reasonable and necessary to carry out the foregoing powers." Respondent, as President of the Kanawha County Building Commission, in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of his demurrer, and in paragraphs 18-a, 18-b, 18-c and 18-d of his answer, bases his refusal to execute the agreement on the following four propositions of law: "1. The acquisition and construction by the Building Commission of a Judicial Annex through the issuance of bonds payable from revenues derived from Coal Severance Tax would create a prohibited *336 indebtedness of the State; and accordingly the provisions of Chapter 11, Article 13, Section2-1 of the West Virginia Code which would authorize and empower the County Commission of Kanawha County to expend revenues collected from the Coal Severance Tax for `such public purposes as the County Commission or governing body shall determine to be in the best interest of the people of its respective county . . .' are null, void and of no force and effect because the same violate Section 4 of Article X of the Constitution of West Virginia. "2. The distribution of Coal Severance Tax revenues collected by the State pursuant to the Act is an illegal grant of the credit of the State to, and in aid of, Kanawha County in contravention of Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution of West Virginia. "3. The acquisition and construction by the Building Commission of a Judicial Annex through the issuance of municipal bonds under Code § 8-16-1 et seq. to be paid from revenues from the Coal Severance Tax creates a prohibited indebtedness under Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution of West Virginia. "4. The dedication and pledge of said coal severance tax revenues solely to the payment of rentals to the Building Commission for the leasing of the Judicial Annex pursuant to the Agreement violates Section 1 of Article VI of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia." In part 4 of his brief, respondent reasons that the "proper and necessary parties for a lawful determination of all of the issues in the present case are not before the Court." He reasons that "It was the action by the Kanawha County Commission, and not any action on the part of either the Petitioner or Respondent, which gives rise to the present predicament." His position is that the present litigants are not the proper parties to test judicially the real issues of constitutional law now presented to the Court. The Kanawha County Building Commission was created by the Kanawha County Commission by order entered on June 27, 1975. The Building Commission so created is a public corporation and is given perpetual existence by statute, W.Va. Code, 8-33-2. The Building Commission has no authority to levy or collect taxes, but has authority to contract and to be contracted with, to construct and maintain buildings, to issue bonds, and to lease its properties for public purposes. In this case, the Building Commission is to acquire land, to construct thereon a judicial annex, to issue and sell negotiable revenue bonds, and to lease the judicial annex to the Kanawha County Commission, on a rental basis for public purposesfor use as a part of the county's courthouse and other government facilities. The basic issues are whether, under the law, petitioner has a clear right to authorize and direct respondent, as President of the Building Commission, to execute the agreement, dated August 25, 1976, between the County Commission and the Building Commission, and whether respondent has a clear ministerial duty to execute the agreement as directed. Respondent's position is that resolution of these issues depends on a determination of issues of constitutional law as presented in his responses to petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus. Respondent's propositions of law 1, 2 and 3, in substance, state his position that the state's allocation and payment of coal severance tax revenues to the Kanawha County Commission for public purposes, pursuant to W.Va. Code, 11-13-21, as last amended in 1976, and the County Commission's dedication of the coal severance tax revenues from its County Severance Tax Revenue Fund to payment of the rentals for the judicial annex pursuant to a lease agreement with the Building Commission, as lessor, are acts and conduct in violation of § 4, § 6 and § 8 of Article X of the West Virginia Constitution. Section 4 limits contracting of state debts, § 6 prohibits granting of the state's credit to or in aid of a county, corporation and other entities, and § 8 limits contracting of county debts. The coal severance tax statute here involved was enacted pursuant to W.Va.Constitution, *337 Article X, Section 6a(2), as ratified at the general election held on November 8, 1972. W.Va. Code, 11-13-21(b). Section 6a of the Constitution provides: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section six of this article, (1) the legislature may appropriate state funds for use in matching or maximizing grants-in-aid for public purposes from the United States or any department, bureau, commission or agency thereof, or any other source, to any county, municipality or other political subdivision of the State, under such circumstances and subject to such terms, conditions and restrictions as the legislature may prescribe by law, and (2) the legislature may impose a state tax or taxes or dedicate a state tax or taxes or any portion thereof for the benefit of and use by counties, municipalities or other political subdivisions of the State for public purposes, the proceeds of any such imposed or dedicated tax or taxes or portion thereof to be distributed to such counties, municipalities or other political subdivisions of the State under such circumstances and subject to such terms, conditions and restrictions as the legislature may prescribe by law." This amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1972, long after § 4, § 6 and § 8 of Article X were adopted, and modifies the state debt, state credit and county debt provisions about which respondent expresses concern. In 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law, ¶ 69 (1964), an accepted principle of law is well stated in the following language: "If there is a real inconsistency between a constitutional amendment and an antecedent provision, the amendment must prevail because it is the latest expression of the will of the people. In such a case there is no room for the application of the rule as to harmonizing inconsistent provisions. If it covers the same subject as was covered by a previously existing constitutional provision, thereby indicating an intent to substitute it in lieu of the original, the doctrine of implied repeal, though not favored, will be applied and the original provision deemed superseded." The plain language of § 6a presents no "irreconcilable conflict" as contemplated in Berry v. Fox, 114 W.Va. 513, 172 S.E. 896 (1934). Sections 6 and 6a are parts of the Constitution, but Section 6a, in plain and clear language, "as the last word from the people on a subject under consideration, should be given controlling effect". Syllabus, point 3, Berry v. Fox, supra. The 1976 coal severance tax statute provides in ¶ (b) that "such additional tax is imposed pursuant to provisions of Section 6a, Article X of the West Virginia Constitution.. . ." Another principle of law is well stated in Syllabus, point 1, in State ex rel. West Virginia Housing Development Fund v. Waterhouse, W.Va., 212 S.E.2d 724 (1974), in the following language: "When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, every reasonable construction must be resorted to by the courts to sustain its validity and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislative act in question." Respondent's position, that his refusal to execute the agreement is based on inhibitions and provisions of § 4, § 6 and § 8 of Article X of the West Virginia Constitution, is not tenable. The additional tax revenues produced by the 1976 coal severance tax statute, when allocated and distributed to the counties and municipalities, "may be expended by the county commission or governing body of the municipality for such public purposes as the county commission or governing body shall determine to be in the best interest of the people of its respective county or municipality." W.Va. Code, 11-13-21(h). At a regular session of the County Commission of Kanawha County, on August 25, 1976, when faced with required extension and expansion of circuit court housing and facilities pursuant to requirements of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment to the Constitution, as ratified in 1974, the *338 Commission adopted a motion and entered an order, stating in part: "(g) That the expenditure of moneys in the coal severance tax revenue fund for the purpose of acquiring a new Kanawha County Courthouse and facilities appurtenant thereto by lease is a public purpose and is in the best interest of the people of Kanawha County." Exhibit A, Petitioner's application. In ¶ 4 of the same motion and order, the County Commission "dedicated and pledged" the moneys in the Coal Severance Tax Revenue Fund "to the payment of rentals to the Building Commission for the leasing of the judicial annex." The agreement, dated August 25, 1976, between the County Commission and the Building Commission, in reference to the lease of the judicial annex, provides that the county reserved "the right, at its option, to terminate the lease during any fiscal year of the county covered thereby." We find no constitutional infirmity in the County Commission's action under Article VI, Section 1, or Article X, Section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution. In State ex rel. West Virginia Housing Development Fund v. Waterhouse, supra, Syllabus, point 7, this Court held: "A legislative determination of what is a public purpose will not be interfered with by the courts unless the judicial mind conceives it to be without reasonable relation to the public interest." No indebtedness or obligation of the Building Commission is a debt of the County Commission. The Building Commission statute, W.Va. Code, 8-33-5, provides: "No constitutional or statutory limitation with respect to the nature or amount of or rate of interest on indebtedness which may be incurred by municipalities, counties or other public or governmental bodies shall apply to the indebtedness of a commission. No indebtedness of any nature of a commission shall constitute an indebtedness of any municipality or county creating and establishing such commission or a charge against any property of said municipalities or counties. No indebtedness or obligation incurred by any commission shall give any right against any member of the governing body of any municipality or any member of the county commission of any county or any member of the board of any commission. The rights of creditors of any commission shall be solely against the commission as a corporate body and shall be satisfied only out of property held by it in its corporate capacity." A legislative declaration that a state, county or municipal debt is not created by a statute is not conclusive or binding on a court. Whether such a debt is created by a statute is a judicial question, not a question for legislative determination. State ex rel. Hall v. Taylor, 154 W.Va. 659, 178 S.E.2d 48 (1970). As presented and developed in this transaction, we find and conclude that the Building Commission's indebtedness is not a debt of the county or state. The County Commission in time may not be a recipient of coal severance tax revenues, perhaps because of some economic or catastrophic conditions or legislative action. The County Commission reserves the right, at its option, to terminate the proposed lease during any county fiscal year covered by the lease. The Legislature enacted the coal severance tax law pursuant to permissive language in § 6a of Article X of the Constitution and may in time turn to other sources of revenue or provide for allocation and distribution of coal severance tax revenues, in whole or in part, to other state needs. In any such event, the County Commission may well need, use and occupy the Judicial Annex and, if so, will be obliged to pay the rentals required by the lease agreement contemplated. However, in addition to the dedication of the county's allocation of the coal severance tax revenues to payment of the rentals, the county proposes to dedicate other "funds derived from rentals or other payments received from other governmental bodies, federal, state or local and the agencies thereof, by virtue of any subleasing of the Project" and other moneys received by the County Commission, but not including county tax levy receipts. Resolution of issues relating to available revenues and means of finance, if *339 such may arise, is outside and beyond the purview of the present judicial determination. In this transaction, upon careful review and consideration of the record, in the light of relevant and pertinent provisions of the Constitution and statutes and rules and principles of law relating thereto, we find no constitutional infirmities inhibiting the execution of the agreement by respondent. Respondent reasons that the "proper parties are not before court"that it "was the action by the Kanawha County Commission, and not any action on the part of either the Petitioner or Respondent which gives rise to the present predicament." He states in his brief that "Neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent had, (1) anything to do with the allocation of the funds to the county; and (2) anything to do with the determination of the use of the funds. Of course, all of this assumes that the Coal Severance Tax Act is, in fact, constitutional in the first instance." Respondent's position in substance is that the transaction is unconstitutional under provisions of Article VI, Section 1, and Article X, Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the West Virginia Constitution. We do not so find. The basic issues remaining are whether petitioner, the Kanawha County Building Commission, has a clear right to authorize and direct respondent to execute the August 25, 1976 agreement between the County Commission of Kanawha County and Kanawha County Building Commission, and whether the respondent, as President of the Kanawha County Building Commission, has a clear ministerial duty to execute the agreement. To resolve these issues, no other party litigants are necessary or proper parties. State ex rel. West Virginia Housing Development Fund v. Waterhouse, supra, State ex rel. West Virginia Housing Development Fund v. Copenhaver, 153 W.Va. 636, 171 S.E.2d 545 (1969). Upon the record before the Court, and consistent with the principles and considerations herein discussed, we find no constitutional infirmities in the statutes and no illegalities in the action of the County Commission and the Building Commission, or in the proposed agreement. Accordingly, the writ of mandamus requiring the respondent to perform his nondiscretionary duty as prayed for is awarded. Writ awarded.

cbc3a608c70f72a8e5a3c7d06e40952f70a6f48fbcc728436bd7acbf41229172

1977-03-22 00:00:00

63f23056-7cdd-4175-83d5-90d0d78bdf50

Savas v. Savas

382 S.E.2d 510

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Savas v. Savas Annotate this Case 382 S.E.2d 510 (1989) Sam Nick SAVAS v. Phyllis SAVAS. No. 18490. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. April 21, 1989. Rehearing Denied July 20, 1989. *511 Chester Lovett, James T. Cooper, Mary Katharine Cooper, Lovett, Vaughan & Cooper, Charleston, for Phyllis Savas. W. Bernard Smith, Logan, for Sam Nick Savas. MILLER, Justice: This case concerns the time period within which a motion under Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed. On June 2, 1987, Mrs. Savas filed a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a final divorce decree entered on May 7, 1986, in the Circuit Court of Logan County. The trial court denied the motion, and we affirm. The Rule 60(b) motion asserts that there was a fraud perpetrated on the court and on Mrs. Savas. This assertion is based on the fact that she had relied on the advice of her husband's attorney, who had prepared all of the legal papers including a property settlement agreement. She contends that she did not understand what her rights were and, in particular, that she had waived her claim to alimony in the property settlement agreement. She also maintained in her motion that the property settlement agreement was substantially unfair and that the divorce commissioner should have inquired into the assets of the parties. Mrs. Savas points out that she attended none of the hearings. As a consequence, she claims the divorce decree is void. Rule 60(b) provides a basis for relieving a party from a final judgment upon the following grounds: (1) mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, or unavoidable cause; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied or vacated; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. The motion for relief must be made "within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), (3), and (6) not more than eight months after" the judgment order was entered.[1] *512 Analyzing Mrs. Savas's motion, it would appear that her grounds are in category (3) under Rule 60(b), i.e., "fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party," or as a fraud on the court itself, which we discuss in Part II, infra. I. In Rich v. Rich, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 364 S.E.2d 804 , 805 (1987), we stated: "Although Rule 60(b), West Virginia R.C.P., grants the court broad discretion to set aside judgments on the basis of fraud, the Rule 60(b) motion must be made within eight months of the initial order." See also Coolfont Mountainside Ass'n v. Ashelman, ___ W.Va. ___, 378 S.E.2d 847 (1989). This statement is not quite accurate, as it ignores the language of the Rule that "[t]he motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), (3), and (6) not more than eight months," a proposition that we recognized in Coolfont: "The time limit prescribed by the rule is... a maximum which further is limited by the requirement that the motion be made within a reasonable time." ___ W.Va. at ___, 378 S.E.2d at 849 (Footnote omitted). Thus, while eight months is the outer limit, a court may still deny a motion filed within the eight-month period if it was not made within a reasonable time. In 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2866 at 232 (1973), this statement is made with regard to Federal Rule 60(b), which carries a one-year period rather than our eight-month period: "Motions under clauses (1), (2), or (3), attacking a judgment on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud or misconduct of a party, are treated differently. These motions must be made within a reasonable time but they also must be made not later than `one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.' The one year period represents an extreme limit, and the motion will be rejected as untimely if not made within a `reasonable time' even though the one year period has not expired." (Footnote omitted). See also Central Operating Co. v. Utility Workers of America, 491 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.1974); Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Century Casualty Co., 621 F.2d 1062 (10th Cir.1980); Amoco Overseas Oil Co. v. Compagnie Nationale Algerienne de Navigation, 605 F.2d 648 (2d Cir.1979); Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601 (7th Cir.1986); Waldeck v. Domenic Lombardi Realty, Inc., 425 A.2d 81 (R.I.1981). Thus, it is clear that when a court undertakes to analyze a Rule 60(b) motion based on grounds (1), (2), (3), or (6) of the Rule, it must determine first if the motion has been filed within eight months after the judgment was entered and then determine, under all the circumstances, if it was filed *513 within a reasonable time.[2] Obviously, where the eight-month period has not been met, there is no need to make the reasonable time inquiry, as it is barred by the outer limit term. Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 , 71 S. Ct. 209, 95 L. Ed. 207 (1950); United States v. Marin, 720 F.2d 229 (1st Cir.1983); Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 461 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 883, 93 S. Ct. 173, 34 L. Ed. 2d 139 (1972); Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d 488 (3d Cir.1975). From the plain language of Rule 60(b), motions based on grounds numbered (4) and (5) are required only to be filed within a reasonable time and are not constrained by the eight-month period. Limerick v. Greenwald, 749 F.2d 97 (1st Cir.1984); Johnson Waste Materials v. Marshall, 611 F.2d 593 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir.1985); C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, § 2866. II. It is possible to characterize Mrs. Savas's motion as relying on that portion of Rule 60(b) which enables a court "to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court." It is generally recognized that where this ground is asserted there is no time limit. Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, supra; Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 405 F.2d 165 (10th Cir.1968); Dausuel v. Dausuel, 195 F.2d 774 (D.C.App.1952); Mallonee v. Grow, 502 P.2d 432 (Alaska 1972); Gifford v. Bowling, 86 S.D. 615, 200 N.W.2d 379 (1972). However, a claim of fraud upon the court is reserved for only the most egregious conduct on the part of attorneys, court officials, or judges which causes the judicial process to be subverted. It ordinarily does not relate to misrepresentation or fraudulent conduct between the parties themselves. E.g., Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, supra; Kupferman v. Consolidated Research & Mfg. Corp., 459 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir.1972); Great Coastal Express v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 675 F.2d 1349 (4th Cir.1982); Mallonee v. Grow, supra; see also C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, § 2870; 7 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 60.33 at 360 (2d ed. 1987). The Fourth Circuit in Great Coastal Express, 675 F.2d at 1356, adopted this definition from 7 J. Moore, supra: "`Fraud upon the court' should, we believe, embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by the officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication, and relief should be denied in the absence of such conduct." The next sentence from that passage states: "Fraud inter partes, without more, should not be fraud upon the court, but redress should be left to a motion under 60(b)(3) or to the independent action." 7 J. Moore, supra ¶ 60.33 at 360-62. In this case, the trial court commendably followed the procedure set out in the Syllabus of Meadows v. Daniels, 169 W.Va. 237, 286 S.E.2d 423 (1982): "Where a Rule 60(b) motion is made to set aside a judgment and there is a conflict as to the facts on whether there is a ground to set aside the judgment, the trial court should hold a hearing to resolve the disputed facts and make some findings relative thereto." From this record, we find no fraud upon the court. At best, Mrs. Savas's claim is that she signed the property settlement agreement without fully understanding *514 its contents,[3] and that she agreed to the divorce and relied upon her husband's attorney. She did not appear at any of the divorce hearings, but did know that the divorce was granted within a few weeks after it occurred. She could offer no viable reason as to why she delayed filing the motion until approximately thirteen months after the final decree. We find that several other courts, when faced with a similar situation, have refused relief. McPherson v. King, 437 So. 2d 548 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). See also Stone v. Stone, 647 P.2d 582 (Alaska 1982). Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court acted correctly in denying Mrs. Savas Rule 60(b) relief, and we, therefore, affirm its judgment. Affirmed.

e33f76ce75b121c03dd74416d44fa9af03909647165ba57da7a4d898303f8a24

1989-04-21 00:00:00

23c37008-1dde-4013-9925-166b687fc05d

Fuller v. Stonewall Cas. Co. of W. Va.

304 S.E.2d 347

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Fuller v. Stonewall Cas. Co. of W. Va. Annotate this Case 304 S.E.2d 347 (1983) Hershel FULLER, Plaintiff Below, Richard G. Rundle, etc., Appellant v. STONEWALL CASUALTY CO. OF W. VA., etc. No. 15665. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. June 22, 1983. *348 Richard G. Rundle, Pineville, for appellant. James C. Lyons, Pineville, for Stonewall Cas. Co., etc. G. David Brumfield, Ballard & Brumfield, Welch, for First Nat. Bank of Bluefield and Yeager Ford Sales, Inc. MILLER, Justice: The primary issue on this appeal is whether an attorney's lien, for services rendered *349 to a client for collecting proceeds under the provisions of an automobile casualty policy, is superior to the rights of the client's chattel mortgage lienholder to whom loss is payable under a loss payee clause of the insurance policy. The Circuit Court of Wyoming County held that the attorney's lien was not superior. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part. Hershel Fuller purchased a truck in 1979 from Yeager Ford Sales, Inc. (hereinafter Yeager Ford) and executed a security agreement which was subsequently assigned to the First National Bank of Bluefield (hereinafter Bank). The terms of the agreement required Fuller to secure automobile insurance which he obtained from Stonewall Casualty Company. The Bank was made a loss payee under the policy. Thereafter, the truck was destroyed by fire and Stonewall Casualty refused to settle the claim. Fuller retained Attorney Richard Rundle on a twenty-five percent contingency fee basis and a suit was instituted against Stonewall Casualty. The attorney asserts that neither the Bank nor Yeager Ford assisted or offered to help in the suit to collect on the policy, although they monitored the litigation and appeared at various hearings. The litigation terminated with Stonewall Casualty agreeing to pay $6,500 in settlement of the claim. At a distribution hearing, the circuit court allocated $2,480.01 of the proceeds to the Bank, and $3,832.83 to Yeager Ford based on the fact that it had made payments on behalf of Fuller when he ceased his installment payments after the truck was destroyed by the fire. This left $187.19 of the proceeds available for the attorney. The attorney maintains that Yeager Ford had no lien, judgment nor legal claim against Fuller for the destroyed truck and, therefore, was not entitled to any of the insurance proceeds. He also contends that his attorney's lien should not be subordinate to the Bank's claim. I.CLAIM OF THE BANK We have sanctioned the use and enforceability of charging liens by attorneys in this jurisdiction.[1] In Syllabus Point 1 of Fisher v. Mylius, 62 W.Va. 19, 57 S.E. 276 (1907), we said: "An attorney has a lien, on a judgment obtained by him for his client, for his services in the case, the amount whereof is fixed by special contract, although payment thereof cannot be had under the terms of the contract until the money is actually recovered, and no money can be had under an execution on the judgment."[2] The general rule regarding the priority of an attorney's lien is that in the absence of some statute,[3] the lien of an attorney ordinarily takes effect at the time of the commencement of the attorney's services. Hanna Paint Mfg. Co. v. Rodey, *350 Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, 298 F.2d 371 (10th Cir.1962); Ingalls Iron Works Company v. Fehlhaber Corporation, 337 F. Supp. 1085 (S.D.N.Y.1972); Great American Insurance Company v. Department of Revenue, State of Illinois, 226 F. Supp. 512 (N.D. Ill., E.D.1963); T. Harlan & Co. v. Bennett, Robbins & Thomas, 127 Ky. 572, 106 S.W. 287 (1907); St. Joseph's Hospital v. Quinn, 241 Md. 371, 216 A.2d 732, 25 A.L.R.3d 849 (1966); Myers v. Miller, 134 Neb. 824, 279 N.W. 778, 117 A.L.R. 977 (1938); 7 Am. Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 332 (1980). An attorney's charging lien attaches only to a judgment or fund of money that the client is entitled to receive and which the attorney procured through his efforts, as evidenced by the following Syllabus Points of Schmertz v. Hammond, 51 W.Va. 408, 41 S.E. 184 (1902): "4. An attorney has no lien upon a fund which he is not instrumental in creating, and which never came to his hands. "5. An attorney's special lien for pay for his services out of a fund in court exists only where his client is entitled to participate in that fund. He cannot claim it out of a fund decreed to go to a party under a right adverse to that of the party represented by the attorney. Such party cannot be compelled to pay for the services of an attorney rendered against him. "6. Where a fund in court arising from a sale of property is consumed by a prior lien, the attorney representing a junior demand has no lien upon that fund for his services." This is also the general rule elsewhere. In Re Shirley Duke Assoc., 611 F.2d 15 (2nd Cir.1979); Lyman v. Campbell, 182 F.2d 700 (D.C.Cir.1950); Conroy v. Conroy, 392 So. 2d 934 (Fla.App.1980); Covington v. Rhodes, 38 N.C.App. 61, 247 S.E.2d 305 (1978). In the present case, the Bank was named as loss payee on the insurance policy that covered the truck for the fire loss. A loss payee under a fire insurance policy is ordinarily looked upon to have a separate contractual right with the insurer. Fire Association of Philadelphia v. Ward, 130 W.Va. 200, 42 S.E.2d 713 (1947); Fayetteville Building and Loan Association v. Mutual Fire Insurance Company of West Virginia, 105 W.Va. 147, 141 S.E. 634 (1928); 5A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 3401 (1970); 43 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 194 (1969). By reason of this contractual right, a lienholder who is named as loss payee on an insurance policy is entitled to the insurance proceeds to the extent of the amount of his debt which is independent of the claim of other lien or judgment creditors. E.g., Calvert Fire Insurance Company v. Environs Development Corporation, 601 F.2d 851 (5th Cir.1979); City of Newark v. Central & Lafayette Realty Company, Inc., 150 N.J.Super. 18, 374 A.2d 504 (1977); St. Louis County National Bank v. Maryland Casualty Company, 564 S.W.2d 920 (Mo. App.1978). In Calvert Fire Insurance Company v. Environs Development Corporation, supra, at 858, the court expressed the rule as follows: "[A] mortgagee or lienholder has no claim to the benefit of a fire insurance policy unless he has been named loss-payee or the policy has otherwise been assigned to him." This rule has been specifically applied in several cases involving an attorney's lien where the attorney did not represent the loss payee. E.g., Sureck v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 353 F. Supp. 807 (W.D.Ark.1973); Leiden v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 136 Ga.App. 268, 220 S.E.2d 716 (1975); Howard, Singer & Meehan v. Clayton Federal Savings and Loan Association, 578 S.W.2d 56 (Mo.App.1978). See also 5A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 3404 (1970). Based on this law, we conclude that the circuit court was correct in determining that the Bank was entitled to the insurance proceeds independent of the attorney's lien.[4] *351 II.CLAIM OF YEAGER FORD Yeager Ford maintains that the payment it received from the insurance proceeds was proper because it had paid the Bank when Fuller defaulted on his installment purchase contract. Yeager Ford points to the fact that it guaranteed Fuller's commercial paper when it was assigned to the Bank.[5] We are aware of general law to the effect that where a guarantor pays to the creditor the debt on behalf of the principal obligor, he is ordinarily entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the creditor as against the principal obligor and accrue to such security as has been taken by the creditor from the principal obligor. See Perkins v. Hall, 123 W.Va. 707, 718, 17 S.E.2d 795, 802 (1941). E.g., D.W. Jaquays & Co. v. First Security Bank, 101 Ariz. 301, 419 P.2d 85 (1966); Collection Control Bureau v. Weiss, 50 Cal. App. 3d 865 , 123 Cal. Rptr. 625 (1975); Behlen Manufacturing Company v. First National Bank of Englewood, 20 Colo.App. 300, 472 P.2d 703 (1970); Knight v. Cheek, 369 A.2d 601 (D.C.App. 1977); St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. New Jersey Bank and Trust Co., 104 N.J.Super. 367, 250 A.2d 57 (1969); Fulton v. South Oak Cliff State Bank, 439 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Civ.App.1969); 38 Am. Jur.2d Guaranty § 127 (1968). The right of subrogation is not, however, without limitations. We have recognized, as have other courts, that it is an equitable right and will be enforced unless it works an injustice to another party. In the single Syllabus of Buskirk v. State-Planters' Bank & Trust Co., 113 W.Va. 764, 169 S.E. 738 (1933), we said: "Subrogation, being a creation of equity, will not be allowed except where the subrogee has a clear case of right and no injustice will be done to another." See also Bank of Marlinton v. McLaughlin, 123 W.Va. 608, 17 S.E.2d 213 (1941); Perkins v. Hall, supra; McNeil v. Miller, 29 W.Va. 480, 2 S.E. 335 (1887); Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Northwestern National Casualty Co., 268 Ark. 334, 595 S.W.2d 938 (1980); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Chung, 37 Conn.Supp. 587, 429 A.2d 158 (1981); Bryan v. Henderson Electric Company, 566 S.W.2d 823 (Ky.App.1978); Motor Vehicle Security Fund v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., 22 Md.App. 586, 325 A.2d 115 (1974); Rock River Lumber Corp. v. Universal Mortgage Corp. of Wisconsin, 82 Wis.2d 235, 262 N.W.2d 114 (1978); 173 Am.Jur.2d Subrogation § 15 (1974); Annot., 137 A.L.R. 700 (1942). It is also generally held that the right to subrogation does not arise until the entire debt has been paid. Zeigler v. Blount Brothers Construction Co., 364 So. 2d 1163 (Ala.1978); Earl Dubey & Sons, Inc. v. Macomb Contracting Corporation, 97 Mich. App. 553, 296 N.W.2d 582 (1980); Montefusco Excavating & Contracting Co., Inc. v. Middlesex County, 82 N.J. 519, 414 A.2d 961 (1980); Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. First National Bank of Nicholasville, Kentucky, 425 P.2d 934 (Okl.1967); Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Postin, 610 P.2d 984 (Wyo.1980); 73 Am.Jur.2d Subrogation § 30 (1974). In Syllabus Point 2 of Price v. Lovins, 117 W.Va. 624, 187 S.E. 318 (1936), we adopted this rule: "Subrogation, as a general rule, will not be decreed until the entire debt, the security for which the subrogee seeks, has been paid." The reason for this rule is that ordinarily the principal creditor is entitled to pursue his rights and securities without having to *352 share them by way of partial subrogation until his debt is paid in full.[6] In the present case, the total indebtedness owed to the Bank, the primary creditor, was not paid until after a settlement was reached with the insurance company. By this time, the attorney's lien had already accrued. We do not reject Yeager Ford's right to subrogation entirely but only hold that it does not have standing through subrogation to obtain the entire amount of its payments free of the attorney's lien.[7] The right of subrogation when it occurs does not give rise to a judgment, but permits a subrogee to step into the shoes of the creditor and to obtain such security as the creditor may have against the debtor. 73 Am.Jur.2d Subrogation §§ 103 & 109 (1974). The attorney also argues that we should construe W.Va.Code, 46-9-310, which gives an elevated priority to an improver's lien to cover an attorney's lien.[8] We decline to do this because this statute is designed to apply to a workman who furnishes services or materials to chattels or goods in his possession. "Goods" are defined in W.Va.Code, 46-9-105(h), as "all things which are movable ... or which are fixtures ... but does not include money, documents, instruments, accounts, chattel paper, general intangibles or minerals."[9] Under the UCC, "contract rights" are included in the definition of "accounts," *353 W.Va.Code, 46-9-106, and, therefore, excluded from the definition of "goods." See Dynair Electronics, Inc. v. Video Cable, Inc., 55 Cal. App. 3d 11 , 127 Cal. Rptr. 268, 18 U.C. C.Rep. 1047 (1976); Utica National Bank & Trust Co. v. Associated Producers Co., 622 P.2d 1061 , 30 U.C.C.Rep. 317 (Okl.1981); First National Bank of Rio Arriba v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Siler, 91 N.M. 126, 571 P.2d 118 , 22 U.C.C. Rep. 1278 (1977); J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 22-8 (1972); T. Quinn, Uniform Commercial Code Commentary and Law Digest ¶ 9-106[A][1] (1978). Thus, the insurance claim pursued by the attorney is excluded from the definition of "goods" as it is a contract right; and, the provisions of W.Va.Code, 46-9-310, are not available for an attorney's lien. In view of the foregoing law, we find that Yeager Ford was not entitled to be reimbursed out of the insurance proceeds. Consequently, the circuit court erred in this respect and the attorney's lien is valid as to this portion of the fund. For this reason, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.

7db562f50d1ee5c4dac334b3211528a831dacd7ae54d22143e9eecde12a25f5f

1983-06-22 00:00:00

56fce038-6f63-4863-bde9-441beb6f1600

Thornton v. CAMC, ETC.

305 S.E.2d 316

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Thornton v. CAMC, ETC. Annotate this Case 305 S.E.2d 316 (1983) Richard Harold THORNTON, Jr. v. CAMC, ETC., and Jack Pushkin, M.D. No. 15329. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. July 8, 1983. *318 Guy R. Bucci, Charleston, for appellant. Wilson Anderson, Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, for appellee. MILLER, Justice: This is the second appeal filed by Richard Thornton, Jr., the plaintiff, in this medical malpractice action against Jack Pushkin, M.D., the defendant. In the original appeal we considered the validity of the plaintiff's release and remanded the case for further fact-finding. Thornton v. Charleston Area Medical Center, W.Va., 213 S.E.2d 102 (1975). On remand to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, a bifurcated trial was held. The first proceeding was to determine whether the plaintiff intended to release Dr. Pushkin and the Charleston Area Medical Center when he released the original tort-feasors. The jury found for the plaintiff on this issue. Subsequently, the Charleston Area Medical Center settled with the plaintiff out of court. The second proceeding involved determining the liability of the defendant doctor on the malpractice issue. The jury found in Dr. Pushkin's favor on the issue of liability. After the court denied plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict and award a new trial, this appeal was filed. The plaintiff makes several assignments of error: the limitation of voir dire, the use of medical treatises, the denial of an instruction relative to the "value of a chance," and the locality rule for expert medical testimony. Finding no error, we affirm. The record indicates that the plaintiff sustained a compound comminuted fracture of his right leg in a motorcycle accident which occurred on June 24, 1969. He was hospitalized at the Charleston General Hospital (now Charleston Area Medical Center) under Dr. Pushkin's care for approximately two months. For the next four years he underwent further medical treatment and additional hospitalizations for treatment of his leg. Mr. Thornton continued to have problems and finally, on May 14, 1973, his right leg was amputated below the knee by Dr. Harold Kuhn. I. The plaintiff's first contention is that the court erred in unduly restricting the scope of voir dire and in denying his counsel the right personally to conduct the *319 voir dire examination of potential jurors. The scope of voir dire is generally a matter within the discretion of the trial court but is subject to review for abuse of discretion. State v. Peacher, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 559 (1981); Thornsbury v. Thornsbury, 147 W.Va. 771, 131 S.E.2d 713 (1963). A fair and impartial trial, however, requires a fair and impartial jury, and, as we said in W. Va. Human Rights Commission v. Tenpin Lounge, Inc., W.Va., 211 S.E.2d 349 , 353 (1975): "Voir dire examination is designed to allow litigants to be informed of all relevant and material matters that might bear on possible disqualification of a juror and is essential to a fair and intelligent exercise of the right to challenge either for cause or peremptorily. Such examination must be meaningful so that the parties may be enabled to select a jury competent to judge and determine the facts in issue without bias, prejudice or partiality." See also State v. Payne, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 72 (1981); State v. Pendry, W.Va., 227 S.E.2d 210 (1976); Henthorn v. Long, 146 W.Va. 636, 122 S.E.2d 186 (1961). We have held that where a trial court's restriction of the scope of voir dire "undermines the rights sought to be protected by the voir dire process," State v. Peacher, supra, at 570, then an abuse of discretion occurs. We have reviewed the voir dire examination itself and the plaintiff's motion for supplemental voir dire along with the court's reasons for refusing to ask some of the questions included in that motion. We conclude that the voir dire was fair and adequate and that plaintiff's rejected questions did not relate to substantial issues that were relevant to determining whether the jury was biased. Consequently, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The plaintiff contends that under W.Va. Code, 56-6-12,[1] his counsel had the right personally to conduct the voir dire examination. However, the language of this statute does not grant such a right; rather, it is couched in terms of the permissive "[e]ither party ... may ... examine ... any person... called as a juror." We find no previous cases in which we have held that an attorney has an absolute right to conduct a voir dire. The scope of voir dire is within the trial court's discretion under Rule 47(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure: "Rule 47. Jurors. (a) Examination of jurors.The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper or shall itself submit to the prospective jurors such additional questions of the parties or their attorneys as it deems proper." Under this rule, the fact that the court itself conducted the voir dire examination is not error. See State v. Pendry, supra. II.A. The second issue raised by the plaintiff contains two parts. The first is that the circuit court erred in denying his request to allow his expert medical witness to rely on medical treatises in his direct examination. The second relates to restricting the use of medical treatises in the cross-examination of the defendant's expert medical witnesses. Plaintiff urges us to adopt *320 Rule 803(18) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides: "The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: * * * * * * "(18) Learned treatises. To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by him in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits." A review of the designated record in this appeal does not specifically reveal how the plaintiff intended to use medical treatises in the direct examination of Dr. Byron Genner, who apparently was his only expert medical witness. The record is incomplete in this area, apparently because the plaintiff's attorney utilized the provisions of Rule 4A of our Rules of Appellate Procedure, which permits an appeal without the necessity of an evidentiary transcript.[2] Once a Rule 4A petition is accepted, it is clear under Rule 7(c)[3] of our Rules of Appellate Procedure that the parties must still furnish a record which actually encompasses all of the facts and testimony relevant to the issues raised in the petition. We have commented on the need to have an adequate record for appeal, especially when the appellant is proceeding under Rule 4A, in Bowman v. Barnes, W.Va., 282 S.E.2d 613 , 622 n. 15 (1981): "In his initial petition for appeal, the plaintiff utilized the procedure set forth in Rule 4A of the Rules of Appellate Procedure ... which permits statement of facts in the petition to serve in place of the transcript of testimony. Rule 4A requires the petition to be served on the other parties who can then file a reply petition. However, once an appeal is granted, Rule 8 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure ... requires the development of an adequate appeal record by both parties. This also accords with the requirement of W.Va.Code, 58-5-6. In the present case, we do not have a transcript of the testimony taken at trial. All parties to the appeal have proceeded to present the key facts surrounding the accident by narrative statements in their briefs. Where their respective statements do not appear to be in dispute, we have addressed the points of error raised. In so doing, counsel should not assume that we will in the future sanction this practice." (Emphasis added; Citations omitted). See also State v. Cox, W.Va., 297 S.E.2d 825 , 828 (1982). This Court "is limited in its authority to resolve assignments of nonjurisdictional errors to a consideration of those matters *321 passed upon by the court below and fairly arising upon the portions of the record designated for appellate review." Syllabus Point 6, in part, Parker v. Knowlton Construction Company, Inc., W.Va., 210 S.E.2d 918 (1975). Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of whether the circuit court erred in refusing to allow Dr. Genner to rely on medical treatises because the issue has not been sufficiently presented to us in the designated record. B. The record is clearer with respect to the plaintiff's use of medical treatises in the cross-examination of Drs. Morris O'Dell, John Schaefer and Carl Roncaglione, all of whom testified on behalf of the defendant doctor.[4] A partial transcript was provided which contains only the part of the cross-examination of these three doctors where plaintiff's attorney attempted to have each expert recognize Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics (5th ed. 1971), and Watson-Jones, Fractures and Joint Injuries (5th ed. 1976), as authoritative medical textbooks. If the expert recognized the textbook as authoritative, then plaintiff's attorney would quote portions of the book and ask the expert whether he agreed with the quoted text passage. Plaintiff's attorney asked Dr. O'Dell if he had studied Fractures and Joint Injuries when he was a medical student and asked if he was familiar with Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics. Dr. O'Dell stated that he did not question the texts that are used in medical schools, but that he had built up his experience through actual practice and was not familiar with the contents of the cited texts. He further explained that he was not an orthopedic surgeon and could not answer whether Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics was a standard teaching text. The excerpt from Dr. O'Dell's cross-examination ends without revealing any attempt by plaintiff's attorney either to quote portions of the texts or to prove the authoritativeness of the texts through other means. Dr. Schaefer admitted during cross-examination that Fractures and Joint Injuries was a standard medical text and that it was a recognized authority on the subject of orthopedic injuries. He was then quoted part of the text, to which Dr. Schaefer replied that he agreed with the statement. After listening to another quote from the textbook, Dr. Schaefer stated that he agreed in part with the textbook and explained his answer. Dr. Roncaglione stated that Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics was from time to time a recognized authoritative source of orthopedic literature. After listening to several quotes from the textbook, Dr. Roncaglione distinguished the textbook medical information quoted from the facts relevant to plaintiff's condition. We have not discovered any West Virginia decisions which clearly address the issue of how medical treatises may be used in the cross-examination of expert witnesses. The Virginia Supreme Court has permitted cross-examination of a medical witness by use of a medical treatise in Hopkins v. Gromovsky, 198 Va. 389, 395, 94 S.E.2d 190, 194 (1956), stating: "[I]t was proper for counsel for the plaintiff to test the knowledge and accuracy of Dr. Tucker, a witness for the defendant, on cross-examination by reading to him pertinent extracts from the article and asking him whether he agreed or disagreed with what had been read." The Virginia court relied heavily on this quotation from Lawrence v. Nutter, 203 F.2d 540, 542-43 (4th Cir.1953): "[A] substantial body of authority ... holds that when a witness is testifying as an expert, it is competent to test his knowledge on cross-examination by reading to him extracts from scientific authorities, which he recognizes as standard upon the subject matter involved, and then ask him whether he agrees or disagrees *322 with what has been read.... This view has met the approval of the more recent authorities." There is little question that most courts have sanctioned the use of authoritative learned treatises in the cross-examination of expert witnesses to some degree. See 3 C. Kramer, Medical Malpractice ¶ 29.06[3] (1982); McCormick on Evidence § 321 (1972); 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1700 (Chadbourn rev. 1976); 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 574(1) (1964); Comment, EvidenceUse of Learned Treatises in Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses, 68 W.Va.L.Rev. 329 (1966); Annot., 60 A.L.R.2d 77 (1958). Courts differ, however, with regard to the foundation that must first be established before learned treatises can be utilized on cross-examination of an expert witness, as summarized in 31 Am.Jur.2d Expert and Opinion Evidence § 67 at 576-77 (1967): "(1) [S]ome courts have held that where the expert has relied generally or specifically upon the authorities, he may be attacked upon the basis of authorities which are not necessarily the same as those which he has himself used; (2) another group of cases takes the view that the expert may be examined upon the basis of treatises which he has himself recognized as having authoritative status, whether or not he relied thereon in forming his opinion; and (3) there are many cases recognizing that the cross-examiner may use treatises the authority of which is established in any acceptable manner, to test the qualifications of the witness, regardless of whether that witness has relied upon or recognized the treatise." (Footnotes omitted) See also Annot., 60 A.L.R.2d 77, 79 (1958). From the limited record before us, it appears that the circuit court rejected the limited rule that a medical expert can only be cross-examined on medical treatises or articles that he relied upon for the basis of his direct examination. The circuit court held that where a treatise was recognized by a medical expert witness as authoritative, then he could be asked about its statements for purposes of impeachment during cross-examination. This rule is supported by a number of cases and we adopt it. E.g., United States v. Erdos, 474 F.2d 157 (4th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 876, 94 S. Ct. 42, 38 L. Ed. 2d 122; Purcell v. Zimbelman, 18 Ariz.App. 75, 500 P.2d 335 (1972); Shepherd v. State, 270 Ark. 457, 605 S.W.2d 414 (1980); Fleming v. Prince George's County, 277 Md. 655, 358 A.2d 892 (1976); Jones v. Bloom, 388 Mich. 98, 200 N.W.2d 196 (1972); Dinner v. Thorp, 54 Wash. 2d 90 , 338 P.2d 137 (1959). As to Drs. Schaefer and Roncaglione, both acknowledged the authoritative nature of the treatises and plaintiff's attorney was permitted to cross-examine them. We find no error in the trial court's ruling. We also agree with those courts that hold that if a medical expert witness refuses to recognize a medical treatise as authoritative, the cross-examining party may prove the authoritativeness of the medical treatise, either through judicial notice or through the testimony of another medical expert witness. Once the trial court has concluded that the authoritativeness of the medical treatise has been established, then the expert may be cross-examined on it. Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 33 Ill. 2d 326 , 211 N.E.2d 253 (1965); People v. Behnke, 41 Ill.App.3d 276, 353 N.E.2d 684 (1976); Jones v. Bloom, supra; Ravenis v. Detroit General Hospital, 63 Mich.App. 79, 234 N.W.2d 411 (1975); Kansas City v. Dugan, 524 S.W.2d 194 (Mo. App.1975); Foster v. McKeesport Hospital, 260 Pa.Super. 485, 394 A.2d 1031 (1978); Dabroe v. Rhodes Company, 64 Wash. 2d 431 , 392 P.2d 317 (1964); Sanderson v. Moline, 7 Wash. App. 439, 499 P.2d 1281 (1972).[5] While in the present case, Dr. O'Dell refused to recognize the textbooks as authoritative, there is no indication that plaintiff's attorney made any offer to prove the authoritativeness in some other way. Consequently, *323 we do not find any error committed by the trial court. III. The plaintiff assigns as error the court's refusal to give his Instruction No. 11 on what he calls the "value of a chance" theory.[6] We believe the court was correct in refusing to give the instruction as it was worded. The general purpose of such an instruction is to further elaborate the proximate cause theory in medical malpractice. Such an instruction is generally used in situations where the injured plaintiff claims that his original injury was aggravated, causing him to suffer greater harm, as a result of his doctor's failure to render appropriate medical care. One of the leading decisions concerning the "value of a chance" theory as applied in a medical malpractice case is Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.1966). In Hicks, a physician was found to be negligent as a matter of law for his failure to properly diagnose and treat his patient, who died from an intestinal obstruction, which the physician had diagnosed as gastroenteritis. The "value of a chance" theory was applied in Hicks because the medical experts who testified at the trial stated that if the patient had been properly diagnosed, she would have recovered from the illness. The court concluded that the physician's negligence "nullified whatever chance of recovery she might have had and was the proximate cause of the death." Hicks v. United States, supra at 633. In a simplified summary within the context of this case, the plaintiff's theory was that his original leg injury had been improperly treated and as a result the injury was aggravated to the extent amputation was necessary. The defendant doctor's theory was that the original injury was so severe that amputation would have resulted regardless of the efficacy of his treatment. The "value of a chance" label comes about because the plaintiff argues that the doctor's negligence eliminated the chance of his right leg healing properly, thus proximately causing the amputation. The issue, however, is still one of causationdid the doctor's actions or inactions increase the risk of amputating the plaintiff's right leg and was this increase in the risk of harm a substantial factor in the amputation of the plaintiff's leg?[7] Of those jurisdictions that have considered this question, a majority have adopted the principle. Daniels v. Hadley Memorial Hospital, 566 F.2d 749 (D.C.Cir. 1977); McBride v. United States, 462 F.2d 72 (9th Cir.1972); Jeanes v. Milner, 428 F.2d 598 (8th Cir.1970); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 449 A.2d 1102 (D.C.1982); Thomas v. Corso, 265 Md. 84, 288 A.2d 379 (1972); Harvey v. Silber, 300 Mich. 510, 2 N.W.2d 483 (1942); Kallenberg v. Beth Israel Hospital, 45 A.D.2d 177, 357 N.Y.S.2d 508 (1974); Jones v. Montefiore Hospital, 494 Pa. 410, 431 A.2d 920 (1981); Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hospital, 210 Va. 176, 169 S.E.2d 563 (1969). Pennsylvania has the best developed body of law in regard to this principle and in Jones v. Montefiore Hospital, 494 Pa. at 416, 431 A.2d at 923-24, the court explained: "Proximate cause is a term of art, and may be established by evidence that a defendant's negligent act or failure to act was a substantial factor in bringing *324 about the harm inflicted upon a plaintiff. Pennsylvania law has long recognized that this substantial factor need not be, as the trial court incorrectly charged, the only factor, i.e., `that cause which ... produces the result.' Gradel v. Inouye, 491 Pa. 534, 542, 421 A.2d 674 , 678 (1980); Hamil v. Bashline, 481 Pa. [256] at 266, 392 A.2d [1280] at 1285; Majors v. Brodhead Hotel, 416 Pa. 265, 273, 205 A.2d 873, 878 (1965). A plaintiff need not exclude every possible explanation, and `the fact that some other cause concurs with the negligence of the defendant in producing an injury does not relieve defendant from liability unless he can show that such other cause would have produced the injury independently of his negligence.' Majors v. Brodhead Hotel, 416 Pa. at 273, 205 A.2d at 878. "In Hamil v. Bashline, supra, we noted that Section 323(a) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) has long been recognized as part of the law of Pennsylvania...: "[O]nce a plaintiff has demonstrated that defendant's acts or omissions, in a situation to which Section 323(a) applies, have increased the risk of harm to another, such evidence furnishes a basis for the fact-finder to go further and find that such increased risk was in turn a substantial factor in bringing about the resultant harm; the necessary proximate cause will have been made out if the jury sees fit to find cause in fact." (Emphasis in original; Footnotes omitted) Those courts that have refused to adopt this theory do so based apparently on the premise that it reduces their traditional proximate cause test. E.g., Hiser v. Randolph, 126 Ariz. 608, 617 P.2d 774 (1980); Cooper v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Inc., 27 Ohio St.2d 242, 272 N.E.2d 97 (1971).[8] In Hiser v. Randolph, 126 Ariz. at 612-13, 617 P.2d at 778-79, the court stated: "In this jurisdiction the tortious act or malpractice must be shown to have been the probable and not merely a possible cause of the death or other untoward result.... * * * * * * "We agree with the court in Cooper v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Inc., supra, that the mere loss of an unspecified increment of the chance for survival is, of itself, insufficient to meet the standard of probability." We believe that the value of a chance rule is compatible with our proximate cause test that must be met to connect the defendant's negligence to the plaintiff's injury as set out in Syllabus Point 1 of Pygman v. Helton, 148 W.Va. 281, 134 S.E.2d 717 (1964): "Medical testimony to be admissible and sufficient to warrant a finding by the jury of the proximate cause of an injury is not required to be based upon a reasonable certainty that the injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. All that is required to render such testimony admissible and sufficient to carry it to the jury is that it should be of such character as would warrant a reasonable inference by the jury that the injury in question was caused by the negligent act or conduct of the defendant." See also Serbin v. Newman, 157 W.Va. 71, 198 S.E.2d 140 (1973). In Syllabus Point 3 of Hovermale v. Berkeley Springs Moose Lodge, W.Va., 271 S.E.2d 335 (1980), we said: "Where a physician is testifying as to the causal relation between a given physical condition and the defendant's negligent act, he need only state the matter in terms of a reasonable probability." Thus, we hold that where a plaintiff in a malpractice case has demonstrated that a defendant's acts or omissions have increased *325 the risk of harm to the plaintiff and that such increased risk of harm was a substantial factor in bringing about the ultimate injury to the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable for such ultimate injury. However, we do not believe that the plaintiff's instruction embodied a correct statement of the law.[9] We recognize that it was patterned after language found in Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hospital, 210 Va. at 184, 169 S.E.2d at 568-69, where the court said: "When a physician's or surgeon's negligent action or inaction has effectively terminated a person's chance of survival, he will not be permitted to raise conjectures as to possible chances for survival that he has put beyond realization. If there was any substantial possibility of survival and the defendant has destroyed it, he is answerable. Rarely is it possible to demonstrate to an absolute certainty what would have happened if certain actions had been taken. The law does not in all circumstances require a plaintiff to show to a certainty that a patient would have lived had he been operated on promptly." As the court noted in Slavish v. Ratajczak, 277 Pa.Super. 272, 277, 419 A.2d 767 , 770 (1980), "[s]tatements in opinions are often couched in argumentative language and may be formulated in words expressive of policy. As such they may mislead a jury. It is better to charge a jury in terms of legal standards and rules." The problem with the plaintiff's instruction is that it is argumentative and confusing. The portion of the instruction which states "then you are further instructed that the defendant is not permitted to defeat the plaintiff's claim by raising conjecture or speculation as to possible chances of survival," presumes that there is no conflict in the medical testimony about the increased risk of harm arising from the doctor's misdiagnosis and treatment. We believe this language is inappropriate because it informs the jury that the defendant doctor is not permitted to raise the issue that his alleged failure to properly diagnose and treat the plaintiff's condition had nothing, from a proximate cause standpoint, to do with the subsequent aggravated condition. In this case, the doctor's experts had as a theory that the original injury was such that ultimately amputation would have been necessary regardless of the doctor's subsequent negligence. Yet, the instruction suggests to the jury that the defendant may not raise this issue. Due to this objectionable language, the circuit court was correct in refusing to give this instruction as offered by the plaintiff. IV. Finally, plaintiff contends that in several defense instructions given by the court the medical standard of care contained the phrase as being in "accord with reasonable care and diligence as practiced by accredited physicians and surgeons in a locality similar to that in which defendant Pushkin's services were rendered." In Hundley v. Martinez, 151 W.Va. 977, 995, 158 S.E.2d 159 , 169 (1967), we virtually abandoned the locality rule, e.g. "We reject the strict application of the `locality' rule," and by holding in Syllabus Point 6, in part, that if an out-of-state physician testifies about a "standard [that] is uniform throughout the country; and, that he is *326 familiar with that standard, his testimony is admissible in a malpractice case."[10] Moreover, in Syllabus Point 4 of Duling v. Bluefield Sanitarium, Inc., 149 W.Va. 567, 142 S.E.2d 754 (1965), we abolished any concept of "locality" when it involved nursing malpractice.[11] However, a full discussion of this issue is foreclosed for several reasons. First, it does not appear that plaintiff's attorney objected to the locality rule language in the defense instructions. Second, plaintiff's Instruction No. 8, which was given, contained "locality" language. Under these circumstances, we do not find error. For the reasons herein set out, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Affirmed.

9347c37928f00791573cb9f58893497cab74f9ba00e17aa44260759a931cde03

1983-07-08 00:00:00

d676808b-8a5b-4c4f-b063-182703174b46

Prager v. Meckling

310 S.E.2d 852

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Prager v. Meckling Annotate this Case 310 S.E.2d 852 (1983) Charles L. PRAGER v. Ted G. MECKLING, Jr., d/b/a Ohio Valley Roofing. No. 15883. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 14, 1983. *853 Ray A. Byrd and Barbara L. Baxter, Schrader, Stamp, Byrd, Byrum, Johnson & Companion, Wheeling, for appellant. James A. Byrum, Bailey, Byrum & Vieweg, Wheeling, for appellee. MILLER, Justice: This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Charles L. Prager, from an order of the Circuit Court of Ohio County denying his motion for a new trial in a contract action. The jury found in favor of the defendant, Ted G. Meckling, Jr., doing business as Ohio Valley Roofing. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to introduce a document into evidence during trial when the existence of that document had not been revealed during pretrial discovery. Additionally, he argues that the court erred in refusing to permit the jury to consider his claim for punitive damages. Finally, he contends that the *854 court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for him on liability and in refusing to grant him judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict. After examining the record before us, we conclude that the trial court committed no reversible error. In 1977 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the repair of the roof of a building which housed a residential swimming pool. Under the contract the defendant guaranteed the work for a period of seven years. The defendant commenced working on the roof on August 10, 1977, and completed the work on August 13 or 14, 1977. A few months after the work was completed, the roof began to leak, and this problem continued to occur on several occasions. Each time the defendant after notification went to the property and made repairs to the roof. In the summer of 1980, the defendant was notified that the roof was leaking excessively. After examining the roof the defendant reported that the problem was caused by vandalism and that he was not responsible. The plaintiff called upon the defendant to honor his guarantee, but the defendant refused. When the defendant refused to repair the roof, the plaintiff filed an action for both compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiff sought to recover for the cost of a new roof, and for damages to the interior of the building, as a result of the roof leakage. In addition, the plaintiff sought punitive damages on the theory that the defendant willfully refused to honor his roof warranty. In his answer, the defendant alleged that the damage to the roof was due to vandalism and the failure of the appellant to remove rotting leaves and other debris from the roof. He asserted that it was these conditions that relieved him of responsibility for making further roof repairs. He also alleged that he was not guilty of intentional or willful misconduct. I. PRODUCTION ISSUE Prior to trial the plaintiff made a request for production of documents under Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.C.P.). The defendant was asked to produce eleven specific categories of documents. The twelfth category was a general one for "[all] other documents in the defendant's possession ... relative to this litigation and not covered by the foregoing requests." In answer to this request, the defendant responded that such "documents requested do not exist." At trial, the defendant took the position that the interior of the building was substantially damaged when he first examined it in connection with the proposed roof work. To corroborate his point, he testified that on August 10, 1977, at the time he replaced the roof, he had submitted an estimate to the plaintiff for repairs to the interior of the building. The defendant also offered into evidence a written copy of the estimate. The plaintiff objected since the existence of the document had not been revealed on discovery. Although both parties cite cases construing Rule 37, R.C.P., we find that those cases fail to resolve the questions presented on appeal. Ordinarily, Rule 37 is designed to permit the use of sanctions against a party who refuses to comply with the discovery rules, i.e., Rules 26 through 36. See 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2281 (1970). Generally, under Rule 37, in order to trigger the imposition of sanctions where a party refuses to comply with a discovery request, the other party must file a motion to have the court order discovery. See Rule 37(a).[1] If the discovery order is issued and not obeyed, then the party may seek sanctions under Rule 37(b). *855 The exceptions to the requirement for an order compelling discovery before sanctions can be obtained are contained in Rule 37(d).[2] This provision enables a party to seek sanctions directly from the court where the opposing party has failed: (1) to attend his own deposition; (2) to answer or object to interrogatories; or (3) to serve written response to a request for inspection under Rule 34. We discussed this matter briefly in State ex rel. McGraw v. West Virginia Judicial Review Board, W.Va., 271 S.E.2d 344 (1980), where sanctions were sought because a witness had failed to answer certain questions at the taking of a deposition. We held that sanctions could not be imposed because there had been no motion under Rule 37(a) and no subsequent order directing the answers which if disobeyed would have formed the basis for sanctions under Rule 37(b). We did not discuss the Rule 37(d) exceptions because they were not applicable to the facts.[3] In the present case, the claimed discovery violation involved an incorrect response to one of a series of requests for production of documents under Rule 34. Initially, a written response was filed by the defendant to the plaintiff's request for admissions. Consequently, the direct sanctions under Rule 37(d) were not available as the imposition of sanctions under this provision is triggered when there is no response to a request for production of documents. Ordinarily, where an inadequate response has been made, to trigger sanctions under Rule 37(b), an order compelling discovery would have to be obtained. If the recalcitrant party does not obey the order then a request for sanctions can be made. 4A J. Moore, J. Lucas & D. Epstein, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 37.05 (1983). The reason that this case does not fit into a Rule 37 context is that the plaintiff had no way of knowing that the defendant's initial answer was untrue when the defendant responded that no documents existed. As a result, the plaintiff had no reason to seek sanctions under Rule 37. If at the time the defendant made the answer he had not found the document, then his answer was true. However, Rule 26(e)(2), R.C.P., imposes a continuing obligation to supplement responses previously made *856 when, in light of subsequent information, the original response is incorrect.[4] Under this rule, the defendant did have an obligation once the document was located to make its existence known to the plaintiff. Despite the lack of any express provision in Rule 26(e) authorizing the imposition of sanctions for failure to supplement previous discovery responses that are incorrect in light of current information, most courts have held that a trial court has inherent power to impose sanctions as a part of its obligation to conduct a fair and orderly trial. Washington Hospital Center v. Cheeks, 394 F.2d 964 (D.C.Cir.1968); Clark v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 328 F.2d 591 (2nd Cir.1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1006, 84 S. Ct. 1943, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1054; Campbell Industries v. M/V. Gemini, 619 F.2d 24 (9th Cir.1980); Price v. Lake Sales Supply R.M., Inc., 510 F.2d 388 (10th Cir.1974); Olson v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 256 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 1977); Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12 (1974); 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2050 (1970).[5] Courts have generally settled on several criteria for determining whether the failure to supplement discovery requests under Rule 26(e)(2) should require exclusion of evidence related to the supplementary material. The most common problem is where a party is required to give notice of his witnesses and fails to supplement the list and then seeks to call an unlisted witness. In DeMarines v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 580 F.2d 1193, 1201-02 (3d Cir. 1978), where the issue was barring a doctor's testimony, these factors were listed: "`1. the prejudice or surprise in fact of the party against whom the excluded witnesses would have testified; `2. the ability of that party to cure the prejudice; `3. the extent to which waiver of the rule against calling unlisted witnesses would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or of other cases in the court; `4. bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with the court's order.' ... "Additionally, we noted the significance of the practical importance of the evidence excluded." See also Franklin Music v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 616 F.2d 528 (3d Cir.1979); Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association, 559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir.1977); Murphy v. Magnolia Electric Power Association, 639 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1981); Lewis Refrigeration Co. v. Sawyer Fruit, Vegetable and Cold Storage Co., 709 F.2d 427 (6th Cir.1983); Phil Crowley Steel Corp. v. Macomber, Inc., 601 F.2d 342 (8th Cir.1979); Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F.2d 784 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 918, 101 S. Ct. 1363, 67 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1981). We briefly spoke to this issue in W.L. Thaxton Construction Co. v. O.K. Construction Co., W.Va., 295 S.E.2d 822 (1982), where the defendant failed to include certain information in its interrogatory answers. The trial court refused to permit the introduction of this information at trial. We held that the trial court had abused its discretion and concluded, without elaboration, *857 that there had been no surprise to the opposite party. Utilizing the foregoing factors, we do not believe that the trial court in the case before us abused its discretion in admitting the exhibit. The elements of surprise and prejudice to the plaintiff were rather minimal since the defendant in his pretrial deposition had testified that there was substantial water damage to the interior of the pool building when he inspected it at the time he put on the new roof. He testified regarding the damage and indicated that in his view much of the damage occurred as a result of flooding from Wheeling Creek. This was essentially the same testimony offered at the trial which was corroborated by Melvin Vanerman, who had worked with the defendant on repairing the roof. Thus, the facts were known before trial and were corroborated at trial by another witness. The document thus only provided additional corroboration. Moreover, the document applied only to one element of the plaintiff's damage claim. There is no factual development to show willfulness or bad faith on the part of the defendant. Although the record indicates the defense attorney had been given the document a week or so prior to trial, we are left with the impression that the trial court ascribed his failure to turn over the document to inadvertence rather than willfulness or bad faith. We, therefore, find no reversible error on this point. II. DIRECTED VERDICT ISSUE Plaintiff claims that the court should have directed a verdict on liability, however, we do not believe that the court erred in this regard. Our traditional standards governing motions for a directed verdict are set out in Syllabus Point 5 of Young v. Ross, 157 W.Va. 548, 202 S.E.2d 622 (1974): "Where a motion for a directed verdict is made by a party at the trial of a case, all reasonable doubts and inferences should be resolved in favor of the party against whom the verdict is asked to be directed and the court must assume as true those facts which the jury may properly find from the evidence." See also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Donahue, W.Va., 264 S.E.2d 466 (1980); Casto v. Martin, W.Va., 230 S.E.2d 722 (1976). Moreover, as we also said in Young v. Ross, supra, in Syllabus Point 4, in part: "It is the peculiar and exclusive province of a jury to weigh the evidence and to resolve questions of fact when the testimony of witnesses regarding them is conflicting." See also Morgan v. Bottome, W.Va., 289 S.E.2d 469 (1982); Rhodes v. National Homes Corp., W.Va., 263 S.E.2d 84 (1979). In the present case, the defendant denied that he had installed the roof improperly. He, along with his witness, claimed that the roof leaks were attributable to vandalism from third parties and that the interior damage to the building was due to recurrent flooding. Under these facts, we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion under the foregoing law by permitting the jury to decide the issues, nor did the court err in refusing to set the verdict aside. III. PUNITIVE DAMAGE ISSUE The plaintiff contends that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that he was entitled to punitive damages. However, we have traditionally held that where the plaintiff does not prevail as to liability any errors he claims as to damage instructions are harmless because, without a verdict on the liability issue, he is not entitled to any damages. This principle is set out in Syllabus Point 3 of Martino v. Rotondi, 91 W.Va. 482, 113 S.E. 760 (1922): "An instruction incorrectly stating the measure of damages to be applied in case recovery is had, cannot successfully be made the basis of an assignment of error, where the plaintiff is not entitled to any recovery at all. The error in giving such instruction in such case is harmless." *858 See also Ratlief v. Yokum, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 584 , 590 (1981); cf. Legg v. Jones, 126 W.Va. 757, 30 S.E.2d 76 (1944). For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Ohio County is affirmed. Affirmed.

378fc7d1fdbd5678d837d09bdc9667ea6228de9a03973deac9c45c162858ba3c

1983-12-14 00:00:00

5a1b76d6-fd6b-49ba-92da-b5a10a391c5c

Pittsburgh Elevator v. W. Va. Bd. of Regents

310 S.E.2d 675

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Pittsburgh Elevator v. W. Va. Bd. of Regents Annotate this Case 310 S.E.2d 675 (1983) PITTSBURGH ELEVATOR COMPANY v. The WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF REGENTS. Jason MARTIN, et al. v. The WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF REGENTS, et al. PITTSBURGH ELEVATOR CO. v. BAKER AND COOMBS, INC. No. 15438. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. June 30, 1983. Rehearing Denied October 14, 1983. *676 Richard A. Hayhurst, Davis, Davis, Hall & Clovis, Parkersburg, for Pittsburgh Elevator Co. Steptoe & Johnson, Herbert G. Underwood, Irene M. Keeley, Clarksburg, Edward W. Eardley, Charleston, for Bd. of Regents. McGRAW, Chief Justice: This is an appeal by the Pittsburgh Elevator Company challenging two rulings of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County. The first is an order which granted the motion of the appellee, the West Virginia Board of Regents, to dismiss the appellant's complaint, previously transferred from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County and consolidated with proceedings pending in Monongalia County, for the reason that venue was improper in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County. The second is the court's refusal to transfer the consolidated proceedings to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. The appellant contends that venue was *677 proper in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, or, in the alternative, that the court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer the consolidated proceedings to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. We find that venue is proper in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, and, therefore, reverse the order of the lower court. The facts are not in dispute. On October 23, 1979, Jason Martin, then four years of age, fell from the stage of the main theater in the Creative Arts Center at West Virginia University, located in Morgantown, Monongalia County, West Virginia. On January 14, 1981, the child and his parents instituted an action for damages in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County against the appellee, the West Virginia Board of Regents, as owner of the Creative Arts Center, and against various other defendants involved in the design and manufacture of the stage, including the appellant, the Pittsburgh Elevator Company. On February 9, 1981, the appellee West Virginia Board of Regents moved to dismiss the Martin's complaint on the grounds that under the provisions of W.Va.Code § 14-2-2 (1979 Replacement Vol.) a proceeding against a state agency may only be brought in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.[1] By order entered March 4, 1981, the court granted this motion, dismissing the appellee from the action, without prejudice. The court further ordered that the action should remain on the docket of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County as against the remaining parties. Subsequently, the appellant instituted an action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County seeking indemnity, or, if appropriate, contribution from the appellee for any liability which might result from the suit pending in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County. On March 9, 1981, the appellant filed a motion in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County seeking to transfer the action pending in that court to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County and to consolidate it with the appellant's action. After a hearing on March 20, 1981, the court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate the two actions, but moulding the relief to transfer the action pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, rather than vice versa, as requested in the appellant's motion. Thereafter, on March 31, 1981, the appellee moved to dismiss the appellant's complaint on the grounds that under the provisions of W.Va.Code § 14-2-2 a proceeding against a state agency may only be prosecuted in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. The appellant asserts that at the hearing on this motion, held April 22, 1981, the court denied the appellant's spoken motion to transfer the entire consolidated action to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.[2] By order entered May 6, 1981, the court granted the appellee's motion and dismissed the appellant's complaint without prejudice. I The threshold question raised by the appellee is whether the dismissal below without prejudice for lack of venue under W.Va. R.Civ.P. 12(b) constitutes an appealable order. The appellee contends that the court's order does not constitute a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken, and therefore, the appellant's writ of error should be dismissed as an improvidently awarded interlocutory appeal. The appealability of a dismissal under Rule 12(b) without prejudice for lack of venue is an issue of first impression in West Virginia. The appellee argues that under W.Va.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and this Court's holding in Sprouse v. Clay Communications, Inc., W.Va., 211 S.E.2d 674 (1975), a dismissal *678 without prejudice for lack of venue does not constitute an appealable order. In Sprouse, we adopted the majority view regarding the effect of a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), which maintains that a dismissal for failure to state a claim is a final judgment unless the court specifically dismisses the complaint without prejudice. The view adopted in Sprouse is founded upon Rule 41(b), which provides, in pertinent part: "Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue, operates as an adjudication upon the merits." Since the court below specifically dismissed the appellant's complaint "without prejudice," the appellee contends that under Rule 41(b) and Sprouse, the order is not appealable. We disagree. We note initially that Rule 41(b) contains no affirmative statement to the effect that a dismissal under Rule 12(b) without prejudice for lack of venue is not an appealable order. Moreover, Rule 41(b) is concerned primarily with involuntary dismissals for failure to prosecute, and as such, its relevance to the issue raised here is questionable at best. Even if one assumes that Rule 41(b) is relevant to the issue raised, it could reasonably be argued that the general rule contained therein is that an order of dismissal is normally considered an adjudication on the merits,[3] and that the rule simply does not address a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue. Generally, it has been held that an order dismissing a complaint, but not the underlying action, is not a final order and therefore is not appealable. See California v. Harvier, 700 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.1983); Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., 590 F.2d 445 (2d Cir.1978); Local 179, United Textile Workers of America v. Federal Paper Stock Co., 461 F.2d 849 (8th Cir.1972); Atkins v. Morgan, 364 F.2d 822 (10th Cir.1966). The rationale advanced for this distinction has been that the dismissal of a complaint is not a final order because the complaint is still open to amendment. See Jones v. Pitchess, 469 F.2d 678 (9th Cir.1972); Grantham v. McGraw-Edison Co., 444 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1971); Epton v. Hogan, 355 F.2d 203 (2d Cir.1966). Despite the general rule that dismissal of a complaint is not appealable, courts have held that where it is clear that the action could not be saved by an amendment of the complaint which the plaintiff could reasonably be expected to make, the order dismissing the complaint is final and appealable. See Proud v. United States, 704 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir.1983); Chavez v. Santa Fe Housing Authority, 606 F.2d 282 (10th Cir. 1979); Local 179, United Textile Workers of America v. Federal Paper Stock Co., supra. Additionally, some courts have held that if a plaintiff declares his intention to stand on his complaint, the order to dismiss may be considered final and appealable. Borelli v. Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3rd Cir.1976); Olson v. Rembrandt Printing Co., 511 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir.1975); Rail-Trailer Co. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 358 F.2d 15 (7th Cir.1966); United Steelworkers of America v. American International Aluminum Corp., 334 F.2d 147 (5th Cir.1964); Wallingford v. Zenith Radio Corp., 310 F.2d 693 (7th Cir.1962). Thus, the fact that the dismissal is deemed "without prejudice" by the trial court is not dispositive of the issue. As is stated in 9 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 110.08[1] (1983): "If ... the motion is sustained and the effect is to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, either of the person or the subject matter, or because of improper venue, or for any other reason, although the dismissal is without prejudice, the judgment is final." Similarly, the Alaska court in Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960 , 964 n. 4 (Alaska 1981), has stated, "Although a dismissal is labeled as without prejudice, it may have the opposite effect. The appealability of an order depends on its effect rather than its language. LeCompte *679 v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 603 (5th Cir.1976)." See also Dredge Corp. v. Peccole, 89 Nev. 26, 505 P.2d 290 (1973); Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 63 Cal. Rptr. 724, 67 Cal. 2d 695 , 433 P.2d 732 (1967); State Board of Barber Examiners v. Edwards, 76 Ariz. 27, 258 P.2d 418 (1953). Therefore, if the effect of a dismissal of a complaint is to dismiss the action, such that it cannot be saved by amendment of the complaint, or if a plaintiff declares his intention to stand on his complaint, an order to dismiss is final and appealable. In Bragg v. Reed, 592 F.2d 1136, 1138 (10th Cir.1979), the court adopted the position that it would no longer attempt to distinguish between the dismissal of a complaint and dismissal of the action, instead focussing on the actual effect of the dismissed order. This position seems sound. Rule 3 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure provides, "A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court." Therefore, if the complaint is dismissed, it follows that, in the absence of clear indications to the contrary, the action is also dismissed. Here, it is clear that despite the trial court's labelling of the dismissal as "without prejudice," the appellant's action could not be saved by amendment, and was dismissed in toto as far as the Circuit Court of Monongalia County was concerned. Although the appellant could have pursued its cause of action in Kanawha County, it desired to stand on its complaint and test the correctness of the lower court's ruling. The right of the appellant to insist on venue in Monongalia County should not be lightly discounted. Historically, the concept of venue is intertwined with the ancient procedure of having a cause heard by jurors drawn from the region in which the cause of action arose. As Holdsworth states: "The rules of venue carry us back to the early days of the jury system, when the jury were as much witnesses as judges of the facts." IX W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law at 258 (1966) (footnote omitted). Thus, venue would lie only in the place "where the events alleged in the pleadings had happened, because the sheriff could not otherwise have summoned a jury who would know the real facts of the case." V W. Holdsworth, supra at 117. Procedural changes eventually transformed the character of the jury from that of witness to that of judges of the facts, and, therefore, lessened the importance of drawing the jury from the locality of the disputed occurrence. III W. Holdsworth, supra at 654. Nevertheless, the custom of drawing the jury from the region where the cause arose endures in our law which provides that venue lies in the county where the cause of action arose. See W.Va.Code §§ 56-1-1, -2 (1966); Hesse v. State Soil Conservation Committee, 153 W.Va. 111, 168 S.E.2d 293 (1969). Despite the divergence of the rule which provides venue in the place where the action arose from its original justification, it continues to serve important purposes in our judicial system, in that it permits one who has been injured in his person or property to have his injury and its recompense adjudged by his neighbors in the community. "The verdict of the jurors is not just the verdict of twelve men; it is the verdict of a pays, a `country,' a neighborhood, a community." F. Pollock & F. Maitland, History of English Law at 624 (1968).[4] Accordingly, we conclude that the lower court's order dismissing the appellant's complaint for lack of venue is a final order and therefore is appealable. See W.Va.Code § 58-5-1 (1966). As the Court stated in syllabus point one of Posten v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 93 W.Va. 612, 117 S.E. 491 (1923): "[A]n order of the circuit court dismissing ... [a] defendant is in the nature of a final order, and is reviewable in the Supreme Court upon writ of *680 error ...." See also Dick v. Robinson, 19 W.Va. 159, 164 (1881) ("A decree dismissing a bill as to a defendant is as to such defendant a final decree."). II The crucial issues raised in this case involve the effect of W.Va.Code § 29-12-5 (1980 Replacement Vol.), which authorizes the State Board of Insurance to procure liability insurance on behalf of the State,[5] upon the exclusive venue provisions of W.Va.Code § 14-2-2, and the specious tenet of law that state agencies are immune from suit under W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 35.[6] *681 In Tompkins v. Kanawha Board, 19 W.Va. 257 (1881), this Court discussed for the first time the constitutional immunity from suit granted the State by W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 35. The plaintiff in Tompkins sued the Kanawha Board, a governmental corporation charged with keeping the channel of the Kanawha River free from obstacles, for damages occasioned by the sinking of his barge. In defense, the Kanawha Board asserted the State's immunity from suit. The Court held that the defense of constitutional immunity from suit was not available to the state governmental corporation. Justice Johnson, writing for the Court, reasoned: It seems to me the test is, was there a corporation created charged with a duty and with rights and franchises incident to corporations, among which is the right to sue, without which the corporation would be without vitality, and the corresponding liability to be sued, without which it would be a legalized despot trespassing upon the rights of the citizens, who would be powerless to protect themselves. The State creates no such irresponsible entity. The Legislature never intended, that such *682 corporations should be without legal liability, notwithstanding the State owns its property. Would any one doubt for a moment, that if the pilot of a steamer on the Kanawha river should negligently or purposely run into one of the dredge-boats under the control of the Kanawha Board and destroy it, the Kanawha Board could bring suit against the owner of the steamer and compel him to respond in damages? If this be so, and the pilot of the dredge-boat should carelessly or purposely run into the steamer and sink and destroy it, would not an action lie against the Kanawha Board for such damage so inflicted? If not, it is because it was the State of West Virginia, that ran into and sank the steamer and the State cannot be sued. But it was not the State, that did it; it was a creature with corporate powers, capacities, and liabilities, that did it. The State as such does not enter into business of any such character. Her business is political, and when she wants improvements carried on, she creates corporations with the ordinary incidents thereto, to do that business. It would be against all our ideas of State government, if a corporation created by the State to carry on a work of improvement should not be liable like any other corporation for the damage it inflicted, notwithstanding the State might own the property of the corporation. Sovereignty does not reside in such a corporation. The State cannot delegate her sovereignty. There is no creature of the State above the law and irresponsible. If this were so, the corporation might deny to certain individuals all benefits to be conferred by the corporation, and yet it being sovereign or representing sovereignty it could not be sued. 19 W.Va. at 263-264. The concept that "[t]here is no creature of the State above the law and irresponsible" expressed in Tompkins finds its foundation in article III of the West Virginia Constitution, commonly known as our "Bill of Rights." Section one of article III begins with a statement of the inalienable rights which all persons enjoy in a civilized society: All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely: the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Of particular significance in safeguarding these rights are section 9 of article III, which provides that: Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, without just compensation ... and when private property shall be taken, or damaged, for public use ... the compensation to the owner shall be ascertained in such manner, as may be prescribed by general law; provided, that when required by either of the parties, such compensation shall be ascertained by an impartial jury of twelve freeholders[;] section 10 of article III, which provides that: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and the judgment of his peers[;]" and section 17 of article III, which provides: "The courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." In the past this Court has stated that the constitutional bar to suit contained in article VI, section 35, is apparently irreconcilable with the fundamental rights of due process and access to the courts guaranteed by article III. See State ex rel. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, 154 W.Va. 306, 175 S.E.2d 428 (1970). However, a closer analysis of the scope of the immunity provided by article VI, section 35, indicates that such is not the case. In Coal & Coke Ry. Co. v. Conley, 67 W.Va. 129, 67 S.E. 613 (1910), the Court in determining that a suit to enjoin the Attorney General and the Prosecuting Attorney of Kanawha County from enforcing *683 the penal provisions of a legislative enactment was not barred by article VI, section 35, stated: The state and the government of the state are two different things, the former being an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable; the latter a mere agent, and, within the spirit of the agency, a perfect representative, but outside of that, a lawless usurper. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 290, 5 Sup.Ct. 903, 962, 29 L. Ed. 185. The supreme law of the state stands over its government, as well as over the citizen, shielding and protecting both in all their rights. It is an attribute of the state as contradistinguished from the state government. It is to the interest of the state, and its duty, to confine its government within the limits of its powers as agent, as well as to restrain the conduct of every citizen in the interest of the general welfare. At the same time, it should protect the government in the exercise of all its functions to the limit thereof, and the citizen in the enjoyment of all rights and privileges guaranteed to him by the supreme law, the Constitution with its limitations upon the powers of the Legislature, the executive and the judiciary, in favor of the citizen. Thus, the humblest citizen, the most powerful corporation, the highest public officers, the greatest state tribunals and functionaries are within the equal protection of the aegis of the Constitution. Therefore it is plain that, in this controversy between one citizen and other citizens, involving the question whether the Legislature, in passing this statute, has violated the Constitution by depriving the complainant of its property without due process of law, or denying it the equal protection of the laws, or whether the defendants have authority to do the threatened acts, the state cannot favor either side. It is just as important that every citizen, regardless of his station in life, be protected in the rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution, as it is that the Legislature be permitted to exercise all of its functions, or that the treasury of the state be supplied with revenue, or that the government be protected in its property rights. On the other hand, to allow the Legislature to violate these constitutional guaranties of individual rights would be equally as subversive of the state's highest and best interests as it would be to permit a citizen to defy the law. The tendency of both is to destroy popular and constitutional government, and the former would be the graver infraction, because always a violation of the organic law, while the latter often amounts to no more than a breach of a mere statute. The Legislature is not the state, and if, breaking over the constitutional limits of its powers, it trample upon the rights of a citizen, the state shields and protects the latter, treating the act of the former as a form of tyranny. Pure, unsullied, and infallible in legal contemplation, the state can do no wrong. Though her officers and tribunals may, she never sustains nor upholds them in it. On the contrary, she disavows and repudiates their wrongful acts. 67 W.Va. at 142-144, 67 S.E. at 619-620. In distinguishing between the "State" and the "government of the State," the Court in Coal & Coke Ry. Co. v. Conley, supra, relied upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 , 290, 5 S. Ct. 903, 914, 29 L. Ed. 185 (1885), where in discussing the same distinction, the Court stated: This distinction is essential to the idea of constitutional government. To deny it or blot it out obliterates the line of demarcation that separates constitutional government from absolutism, free self-government based on the sovereignty of the people, from that despotism, whether of the one or the many, which enables the agent of the State to decare and decree that he is the State; to say "L'Etat, c'est moi." Of what avail are written constitutions, whose bills of right for the security of individual liberty have been written, too often, with the blood of martyrs shed upon the battle field and the scaffold, if their limitations and restraints *684 upon power may be overpassed with impunity by the very agencies created and appointed to guard, defend and enforce them; and that, too, with the sacred authority of law, not only compelling obedience, but entitled to respect? And how else can these principles of individual liberty and right be maintained, if, when violated, the judicial tribunals are forbidden to visit penalties upon individual offenders, who are the instruments of wrong, whenever they interpose the shield of the State? The doctrine is not to be tolerated. The whole frame and scheme of the political institutions of this country, State and Federal, protest against it. Their continued existence is not compatible with it. It is the doctrine of absolutism, pure simple and naked; and of communism, which is its twin; the double progeny of the same evil birth. 114 U.S. at 291, 5 S. Ct. at 914-915, 29 L. Ed. at 192. Under this theory, the "State" as contemplated by the constitution represents the ideal; it is the people united together for their common benefit. See W.Va. Const. art. III, § 3. One may not sue the "State" as such, but "whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government", which may no more wrong an individual with impunity than may any private person. 114 U.S. at 290, 5 S. Ct. at 914, 29 L. Ed. at 193. Once the distinction between the State as an "ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable," and the government of the State as an agent accountable for its wrongful acts is recognized, the asserted irreconcilability of the freedoms guaranteed by article III and the bar to suit contained in article VI, section 35 loses all validity. Indeed, as the Court in Poindexter observed: "[The] immunity from suit, secured to the States, is undoubtedly a part of the Constitutional, of equal authority with every other, but no greater, and to be construed and applied in harmony with all the provisions of that instrument." 114 U.S. at 286, 5 S. Ct. at 912, 29 L. Ed. at 191 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the later decisions of this Court have not adhered to the distinction recognized in Coal & Coke Ry Co. v. Conley, supra, although, in order to avoid problems of irreconcilability, the Court has over the years carved exceptions from the prohibition against suing the "State" contained in article VI, section 35. For example, in State ex rel. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, supra, the Court held that mandamus would lie to compel the State Road Commissioner to institute eminent domain proceedings to ascertain the value of property damaged through the negligence of highway construction which caused flooding in the City of Montgomery. Though, in essence, a cause of action for damages caused by negligence, the court granted the writ over the objections of Justices Berry and Calhoun, who argued that the majority's holding, in effect, authorized an indirect suit against the State for damages in violation of W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 35. Justice Browning, writing for the majority, stated: Article III, Section 9, of the Constitution of this State provides that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, without just compensation...." However, Article VI, Section 35, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he State of West Virginia shall never be made defendant in any court of law or equity ...." These constitutional provisions appear to be irreconcilable, but this Court has held that if the State Road Commissioner abuses his discretion in failing to institute an action of eminent domain against a property owner who alleges that his property has been taken or damaged as a result of the construction of a public highway, such commissioner will by this Court be directed in a mandamus proceeding to institute such action to determine whether property has been taken or damaged and, if so, the amount of damage the property owner has suffered. 154 W.Va. at 311-312, 175 S.E.2d at 431 (citation omitted). In Stewart v. State Road Comm'n, 117 W.Va. 352, 185 S.E. 567 (1936), the petitioner in another mandamus proceeding sought *685 to compel payment of a judgment rendered against the State Road Commission for land appropriated for road purposes without purchase or condemnation. The State Road Commission contended that the judgment could not be enforced because, as a state agency, it was constitutionally immune from suit. The Court agreed, but emphasized the other remedies available to the petitioner despite the constitutional prohibition against suing the State: Our Constitution, article 6, § 35, provides: "The State of West Virginia shall never be made defendant in any court of law or equity." There is no specific exception to this inhibition. Such a provision is ordinarily construed to be "absolute and unqualified." Hampton v. State Board, 90 Fla. 88, 105 So. 323, 42 A.L.R. 1456; Alabama Industrial School v. Addler, 144 Ala. 555, 42 So. 116, 113 Am.St. Rep. 58; 25 R.C.L., subject States, § 50. We recognize that the constitutional inhibition against taking private property for a public use without just compensation (article 3, § 9) is of equal dignity with the inhibition against suing the state. If necessary to maintain the rights of a citizen under the former, the two provisions would be construed together and the former treated as an exception to the latter. This has been done in some states. See Chick Springs Water Co. v. Highway Dept., 159 S.C. 481, 157 S.E. 842. Our procedure, however, affords ample protection to one in the position of petitioner without resorting to that necessity. (1) He may enjoin the state road commissioner, and his representatives, personally, from unlawfully invading his property. Coal & Coke Railway Co. v. Conley, 67 W.Va. 129, 146, 147, 67 S.E. 613. (2) He may recover damages from the commissioner and his representatives, personally, for unlawfully entering upon and taking his property. The constitutional immunity of the state is not extended to its officials and their representatives in the performance of an unlawful act. Coal & Coke Railway Co. v. Conley, supra. (3) He may mandamus the commissioner in person, to condemn his land. Draper v. Anderson, 102 W.Va. 633, 135 S.E. 837.... We are aware that when the Legislature has established a corporate entity and provided it with funds to conduct an enterprise for the state, some jurisdictions with constitutional provisions similar to ours have held that the entity is separate from the state and is subject to suit. See State v. Bates, 317 Mo. 696, 296 S.W. 418; Arkansas Commission v. Dodge, 181 Ark. 539, 26 S.W.(2d) 879, 885. But as was remarked by the Arkansas court: "This is a question which each state must decide for itself." We have long been committed to the opposite view. Miller v. State Board (1899) 46 W.Va. 192, 32 S.E. 1007, 76 Am.St.Rep. 811; Miller Supply Co. v. Board of Control, 72 W.Va. 524, 78 S.E. 672; Mahone v. Road Commission, 99 W.Va. 397, 129 S.E. 320. 117 W.Va. at 353-354, 185 S.E. at 567-568. In similar fashion, the Court has determined that a variety of other actions in which the State or its officers are named as defendants fall outside the bounds of the constitutional prohibition against suing the State. For example, an injunction to restrain or require a state officer to perform a ministerial duty is not prohibited, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Miller, 19 W.Va. 408 (1882), aff'd, 114 U.S. 176 , 5 S. Ct. 813, 29 L. Ed. 121 (1885); State ex rel. W.H. Wheeler & Co. v. Shawkey, 80 W.Va. 638, 93 S.E. 759 (1917); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Shaid, 103 W.Va. 432, 137 S.E. 878 (1927); State ex rel. Printing-Litho, Inc. v. Wilson, 147 W.Va. 415, 128 S.E.2d 449 (1962); suits against officers, acting, or threatening to act, under allegedly unconstitutional statutes, have been held not to be suits against the State, Blue Jacket Consolidated Copper Co. v. Scherr, 50 W.Va. 533, 40 S.E. 514 (1901); Coal & Coke Railway Co. v. Conley, supra; Hamill v. Koontz, 134 W.Va. 439, 59 S.E.2d 879 (1950); see also Pauley v. Kelly, W.Va., 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979); Ables v. Mooney, W.Va., 264 S.E.2d 424 (1979); recognition of a "moral obligation" by the State may be discharged by the appropriation of *686 public funds to private individuals, State ex rel. Davis Trust Co. v. Sims, 130 W.Va. 623, 46 S.E.2d 90 (1947); Price v. Sims, 134 W.Va. 173, 58 S.E.2d 657 (1950); State ex rel. Bumgarner v. Sims, 139 W.Va. 92, 79 S.E.2d 277 (1953); suits for declaratory judgment have been held not to be suits against the State, Douglass v. Koontz, 137 W.Va. 345, 71 S.E.2d 319 (1952); Farley v. Graney, 146 W.Va. 22, 119 S.E.2d 833 (1960); mandamus has been permitted to require the state road commission to institute proper condemnation proceedings upon the taking or damaging of land for public purposes, Hardy v. Simpson, 118 W.Va. 440, 190 S.E. 680 (1937); Riggs v. Commissioner, 120 W.Va. 298, 197 S.E. 813 (1938); Childers v. Road Commissioner, 124 W.Va. 233, 19 S.E.2d 611 (1942); Newman v. Bailey, 124 W.Va. 705, 22 S.E.2d 280 (1942); Doss v. City of Mullens, 133 W.Va. 351, 56 S.E.2d 97 (1949); Taylor v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 138 W.Va. 313, 75 S.E.2d 858 (1953); State ex rel. French v. State Road Commission, 147 W.Va. 619, 129 S.E.2d 831 (1963); State ex rel. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, supra; State ex rel. Rhodes v. West Virginia Department of Highways, 155 W.Va. 735, 187 S.E.2d 218 (1972); liability arising from the performance of proprietary functions is not immunized, Ward v. County Court, 141 W.Va. 730, 93 S.E.2d 44 (1956); Whitney v. Ralph Myers Contracting Corp., 146 W.Va. 130, 118 S.E.2d 622 (1961); Kondos v. Board of Regents, 318 F. Supp. 394 (S.D.W.Va. 1970), aff'd, 441 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir.1971); quasi-public corporations which have no taxing power or dependency upon the State for their financial support have been held not to be afforded any immunity, Hope Natural Gas Co. v. West Virginia Turnpike Commission, 143 W.Va. 913, 105 S.E.2d 630 (1958); Christo v. Dotson, 151 W.Va. 696, 155 S.E.2d 571 (1967); State ex rel. C & D Equipment Co. v. Gainer, 154 W.Va. 83, 174 S.E.2d 729 (1970); and, finally, mandamus may be employed to compel state officers, who have acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or outside the law, to perform their lawful duties. State ex rel. Ritchie v. Triplett, W.Va., 236 S.E.2d 474 (1977).[7] Our constitution clearly contemplates that every person who is damaged in his person, property, or reputation shall have recourse to the courts to seek the redress of his injuries. See W.Va. Const. art. III, §§ 9, 10, 17. See generally Cooper v. Gwinn, W.Va., 298 S.E.2d 781 , 786 (1981). The fact that the wrongdoer is an instrumentality of state government should not eviscerate these constitutional rights, inasmuch as the Bill of Rights contained in article III is designed to protect people from government. Moreover, one's constitutional right to access to the courts should not depend upon whether one seeks recourse for injuries attributable to a governmental agency by way of a cause of action sounding in tort, or by way of a mandamus to compel compensation for the damaging of private property.[8]Compare Mahone v. State Road Comm'n, 99 W.Va. 397, 129 S.E. 320 (1925), with State ex rel. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, supra. It is anomalous, indeed, that our constitution protects property which is damaged, for example, through the negligence of the State Road Commission in the course of constructing a roadway, see State ex rel. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, supra, but would not protect the life and limbs of a person negligently run down by a truck driven by an employee of the State Road Commission *687 during construction of the same roadway. See Syllabus Point 1, Mahone v. State Road Comm'n, supra. ("The state road commission of West Virginia is a direct governmental agency of the state, and as such is not subject to an action for tort.") Undeniably, problems of equal protection are present in such a situation.[9] Nevertheless, the Court has intermittently adhered to the position that bona fide state agencies are immune from damage suits pursuant to W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 35.[10] Thus, despite the fact that the West Virginia Board of Regents is a statutorily created corporation upon which the Legislature has specifically bestowed the ability "to sue and be sued," W.Va.Code § 18-26-3 (1977 Replacement Vol.), the Court held in City of Morgantown v. Ducker, 153 W.Va. 121, 168 S.E.2d 298 (1969), that the Board is a state agency which is constitutionally immune from suit under W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 35. See also Ohio Valley Contractors v. Board of Education, supra; State ex rel. Scott v. Taylor, 152 W.Va. 151, 160 S.E.2d 146 (1968); Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 527 F. Supp. 1366 (S.D.Ohio 1981); Santiago v. Clark, 444 F. Supp. 1077 (N.D.W. Va.1978); Kondos v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 318 F. Supp. 394 (S.D.W.Va. 1970), aff'd, 441 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir.1971).[11] The appellant accepts City of Morgantown v. Ducker, supra, as a proper statement of law for purposes of this appeal. Consequently, we are not required to address the apparent inconsistencies between the rights safeguarded by article III of the West Virginia Constitution and prior decisions interpreting the scope of the immunity from suit granted the State by article VI, section 35, although upon close examination it appears the case for immunity may have been overstated therein. Rather, the appellant requests that we examine the effect of the legislatively authorized procurement of liability insurance by a state agency upon the otherwise applicable constitutional bar to suit. Both the appellant and the appellee advance the contention that where recovery is sought against the State's liability insurance coverage, the constitutional bar to suit should not apply. Similar arguments have been made in previous West Virginia cases. In Boice v. Board of Education, 111 W.Va. 95, 160 S.E. 566 (1931), the plaintiff sought to enjoin a county board of education from setting up the defense of governmental immunity to her personal injury claim, and to recover damages from the board's insurance company. The plaintiff conceded that under existing law the board was ordinarily immune from suit, but argued that by procuring liability insurance the board had waived its immunity and had created a fund, in the nature of a trust, for the protection and benefit of the plaintiff and others. The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument, reasoning that the board could not waive the immunity granted by the Legislature. The Court also found the insurer's legal obligation to be derivative in nature, and therefore, denied the plaintiff's request to proceed directly against the insurer: *688 "Under the terms of the insurance policy the insurer is not liable directly to a claimant until after recovery of judgment by the claimant against the insured. This plaintiff, therefore, cannot proceed in advance of such a judgment, directly against the insurance company." 111 W.Va. at 96, 160 S.E. at 567 (citation omitted). See also Utz v. Board of Education, 126 W.Va. 823, 30 S.E.2d 342 (1944) (statute authorizing board of education to provide insurance for negligence of drivers of school busses does not abolish the board's immunity from suit); Board of Education v. Commercial Casualty Insurance Co., 116 W.Va. 503, 182 S.E. 87 (1935) (board of education cannot, by acquisition of indemnity insurance, or otherwise, change its status as a governmental agency, and thus, waive its immunity). In accord with Boice is Bradfield v. Board of Education, 128 W.Va. 228, 36 S.E.2d 512 (1945), where the plaintiff argued that the board of education could be proceeded against solely to establish the amount of liability of the board's insurance carrier, regardless of whether such amount can or cannot be collected out of school funds. The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument, stating: This position is unsound. It would be an anomaly to permit a recovery in any amount, the basis for which the law denies and the collection of which the law forbids. The entry of such a judgment, not legally enforcible merely for the purpose of measuring or fixing the amount of the liability of a third person who is not even a party to the action, should not receive judicial sanction. 128 W.Va. at 234, 36 S.E.2d at 515. However, both Boice and Bradfield were decided prior to enactment of W.Va. Code § 29-12-5, which authorizes the Board of Insurance to procure liability insurance on behalf of the State, and which further prohibits the insurer from whom a policy has been purchased from relying upon the constitutional immunity of the State against claims or suits.[12] In light of this statutory prohibition, we conclude that a suit seeking recovery against the State's insurance carrier is outside the bounds of the constitutional bar to suit contained in W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 35. In determining the validity of a claim of constitutional immunity this Court has in the past looked behind the formal parties in a suit in order to assess the suit's impact on the State. See Ables v. Mooney, supra. See also Woodford v. Glenville State Housing Corp., supra. The paramount justification underlying the constitutional grant of immunity is to protect the financial structure of the State.[13]See, e.g., State v. Ruthbell Coal Co., 133 W.Va. 319, 56 S.E.2d 549 (1949). Thus, in City of Morgantown v. Ducker, supra, the Court held the plaintiff's claim against the Board of Governors of West Virginia University, predecessor to the Board of Regents, to be barred because: The judgment which the plaintiff would seek in a suit against the board of governors, if satisfied, would be paid from funds in the treasury of the state. The interest of the state would be directly affected and involved in any suit to collect the claim against the board of governors with respect to funds belonging to and in the custody of the state. 168 S.E.2d at 304. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that suits which seek no recovery from state funds, but rather allege that recovery is sought under and up to the limits of the State's liability insurance coverage fall outside the traditional constitutional bar to suits against the State. Cf. City of Kingsport v. Lane, 35 Tenn.App. 183, 243 S.W.2d 289 (1951). The Legislature has not, by enactment of W.Va.Code *689 § 29-12-5, sought to waive the State's constitutional immunity from suit. Rather, we read the statute as the Legislature's recognition of the fact that where recovery is sought against the State's liability insurance coverage, the doctrine of constitutional immunity, designed to protect the public purse, is simply inapplicable. As this Court recently stated in Gooden v. County Comm'n of Webster County, W.Va., 298 S.E.2d 103 , 105 (1982): "Where liability insurance is present, the reasons for immunity completely disappear." In the usual policy for liability insurance, the insurer retains the right of exclusive control over litigation against the insured based on claims covered by the policy. See 44 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance, § 1393 (1982) and cases cited therein. Concomitant with this right is the requirement that the insurer defend the insured against all actions in which the complaint alleges facts which come within the coverage of the liability policy. Id. at §§ 1405, 1409. Such a duty to defend on the part of the insurer is clearly contemplated by W.Va.Code § 29-12-5. Otherwise, the statutory prohibition which bars and estops the insurer from relying upon the State's constitutional immunity against claims or suits would be meaningless. Where a cause of action is, in essence, a suit against a state agency's insurance carrier, the justification for applying the exclusive venue provisions of W.Va. Code § 14-2-2 evaporates. In Davis v. West Virginia Bridge Commission, 113 W.Va. 110, 113, 166 S.E. 819, 821 (1932), the Court stated that the "manifest purpose" of exclusive venue statutes such as W.Va.Code § 14-2-2, "is to prevent the great inconvenience and possible public detriment that would attend if functionaries of the state government should be required to defend official conduct and [the] state's property interests in sections of the commonwealth [sic] remote from the capital." Thus, where the real party in interest is the insurance carrier which is obliged to defend the action brought against the Board of Regents, there is no rational justification for application of W.Va.Code § 14-2-2. Nevertheless, the appellee, relying upon Thomas v. Board of Education, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 816 (1981), argues that the exclusive venue provision of W.Va.Code § 14-2-2 is mandatory. In Thomas, non-teaching employees of the McDowell County school system brought an action in the Circuit Court of McDowell County against the county board of education for supplemental pay which had been collected pursuant to a special levy but which the board had not paid. The county board of education filed a third-party complaint naming the State Board of Education as a third-party defendant. On a certified question this Court held, inter alia, that the Circuit Court of McDowell County lacked jurisdiction over the third-party complaint against the State Board of Education because pursuant to W.Va.Code § 14-2-2, such complaint could only be brought in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.[14] However, Thomas did not involve an action wherein recovery was sought against a state agency's insurance carrier, nor did the decision address the underlying purpose of the exclusive venue provisions of W.Va.Code § 14-2-2. Thus, Thomas is of little use in resolving the issue raised in the case at bar. We therefore hold that the exclusive venue provision of W.Va.Code § 14-2-2 is not applicable to a cause of action wherein recovery is sought against the liability insurance coverage of a state agency. In such circumstances, the question of proper venue should be resolved without regard to W.Va. Code § 14-2-2. Generally, venue for a cause of action lies in the county wherein the cause of action arose or in the county where the defendant resides. See Hesse v. State Soil Conservation Committee, 153 W.Va. 111, 168 S.E.2d 293 (1969); W.Va. Code §§ 56-1-1, -2 (1966). Accordingly, in *690 the instant case, venue is proper in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County.[15] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County granting the appellee's motion to dismiss the appellant's complaint for improper venue, and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. NEELY, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Although I agree with the narrow result in this case, I must disassociate myself from an opinion that pretends to answer questions that this Court has not been asked. Ordinarily a dissent to dicta is like the sound of one hand clapping; however, when an opinion attempts to stretch dicta into a definitive statement of law, such a frolic and detour is dangerous and requires a response. The danger of undisciplined dicta is that lawyers and nisi prius judges may take it seriously. Improvident dicta may skew settlement negotiations for years before a party with sufficient assets begs this Court to "reconsider" a ruling which in reality it never rendered. Therefore, law must be written with care. It is meant to be an exercise of the mind, not a venting of the spleen. There is nothing "specious" about the "tenet of law that state agencies are immune to suit under W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 35." Majority opinion at p. 680. Although this Court has carved exceptions to art. VI, § 35, such as permitting mandamus to compel the State to condemn when property has been taken, these exceptions are within the original intent of the constitutional framers. The purpose of art. VI, § 35 is to protect the treasury of the State from a wholesale invasion that would divert money from legislatively appropriated purposes to the payment of court awards. In the case before us, the State has waived the immunity granted by art. VI, § 35 by purchasing an insurance policy under a statute, Code, 29-12-5 [1957] that explicitly forbids the insurance carrier from asserting the defense of sovereign immunity in suits within the coverage limits. The State, through her legislature, has chosen therefore to protect persons injured on State property through insurance. Court awards for this class of protected persons are the result of a conscious legislative decision to allocate a fixed amount of money for the protection of tort victims. That decision does not mean that the legislature could not have properly chosen to rely on sovereign immunity in such cases and to expend limited state funds for other purposes. The exclusive venue provision of W.Va. Code, 14-2-2 [1976] that requires actions against the State or her officials to be brought at the seat of government is designed to protect state officials from vexatious litigation in counties far distant from their daily duties. The suit under consideration here, however, is not against the State or its officers but rather against an insurance carrier. Protection of the carrier from jury prejudice determines that the carrier not be named as a party; nonetheless, the fiction of the caption does not change the underlying nature of the suit. Because the action is not against the State, it stands to reason that no policy goal of Code, 14-2-2 [1976] is served by limiting venue to Kanawha County. In fact, the exact opposite is the case; if the exclusive venue statute were applied in a circumstance such as this where it was not intended to apply, legislative policy would be confounded. By authorizing insurance for State agencies in Code, 29-12-5 [1952], and waiving art. VI § 35 immunity up to the coverage limits, the Legislature obviously intended to place victims of State torts on a par with victims of private torts. If we interpret Code, 14-2-2 [1976] to apply in cases like the one before us, we would create *691 a significant obstacle to the parity the legislature sought to create between tort victims. That is all there is to this case; but it is not all there is to the majority opinion. Apparently, the author of the majority opinion did not agree with the drafters of our State Constitution who believed sovereign immunity was necessary to protect the state coffers. Some reasonable men might even agree. Neither the existence of his opinion nor even its correctness, however, can erase the words from the page. That is the essence of constitutional government, government by law and not men. If judges are not mindful of that restraint, who will be? Like much of the law, today's case requires us to fit a square peg into a round hole. The fit is not perfect; but our solution appears rational, and given the overall legislative intent does no violence to any constitutional or legislative policy. I vigorously dissent, however, to any implication in the majority opinion that art. VI, § 35 does not protect the State from suit, and dissent even more vigorously to the further implication that this Court, sworn as we are to uphold the Constitution of the State of West Virginia, and bounded as we are by the limits of human rationality, would hold a State constitutional provision unconstitutional under the State Constitution. MILLER, Justice, concurring: I concur with the ultimate result in this case that W.Va.Code, 29-12-5, is not invalid as waiving the State's constitutional immunity.[1] However, I believe that the majority may have raised some false hopes in its lengthy discussion of "the specious tenet of law that state agencies are immune from suit under W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 35." (Majority Opinion, p. 680) I do not believe that we can nullify a constitutional command. I recognize that a number of state courts have abandoned their common law or court-created doctrine of sovereign immunity. This is understandable and part of the continual process of court development and modification of common law principles to meet the changing needs of society. See Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Company, W.Va., 253 S.E.2d 666 (1979).[2] I am aware, however, of no court which has judicially abolished sovereign immunity set by its constitution. Our constitutional immunity barring suits against the State is as firmly embedded in our law as its counterpart, the Eleventh Amendment, is in the federal law. This amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits brought by citizens against any state[3] and its principles were recently summarized in Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670 , 684, 689, 102 S. Ct. 3304, 3314, 3317, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1057, 1068, 1072 (1982): "A suit generally may not be maintained directly against the State itself, or against an agency or department of the State, unless the State has waived its sovereign immunity. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 , 57 L. Ed. 2d 1114, 98 S. Ct. 3057. If the State is named directly in the complaint and has not consented to the suit, it must be dismissed from the action. Id., at 782, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1114, 98 S. Ct. 3057.... "The Eleventh Amendment does not bar all claims against officers of the *692 State, even when directed to actions taken in their official capacity and defended by the most senior legal officers in the executive branch of the state government.... * * * * * * "These cases make clear that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar an action against a state official that is based on a theory that the officer acted beyond the scope of his statutory authority or, if within that authority, that such authority is unconstitutional. In such an action, however, the Amendment places a limit on the relief that may be obtained by the plaintiff. If the action is allowed to proceed against the officer only because he acted without proper authority, the judgment may not compel the State to use its funds to compensate the plaintiff for the injury." (Footnotes omitted)[4] Our treatment of state sovereign immunity is rather similar in that while we recognize that the State or its agencies are not subject to suit, Ohio Valley Contractors v. Board of Education of Wetzel County, W.Va., 293 S.E.2d 437 (1982), in certain instances state officials may be sued, Ables v. Mooney, W.Va., 264 S.E.2d 424 (1979).[5] We have also limited sovereign immunity to those agencies actually performing direct state functions utilizing state revenues. E.g., Woodford v. Glenville State College Housing Corp., W.Va., 225 S.E.2d 671 (1976). The majority quotes extensively from Tompkins v. Kanawha Board, 19 W.Va. 257 (1881), and suggests it will support the erosion of sovereign immunity. I do not agree. It must be remembered that the defendant in Tompkins involved a public corporation created by a legislative act charged with certain responsibilities over the navigability of the Kanawha River. It was not under the direct control of the State and apparently received its funds from tolls. This Court held it was not immune from suit. We adopted the same view in regard to the West Virginia Turnpike Commission in Hope Natural Gas Co. v. West Virginia *693 Turnpike Commission, 143 W.Va. 913, 105 S.E.2d 630 (1959). Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the majority's inference that the following provisions from Article III of the Constitution of West Virginia, viz., Section 1 (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness); Section 9 (eminent domain); Section 10 (the due process clause), or Section 17 (open courts), might be read individually or collectively to supersede the sovereign immunity section. This Court traced the history of the open courts provision of Section 17 of Article III in McHenry v. Humes, 112 W.Va. 432, 164 S.E. 501 (1932). See also State ex rel. Herald Mail Company v. Hamilton, W.Va., 267 S.E.2d 544 (1980). More recently, we discussed the genealogy of the due process clause in Markey v. Wachtel, W.Va., 264 S.E.2d 437 (1979). The majority's reference in the present case to our eminent domain and general life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness provisions of our Constitution are a bit mystifying to me. In any event, I find nothing in any of the historical antecedents of these provisions which would cause me to conclude that they warrant abolishing the concept of sovereign immunity which is embodied in Section 35 of Article VI of our Constitution. Finally, I should note a matter which is implicit in Syllabus Point 2 of the opinion.[6] There may be occasions when the amount sued for may be in excess of applicable policy limits, or there may be deductible clauses that in effect require the State to assume some portion of a final judgment. In these situations, I would have no doubt that the State's sovereign immunity would apply and to this extent the trial court would permit utilization of the immunity.

37b03c4ee305df87655d20d6bea448594ce778c82345ae037180dee244995013

1983-06-30 00:00:00

2e52fe97-1200-4743-a376-3f6f93adb58b

State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Bd. of Ed. of Mingo Cty.

233 S.E.2d 703

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Bd. of Ed. of Mingo Cty. Annotate this Case 233 S.E.2d 703 (1977) STATE ex rel. John D. ANDERSON v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MINGO COUNTY, West Virginia. No. 13736. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. March 22, 1977. *704 William L. Jacobs, Parkersburg, for relator. *705 Preiser & Wilson, Stanley E. Preiser, Franklin S. Fragale, Jr., Charleston, for respondent. McGRAW, Justice: Relator, John D. Anderson, invokes the original mandamus jurisdiction of this Court, praying for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding and compelling the defendant, The Board of Education of Mingo County, West Virginia, "to rescind, revoke and annul their unlawful action in attempting to elect a second person to the office to which the relator is entitled by law and commanding and compelling the Board of Education of Mingo County, West Virginia, to permit and allow the relator to do and perform the duties of his said office (the office of county superintendent of schools of Mingo County) pursuant to law and to receive the emoluments for said service and to compel the said Board to proceed and act in accordance with and in compliance with the laws of the State of West Virginia." Relator avers in his petition circumstances which, in his opinion, warrant by-passing the Circuit Court of Mingo County and presenting his original application for mandamus relief in this Court, and further avers that the taking of evidence will not be necessary for proper disposition of the application. Defendant has filed an answer and an amended answer to relator's petition, denying that relator was lawfully elected to the office of county superintendent of schools of Mingo County, and denying that relator "has a plain, clear or legal right to the position." His Joinder and Response to Demurrer of Relator to Answer of Respondent and his Rejoinder to the Reply of Relator to Answer of Respondent have been filed. Defendant has also moved to dismiss and discharge the rule as being improvidently awarded by this Court. Relator has demurred and replied to the answer and to the amended answer. Depositions of four members of the board of education, of the superintendent of schools and the assistant superintendent of schools of Mingo County, and of relator, John D. Anderson, have been filed herein. Briefs and reply briefs have been filed by the parties. Relator, in his deposition, states his age as 59 years, that he is a resident of Mingo County, and that he has taught school for some 38 years. He has the education, experience and professional qualifications to be a county superintendent of schools. He attests he has a health certificate from a reputable physician which he has ready and will file with the president of the board of education when his right to take the oath of office and assume his official duties of superintendent of schools is judicially determined. W.Va.Code, 18-4-2. His position is that he was elected at the regular meeting of the board of education on March 10, 1976, to serve as county superintendent of schools of Mingo County for a term of four years commencing on July 1, 1976. By letters of March 31 and April 6, 1976, the president of the board of education notified the State Superintendent of Schools of relator's election as county superintendent of schools. W.Va.Code, 18-4-1. At a later meeting of the board of education, relator's salary as superintendent of schools was considered and fixed. Although reemployed in a county school system in the State of Kentucky for the school year 1976-77, he declined acceptance of the employment because of his election as superintendent of schools of Mingo County. At the primary election on May 11, 1976, Larry Hamrick was elected as a member of the board of education replacing J. Hershel Morgan, who had been appointed to fill a board vacancy until a board member was elected. At the meeting of the board on June 9, 1976, upon receipt of an opinion from the prosecuting attorney of Mingo County, dated June 8, 1976, that relator's employment as superintendent of schools was illegal and void ab initio, the board, upon the recommendation of J. Paul Turner, then county superintendent of schools and secretary to the board of education, and on motion of the newly elected board member, Larry Hamrick, declared the office of county superintendent of schools vacant. The prosecuting attorney's opinion was based primarily on provisions of W.Va.Code, 61-10-15, prohibiting a *706 member of a school board from having any interest, directly or indirectly, in a contract with or services for the board. The basis for the ruling was that board member, J. Hershel Morgan, was a brother-in-law of relator, John D. Anderson. The wives of the two men were sisters. Relator reported daily to the board of education offices, commencing July 1, 1976, for assumption of his duties but was precluded from assuming the duties by another occupant of the office of county superintendent of schools. He was not required to take the oath of office as superintendent until assuming the duties of his office. W.Va.Code, 18-5-25. The county superintendent is an officer, not an employee of the school board. W.Va.Constitution, Article XII, § 3. Among allegations in defendant's answer and amended answer, both verified by Larry Hamrick, the elected member of the board of education replacing J. Hershel Morgan, defendant: (1) asserts relator's failure to comply with requirements of Rule XVIII, ¶ 3, Rules of Practice of this Court; (2) asserts relator's failure to allege "he had in fact entered into a contract of employment with the respondent"; (3) denies relator's submission of an application to the board of education for the position as superintendent of schools; (4) denies validity of relator's election by the board of education at its March 10, 1976 meeting; (5) affirms that Paul Turner was employed as county superintendent of schools at the board meeting on June 19, 1976; (6) asserts that relator was never legally elected to be county superintendent of schools by the board of educationthat the attempt to so elect him was null and void in violation of W.Va.Code, 61-10-15, prohibiting a board member from having any interest in a contract or service with the board; (7) asserts that J. Hershel Morgan was ineligible to be a member of the board of education of Mingo County since he was employed in the Pike County schools in the State of Kentucky; (8) asserts that relator was not elected legally because his salary was not set at a valid board meeting; (9) denies "election" of relator as county superintendent of schools; (10) asserts no contract was entered into between relator and the board of education relating to the county superintendent position; (11) denies relator has "plain, clear or legal right" to the position as county superintendent of schools; and (12) admits no claim is made that relator "was guilty of immorality, incompetence, insubordination, intemperance or wilful neglect of duty" and that no charges were filed against relator for his removal from office since he had not been elected to the office of county superintendent of schools. The primary issue is whether, upon the record before the Court, relator, John D. Anderson, is entitled to the office of county superintendent of schools of Mingo Countywhether he has a clear legal right to the officewhether the respondent, the Board of Education of Mingo County, has a corresponding duty to permit and allow relator to assume and perform the duties of the office as provided by law. The county superintendent of schools, under West Virginia law, is an officer elected by the county board of education. W.Va.Code, 18-4-1; W.Va.Constitution, Article XII, § 3; Rogers v. Board of Education, 125 W.Va. 579, 25 S.E.2d 537 (1943). Prior to establishment of the county unit system for school administration purposes in 1933, the county superintendent was elected in each county at the November general election for a term of four years. W.Va.Code, 18-4-1 (1931). Before performing any of the duties of his office, he is required to take the oath prescribed in the Constitution. W.Va.Code, 18-5-25. Health, education and school experience qualifications are prescribed in W.Va.Code, 18-4-2. His election by the board of education "shall be held on or before the first day *707 of May" prior to July 1 when he enters upon the duties of his office. Upon his election by the board, the president of the board shall certify his election to the state superintendent of schools. Since he is an officer, not an employee, no statute requires him to execute a contract relating to his official duties and services. The defendant, The Board of Education of Mingo County, is a public corporation. W.Va.Code, 18-5-5. The five members of the board must be citizens and residents of the county served by the board. They are elected for terms of six years and are required to take the oath prescribed by the Constitution for public officers. The board shall elect one member as president and the county superintendent of schools serves as secretary. Some fixed meeting dates are prescribed by law but meetings may be held for transaction of business "at such other times as the board may fix upon its records." W.Va.Code, 18-5-4. A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum for transaction of official business. Each county is a school district under the supervision and control of the county board of education. W.Va.Code, 18-5-1. The allegations and positions of relator and defendant are to be considered and examined in the light of the record presented and of the law applicable thereto. Several findings and conclusions will be warranted in defining the controlling principles and bases for determination of this action. In paragraph 6 of relator's petition, he alleges that "the taking of evidence will not be necessary for the proper disposition of this proceeding", in keeping with Rule XVIII of the Court's Rules of Practice, apparently an allegation overlooked in defendant's answers directing attention to relator's failure to comply with the Rule. Defendant's answer asserts relator failed to allege he had "entered into a contract of employment with respondent". The county superintendent of schools is an officer, not an employee, and developments disclosed in the record would have precluded entering into a contract even if a statute required contract negotiations and execution. Since the defendant board's actions and proceedings, subsequent to relator's election as county superintendent of schools, prevented him from assuming the duties of his office, the board cannot well sustain its present position in this Court that the relator did not sign a contract or take the oath of office. To so argue is to attempt to take advantage of its own wrongful acts. Exhibit 8A, among exhibits stipulated by attorneys for the parties and filed herein on September 1, 1976, is a copy of a letter from relator, dated June 16, 1976, addressed to the members of the Board of Education of Mingo County, affirming that relator expected to assume his duties as county superintendent of schools on July 1, 1976. Exhibit O, among joint exhibits stipulated into the record by attorneys for the parties, is a copy of relator's letter of application, dated March 3, 1975, to the defendant Mingo County Board of Education applying for the position of county superintendent of schools. Relator asserts he was elected to the office of county superintendent at a regular meeting of the board of education held on March 10, 1976. Defendant denies the election of a county superintendent of schools was then lawfully held. Defendant challenges the validity of the meeting and the lawful right of board member, J. Hershel Morgan, to be on the board and to participate in the election of relator as county superintendent of schools. His position is that Mr. Morgan was then employed as a school principal in the State of Kentucky and was ineligible to be a board member. He further asserts that, since Mr. Morgan and relator were married to sisters, they were brothers-in-law and Mr. Morgan's position on the board and his participation in relator's election as county superintendent of schools were unlawful in violation of W.Va.Code, 61-10-15, prohibiting a board member from becoming "pecuniarily interested, directly or indirectly, in the proceeds of any contract or service" in relation to the board of education. We find defendant's position untenable. The record establishes that board member Morgan was a *708 resident of Matewan, Mingo County, and had resided there for some 25 years. His employment in the Kentucky school system did not preclude him from holding office as a member of the board of education of Mingo County, the county of his residence. Whether Mr. Morgan and the relator, who were married to sisters, are or are not brothers-in-law need not be judicially determined.[*] The statute, W.Va.Code, 61-10-15, claimed by defendant's counsel to have been violated by board member Morgan's participation in the board's election of relator as county superintendent of schools, is a penal statute which requires strict construction and clearly does not reach or embrace the board of education election action as here involved. We hold that Mr. Morgan was a de jure member of the board of education, but, as one of our brethren on the Court points out, even if he were a de facto member and precluded from voting or from casting a valid vote, his vote was unnecessary to the board's valid election of the county superintendent of schools since a quorum of the board was present without his vote and a majority of the quorum voted for the election of relator as superintendent. State ex rel. Roush v. Board of Education of Mason County, 128 W.Va. 150, 35 S.E.2d 850 (1945). We further find that the meeting of the board of education, held on March 10, 1976, at which relator was elected county superintendent of schools, was a regular board meeting attended by all five members of the board, although one member had left the meeting when the 3-1 vote electing relator as county superintendent was taken and recorded. The meeting held prior to May 1 was in compliance with requirements of W.Va.Code, 18-4-1, relating to the election of the county superintendent. Minutes of the board meeting on January 2, 1973, disclose that regular meetings of the board were, on motion made and carried, set for the second Wednesday of each month, as shown by Exhibit 10 of the exhibits stipulated in the record by attorneys for the parties. The second Wednesday of each month was consistently maintained thereafter, with little deviation, as the regular meeting date of the board to the time of commencement of these proceedings. Wednesday, March 10, 1976, was the second Wednesday of the month when the board meeting was held, at which relator was elected county superintendent of schools. Exhibit 1 of exhibits stipulated by the attorneys for the parties is a copy of a letter dated March 5, 1976, from the secretary of the board announcing that the regular meeting of the Board of Education of Mingo County would be held on Wednesday, March 10, 1976, at 9:30 a. m. Exhibit 15, among the exhibits stipulated by the attorneys, is a record of the minutes of a special meeting of the board in which relator's salary as county superintendent of schools was fixed at $24,000 per year. *709 Exhibit 16, as stipulated by the attorneys, is a copy of the minutes of the board meeting on June 9, 1976, at which the newly elected board member, Larry Hamrick, was introduced and seated. At that meeting, the position of county superintendent of schools, to which relator had been elected, was declared vacant. An opinion, dated June 8, 1976, by the prosecuting attorney of Mingo County, advised the board that relator, John D. Anderson, was the brother-in-law of J. Hershel Morgan, former member of the board, and that Mr. Anderson was principal of Phelps High School in Kentucky when Mr. Morgan was assistant principal in the same school and subordinate to Mr. Anderson. The opinion was to the effect that the action of Mr. Morgan as a member of the board of education in electing Mr. Anderson, a relator herein, as superintendent of schools was illegal and a criminal offense under W.Va.Code, 61-10-15. The opinion concluded with the advice that "the employment of John Anderson as County Superintendent of Schools is unlawful, and any contract executed in furtherance of said illegal employment is void ab initio." Exhibit 17, as stipulated by the attorneys, is a copy of the board's minutes of Wednesday, June 16, 1976, at which threats of a legal contest over who was the county superintendent of schools were discussed by board members. Later in the meeting, the board, by a 3-2 vote, reemployed J. Paul Turner as county superintendent of schools. Upon review and consideration of the record and the findings and conclusions above stated, we hold that relator, John D. Anderson, was lawfully elected to the office of county superintendent of schools of Mingo County on March 10, 1976, by a lawfully constituted board of education at a regular board meeting, that he has a clear legal right to the office, and that mandamus is a proper remedy to require performance of the nondiscretionary duty by the defendant, the Board of Education of Mingo County, to permit and allow relator to assume and perform the duties of the office to which he has been elected and as provided by law. In State ex rel. Porter v. Bivens and Dingess, 151 W.Va. 665, 155 S.E.2d 827 (1967), syllabus, point 1, the Court held: "Mandamus is the proper remedy to admit to office a person who shows a clear prima facie legal right to an office and who is wrongfully excluded from it." In syllabus, point 1, State ex rel. Allstate Insurance Company v. Union Public Service District, 151 W.Va. 207, 151 S.E.2d 102 (1966), is the Court's holding that: "Mandamus is a proper remedy to require the performance of a nondiscretionary duty by various governmental agencies or bodies." When a candidate for the office of county superintendent of schools, with requisite qualifications, is elected to the office by a lawfully composed county board of education at a regular meeting thereof prior to May 1, consistent with the provisions of W.Va.Code, 18-4-1, and the candidate so elected relinquishes other school employment assignments and holds himself in readiness to assume, on July 1 next thereafter, the duties of the office to which he has been elected, he is entitled to the office and the board of education is legally obligated to permit and allow him to assume the duties of the office, in the absence of intervening impediments disqualifying the person so elected from lawfully holding such office. The facts that the elected county superintendent of schools and a member of the county board of education are friends, that they, at the time, hold related administrative positions in a high school in a neighboring state, and that they are married to sisters are not disqualifying impediments under the laws of the State of West Virginia. In this case the relator, John D. Anderson, the elected county superintendent of schools, has a clear legal right to the writ of mandamus as prayed for and the defendant, The Board of Education of Mingo County, West Virginia, has a corresponding duty to perform the acts demanded. In point 1 of the syllabus in State ex rel. Board of Education of the County of Kanawha v. Johnson, W.Va., 190 S.E.2d 483 (1972), the Court held: *710 "To entitle one to a writ of mandamus, the party seeking the writ must show a clear legal right thereto and a corresponding duty on the respondent to perform the act demanded." Accordingly, the writ of mandamus requiring defendant to perform its nondiscretionary duty as prayed for is awarded. Writ awarded.

b56a37f584443868c5d9df06a0d32d1b5b6dd138297393120be2b92c88bba06a

1977-03-22 00:00:00

68878bbc-f9c3-4777-b3f8-533129c9a9eb

State v. Zaccagnini

308 S.E.2d 131

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

State v. Zaccagnini Annotate this Case 308 S.E.2d 131 (1983) STATE of West Virginia v. Rudy ZACCAGNINI, Jr. No. 15726. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. September 29, 1983. *133 Franklin D. Cleckley, Morgantown, Frank C. Mascara, Fairmont, for appellant. Charles E. Anderson, Pros. Atty., and Jay Montgomery Brown, Asst. Pros. Atty., Fairmont, for appellee. *132 MILLER, Justice: This is an appeal by Rudy Zaccagnini, Jr., from an order of the Circuit Court of Marion County sentencing him to three consecutive terms in the state penitentiary for delivery of LSD, possession of LSD with intent to deliver, and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. The defendant claims that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for change of venue, and in refusing to grant a continuance when it became apparent that the prosecution intended to call a previously unidentified informant as a witness. The defendant also contends that the court erred in making certain evidentiary rulings and in sentencing him to multiple terms for crimes growing out of the same transaction. After a careful examination of the record and the law, we find that no reversible error was committed. On September 9, 1981, Ronald "Frog" Burroughs, who was acquainted with the defendant, entered the People's General Store in Fairmont which was operated by the defendant and purchased three sheets *134 of LSD stamps from the defendant. Burroughs, at the time, was working in concert with police officers as an undercover agent. The police who were standing outside the store were able to observe much of the transaction. After Burroughs emerged from the store, the officers obtained a warrant to search the premises. They also obtained warrants for the arrest of the defendant and two other people who, they believed, aided and abetted him. When they arrested the defendant they found a small amount of cocaine on his person. They also found marked money which they had previously provided Burroughs for the purchase of the drugs. Additionally, inside the People's General Store, they seized a case containing 2100 LSD stamps and a quantity of cocaine. Subsequently, at the November Term of the Circuit Court of Marion County, the defendant was indicted for: (1) delivery of LSD; (2) possession of LSD with intent to deliver; and, (3) possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. I. The defendant's first assertion is that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a change of venue. In State v. Sette, W.Va., 242 S.E.2d 464 (1978), we discussed the circumstances under which a change of venue should be granted and stated in Syllabus Points 1 and 2: "1. `To warrant a change of venue in a criminal case, there must be a showing of good cause therefor, the burden of which rests on the defendant, the only person who, in any such case, is entitled to a change of venue. The good cause aforesaid must exist at the time application for a change of venue is made. Whether, on the showing made, a change of venue will be ordered, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed, unless it clearly appears that the discretion aforesaid has been abused.' Point 2, syllabus, State v. Wooldridge, 129 W.Va. 448, 40 S.E.2d 899 (1946). "2. `A present hostile sentiment against an accused, extending throughout the entire county in which he is brought to trial, is good cause for removing the case to another county.' Point 2, syllabus, State v. Dandy, 151 W.Va. 547, 153 S.E.2d 507 (1967), quoting point 1, syllabus, State v. Siers, 103 W.Va. 30, 136 S.E. 503 (1927)." See State v. Gangwer, W.Va., 286 S.E.2d 389 (1982); State v. Peacher, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 559 (1981). Additionally, we have rather consistently recognized that widespread publicity alone does not require a change of venue, nor does proof that prejudice exists against the accused. The critical question is whether the prejudice against the accused is so great that he cannot get a fair trial. State v. Gangwer, supra; State v. Boyd, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 669 (1981); State v. Peacher, supra; State v. Pratt, W.Va., 244 S.E.2d 227 (1978). The defense counsel attempted to demonstrate that the defendant could not receive a fair trial by introducing affidavits and newspaper articles and by voir dire examination of the veniremen. The bulk of the affidavits were forms containing the same general language which was conclusionary in nature. The substance of the affidavits was that because of the publicity about the defendant, in the affiant's view, the defendant could not obtain a fair trial.[1]*135 Such affidavits and copies of published articles often are relevant evidence on a change of venue issue. However, we have generally held that affidavits which only state the opinion of the affiant that local prejudice exists will not alone support the granting of a change of venue. State v. Riley, 151 W.Va. 364, 151 S.E.2d 308 (1966); State v. Douglass, 41 W.Va. 537, 23 S.E. 724 (1895). Most of the newspaper articles gave factual accounts of the events surrounding the defendant's arrest.[2] One indicated that officers had obtained warrants to examine the defendant's business records and income tax returns. Others reported that chemical analysis indicated that items seized at the People's General Store contained LSD, that the defendant was indicted, and that his motion for a continuance was denied. Photographs were printed showing the People's General Store after the police search and also showing items confiscated. The principal statement of opinion was contained on the editorial page of the September 13, 1981, issue of the The Fairmont Times-West Virginian. That article referred to a drug arrest but made no mention of the defendant by name and concluded: "We are also encouraged that the public will view the arrests as an indication that the drug problem is solvable. That in itself would be a giant step forward." Significantly, the majority of the articles appeared within a month of the defendant's arrest. Less than one column inch of newspaper coverage was given to him after the month of his arrest. It does not appear from the exhibits filed that his name was mentioned by the newspaper in the month before his trial. At the commencement of the trial on February 9, 1982, some five months after his arrest, the court permitted defense counsel to question the panel. In response to the voir dire, ten jurors of twenty-three who were initially called were excused for cause. Those jurors either expressed some knowledge of the case or were otherwise equivocal about their ability to render an impartial verdict based on the evidence.[3] We do not believe from the entire record surrounding the motion for a change of venue that the court abused its discretion in refusing the defendant's motion for a change of venue. II. The defendant's second claim is that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a continuance, on the afternoon before the trial, when the prosecution first disclosed the name and its intention to use informant Burroughs as a witness for the State. We have dealt with the State's obligation to disclose the name of an undercover informant in State v. Haverty, W.Va., 267 S.E.2d 727 (1980), where we stated in Syllabus Point 1: "A common law privilege is accorded the government against the disclosure of the identity of an informant who has furnished information concerning violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of the law. However, disclosure may be required where the defendant's case could be jeopardized by nondisclosure." In State v. Walls, W.Va., 294 S.E.2d 272 , 278 (1982), we made this further elaboration: *136 "The general rule is that where the informant has only peripheral knowledge of the crime, his identity need not be disclosed. E.g., United States v. Halbert, 668 F.2d 489 (10th Cir.1982); State v. Conger, [183 Conn. 386] 439 A.2d 381 (1981); Dorton v. State, 419 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind.1981). Where the informant directly participates in the crime, or is a material witness to it, disclosure may be required, particularly where, in a drug related crime, he is the only witness to the transaction other than the defendant and the buyer. Coby v. State, 397 So. 2d 974 (Fla.App.1981); State v. Diliberto, 362 So. 2d 566 (La.1978); Commonwealth v. Taliceo, 13 Mass.App. 925, 430 N.E.2d 1220 (1982)." After citing a number of cases, we also said in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Haverty, supra: "Where the government has an obligation to identify its undercover informant or agent, its failure to do so will not ordinarily be error if the defense was already aware of the informant's identity." Several facts are apparent from the record. First, the defendant admitted on cross-examination that he had known Burroughs for a period of approximately two years prior to the date of his arrest on September 9, 1981. He did not deny that Burroughs had been in the store on the day of his arrest. Second, the actual transaction which Burroughs participated in was witnessed by the police who were outside the store watching Burroughs make the drug buy from the defendant. Consequently, Burroughs' testimony was not absolutely critical to the State's case. For these reasons, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance when the State disclosed the name of the undercover informant the day before the trial. III. The defendant makes four assignments of error which relate to the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters. Two of them involve the court's exclusion of evidence on the point that two other persons had been arrested for the same crime for which the defendant was being tried. We discussed the admissibility of evidence regarding the possibility that a person other than the accused committed the crime charged in State v. Harman, W.Va., 270 S.E.2d 146 (1980), and concluded in Syllabus Point 1: "In a criminal case, the admissibility of testimony implicating another person as having committed the crime hinges on a determination of whether the testimony tends to directly link such person to the crime, or whether it is instead purely speculative. Consequently, where the testimony is merely that another person had a motive or opportunity or prior record of criminal behavior, the inference is too slight to be probative, and the evidence is therefore inadmissible. Where, on the other hand, the testimony provides a direct link to someone other than the defendant, its exclusion constitutes reversible error." In our earlier case of State v. Frasher, W.Va., 265 S.E.2d 43 (1980), we stated in Syllabus Point 5: "For evidence of the guilt of someone other than the accused to be admissible, it must tend to demonstrate that the guilt of the other party is inconsistent with that of the defendant." In the course of the case before us the defense counsel called, as a witness, Muriel Twyman, a magistrate. He questioned her about warrants issued for Pamela Burner and Michelle Greaser. The prosecutor objected to this line of questioning. At the bench, the defense counsel indicated that arrest warrants had been issued for these two individuals for delivery of LSD on September 9, 1981. Out of the presence of the jury, the defense counsel explained: "[W]e're saying that on that date that the defendant in this case, Rudy Zaccagnini, was also charged with delivery of LSD; and I say that this would tend to show and put some doubt with this jury as to whether or not the defendant in this case *137 or Pam Burner or Michele Greaser are the ones who delivered LSD at this time, on that date." The State responded to the effect that the two individuals who were present in the store at the time that the undercover agent made the purchase from the defendant were separately charged not with the sale but with aiding and abetting.[4] We believe that the trial court was correct in refusing to allow the defense to adduce evidence regarding the warrants since it is clear that the charges for aiding and abetting were not inconsistent with the defendant's charge for delivery of the controlled substance. The defendant makes a further claim that his attorney was precluded from introducing evidence that another individual, Vincent Jones, who was present in the store, had in the past dealt in drugs. We find this assignment to be without merit as the defendant did testify to this fact on direct examination. The defendant also asserts that the court committed error when it refused to permit him to put on several witnesses who would testify as to his reputation for truth and veracity. During the trial, the defendant denied that he delivered LSD to the undercover agent. It is the defendant's position that the State's evidence contradicted this testimony. The contradiction, in effect, impeached his reputation for truth and veracity. It is generally held that although a witness' testimony has been contradicted by testimony from another witness, this does not mean that his reputation for truth and veracity has been impeached, such that there is an automatic right to put on character witnesses to testify on the issue of truth and veracity. United States v. Medical Therapy Sciences, Inc., 583 F.2d 36, 52 A.L.R.Fed. 431 (2nd Cir.1978); Kauz v. United States, 188 F.2d 9 (5th Cir.1951); Homan v. United States, 279 F.2d 767 (8th Cir.1960); George v. State, 27 Ala.App. 196, 169 So. 325 (1936); Whaley v. State, 157 Fla. 593, 26 So. 2d 656 (1946); Kirby v. State, 25 Okl.Cr. 330, 220 P. 74, 33 A.L.R. 1212 (1923); State v. Allen, 276 Or. 527, 555 P.2d 443 (1976); see also McCormick on Evidence 104-05 (2d ed. 1972); 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 643 (1957). Rule 608 of the Federal Rules of Evidence does not explicitly cover this point.[5] In Weinstein & Berger, Evidence ¶ 608[08] (1982), they note this point and utilize traditional evidentiary sources: "The same approach should be used in deciding whether to admit rehabilitating evidence after the witness has been contradicted *138 by the testimony of other witnesses. Wigmore points out that `the insinuation against Moral Character is here more remote' than in the case of prior inconsistent statements and McCormick states that most courts do not view contradiction as an attack on character. Nevertheless, the mandate in Rule 401 to admit all relevant evidence should be construed to authorizebut not to require the admission of supportive character evidence if the trial judge finds in the circumstances of the particular case that the contradiction amounted to an attack on veracity." (Footnotes omitted) We believe the issue, while committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, is to be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances of the given case. Obviously, there are frequent occasions during a trial when testimony of individual witnesses will be at variance. This should not automatically give rise to a right to introduce character evidence as to truth and veracity. The fact that the defendant denies committing the crime does not alone bring on a right to have character witnesses to testify as to his truth and veracity. A different result may be warranted where the State on cross-examination relentlessly pursues the defendant with questions designed to force him to continually acknowledge that his testimony was in conflict with that of the State's witnesses.[6] In the context of the present case, we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion. On direct examination, the defendant was asked whether he had sold LSD to the undercover informant. The defendant's answer was not a direct denial but a statement to the effect that he had never seen LSD until after he was arrested. On cross-examination, he was asked if the undercover informant had lied when he had testified that he had bought the LSD from the defendant. The defendant responded that the informant had lied. The matter was not pursued further by the prosecuting attorney. The final evidentiary claim is that the trial court admitted inadmissible hearsay evidence. The assignment arises out of the State's examination of Patrolman Theodore A. Offutt. Patrolman Offutt testified about the events leading up to the defendant's arrest. He stated that he and the undercover informant were planning the transaction that was to take place between the informant and the defendant. In the officer's presence, the informant telephoned the defendant to arrange for the meeting. The exact testimony was as follows: "Q Now, Mr. Offutt, following the taking down of the serial numbers of the money, what did you next do? "A There was a phone call made by Mr. Burroughs [the informant] to Mr. Zaccagnini at the office. I ...." Defense counsel then objected; the objection was overruled; and the examination proceeded to an entirely different matter. In Syllabus Point 9 of State v. Richey, W.Va., 298 S.E.2d 879 (1982), we stated: "We have generally defined hearsay as where a witness testifies in court with regard to out-of-court statements of another for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted." *139 Patrolman Offutt did not testify about the statements of the informant or the defendant. He merely indicated that the informant had called the defendant. We do not believe that this constituted hearsay. IV. The jury convicted the defendant on all three counts in the indictment, and he was sentenced to three consecutive terms in the state penitentiary for these three crimes: (1) delivery of LSD; (2) possession of LSD with intent to deliver; and (3) possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. On appeal, he claims that the two counts relating to possession with intent to deliver were one transaction under Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Barnett, W.Va., 284 S.E.2d 622 (1982): "Delivery of two controlled substances at the same time and place to the same person is one offense under our double jeopardy clause. W.Va. Const., art. III, § 5." Consequently, the defendant maintains that there were only two offenses and not three. Barnett is factually distinguishable from the present case. In Barnett, the defendant was convicted of delivery of phencyclidine and secobarbital. Neither of these substances was a narcotic, and the penalty for the delivery of each was the same under W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a)(ii), which is imprisonment of not less than one nor more than five years or a fine of not more than $15,000, or both. Thus, in Barnett, we were dealing with the simultaneous delivery of two controlled substances that violated the same statutory provision and carried the same penalty. When the entire framework of our Uniform Controlled Substances Act is reviewed, several things are apparent. First, it is modeled after the Uniform Controlled Substances Act promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and is similar to portions of the Federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. Our statute, the Uniform Act, and the Federal Act all contain five schedules which list various controlled substances. Each schedule starting with Schedule I and ending with Schedule V lists drugs in a descending order of dangerousness. This is demonstrated by the initial criteria for a drug's placement on a given schedule as shown by W.Va.Code, 60A-2-203 (Schedule I), 205 (Schedule II), 207 (Schedule III), 209 (Schedule IV), and 211 (Schedule V).[7] Not *140 only does our Act rate the various drugs by their dangerousness but it provides for different levels of punishments depending on the seriousness of the drug under W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a).[8] Furthermore, because of the definition of "narcotics" under W.Va.Code, 60A-1-101(p),[9] this type of drug dealing receives the highest penalty under W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a)(i). A similar pattern can be found in the Federal Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq., and the Uniform Act. It is clear from our Act that the legislature did not intend that all drug transactions should be treated alike. In the present case, the defendant's cocaine conviction involved a "narcotic drug" since cocaine is a derivative of coca leaves, W.Va.Code, 60A-2-206(b)(4), and by virtue of W.Va.Code, 60A-1-101(p), it is included within the definition of "narcotic drug." This offense carries the maximum penalty under W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a)(i), which is one to fifteen years or a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars, or both. The defendant's conviction of possession with intent to deliver LSD involves a Schedule I drug. W.Va.Code, 60A-2-204(d)(12). Since LSD is not within the definition of a "narcotic drug," the punishment is prescribed by W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a)(ii), which is imprisonment for one to five years or a fine of fifteen thousand dollars, or both. Thus, we are confronted with two convictions for possession with intent to deliver involving two separate drugs whose punishments carry two separate penalties. It must be kept in mind that possession with intent to deliver is largely a factual question and conviction may be sustained under a variety of different facts. State v. Drake, W.Va., 291 S.E.2d 484 (1982). Furthermore, possession with intent to deliver because of its graduated penalties differs *141 from simple possession, which under W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(c), is a misdemeanor regardless of the type of drug possessed. We acknowledge that it is difficult to produce any harmony from the cases that have dealt with the question of whether the possession of different drugs constitutes one or several offenses. As a general proposition, those jurisdictions that find separate offenses for multiple possessions of drugs do so based on some analysis of their Uniform Controlled Substances Act, particularly analysis of the fact that different punishments are imposed for different categories of drugs. E.g., United States v. Pope, 561 F.2d 663 (6th Cir.1977); People v. Schroeder, 264 Cal. App. 2d 217 , 70 Cal. Rptr. 491 (1968); State v. Adams, 364 A.2d 1237 (Del.Super.1976); Parker v. State, 237 So. 2d 253 (Fla.App.1970); State v. Williams, 542 S.W.2d 3 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Meadors, 177 Mont. 100, 580 P.2d 903 (1978); White v. State, 568 P.2d 329 (Okl.Cr.1977); State v. Collier, 567 S.W.2d 165 (Tenn.1978); Ellis v. State, 544 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Melby v. State, 70 Wis.2d 368, 234 N.W.2d 634 (1975). Those jurisdictions that find only one offense usually do not focus on the statutory punishment scheme but adopt a rule of lenity. E.g., Braden v. United States, 270 F. 441 (8th Cir.1920); United States v. Martin, 302 F. Supp. 498 (W.D.Pa. 1969), aff'd, 428 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 960, 91 S. Ct. 361, 27 L. Ed. 2d 269; Pitts v. State, 256 Ark. 693, 509 S.W.2d 809 (1974); People v. Manning, 71 Ill. 2d 132 , 15 Ill.Dec. 765, 374 N.E.2d 200 (1978); State v. Butler, 112 N.J.Super. 305, 271 A.2d 17 (1970). Certainly, we do not quarrel with cases like United States v. Williams, 480 F.2d 1204 (6th Cir.1973), where the court held that four packets of heroin found on the defendant's premises would not support four separate charges for possession of heroin. We, however, do not find persuasive, as have some courts, Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 , 75 S. Ct. 620, 99 L. Ed. 905 (1955), where the United States Supreme Court found that the transportation of two women in interstate commerce in the same car for purposes of prostitution was one offense pursuant to the statutory construction rule of lenity. In the present case, our statute does provide different penalties for different categories of drugs. Both Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932), and Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386 , 78 S. Ct. 1280, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1405 (1958), dealt with double jeopardy aspects of federal drug violations. In each case, the question was whether a single sale of a narcotic which was punishable under several different statutes violated jeopardy principles. The Supreme Court held it did not. Blockburger's statement is commonly used for determining what is the same offense: "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S. Ct. at 182, 76 L. Ed. at 309.[10] Of more applicability is Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 , 101 S. Ct. 1137, 67 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1981), where the defendant claimed that his single act of conspiring to import marijuana into this country for purposes of distribution should not result in two separate convictionsone for conspiring to import under 21 U.S.C. § 963, and the other for conspiring to distribute under § 846. The United States Supreme Court, after analyzing the two sections, stated: "Here, we confront separate offenses with separate penalty provisions that are contained in distinct Subchapters of the Act. The provisions are unambiguous on their face and each authorizes punishment for a violation of its terms." 450 U.S. at 336, 101 S. Ct. at 1141, 67 L. Ed. 2d at 280. The Court *142 then proceeded to apply the Blockburger test and stated: "Sections 846 and 963 specify different ends as the proscribed object of the conspiracydistribution as opposed to importationand it is beyond peradventure that `each provision requires proof of a fact [that] the other does not.' Thus, application of the Blockburger rule to determine whether Congress has provided that these two statutory offenses be punished cumulatively results in the unequivocal determination that §§ 846 and 963... proscribe separate statutory offenses the violations of which can result in the imposition of consecutive sentences." 450 U.S. at 339, 101 S. Ct. at 1142, 67 L. Ed. at 281-82. It does appear from Albernaz v. United States, supra, that the United States Supreme Court in viewing penal statutes to determine if they impose multiple punishments for the same offense utilizes the Blockburger test as a rule of statutory construction: "The Blockburger test is a `rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent." 450 U.S. at 340, 101 S. Ct. at 1143, 67 L. Ed. 2d at 282. See also Missouri v. Hunter, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S. Ct. 673, 74 L. Ed. 2d 535 (1983). Once the determination is made that statutory offenses are separate under the Blockburger test by virtue of the fact that each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, then multiple punishments are appropriate. We utilized much this same approach in State v. Pancake, W.Va., 296 S.E.2d 37 , 42 (1982), to determine whether the defendant could be punished separately for first degree sexual assault and burglary: "Using Blockburger's same evidence test to see if we have a greater and lesser offense, we find that proving each crime committed by Pancake requires proof of facts that the other does not, e.g., breaking and entering a dwelling is an element to be proved for a burglary conviction; and forcible sexual violation of a person must be proved for rape. Rape is not a lesser-included offense of burglary; nor vice versa." (Footnote omitted) Confining ourselves to the facts of this case and utilizing the Blockburger same offense test, we conclude that possession with intent to deliver a narcotic drug is a separate and distinct offense from that of possession with intent to deliver another prohibited controlled substance. This is because there is embodied within the penalty provision, W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a)(i), a separate definitional provision: "a controlled substance ... which is a narcotic drug." This is a different and distinct element of proof and, as previously noted, this offense carries a different penalty than the other controlled substance penalties. Clearly, in order to convict for this crime as distinguished from other controlled substance violations, it is necessary to prove that it is a narcotic substance under W.Va. Code, 60A-1-101(p). We therefore conclude that double jeopardy principles are not violated. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County. Affirmed.

89dec492a38b73fd877381d22030bbe2f4bc9e74dfc3f94d34574ea3c57b824d

1983-09-29 00:00:00

bf263671-dbe0-4778-a6ae-6898b1f82c8b

Gentry v. Mangum

N/A

west-virginia

west-virginia Supreme Court

Gentry v. Mangum Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1995 Term _________ No. 22845 _________ DAVID D. GENTRY AND NANCY GENTRY, Petitioners Below, Appellants V. R. MICHAEL MANGUM, SHERIFF OF RALEIGH COUNTY; AND PAUL H. FLANAGAN, VERNON P. BARLEY AND JACK P. MACDONALD, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF RALEIGH COUNTY, Defendants Below, Appellees ____________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RALEIGH COUNTY HONORABLE JOHN ASHWORTH, JUDGE CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-C-955-A REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS ____________________________________________________________ Submitted: September 19, 1995 Filed: December 8, 1995 Scott S. Segal David P. Cleek Mark R. Staun Cleek, Pullin, Knopf & Fowler Andrew J. Katz Charleston, West Virginia Segal & Davis Attorney for Appellees Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellants JUSTICE CLECKLEY delivered the Opinion of the Court. RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER sitting by temporary assignment. JUSTICE ALBRIGHT did not participate. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1.An interpretation of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence presents a question of law subject to de novo review. 2.Summary judgment is proper only if, in the context of the motion and any opposition to it, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant demonstrates entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A party seeking summary judgment must make a preliminary showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Once the movant makes this showing, the nonmovant must contradict the showing by pointing to specific facts demonstrating that there is, indeed, a trialworthy issue. An expert's deposition or affidavit that is conclusory only is not sufficient to meet the burden on the party opposing the motion, although an affidavit or deposition containing an adequately supported opinion may suffice to raise a genuine issue of fact. An issue is "genuine" when the evidence relevant to it, viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, is sufficiently open ended to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the issue in favor of either side. 3.The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both "reliable" and "relevant." Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2137, 128 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed "scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge." The trial court's determination regarding whether the scientific evidence is properly the subject of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge is a question of law that we review de novo. On the other hand, the relevancy requirement compels the trial judge to determine, under Rule 104(a), that the scientific evidence "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." W.Va.R.Evid. 702. Appellate review of the trial court's rulings under the relevancy requirement are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Beard, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 461 S.E.2d 486, 492 (1995). 4.When scientific evidence is proffered, a circuit court in its "gatekeeper" role under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2137, 128 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1994), must engage in a two-part analysis in regard to the expert testimony. First, the circuit court must determine whether the expert testimony reflects scientific knowledge, whether the findings are derived by scientific method, and whether the work product amounts to good science. Second, the circuit court must ensure that the scientific testimony is relevant to the task at hand. 5.In determining who is an expert, a circuit court should conduct a two- step inquiry. First, a circuit court must determine whether the proposed expert (a) meets the minimal educational or experiential qualifications (b) in a field that is relevant to the subject under investigation (c) which will assist the trier of fact. Second, a circuit court must determine that the expert's area of expertise covers the particular opinion as to which the expert seeks to testify. 6.The question of admissibility under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2137, 128 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1994) only arises if it is first established that the testimony deals with "scientific knowledge." "Scientific" implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science while "knowledge" connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation. In order to qualify as 'scientific knowledge,' an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. It is the circuit court's responsibility initially to determine whether the expert's proposed testimony amounts to "scientific knowledge" and, in doing so, to analyze not what the experts say, but what basis they have for saying it. Cleckley, Justice: The plaintiffs below and appellants herein, David D. Gentry and Nancy Gentry, his wife, appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County granting the defendants below and appellees herein, the Sheriff and County Commissioners of Raleigh County, summary judgment in an action brought by the Gentrys to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when David Gentry, who was a deputy sheriff, was shot in the line of duty. The Gentrys argue the defendants "deliberately intended" to injure David Gentry when they issued a policy requiring the deputy sheriffs of Raleigh County to change the location of the shotgun carried in police cruisers from the cabins of the vehicles to the trunks without providing training on the use and retrieval of the shotgun. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment. They also claim the circuit court erred in refusing to allow a police officer whom they called as an expert witness to give opinion testimony in an area in which he had specialized knowledge by virtue of his experience, training, and education. For the reasons discussed below, we find the circuit court erred in refusing to permit the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 1, 1991, Officer Gentry responded to a call about someone roaming around the Crab Orchard area of Raleigh County carrying numerous guns on his person and generally causing problems. Finding no one meeting that description, Officer Gentry prepared to leave the area when he spotted an old van with an expired inspection sticker. Officer Gentry then attempted to pull the van over because of the driving violation; however, the van sped away. After driving some distance, the driver of the van failed to make a turn and drove over an embankment. Deputy Gentry stopped his cruiser to investigate. Immediately after exiting the vehicle, he was shot once in his left hand and arm. Pursuant to a regulation which was issued by the Raleigh County Sheriff's Department, Deputy Gentry had a shotgun locked in the trunk of his police cruiser. After being shot, he began to move in an effort to reach the shotgun in the trunk. He also fired his .357 revolver at the assailant. The assailant then shot Deputy Gentry in the left leg. Following this incident, the plaintiffs brought this action to recover for the injuries resulting from the June 1, 1991, shooting. In bringing the action, they charged the defendants knowingly promulgated and enforced a regulation that required the shotgun issued to Deputy Gentry be stored in the locked trunk of his police cruiser. The plaintiffs also claimed the defendants implemented this regulation without conducting an adequate investigation into the hazards associated with the decision or without providing Raleigh County deputies, including Deputy Gentry, with adequate training in utilization and retrieval of shotguns locked in the trunks of police cruisers. Lastly, the plaintiffs asserted the actions of the defendants satisfies the definition of "deliberate intent" found in the West Virginia Workers Compensation Act, W. Va. Code, 23-4-2 (1991),See footnote 1 and entitles them to bring a so- called "Mandolidis" action.See footnote 2 Extensive discovery was conducted as the case progressed. In the course of the discovery, facts were developed which showed that Deputy Gentry, who had acted as a part-time administrative aide to the defendant, Sheriff R. Michael Mangum, had discussed with the Sheriff widespread dissatisfaction among the deputies with the policy requiring the locking of shotguns in the trunks of police cruisers. There was also evidence that Sheriff Mangum had had verbal disputes over the policy with three deputies who kept their shotguns in the cabs of their vehicles. The facts showed that, in spite of the problems with the policy, Sheriff Mangum never provided training for the adequate retrieval and use of the shotguns when they were located in the trunks of the police cruisers. After considerable discovery was conducted, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The circuit court deferred ruling on the motion to afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to conduct additional discovery. The deposition of Officer Charles Mader was taken to elicit his opinion regarding the defendants' "deliberate intent" to injure Deputy Gentry. Officer Mader testified in the deposition that Sheriff Mangum's failure to train the deputies on the retrieval and use of the shotguns after changing the location of the shotguns from the cabins of police cruisers to the trunks, especially when the Sheriff knew the deputies were uncomfortable with the policy, created a specific unsafe working condition with a high probability of serious injury or death. He also testified that Sheriff Mangum had a subjective realization that the dangerous condition created by his decision would lead to serious injury or death, that the unsafe working condition was a violation of commonly accepted and well known safety standards within law enforcement agencies, and that Deputy Gentry's injury to his leg was a direct and proximate result of the specific unsafe working condition. After Officer Mader's deposition was taken, the circuit court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. In granting the motion, the circuit court specifically held that Officer Mader had no special expertise in the subject matter to which the plaintiffs wished him to testify and that the Sheriff and County Commissioners had not violated a well known and commonly accepted standard of law enforcement when Sheriff Mangum failed to train Deputy Gentry on how to retrieve and use his shotgun. The circuit court also ruled that any failure on the part of the Sheriff and County Commissioners to train Deputy Gentry was not a proximate cause of the injuries and that the County Commissioners had no connection or input into the policy changing the location of the shotguns. In the present proceeding, the plaintiffs claim the circuit court erred in holding that Officer Mader could not give expert opinion testimony. In arguing this claim, the plaintiffs take the position that there are in the law two types of expert opinion testimony. The first type involves evidence derived through application of a scientific method. According to the plaintiffs, the second type is not based on a scientific method, but on the expert's experience and training. The plaintiffs essentially argue the circuit court in the present case improperly used tests applicable to expert opinion testimony derived through application of a scientific method. They take the position that Officer Mader's testimony was not the type of expert opinion testimony derived through application of a scientific method, but was of the second type of expert testimony based on the expert's experience and training. They argue that in applying the scientific method test to Officer Mader's testimony, the circuit court erred. III. DISCUSSION The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. The recent cases of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2137, 128 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1994), provide the contour of analysis regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony under the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. These decisions and Rule 702 impose upon a circuit court the duty to screen scientific evidence for relevance and reliability.See footnote 3 Thus, the issue we must address is whether the circuit court properly performed its "gatekeeper" function under Daubert/Wilt. The parties disagree as to whether Officer Charles Mader was properly qualified to render expert testimony regarding the adequacy of training, instructions, and supervision by the Sheriff and the propriety of officers without such training keeping weapons in the trunks of police cruisers. The plaintiffs contend inter alia that the proposed testimony was not barred by Daubert/Wilt because the opinions of Officer Mader did not deal with opinions based on "scientific" knowledge. Rather, the plaintiffs suggest that the proposed testimony should be judged under the more lenient standard found in Rule 702: Whether the testimony was of assistance to the trier of fact. On the other hand, the defendants contend Officer Mader neither was qualified to testify as an expert witness nor was his testimony reliable regardless of whether it is considered "scientific" or otherwise. This case presents us with the opportunity to address some important issues surrounding the application of Daubert/Wilt in the context of a West Virginia trial. A. Standard of Review There are three basic sets of standards that apply to this case. First, an interpretation of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence presents a question of law subject to de novo review. Second, ordinarily a circuit court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. A party challenging a circuit court's evidentiary rulings has an onerous burden because a reviewing court gives special deference to the evidentiary rulings of a circuit court.See footnote 4 In the area of scientific evidence, however, we have adopted a specifically tailored standard of review. In note 5 of State v. Beard, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 461 S.E.2d 486, 492 (1995), a seminal opinion by Justice Workman, we stated: "The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both 'reliable' and 'relevant.' Under Daubert/Wilt, the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed 'scientific, technical, or ... specialized knowledge.' The trial court's determination regarding whether the scientific evidence is properly the subject of 'scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge' is a question of law that we review de novo. An example of that sort of legal determination by the trial court is detailed in Daubert, in which the Court explained that part of a trial court's 'gatekeeping' function under Rule 702 when, for example, scientific testimony is offered, is the determination whether 'the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid[.]' ___ U.S. at ___113 S. Ct. at 2796[, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 482]. On the other hand, the relevancy requirement compels the trial judge to determine, under Rule 104(a), that the scientific evidence 'will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.' W.Va.R.Evid. 702. Appellate review of the trial court's rulings under the relevancy requirement are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." (Emphasis added). Third, since summary judgment was granted to the defendants, we must be satisfied that there exists no genuine issue as to material fact. W.Va.R.Civ.P.56. Even in the context of Daubert/Wilt, there is no doubt that summary judgment is sometimes appropriate. In Daubert, the Supreme Court stated: "Additionally, in the event the trial court concludes that the scintilla of evidence presented supporting a position is insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the position more likely than not is true, the court remains free to direct a judgment,... [W.Va.]Rule Civ.Proc. 50(a), and likewise to grant summary judgment,... [W.Va.]Rule Civ.Proc. 56." ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2798, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 484. (Emphasis added). On a motion for summary judgment, however, a circuit court cannot try issues of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried. Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995); Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). In general, summary judgment is proper only if, in the context of the motion and any opposition to it, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant demonstrates entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See W.Va.R.Civ.P. 56(c); National Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 735 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 2247, 132 L. Ed. 2d 255 (1995). Hence, a party seeking summary judgment must make a preliminary showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Once the movant makes this showing, the nonmovant must contradict the showing by pointing to specific facts demonstrating that there is, indeed, a trialworthy issue. An expert's deposition or affidavit that is conclusory only is not sufficient to meet the burden on the party opposing the motion, although an affidavit or deposition containing an adequately supported opinion may suffice to raise a genuine issue of fact. An issue is "genuine" when the evidence relevant to it, viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, is sufficiently open ended to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the issue in favor of either side. Because the summary judgment standard requires the circuit court to make a legal determination rather than to engage in differential factfinding, appellate review is plenary. More specifically, where the granting of summary judgment is dependent on the exclusion of expert testimony, as it is sub judice, our review must be more stringent. In In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 749 (3rd Cir. 1994), cert. denied sub nom., General Elec. Co. v. Ingram, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1253, 131 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1995), the court stated: "[E]valuating the reliability of scientific methodologies and data does not generally involve assessing the truthfulness of the expert witnesses and thus is often not significantly more difficult on a cold record." (Emphasis in original). The court concluded that "when the district court's exclusionary rulings with respect to scientific opinion testimony will result in a summary or directed judgment, we will give them a 'hard look' (more stringent review ...) to determine if a district court has abused its discretion in excluding evidence as unreliable." Paoli, 35 F.3d at 750. (Citation omitted). In applying the standard of review that we adopted in Beard and in cases other than those resulting in summary judgment, we have held a circuit court has broad discretion in determining the relevancy of scientific evidence and this Court will sustain the circuit court's ruling unless the ruling is a clear abuse of discretion. On the other hand, our review of the granting of summary judgment and of a circuit court's determination regarding whether the scientific evidence was properly the subject of "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" is de novo. It is necessary next to address what we, as an appellate court, should do if we find the disputed proffered testimony is not per se inadmissible. In Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., supra, we acknowledged that a grant of summary judgment may be sustained on any basis supported by the record. Thus, it is permissible for us to affirm the granting of summary judgment on bases different or grounds other than those relied upon by the circuit court.See footnote 5 In the peculiar circumstances of this case, however, we believe the interests of justice will best be served if we simply remand the case to the circuit court for its determination of any issues left remaining after our ruling on the admissibility of the expert testimony. Our review is, therefore, a narrow one: We will affirm the summary judgment only if, as a matter of law, the proffered evidence must be excluded at trial. On remand, however, the circuit court's power is broader; were we to conclude the expert testimony is not per se inadmissible, the circuit court would nevertheless have discretion to reject it under Rule 403 or Rule 703 of the Rules of Evidence. Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2797-98, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 483-84. Such a ruling would be reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.See footnote 6 See State v. Guthrie, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 461 S.E.2d 163, 187-88 (1995); State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 178, 451 S.E.2d 731, 744 (1994). B. General Principles Rule 702 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence permits opinion testimony by experts when the witness is "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education," and "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue[.]" Thorny problems of admissibility arise when an expert seeks to base his or her opinion on novel or unorthodox techniques that have yet to stand the test of time to prove their validity. Until 1993, the overwhelming majority of courts, including West Virginia, followed the so-called Frye test and excluded such innovative testimony unless the techniques involved had earned "general acceptance" in the relevant scientific community. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), superseded by statute as stated in Daubert, supra; State v. Clawson, 165 W.Va. 588, 270 S.E.2d 659 (1980) (explicitly adopted Frye), receded from by Wilt v. Buracker, supra. In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts concluding that Frye's rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. See Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2794, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 480. Circuit judges "ruling on the admissibility of expert scientific testimony face a far more complex and daunting task in a post Daubert[/Wilt] world than before."See footnote 7 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir. 1995). Significantly, Daubert/Wilt granted circuit judges the discretion and authority to determine whether scientific evidence is trustworthy, even if the technique involved has not yet won general scientific acclaim. Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2799, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 485 ( it is "the trial judge['s] ...task ... [to] ensur[e] that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand"). Daubert/Wilt explained that Rule 702 and Rule 104(a) require "a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology ... properly can be applied to the facts in issue." Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2796, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 482. The circuit court's assessment will include such factors as the ability to be tested, peer review and publication, and potential rate of error. Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2796-97, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 482-83. General acceptance is also an important factor although it is no longer determinative. Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2797, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 483. In deciding whether to admit novel scientific evidence, a circuit court must consider and make findings on the record with respect to the factors described above. A circuit court is not required to afford equal weight to each factor, but instead may balance the factors as it deems appropriate. Nevertheless, whether the ruling is on admissibility arising from a motion in limine or on summary judgment, a circuit court must make factual findings sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Because the analysis of Daubert/Wilt offers an evidentiary window of opportunity, not a guarantee of admissibility, the courts, not the expert witnesses or litigants, ultimately must determine when the admission of scientific evidence is appropriate and when it is not. Consequently, circuit courts retain substantial discretion in deciding whether to admit novel scientific evidence. As we have stated, the West Virginia Rules of Evidence neither impose an unflagging duty upon circuit courts to admit or exclude scientific evidence nor grant an entitlement to litigants to demand its admission or exclusion. Not surprisingly, then, an indigenous jurisprudence has sprouted in the fields where the seeds of Daubert/Wilt are sown. While it is not necessary to harvest this jurisprudence today, we do intend to give circuit courts more guidance from a procedural standpoint in resolving scientific evidence issues. Daubert/Wilt mandates that when scientific evidence is proffered, the circuit court make a preliminary assessment "at the outset pursuant to Rule 104(a) of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid[.]"See footnote 8 Rule 103(c) of the Rules of Evidence permits and encourages pretrial motions in limine as the appropriate procedure for determining the admissibility of time consuming and difficult evidentiary issues.See footnote 9 In Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, 194 W.Va. 97, ___, 459 S.E.2d 374, 389 (1995), we indicated that the best time to review and resolve scientific issues is at the pretrial level. At that point, there is nothing to lose. A circuit court is not bound by its provisional ruling although the parties are unless they request reconsideration. We recognize that, although scientific evidence raises validity issues that should be resolved in a separate hearing in advance of trial, Rule 705 of the Rules of Evidence adopts a party-choice model that lets the proponent offer expert opinion without first setting out the underlying basis.See footnote 10 However, the importance of the validity problem in scientific evidence cases justifies departing from this model. What is important is that the management issues affecting expert evidence be addressed and disposed of in the most effective manner appropriate to the case. See generally Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 33 (1994 Federal Judicial Center). Daubert/Wilt does not advise a circuit court as to what circumstances trigger in limine screening pursuant to Rule 104(a) and (c) or the nature of an in limine hearing. To be clear, we do not suggest that every time an issue of scientific evidence appears in a case, a lengthy in limine hearing should be held. Actually, most scientific validity issues will be resolved under judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201.See footnote 11 Indeed, most of the cases in which expert testimony is offered involve only qualified experts disagreeing about the interpretation of data that was obtained through standard methodologies. Daubert/Wilt is unlikely to impact upon those cases. Therefore, circuit courts are right to admit or exclude evidence without "reinventing the wheel" every time by requiring parties to put on full proof of the validity or invalidity of scientific principles. Where judicial notice is appropriate, the circuit court should use it. In resolving scientific issues in limine, circuit courts must have in mind appropriate procedures to conduct the in limine hearing and, more significantly, who bears what burden of proof. Because of judicial economy and the "liberal thrust" of the rules pertaining to experts, it seems reasonable to place the initial burden of production on the opponent for purposes of this hearing. In Paoli, 35 F.3d at 739, the court stated: "[W]e generally agree ... that because under Daubert a judge at an in limine hearing must make findings of fact on the reliability of complicated scientific methodologies and this fact- finding can decide the case, it is important that each side have an opportunity to depose the other side's experts in order to develop strong critiques and defenses of their expert's methodologies.... Given the 'liberal thrust' of the federal rules, ... it is particularly important that the side trying to defend the admissibility of evidence be given an adequate chance to do so." (Citations omitted). Second, liberal rules of discovery promote the opportunity for counsel to raise these issues prior to trial. Although our rules of discovery do not require the disclosure of the scientific methodological details that according to Daubert/Wilt bear on the admissibility of expert testimony, we believe it is reasonable for circuit courts under their local rule authority to require summaries and reports to disclose information bearing on Daubert/Wilt's nondefinitive checklist of factors and on additional factors that should be considered in particular kinds of cases. Independent of any discovery request, circuit courts might require the parties to produce the following information any time scientific evidence is likely to be disputed under Daubert/Wilt: (1) to disclose the identity of all expert witnesses expected to testify at trial; (2) to provide, among other things, the experts' written, signed reports stating all opinions to be offered and support for such opinions, and (3) to make the experts available for deposition after the reports are submitted. See generally, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 55-113 (1994 Federal Judicial Center).See footnote 12 Under Daubert/Wilt, the circuit court conducts an inquiry into the validity of the underlying science, looking at the soundness of the principles or theories and the reliability of the process or method as applied in the case. The problem is not to decide whether the proffered evidence is right, but whether the science is valid enough to be reliable. When scientific evidence is proffered, the circuit court in its "gatekeeper" role must engage in a two-part analysis in regard to the expert testimony. First, the circuit court must determine whether the expert's testimony reflects "scientific knowledge," whether the findings are derived by "scientific method," and whether the work product amounts to "good science." Second, the circuit court must ensure that the scientific testimony is "relevant to the task at hand."See footnote 13 With this framework in mind, we now turn to the plaintiffs' argument regarding the granting of summary judgment and the rejection of their expert witness's testimony. C. Analysis The plaintiffs argue the circuit court applied the wrong standard in making its decision not to consider the testimony of Officer Mader. The circuit court in a lengthy memorandum opinion explained in detail its reasoning for not considering Officer Mader's testimony. First, the circuit court questioned the credentials of the witness to offer expert testimony. The circuit court focused on the witness's lack of familiarity with "any of the rules of the Raleigh County Sheriff's department beyond those discussed in the deposition or as to any related statutes, rules or regulations of this State concerning law enforcement" and the failure of Officer Mader to have testified as an expert witness or as a witness concerning any of the issues presented in the case at bar.See footnote 14 The circuit court then concluded: "Considering Officer Mader's experience, training and that he himself trains police officers; and further considering that no statutes, rules or regulations apply to shotguns in the trunk; and further considering that Officer Mader has no knowledge of any West Virginia statutes, rules or regulations concerning police training and work, and the fact that he has never testified as an expert witness on such issues does not serve to establish a general acceptance of any safety statutes, rules or regulations relating to shotguns or carrying and training of their use or of a general standard in law enforcement - this court concludes that Officer Mader should not be permitted to offer an opinion on the ultimate issues at trial under the Frye rule." Next, although the circuit court recognized the issue before it was not one "dealing with scientific knowledge, but more likely into technical or even specialized knowledge as to Officer Gentry's wounding[,]" nevertheless, the circuit court held that Officer Mader's testimony was inadmissible under Daubert/Wilt: "There is no indication that any opinion based upon the indicated information was derived from any scientific, technical or particularly specialized methodology or that its underlying hypothous [sic] has been empirically tested. *** "It is this judge's experience as a combat infantry man that individuals in the face of hostile fire and facing wounding or death sometimes react differently albeit that they did or did not follow or respond to their prior training.See footnote 15 *** "In the opinion of this court the proposed testimony of Officer Mader as an alleged expert appears to be no more than his subjective belief or his unsupported speculations. Therefore under Rules 702 and 703 of Evidence this court has come of the opinion that he should not be permitted to testify on the ultimate issues this case under the rationale of Daubert[/Wilt]." Rule 702 has three major requirements: (1) the witness must be an expert; (2) the expert must testify to scientific, technical or specialized knowledge; and (3) the expert testimony must assist the trier of fact.See footnote 16 Our reviewing task, however, is made easy by the circuit court's application of the Daubert/Wilt standard. We need only address two specific questions: (1) Was the expert qualified? (2) If so, was the expert testimony "scientifically" based? We believe the circuit court erred in its rejection of the proffered testimony. First, we find that Officer Mader's testimony easily qualifies as expert testimony under Rule 702.See footnote 17 Both the circuit court's findings and the defendants' argument that the witness had no special expertise in the subject matter of his testimony ignores the witness's extensive practical experience. The first requirement of Rule 702 - that the proposed witness be an expert - has been liberally construed by this Court. Rule 702 permits a circuit court to qualify an expert by virtue of education or experience or by some combination of these attributes.See footnote 18 As discussed below, we have stated clearly that a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert as such, and rejected any notion of imposing overly rigorous requirements of expertise. Officer Mader's background and practical experience qualify as "specialized knowledge" gained through "experience, training, or education" under Rule 702, and, unless otherwise inadmissible under Rules 702, 703, or 403, most of his testimony should have been received and considered for purposes of the summary judgment motion. After all, Officer Mader has been a police officer since 1973 and a deputy chief since 1991. He not only has attended many training sessions, but he also has taught them.See footnote 19 The obvious purpose for eliciting the opinion of Officer Mader is to help prove "deliberate intent." Over the course of his testimony, Officer Mader set forth his opinion as to why the training, instruction, and supervision given in this case was not consistent with "nationally accepted standards." He specifically opined that Officer Gentry was not adequately trained once the decision was made to place the shotgun in the trunk of the police cruiser. Officer Mader's overall opinion is that the Sheriff's conduct did not comport with commonly accepted and well known safety standards within law enforcement agencies. Our cases indicate that in determining who is an expert, a trial court should conduct a two-step inquiry. First, a circuit judge must determine whether the proposed expert (a) meets the minimal educational or experiential qualifications (b) in a field that is relevant to the subject under investigation (c) which will assist the trier of fact. Second, the circuit court must determine that the expert's area of expertise covers the particular opinion as to which the expert seeks to testify. There must be a match. See generally, Cargill v. Balloon Works, Inc., 185 W.Va. 142, 405 S.E.2d 642 (1991). What must be remembered, however, is that there is no "best expert" rule. Because of the "liberal thrust" of the rules pertaining to experts, circuit courts should err on the side of admissibility. See II Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 7-2(A) at 24 ("[t]his standard is very generous and follows the general framework of the federal rules which favors the admissibility of all relevant evidence"). In Cargill, 185 W. Va. at 146-47, 405 S.E.2d at 646-47, we stated: "West Virginia Rule of Evidence 702 enunciates the standard by which the qualification of an individual as an expert witness will be determined. It cannot encompass every nuance of a specific factual matter or a particular individual sought to be qualified. It simply requires that the witness must, through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, possess scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge which will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. It cannot be interpreted to require ... that the experience, education, or training of the individual be in complete congruence with the nature of the issue sought to be proven." Our message is consistent with that of the United States Supreme Court: "Conventional devices," like vigorous cross-examination, careful instructions on the burden of proof, and rebuttal evidence, may be more appropriate instead of the "wholesale exclusion" of expert testimony under Rule 702. Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2798, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 484. Professor Charles McCormick's often quoted statement is still relevant within the context of Rule 702: "While the court may rule that a certain subject of inquiry requires that a member of a given profession, such as a doctor, an engineer, or a chemist, be called, usually a specialist in a particular branch within the profession will not be required." Charles McCormick, Evidence ¶14 at 29 (1954). The second part of the expert qualification criteria is assuring that the expert has expertise in the particular field in which he testifies. Here too, a circuit court has reasonable discretion. In discussing how much of a specialist should the expert be, a circuit court must always remember that the governing principle is whether the proffered testimony can assist the trier of fact. Necessarily the "helpfulness" standard calls for decisions that are very much ad hoc, for the question is always whether a particular expert can help resolve the particular issue at hand. As discussed above, there were disputed issues at trial: (1) whether the Sheriff acted with "deliberate intent" in causing the injuries of Officer Gentry, and (2) if so, whether the injuries to Officer Gentry resulted from the deliberate and intentional conduct of the Sheriff. The obvious starting point for demonstrating "deliberate intent" is to prove that recognized safety standards for instances such as these were not followed. Both the existence of "deliberate intent" and safety standards are issues for the trier of fact to determine under careful instructions from the trial court.See footnote 20 In this case, that means the jury was entitled to know what were the safety standards and what facts were known to the sheriff at the time of the shooting. At the very least, the jury's role includes settling disputes as to predicate facts. Certainly, it cannot be argued that Officer Mader's testimony would not have assisted the jury in this regard. As we suggested in Ventura v. Winegardner, 178 W.Va 82, 86, 357 S.E.2d 764 , 768 (1987): "Despite his lack of specific knowledge of ... [the West Virginia laws regarding law enforcement], it is obvious from his education and background that he would have more than a passing knowledge of the subject." Officer Mader's testimony involved his views concerning the reasonableness of the Sheriff's conduct in light of the accepted safety standards. To this end, his testimony was a fact-based opinion, not a statement of mere legal conclusion. It is no different when a medical doctor gives an opinion about the standard of care and the reasonableness of another practitioner's treatment. Second, the basis for the circuit court's summary judgment order was an analysis of the plaintiffs' proffered expert testimony under the criteria set forth in Daubert/Wilt. The circuit court's reliance on Daubert/Wilt is misplaced. Daubert/Wilt has limited application in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. It sought to clarify the standard for evaluating "scientific knowledge" for purposes of admission under Rule 702. To be specific, Daubert/Wilt provides a method for assessing a proffer of expert scientific testimony, which instructed the trial court to consider the factors we have addressed earlier. The proffered testimony sub judice does not present the kind of "junk science" problem that Daubert/Wilt meant to address.See footnote 21 In other words, the question of admissibility under Daubert/Wilt only arises if it is first established that the testimony deals with "scientific knowledge." "'[S]cientific' implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science . .. [while] 'knowledge' connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation." Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2795, 125 L.Ed.2d at ___. "In order to qualify as 'scientific knowledge,' an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method." ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2795, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 481. It is the circuit court's responsibility initially to determine whether the expert's proposed testimony amounts to "scientific knowledge" and, in doing so, "to analyze not what the experts say, but what basis they have for saying it." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d at 1316. The expert here relies, not upon any "scientific knowledge" or "methodology," but upon a range of factors including his experiences and understanding of police work. The question is not one for analysis under peer review, rate of error and publication and general acceptance but whether, based upon the witness's experience, his opinion will assist the trier of fact.See footnote 22 The rejected expert testimony sought to describe police practice, customs, and safety standards and to explain the approach which reasonably prudent and cautious police departments and supervisors would have taken under these circumstances. Disputes as to the strength of an expert's credentials, mere differences in the methodology, or lack of textual authority for the opinion go to weight and not to the admissibility of their testimony. Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2798, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 484 ("[v]igorous cross- examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence"); accord Cargill v. Balloon Works, Inc., supra. Of course, we do not mean to suggest that in areas of nonscientific evidence an expert is not constrained by other requirements in Rule 702. As the Fourth Circuit said in Newman v. Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc., 789 F.2d 269, 270 (4th Cir. 1986), "nothing in the Rules appears to have been intended to permit experts to speculate in fashions unsupported by, and in this case indeed in contradiction of, the uncontroverted evidence." On the other hand, because an expert seeks to be a pioneer in an area of law enforcement should not be determinative of the admissibility of his testimony. Even the modern validity standard envisioned by Daubert/Wilt does not let courts exclude scientific evidence on the basis of a simple test: Daubert firmly rejected the notion that scientific evidence may be excluded simply because it represents a new approach that has not yet been subject to the discipline of professional scrutiny through publication and peer review. It could very well be that this testimony is on the frontier of law enforcement policy in the sense that no clear answer has been found as to what, if any, instructions should be given when there is a change in procedure as existed in this case. Thus, this case could very well present a novel, yet well grounded, conclusion that should be resolved by the trier of fact. To some extent, United States v. Onumonu, 967 F.2d 782 (2nd Cir. 1992), is on point. There, a defendant charged with smuggling cocaine claimed he believed the condom he swallowed contained diamonds, not heroin. 967 F.2d at 784. He sought to introduce the expert testimony of a gemologist who would have testified about the feasibility and economic motivation for smuggling diamonds by swallowing condoms containing them. The trial court excluded the testimony, however, finding it was neither relevant nor helpful to the jury to determine a fact in issue. 967 F.2d at 786-88. The appellate court reversed suggesting that "the average New York juror knows little about smuggling diamonds" and "[the] profitability of smuggling diamonds in the alimentary canal." 967 F.2d at 788. The court concluded that the failure to admit the expert testimony was an abuse of discretion depriving the defendant "of a fair opportunity to present his case to the jury." 967 F.2d at 789. This case is similar and the exclusion of the entire testimony of Officer Mader deprived the plaintiffs of a fair opportunity to present their theory of the case even on a motion for summary judgment. In determining whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact, a circuit court is required to make a common sense inquiry into "whether the untrained layman would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject involved in dispute." Mason Ladd, Expert Testimony, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 414, 418 (1952). It is almost to the level of judicial notice that the average West Virginia juror would have little knowledge about any matters pertinent to this case.See footnote 23 In excluding Officer Mader's testimony, the circuit court ignored the fact that the same consideration that informed the court's legal decision under Rule 702 may also influence the factfinder's determination as to what weight such evidence, once admitted, should receive. The axiom is well recognized: the reliability of evidence goes "more to its weight than to the admissibility of the evidence." See, e.g., United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 800 (2d Cir. 1992) ("DNA profiling evidence should be excluded only when the [opponent] cannot show [a] threshold level of reliability in its data ... [T]he court in exercising its discretion should be mindful that this issue should go more to weight than to the admissibility of the evidence."), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104, 121 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1992). Because Officer Mader's testimony called into question the policy of the Raleigh County Sheriff's Department, the circuit court at least should have considered this information in determining whether there existed a genuine issue of material fact. Finally, the circuit court referred to Rule 703 as an independent basis for the exclusion of Officer Mader's testimony.See footnote 24 One function of Rule 703, which is not disputed, is to expand the common law basis for an expert's opinion by authorizing experts to base their opinions on reliable inadmissible data. The Supreme Court's comment in Daubert--that expert's opinions are to be admitted only if the test in Rule 703's second sentence is satisfied- -seems to also acknowledge Rule 703's role as an independent source for excluding expert testimony. This approach is consistent with prior West Virginia practice which construed Rule 703 as imposing conditions on admissibility, rather than as limited to expanding the case of expert testimony and possibly the scope of expert testimony on direct. See Mayhorn v. Logan Medical Foundation, 193 W.Va. 42, 454 S.E.2d 87 (1994). Our concern with the circuit court's reliance on Rule 703 is that the circuit court did not identify the data or its source that implicated Rule 703. The scope of Rule 703 is limited because Rule 703 applies only when inadmissible evidence is relied upon. In other words, the plain meaning of Rule 703 is that the "reasonably relied upon" language in the second sentence is ground for exclusion only when an expert's opinion is based on otherwise inadmissible evidence. If the expert's opinion is based upon admissible evidence, Rule 703 does not apply: "If the facts or data are admissible, Rule 703 does not authorize exclusion of the expert opinion. If they are admissible, the inquiry ends, and nothing in Rule 703 authorizes exclusion of the expert's testimony. If they are not admissible, the ... [circuit] court must determine whether the reliability inquiry is satisfied. If satisfied, Rule 703 does not authorize exclusion. If it is not, the ... [circuit] court should exclude the testimony. No other reading is consistent with the plain language, history, and purpose of Rule 703." Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1118, (5th Cir. 1991), (en banc) (Clark, Chief Judge, concurring), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912, 112 S.Ct. 1280, 117 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1992). Our review of the record indicates that the fact-based testimony of Officer Mader's opinion would be based upon testimony admissible at trial.See footnote 25 This does not mean, however, that "untrustworthy" data may not be excluded. There are two separate ways to exclude untrustworthy data: (a) under the "not helpful" test of Rule 702, and (b) under the balancing test in Rule 403.See footnote 26 We caution, however, against applying the reliability or trustworthy requirements too strictly.See footnote 27 These requirements must not be used as a tool by which the courts excludes all questionably reliable or trustworthy evidence. The ultimate touchstone of admissibility is helpfulness to the trier of fact. IV. CONCLUSION We express no view as to whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted. We merely hold that in light of the liberal standard of admissibility of Rule 702 such a motion cannot be granted on the grounds articulated by the circuit court in its December 5, 1994, memorandum order. Similarly, we place no limitations on the discretion of the circuit court to decide anew the admissibility of Officer Mader's testimony and, particularly, whether it is admissible under Rule 403. If the circuit court chooses to readdress the admissibility question, the circuit court should be guided by the principles we discuss above. Finally, in the event that the circuit court decides the expert testimony is admissible for summary judgment purposes, the circuit court must still address the separate inquiry as to whether the expert evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, the summary judgment order of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded for further action consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded with directions. Footnote: 1 This statute was amended in 1994, but the changes do not affect the disposition of this case. Footnote: 2 Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., 161 W.Va. 695, 246 S.E.2d 907 (1978), superseded by statute/rule as stated in Handley v. Union Carbide Corp., 804 F.2d 26 (1986). Footnote: 3 The opinion for the majority in Daubert commenced its discussion of the trial judge's obligation to screen "purportedly scientific evidence" by construing the words "scientific" and "knowledge," which appear in Rule 702. When the Court put these two words together, it concluded that Rule 702 limits expert testimony on scientific issues to opinions that are the product of a scientific thinking process. What must be emphasized is that expert testimony under Rule 702 is not limited to scientific evidence. Indeed, Rule 702 states that "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact[.]" We limit our discussion to scientific testimony because that is the focus of the Daubert opinion. Footnote: 4 In other words, we review the circuit court's ruling on the admissibility of testimony for an abuse of discretion, "'but to the extent the ... [circuit] court's ruling turns on an interpretation of a ... [West Virginia] Rule of Evidence our review is plenary.'" In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 749 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied sub nom., General Elec. Co. v. Ingram, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1253, 131 L.Ed.2dd 134 (1995), quoting DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941, 944 (3rd Cir. 1990).Footnote: 5 There is, of course, a significant difference between admissibility and sufficiency of evidence to meet the substantive burdens of proof. Daubert/Wilt recognized that the admissibility standards of Rule 702, even when satisfied, may not always suffice to discharge a party's burden of proof. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that if "the trial court concludes that the scintilla of evidence presented supporting a position is insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the position more likely than not is true, the court remains free" to rule as a matter of law under Rule 50 or Rule 56. Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S. Ct. at 2798, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 484. Of course, whether an issue should be resolved in terms of admissibility or sufficiency of evidence will depend on the circumstances of each case. Expert testimony that may be admissible under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence may nevertheless be insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, counsel is no longer required under Rule 702 to ask a witness whether his or her opinion is given under the "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" standard. However, in future damages cases, if the evidence does not otherwise demonstrate this fact, the party has failed to meet the substantive burden of proof. On the other hand, even though a defendant may in some instances be able to discharge his or her burden of proof on a summary judgment motion by merely "pointing" to deficiencies in the plaintiff's case, a higher standard may be more appropriate when the defendant is attacking the plaintiff's scientific evidence. In attacking an opponent's scientific evidence, more than an affidavit disputing the issue may be required. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1319-20 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 189, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1995) (the affidavit of another expert was insufficient to prove causation in terms of the "more likely than not" standard enforced by the substantive law of California under the expert's own statistical methodology).Footnote: 6 We emphasize again that in the relevancy area a circuit court has considerable latitude in determining whether to admit or exclude evidence under Rules 401 through 403 of the Rules of Evidence. We review these rulings only for an abuse of discretion. Only rarely and in extraordinary circumstances will we, from the vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a circuit court's on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect. Our review, however, must have some purpose and that is why we review under the abuse of discretion standard. In general, an abuse of discretion occurs when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and no improper factors are assessed but the circuit court makes a serious mistake in weighing them. The United States Supreme Court suggested the "fit" requirement "goes primarily with relevance." Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2795, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 481. But, as stated by the Ninth Circuit, on remand, "it obviously did not intend the second prong of Rule 702 to be merely a reiteration of the general relevancy requirement of Rule 402." Daubert, 43 F.3d at 1321 n.17. In addition to Rule 702, the circuit court may exclude testimony under Rule 403 unless it is convinced that the testimony speaks clearly and directly to the issue in dispute in the case and will not mislead or distract the jury.Footnote: 7 "The judge's task under Frye is relatively simple: to determine whether the method employed by the experts is generally accepted in the scientific community." Daubert v. Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d at 1315. Footnote: 8 Rule 104(a) provides, in part: "Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court[.]" As we stated in State v. McGinnis, 193 W. Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994), Rule 104(a) requires the proponent of the testimony to show by a preponderance that the evidence is admissible.Footnote: 9 Rule 103(c) of the Rules of Evidence states: "Hearing of Jury.--In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury. Where practicable, these matters should be determined upon a pretrial motion in limine."Footnote: 10 Rule 705 of the Rules of Evidence states: "The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination." The purpose of the rule is to eliminate the much criticized practice of asking hypothetical questions in eliciting expert testimony, leaving it to cross-examination to bring out the relevant facts. See II Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers, § 7-5(A) at 70 (3rd. ed. 1994). That purpose does not support bringing the rule into summary judgment or motion in limine practice. Indeed, the text of the rule supports the circuit court's authority to dispense with this procedure.Footnote: 11 Rule 201 of the Rules of Evidence states, in relevant part: "(a) Scope of Rule.--This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts. "(b) Kinds of Facts.--A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."Footnote: 12 The circuit court should, for example, ask counsel for both sides to exchange and provide to the court a step-by-step outline of the expert's reasoning processes for use at the pretrial conference. After the written statements of the expert's opinions are exchanged, the judge may direct each side to identify specifically each part of the expert's opinion that is disputed and to state specifically the basis of the dispute. This practice is consistent with Rule 16(c)(4) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure that specifically states that a subject for consideration and appropriate action by the circuit court at the pretrial conference is "the avoidance of unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence." As issues are eliminated, the need for expert testimony on those issues also may be eliminated. Footnote: 13 Relevance means determining whether the testimony logically advances a consequential aspect of the movant's case, i.e., whether the testimony "fits" the case. Footnote: 14 Whether a proffered expert witness has testified in court on prior occasions, while relevant, certainly is not dispositive. Once an expert witness passes the minimal threshold, further credentials affect the weight of the testimony not its admissibility. Some courts have, in fact, criticized and more carefully scrutinized experts who are nothing but professional witnesses, i.e., those who spend more time in the courtroom than working in their alleged field of expertise, particularly those who acquire their information solely for the purpose of testifying. See Daubert, 43 F.3d at 1317-18 ("[i]f the proffered expert testimony is not based on independent research, the party proffering it must come forward with other objective, verifiable evidence that the testimony is based on 'scientifically valid principles'").Footnote: 15 We trust the circuit court did not mean to suggest that its experiences in combat are a substitute for evidence. The rule in West Virginia has been that facts within a judge's personal knowledge may not be considered unless the same facts are formally introduced. See Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330, 338, 145 S.E.2d 446 , 451 (1965) ("a trial judge is not permitted to base a finding upon facts which are merely matters of his [or her] personal knowledge as distinguished from proof of such facts"). Indeed, it would be ironic for a judge to base a judicial finding on the judge's personal experience while in the military, but at the same time to exclude opinions of Officer Mader that are based upon the more relevant experience as a police officer. Footnote: 16 Not only in scientific evidence cases but in all cases of expert testimony, Rule 104(a) requires the circuit court to make a preliminary determination "concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, [and] ... the admissibility of evidence." Thus, we believe that when a circuit court is faced with a proffer of expert testimony, there must be a preliminary determination as to all of the elements of Rule 702. These preliminary determinations are intended to ensure the reliability of the expert testimony as well as its relevance.Footnote: 17 Determinations of whether a witness is sufficiently qualified to testify as an expert on a given subject and whether such expert testimony would be helpful to the trier of fact are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. A trial court's ruling in this sphere should be upheld "'unless manifestly erroneous[.]'" Rozas v. Rozas, 176 W. Va. 235, 240, 342 S.E.2d 201 , 206 (1986). (Citation omitted). See also Syl. pt. 12, Board of Educ. v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc., 182 W.Va. 597, 390 S.E.2d 796 (1990); Syl. pt. 3, State v. Dietz, 182 W.Va. 544, 390 S.E.2d 15 (1990), habeas corpus on other grounds granted sub nom. Dietz v. Legursky, 188 W. Va. 526, 425 S.E.2d 202 (1992). On the other hand, we held that when a "expert witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education as an expert and that the individual's specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact, it is an abuse of the trial court's discretion to refuse to qualify that individual as an expert." Cargill v. Balloon Works, Inc., 185 W.Va. 142, 146, 405 S.E.2d 642, 646 (1991) (per curiam). (Emphasis added). Footnote: 18 Neither a degree nor a title is essential, and a person with knowledge or skill borne of practical experience may qualify as an expert, although the circuit court may exclude testimony if the experience is too far removed from the subject of the proposed testimony. Other jurisdictions are in agreement with the liberal thrust of our opinions. See Hammond v. International Harvest Co., 691 F.2d 646, 653 (3d Cir. 1982) (permitting engineer with sales experience in automotive and agricultural equipment, who also taught high school automobile repair, to testify in products liability action involving tractors). Under Rule 702, a witness who is not a veterinarian or who holds no advance degrees could testify as to cattle's injuries if he has "significant practical experience with feed related health problems in dairy cattle." Circle J Dairy, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., 790 F.2d 694, 700 (8th Cir. 1986).Footnote: 19 Where an expert was permitted to testify at trial regarding the significance of road markings, the Fourth Circuit held the lower court did not commit error by allowing the testimony. The court noted that the expert "had completed a course in accident reconstruction at Northwestern University, had consulted in numerous cases for various law enforcement agencies .. ., and had served as an accident investigation instructor at West Virginia Police Academy." Mosser v. Fruehauf Corp., 940 F.2d 77, 82 (4th Cir. 1991).Footnote: 20 Of course, ultimately a court establishes the particular standard of care under a given set of facts, the jury then determine whether a defendant's conduct falls short of this standard. Expert testimony may be useful to assist the jury in making this determination, especially where the subject matter is outside the knowledge and experience of lay people.Footnote: 21 See also Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 857 F. Supp. 222 , 228 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (suggesting that the Supreme Court intended that Daubert have a "narrow focus" permitting the admission of "'novel scientific evidence'" under Rule 702). Footnote: 22 Several federal courts have considered the Daubert test to be too stringent to employ in considering whether to admit expert testimony in nonscientific evidence cases. See Iacobelli Constr., Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir. 1994) (Daubert clarified standard for evaluating scientific knowledge only, and therefore, does not exclude affidavits of geotechnical and underground-construction experts who were retained to summarize and interpret voluminous, technical data); Tamarin v. Adam Caterers, Inc., 13 F.3d 51, 53 (2nd Cir. 1993) (accountant's affidavit summarizing his review of payroll records not inadmissible under Daubert because "that case specifically dealt with the admissibility of scientific evidence"); United States v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F.Supp. 1027, 1040-41 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (Daubert factors of testability, known rate of error, peer review and publication, and general acceptance not applicable to determination of admissibility of testimony by forensic document examiner; "Daubert does not impose any new standard, other than what is found in the text of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for the admissibility of the testimony of nonscientific experts such as harbor pilots or real estate appraisers."). Footnote: 23 We are not at all persuaded by the circuit court's concern that the witness was unfamiliar with the specifics of West Virginia law and how that law may relate to the facts of this case. The failure of an expert to be able to explain all aspects of a case or a controlling principle in a satisfactory manner is relevant only to the witness's credibility. "Should ... [a] witness later fail to adequately [explain], define, or describe the relevant standard of care, opposing counsel is free to explore that weakness in the testimony." Friendship Heights Assoc. v. Vlastimil Koubek, 785 F.2d 1154, 1163 (4th Cir. 1986); see also, Dobson v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 188 W.Va. 17, __, 422 S.E.2d 494, 499 (1992) (suggests that "[t]he fact that a proffered expert may be unfamiliar with pertinent statutory definitions or standards is not grounds for disqualification ... [; s]uch lack of familiarity" affects credibility, not qualification to testify). Footnote: 24 The circuit court stated: "It does not appear that the facts upon which Officer Mader's opinion might be based would be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field involved in forming opinions or inferences up the subject." (Emphasis in original). Footnote: 25 Similarly, we believe it was error for the circuit court to conclude that the opinions of Officer Mader were inadmissible under Rule 703 because there was insufficient evidence on the record to support a finding that evidence upon which he relied is not of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. Footnote: 26 To the extent that the circuit court's memorandum opinion can be read to base its opinion alternatively on insufficiency rather than inadmissibility of the evidence, we find the circuit court improperly evaluated the credibility of the witness and the weight of his testimony. These determinations must be left to the factfinders and are, therefore, inappropriate for consideration at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings. Footnote: 27 Rule 403 in the context of Article VII exclusion raises complex issues implicating the relationship between judge and jury. The Fourth Circuit placed this issue in proper perspective when it held that a trial court may not use Rule 403 to exclude testimony that clearly meets the prerequisites of Rule 702. See United States v. Sellers, 566 F.2d 884 (4th Cir. 1977). On the other hand, had the circuit court excluded the evidence under Rule 403's prejudicial or lack of probative value standard and assigned grounds such as wholly speculative, insubstantial, immaterial and riveted with fallacies, it may have been, if adequately explained, on solid grounds. Given the lack of an independent mechanism for showing or knowing whether a predetermined course of action is critical or at least relevant to avoid injuries where a shotgun is kept in the trunk of a police cruiser, a circuit court may nevertheless believe that the methodology of any expert is not reliable enough to make factual or investigative conclusions in legal proceedings.

957a825fdb80e37310819956d6051ee2bd70367d6078cef7590403b3d8b05248

1995-12-08 00:00:00