Title: Sisk v. McPartland

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

515 P.2d 179 (1973)
Maynard Lee SISK, Respondent,
v.
Daniel Francis McPartland, Defendant, and
Doris A. Zelle, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted September 13, 1973.
Decided October 25, 1973.
William L. Hallmark, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were McMenamin, Jones, Joseph & Lang, Portland.
Francis F. Yunker, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before O'CONNELL, C.J., and DENECKE, TONGUE, HOWELL, and BRYSON, JJ.
BRYSON, Justice.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in a collision on October 25, 1970, between plaintiff's vehicle and a vehicle operated by defendant McPartland and owned by defendant Zelle. Substituted service on each defendant was obtained by service on the Administrator, Motor Vehicles Division of the State of Oregon, pursuant to ORS 15.190. Defendant Zelle's insurer retained an attorney to represent the defendants and an answer was filed on their behalf. Plaintiff noticed the deposition of each defendant, but defendant Zelle failed to appear. Just prior to trial plaintiff orally moved the court for an order to strike defendant Zelle's answer for failure to appear for the deposition and for an order of default. These motions were allowed. The case went to trial against defendant McPartland and the jury returned a defendant's verdict on November 22, 1972. Thereafter, the court entered judgment on favor of defendant McPartland on the verdict and entered a default judgment against defendant Zelle in the sum of $5,162.30. Defendant Zelle appeals.
Defendant Zelle assigns as error the trial court's order striking her answer for failure to appear for deposition.
ORS 45.190 provides:
*180 Counsel for plaintiff filed the following affidavit in support of the motion to strike defendant Zelle's answer:
At oral argument of the motion, counsel for defendants stated:
Mr. Yunker's affidavit and these remarks by Mr. Griffith constitute substantially the entire record on which the court based its conclusion that defendant Zelle's answer should be stricken under ORS 45.190.
Even if we assume that defendant Zelle received proper notice of the deposition through service on her attorney  an assumption not entirely justified by the record[1]  we do not believe that her failure *181 to appear can properly be characterized as "willful."[2]
The record suggests that defendant Zelle might have had actual knowledge of the lawsuit but nothing in the record suggests that she had actual knowledge of the deposition. According to an established principle of agency law, notice given an agent is attributable to the principal.[3] Nevertheless, courts recognize the distinction between vicarious notice and notice based on actual knowledge when construing a statute or contract which imposes liability on the basis of actual knowledge only. See Harte v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co., 66 Cal. 2d 148, 56 Cal. Rptr. 889, 424 P.2d 329 (1967); Estate of Fiddyment, 74 Cal. App. 2d 72, 168 P.2d 61 (1946); Flinn Realty Corp. v. Charter Construction Co., 181 App.Div. 610, 169 N.Y.S. 116 (1918); 3 Merrill on Notice § 1203 (1952); W. Seavey, Law of Agency § 98 M (1964).
We believe that the requirement in ORS 45.190, that the failure to attend the deposition be willful, indicates that the party must have actual notice of the deposition and not notice imputed from the knowledge of an agent attorney. The legislative aim is to discourage the deliberate obstruction of established discovery procedures. Only when the party has actual notice of the pending deposition can the subsequent failure to appear be accurately described in words such as "willful," "conscious," "designed," or "intentional." A failure to attend due to ignorance of the hearing is simply not a willful act. Cf. Harris v. Harris, 247 Or. 479, 430 P.2d 993 (1967). Since defendant Zelle's failure to attend the deposition was not willful under our interpretation of ORS 45.190, the trial court erred in striking her answer and placing her in default.
Defendant Zelle further contends that the jury verdict in favor of the driver McPartland also exonerated defendant Zelle, as owner of the vehicle and McPartland's principal.
The alleged liability of defendant Zelle rested entirely on the liability of the driver of her car under the doctrine of respondeat superior. A rule "well established in this state" is "that where vicarious liability is asserted based solely on the wrongful act of an agent exoneration of the agent exonerates the principal * * *." Wiebe v. Seely, Administrator, 215 Or. 331, 352, 335 P.2d 379, 389 (1959). In Dare v. Boss et al. 111 Or. 190, 224 P. 646 (1924), the plaintiff brought an action against an agent and his principals to recover for injuries caused by the agent's alleged negligence. The jury found that the principals were liable but failed to find that the agent *182 was also liable. This court reversed, stating:
See also, Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co., 97 Or. 263, 191 P. 333 (1920); 1 Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217A(b) (1958); Restatement of Judgments §§ 96, 99 (1942).
We have already decided that defendant Zelle should not have been declared in default when this case came on for trial. The jury verdict in favor of McPartland released defendant Zelle from any responsibility for plaintiff's injuries. For these reasons, the case must be reversed.
Under these circumstances our decisions hold the case should be remanded for entry of judgment in favor of defendant Zelle rather than for a new trial. Kraft v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 220 Or. 230, 255, 315 P.2d 558, 348 P.2d 239 (1960); Feazle v. Ind. Hosp. Ass'n, 164 Or. 630, 103 P.2d 300 (1940).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendant Zelle.
[1]  Notices may properly be served on a party or his attorney. ORS 16.770, 16.780. The record before us raises some doubt that Mr. Griffith was authorized by defendant Zelle to represent her as her attorney. See ORS 9.310. Absent personal service on defendant Zelle, service of notice on an attorney not authorized by the party to act in that capacity would be ineffectual. However, the trial court was apparently satisfied that Mr. Griffith was defendant Zelle's attorney. We have no cause to re-examine that conclusion, particularly since the issue was not raised in the briefs, and since a resolution of the issue is unnecessary for the result we reach in the case.
[2]  A willful act is generally defined as one which "[proceeds] from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary" or is "designed; intentional; not accidental or involuntary." Black's Law Dictionary 1773 (rev. 4th ed. 1968).
[3]  Great American Ins. v. General Ins., 257 Or. 62, 69-70, 475 P.2d 415, 419 (1970); 1 Restatement (Second) of Agency, ch. 8, Introductory Note, § 268 (1958).