Title: Alseike v. Miller

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

196 Kan. 547 (1966)
412 P.2d 1007
LESLIE G. ALSEIKE, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
EDITH M. MILLER, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
VERNON L. LADD, an individual; JAMES McINTOSH and HUGH SHEA, co-partners, d/b/a CYCLE ESCORT SERVICE, Third Party Defendants and Appellees.
No. 44,408

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 9, 1966.
F.C. McMaster, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Stanford J. Smith, of Wichita, was with him on the brief for Edith M. Miller, third-party plaintiff and appellant.
Gerald L. Michaud, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Russell Cranmer, Orval L. Fisher, and M. William Syrios, all of Wichita, were with him on the brief for Leslie G. Alseike, plaintiff and appellee.
H.E. Jones, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Clarence R. Sowers, John W. Sowers, Davis S. Carson, A.W. Hershberger, Richard Jones, William P. Thompson, Jerome E. Jones, Robert J. Roth, William R. Smith, and Robert J. O'Connor, all of Wichita, were with him on the brief for the third-party defendants and appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARMAN, C.:
Two separate procedural questions make up this appeal. The action was commenced as one for damages for personal injury. Plaintiff, an off-duty Wichita police officer, alleged in his petition his injury resulted from a collision with an automobile operated by defendant while in a funeral procession, which procession was being escorted by plaintiff on his motorcycle. Plaintiff asserted that defendant negligently drove her automobile out from the line of vehicles in the funeral procession into the path of plaintiff's motorcycle. Defendant filed her answer admitting that she was operating a vehicle at the time and place in question but denying generally the other allegations of plaintiff's petition and asserting that any injury to plaintiff was caused by his own negligence. *549 She further alleged in the alternative that one Vernon L. Ladd, another off-duty police officer who was escorting the procession, and plaintiff were co-adventurers and agents of each other and that Ladd's negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.
At the same time, defendant filed a third-party proceeding against the said Ladd and also against James McIntosh and Hugh Shea, doing business as Cycle Escort Service. In her third-party petition defendant incorporated the allegations of her answer and she further alleged that Ladd was the employee of McIntosh and Shea who had contracted with a mortuary to provide a motorcycle escort of uniformed police officers to escort the funeral procession in question; that while Ladd was so acting in providing such escort service, being stationed at an intersection immediately prior to the collision at which defendant attempted to make a left turn, he permitted the defendant and the plaintiff to collide; the third-party defendants were charged with eleven grounds of negligence causing the collision, and her prayer asked that she, as third-party plaintiff, recover judgment against the third-party defendants for the amount of any judgment rendered against her in favor of the plaintiff.
Upon motion of the third-party defendants the proceeding against them was dismissed. Defendant appeals from that order of dismissal.
This third-party action is to be sustained, if at all, pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-214 (a), the pertinent part of which is as follows:
It may first be noted that this statute pertains to procedure only and does not create any substantive rights. The statute relates generally to the subject of reimbursement, indemnity or contribution, but it creates no substantive right to the same. There must be some substantive basis for the third-party claim before one can utilize the procedure of 214 (a). Third-party practice is simply a permissive procedural device whereby a party to an action may bring in an additional party and claim against such party, because of a claim that is being asserted against the original party. It has been said that the general purpose of the practice is to avoid circuity of action and to dispose of the entire subject matter arising *550 from one set of facts in one action, thus administering complete and even-handed justice expeditiously and economically (see 1A Barron and Holtzoff, Third-Party Practice, § 422, p. 644).
In order to come under 214 (a) the defendant's claim against the third-party defendant must be such that the latter "is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him." The advisory committee for our present code of civil procedure had this to say with respect to the section:
Thus we see it is not a device for bringing into an action any controversy which may happen to have some relation with it.
In her third-party petition defendant makes an ingenious argument that she is the beneficiary of an implied warranty by reason of the contractual relation between the mortuary and the third-party defendants, for which she would assert a breach, but it is clear her petition states a cause of action sounding in tort, being based on negligence, and must be so construed. The third parties sought to be joined here are simply alleged joint tortfeasors, being the other motorcycle officer involved in the collision and his principals, and it must be held that what is sought here is contribution between joint tortfeasors. Kansas adheres to the common law rule that there is no right of contribution between joint tortfeasors (Rucker v. Allendorph, 102 Kan. 771, 172 Pac. 524). In enacting our present code of civil procedure the legislature declined to create this right as initially recommended by the advisory committee (see JCB, Nov. 1962, Special Report, Recommendations, p. 38). Contribution being forbidden there is no way in which the third-party defendants are or may become liable to defendant for all or part of plaintiff's claim against defendant. Our 214 (a) is identical with the present Federal Rule 14(a). The case of McPherson v. Hoffman, 275 F.2d 466 (6th Cir., 1960), was an action brought by a railroad employee for injury sustained while being transported in a truck of the railroad which collided with an automobile of third persons, wherein the railroad as third-party plaintiff brought in such third persons as third-parties defendant. The court said:
..............
Defendant argues she is not here seeking contribution but indemnification, citing cases among which she says that of City of Fort Scott v. Penn Lubric Oil Co., 122 Kan. 369, 252 Pac. 268, is most applicable to the instant case. These cases are distinguishable in that they involve incidents where the party originally sued was liable regardless of fault, the liability resting upon some different legal foundation; the joint tortfeasor aspect is lacking. In the Fort Scott case the city was liable for injuries resulting from a defective sidewalk. In that type of case the city may look for indemnification to the third party whose active, primary negligence caused the injury. That is not our situation here. In this case defendant incurs no liability unless she was at fault. If, as she asserts, the entire fault of the collision lies with the third parties, and she proves this at the trial, then she will not be held liable. If she is in any way at fault she is liable for all of plaintiff's injuries. The *552 trial court ruled correctly in dismissing the third-party proceeding. (See further cases cited at 11 A.L.R.2d 238, and 1A Barron and Holtzoff, Third-Party Practice, § 426, note 50, p. 668, wherein impleader was similarly not permitted.)
The second question in this appeal concerns the production of statements taken by an adjuster on behalf of defendant's insurance carrier. Plaintiff's action was commenced September 14, 1964. On December 2, 1964, plaintiff moved the court for an order requiring defendant to produce and permit plaintiff to inspect and copy certain listed statements. Hearing upon this motion developed the following facts: A Mr. William Haun, who has an LLB degree and is admitted to the bar in Kansas and Oklahoma and is a member of the Wichita Bar Association, is employed by Claims, Inc., at Wichita. His duties include what is known as house counsel for Claims, Inc. whose business is to investigate and adjust claims. Claims, Inc. has an arrangement with defendant's insurance carrier whereby Claims, Inc. commences an investigation when a loss is reported to it. On the same day of the collision, Claims, Inc. received a call from defendant's insurance agency respecting the collision and as a result certain written statements were taken under the supervision of Mr. Haun. The statements were taken by a Mr. Bainum who is not a lawyer although some of the adjusters who take statements for Claims, Inc. are lawyers. The statements included two which were taken April 14, 1964, the day of the collision, one the following day, two more including that of defendant on April 16, 1964, three on April 21, 1964, and one each in May and June of 1964. Defendant's Wichita counsel in this litigation was first contacted respecting the collision on April 22, 1964, by house counsel of defendant's insurance carrier in Kansas City, Missouri. Claims, Inc. had no contact with defendant's Wichita counsel until after the statements were taken. The trial court sustained plaintiff's motion to produce and defendant appeals from that order.
Our statute concerning production of documents is K.S.A. 60-234, the pertinent part of which provides:
*553 Defendant contends, first, plaintiff failed to show good cause for production of the statements.
Our 60-234 is the same as Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While the federal courts have been diverse in their interpretation of some aspects of their Rule 34, there seems to be substantial agreement that some showing of good cause must be made before production will be ordered. (See cases cited at 4 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., Discovery and Production of Documents, etc., § 34.07, note 7, p. 2443). Reason and the plain wording of the statute support that view.
And it is clear the requisite showing of good cause must be something more than mere relevancy to the subject matter involved in the pending action because that test is provided for by the reference in the statute to the provisions of 60-230 (b). In commenting upon Federal Rule 34 the court in Guilford National Bank of Greensboro v. Southern Ry. Co., 297 F.2d 921 (4th Cir., 1962) stated:
The courts, both federal and state, have not been at all uniform in determining what constitutes good cause for the discovery of documents. Various factors and considerations have been applied. The interested reader may find a host of cases on the subject cited in 2A Barron and Holtzoff, Discovery, § 796; in 4 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., Discovery and Production of Documents, etc., § 34.08, and in the annotation commencing at 73 A.L.R.2d 12. The question is largely a factual one and not a matter for certain definition of uniform application in all cases. In Brauner v. United States, 10 F.R.D. 468, (D.C., E.D. Pa., 1950), the court said:
At 27 C.J.S., Discovery, § 69, we find this discussion respecting production of documents:
And the introductory summary in § 81 referred to in the foregoing is as follows:
The provision for the production of documents is an integral part of the discovery process. Discovery has a vital role in our code of civil procedure with its notice type pleading and its basic philosophy that mutual knowledge of all relevant facts is essential to the proper disposal of litigation and that prior to trial every party to a civil action is entitled to the disclosure of all such information in the possession of any person, unless the information is privileged (see 2A Barron and Holtzoff, Depositions, § 641). Our code of civil procedure is to be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action (K.S.A. 60-102). In view of this spirit we think then that what should be shown as good cause are such circumstances as give the trial court reason to expect that the beneficial objectives of pretrial discovery will be achieved and that such discovery should be *555 granted as will accomplish full disclosure of facts, eliminate surprise and promote settlement. While this hardly provides a rule of thumb which will readily decide a particular case, it does identify factors to be considered in determining good cause. See article entitled Discovery by Charles Alan Wright at 35 F.R.D. §§ 81, 87, pp. 39, 79.
In addition to the good cause requirement it may be well to note the statute permitting production also is made subject to the scope of examination permitted by 60-226(b) and to the provisions of 60-230(b). Under this latter proviso if significant countervailing considerations appear, such as, for example, something in the nature of a qualified privilege as mentioned therein (to be distinguished from a testimonial privilege), the protective power of the court may be brought into play to strike a fair balance of the competing interests, and such power may also be used to prevent annoyance, undue expense, embarrassment or oppression. An order of court being required in the first instance, objections to prevent abuse may be made at the beginning before any duty attaches to make disclosure.
The trial court in the instant case had before it the facts hereinbefore related. It had the allegations of the petition to the effect that plaintiff suffered severe injury in the collision. Additionally we are told in oral argument that plaintiff was hospitalized as a result thereof. Some inequality or disadvantage of the parties may be inferred. The taking of the statements by the adjuster commenced on the day of the collision. Eight were taken within a week. Five months elapsed between the time of the collision and the commencement of suit. There is substantial authority for the view that witnesses' statements of the facts of an accident, when taken shortly after the accident, are documents of unique value in the discovery of truth by the judicial process, and accordingly that their character as such may constitute good cause for ordering production of the statements. For example, in Brown v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 17 F.R.D. 324, (D.C., S.D.N.Y., 1955), the court said:
In Herbst v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., 10 F.D.R. 14 (D.C., S.D. Iowa, 1950), this was stated:
And in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Julian, 10 F.R.D. 452, (D.C., Delaware, 1950), we find this:
In Guilford National Bank of Greensboro v. Southern Ry. Co., 297 F.2d 921 (4th Cir., 1962), Chief Judge Sobeloff stated:
Considering all the foregoing we are of the opinion the trial court under all the facts and circumstances in this case was within its *557 power of discretion in determining that good cause existed for the production of the requested material, and we will not interfere with that exercise of discretion in the absence of a showing of clear abuse.
Defendant further urges the statements in question were protected by what may be called the Kansas "work product" rule. This limitation upon discovery is contained in the last sentence of K.S.A. 60-226(b) in the following language:
This is designed to protect from inquiry what has come to be known as the lawyer's "work product" to the extent of placing beyond the reach of the discovery procedure any writing prepared by, or under the supervision of, an attorney in preparation for trial. These cover the lawyer's own notes, memoranda or anything which reflects his "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories" including statements he takes from witnesses (see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508, 67 S. Ct. 385, 392, 91 L. Ed. 451, 461). As to these writings the trial court has no discretion to require their production (see Gard's Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, p. 137), and in this respect our rule differs from the more flexible federal rule on the subject laid down in the Hickman case wherein some discretion is left in the trial judge to weigh the need for the material against the policy consideration protecting it as a product of trial preparation.
The policy basis for the work product rule is the need for the lawyer handling a case to have full rein to develop his theory and strategy in the case if the adversary system is to work effectively. To perform this role the lawyer needs to be able to work without fear of disclosure, at least in the earlier stages of preparation. And he needs protection from the possibility that he will be cast in the role of a witness and, even worse, of a witness antagonistic to other witnesses upon whose testimony his client's case may depend (see concurring opinion of Justice Jackson in Hickman v. Taylor, supra).
In the case at bar the statements were taken by a claims adjuster and not under the supervision of an attorney acting in the role of attorney in preparation for trial. Defendant would have us extend the rule to include statements taken on behalf of an insured by his insurance carrier and indeed this has been done by a few courts in the absence of explicit statutory provision. The decisions thereon are not in harmony and we need not go into them. Our own legislative *558 direction seems plain, that the prohibition applies only to the work of the attorney or of those acting under his supervision in preparation for trial. Judge Gard, chairman of the advisory committee for our code of civil procedure, has commented:
As heretofore indicated the work product immunity rests on the idea it is necessary to preserve the independence of the lawyer and thus, indirectly, the adversary system. These considerations are simply not involved in the case of statements concerning a casualty taken by a claims adjuster for the purpose of investigation, evaluation and possible settlement of the claim, and we are not prepared to assimilate the role of the adjuster to that of the lawyer in the work product area. We would reemphasize that production of the work of the adjuster remains subject to the protection of the good cause requirement. We, therefore, hold the trial court committed no error in declining the protection of the work product rule to the writings in question.
Finally, defendant urges that the statement made by her to the claims adjuster was a privileged communication not subject to discovery. Both 60-234 and 60-226(b) contain the limitation that the material sought be "not privileged." Privilege, within the meaning of the federal discovery rules, is the testimonal privilege as it exists in the law of evidence (United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 73 S. Ct. 528, 97 L. Ed. 727; Wild v. Payson, 7 F.R.D. 495 (D.C., S.D.N.Y., 1946), and we so construe our own statutes.
Constitutional limitations aside, our law of evidence is now embodied in statute, the basic rule being K.S.A. 60-407 which provides:
The privilege for which defendant contends is that of lawyer-client, found in K.S.A. 60-426(a) in pertinent part as follows:
This privilege is further delineated by the definitions contained in K.S.A. 60-426(c) as follows:
Bare recitation of the foregoing statutes makes it clear that the lawyer-client privilege has no application to the situation of the claims adjuster and the insured. The liability insurance carrier functions in an independent role. Statements obtained by it from its insured do not come into the category of communications of a client to his lawyer, none of the essentials of the professional lawyer-client relationship being present. More need not be said.
There being no error shown in the trial court's orders, they are affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.