Opinion ID: 1366472
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the district court's overruling the jury's verdict

Text: Several days after the jury returned its verdict the plaintiff moved pursuant to I.R.C.P. 49(a) to have the district court aggregate the negligence of Coast by imputing it to Coleman. The plaintiff argued that the jury had not decided if Coleman was liable for the negligence of its wholly owned subsidiary. After an extended oral argument, the district judge, after admitting that he was floating in uncharted waters with regard to his authority to grant the plaintiff's request to aggregate Coast's negligence into Coleman's, nevertheless determined that he would rule in favor of the plaintiff on this motion because it appear[ed] to [him] to be more just than not to aggregate those amounts. [6] He left it up to the plaintiff to draw up a final order setting out the reasons in the order. The final order drawn by Ross's counsel simply states as a legal conclusion that the parent Coleman is liable for the negligent acts of its subsidiary, without citing any supporting legal authority. It reads as follows: 1. An issue omitted from the Special Verdict as submitted to the jury and not requested by either party, was the following: Is Coleman Company, Inc., the parent corporation of Coast Catamaran Corporation, liable for the negligence of its wholly-owned subsidiary? 2. As a Special Finding, this Court concludes that Coleman Company, Inc., parent company of Coast Catamaran Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is responsible for the negligence of that subsidiary. This Finding is based upon the following facts and circumstances. a. By reason of the joint activities of these companies, and particularly, the activities of Coleman Company, Inc., in either jointly performing, or sharing the duties of, marketing, manufacturing and financing of the product known as the Hobie Cat 16 Sailboat, there exists a common identity with regard to the product, making the parent company responsible by doctrine of respondeat superior, imputed liability or parent company liability; b. The Court finds that Coleman instituted a policy requiring Product Development Committee meetings every month at Coast; the Committee was responsible for all design changes in Coast's existing products, including the Hobie Cat 16; Coleman exercised some control over the design of the Hobie Cat and received economic benefit from the sale of the boats; c. The Court further finds that Coleman shared responsibility for marketing activities, financing, control and financing of research and development, advertised the product as a `Coleman Company product,' and shared various other responsibilities, including those of directorship, leadership and control; 3. The negligence of Coleman Company, Inc., and Coast Catamaran Corporation is therefore aggregated and Coleman Company, Inc., is responsible for 15% of the negligence which proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries. In accordance with comparative negligence law and the Special Verdict utilized by this Court and the jury, Coleman has responsibility and liability for 15% of the total jury verdict of $2,662,376.00, or the sum of $399,356.40. (Emphasis added.) The counsel-drafted order imputing Coast's negligence to Coleman was based solely on the parent/subsidiary relationship, described in the order as imputed liability or parent company liability, without citing any authority for the proposition that a parent corporation is liable for the acts of its subsidiaries. The order imposing this imputed liability or parent company liability attempted to justify the holding because Coleman exercised some control over the design of the Hobie Cat and received economic benefit from the sale of the boat, and that Coleman shared responsibility for marketing, financing, control, research and development, and advertising the sailboat.