Court Opinion

ID: 9569404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:13:33.341446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:57:10.031202
License: Public Domain

JOSEPH, C. J.,
dissenting in part; concurring in part.
The only purely factual allegations respecting Mensing relate to the period on or before January 1,1976; the only other allegations respecting him, the specifications of negligence in paragraph 12, necessarily relate only to the period before Langley’s default in January, 1980. There are no allegations that Mensing participated with, or is responsible for the actions of, Whitely before or after that date. When Langley defaulted, plaintiff should have looked to his security. Mensing did nothing to divert him from doing that and should have the benefit of plaintiffs “strategy.” Therefore, I dissent from the majority insofar as it reverses the judgment for Mensing. I concur with respect to Whitely.1

 I recognize some difficulty in saying that plaintiff should have discovered Mensing’s negligence but not Whitely’s. However, paragraph 13 does contain factual allegations that relate to Whitely’s conduct in the two-year period before the complaint was filed.