Harkness v. Platten
Decision Date | 16 June 2016 |
Docket Number | CC C092970CV,CA A147439,SC S063222 |
Citation | 375 P.3d 521,359 Or. 715 |
Parties | John Harkness and Sherri Harkness, Petitioners on Review, v. Jack R. Platten, Respondent on Review. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Emil R. Berg, Boise, Idaho, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners on review. With him on the brief was Leonard D. DuBoff, The Duboff Law Group, Portland.
James M. Callahan, Callahan & Shears, P.C., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review.
Scott A. Shorr, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.
Before Balmer, Chief Justice, Kistler, Walters, Landau, Baldwin, Brewer, Justices, and DeVore, Justice pro tempore.**
, J.
This is a legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation case where we review a trial court judgment directing a verdict in favor of Platten (defendant). In an earlier lawsuit, defendant had represented the Harknesses (plaintiffs) against Kantor, a loan officer, and her successive employers, Sunset Mortgage (Sunset) and Directors Mortgage, Inc. (Directors), as the result of a fraudulent investment and loan scheme directed at plaintiffs by Kantor. That case did not settle to plaintiffs' satisfaction, and plaintiffs sought to recover their remaining loss from defendant.
In this case, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict based on the conclusion that plaintiffs' liability theories of apparent authority and respondeat superior asserted against Sunset and Directors were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record and could not have led to a result more favorable than the settlement. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court ruling, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Harkness v. Platten , 270 Or.App. 260, 348 P.3d 1145 (2015)
. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
The facts as stated by the Court of Appeals, which we adopt, are as follows:1
(footnotes omitted).
To prevail on their legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation claims against defendant, plaintiffs needed to prove a —that is, they were required to show, among other things, that, but for defendant's legal malpractice or negligent misrepresentation, they would have gone to trial in the underlying action, prevailed, and been awarded more than the amount that they had received in the settlement. See Chocktoot v. Smith , 280 Or. 567, 570–71, 571 P.2d 1255 (1977)
(a-case methodology). case-within- Plaintiffs' underlying action involved both contract and noncontract claims. For their case within a case on their contract claims, plaintiffs proceeded on a theory that Kantor had apparent authority from Sunset and Directors to bind those companies to the oral contract that was the basis for Kantor's investment scheme with plaintiffs—loaning funds to plaintiffs based on the equity in their different properties and then facilitating the lending of those funds to other borrowers for plaintiffs' investment purposes. For their case within a case on their noncontract claims, pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dr. Erik Natkin, Do PC v. Am. Osteopathic Ass'n
...are vicariously liable for the torts of employees when the employee acts in the course and scope of employment. See Harkness v. Platten, 359 Or. 715, 732 (2016) ("Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for an employee's torts whenthe employee acts within the scope ......
-
Ellison v. Dep't of Revenue
...trial court to vacate its original judgment in favor of plaintiff and enter judgment in favor of defendants[.]"); Harkness v. Platten, 359 Or. 715, 717, 375 P.3d 521 (2016) ("This is a legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation case where we review a trial court judgment directing a ......
-
Columbia Cascade Co. v. City of Fernandina Beach
...has authority to act on behalf of the principal and that belief is traceable to the principal's manifestations." Harkness v. Platten , 359 Or. 715, 723-24, 375 P.3d 521 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). " ‘Apparent authority to do any particular act can be created only by some cond......
-
Lee v. Trees, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-0165-AC
...causing a third party to reasonably believe an agent has authority to take specific actions on behalf of the principal. Harkness v. Platten, 359 Or. 715, 721-23 (2016) (summarizing Oregon law governing apparent authority). "The principal's words, conduct, or other representation need not be......