Gerstner v. Washington Water Power Co.

• Decision Date: 07 August 1992
• Docket Number: No. 19295,19295
• Citation: 122 Idaho 673,837 P.2d 799
• Parties: Thomas GERSTNER and Ninfa Gerstner, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY, a public utility corporation, Defendant-Respondent. Boise, March 1992 Term
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 799

837 P.2d 799

122 Idaho 673

Thomas GERSTNER and Ninfa Gerstner, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY, a public utility corporation, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 19295.

Supreme Court of Idaho,

Boise, March 1992 Term.

August 7, 1992.

David A. Manko, Coeur d'Alene, and Dennis W. Clayton (argued), Spokane, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Milton G. Rowland and Donald G. Stone, Spokane, Wash., for defendant-respondent.

Kenneth B. Howard, Jr., for amicus, Idaho Trial Lawyers Ass'n.

BACKGROUND PROCEEDINGS

BISTLINE, Justice.

On December 11, 1983, plaintiff-appellant Thomas Gerstner received a high voltage electrical shock from a transformer utilized by his employer, Hern Ironworks. The Gerstners filed a complaint on November 7, 1984, alleging that Washington Water Power Company ("WWP") was negligent in the construction, maintenance and/or control of its product, electricity, used by Hern Ironworks. The district court dismissed the case on February 21, 1989. In the intervening time period, the following events occurred.

On November 15, 1984, the complaint and various discovery requests were served upon WWP. WWP answered the complaint and responded to the discovery requests on February 20, 1985.

Eighteen months later on August 21, 1986, the district court filed a "Notice of Proposed Dismissal," requiring a showing of specific facts why the case should not be dismissed. The Gerstners' attorney responded by affidavit, stating that Mr. Gerstner had been hospitalized in a coma for a substantial amount of time, and that counsel would "be filing certain motions and moving this case forward toward a trial setting." The court clerk failed to transmit the affidavit to the district judge and the case was erroneously dismissed. This error was corrected by an order to set aside the dismissal, dated September 16, 1986.

On October 22, 1986, plaintiffs-appellants filed an amended motion to compel discovery, and a hearing was set. Later, however, counsel agreed to vacate the hearing date and attempt an informal resolution.

On June 12, 1987, WWP moved the court to enter a summary judgment. Plaintiffs-appellants responded, and the motion was heard on August 25, 1987. On March 17, 1988, the court denied WWP's motion.

On January 12, 1989, ten months later, the trial court sua sponte filed a "Notice of Proposed Dismissal" pursuant to I.R.C.P. 40(c), ¹ requiring the Gerstners' response by January 27, 1988.

On January 23, 1989, the Gerstners' counsel filed an affidavit of retention pursuant to I.R.C.P. 40(c), stating that Mr. Gerstner was still undergoing medical treatment, and the deposition of Mr. Gerstner's employer had been scheduled. Also on January 23, 1989, WWP moved for dismissal pursuant to I.R.C.P. 41(b). A hearing on that motion was consolidated with the hearing on the court's notice of proposed dismissal.

Following oral argument, the court announced its decision to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 41(b), in an order which

[122 Idaho 675] was filed March 9, 1989. Subsequently, the court granted the Gerstners' motion for reconsideration; on April 13, 1989, the court again ordered the cause dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Gerstners timely appealed, and the case was assigned to the Court of Appeals. On that court's affirming the dismissal, the Gerstners petitioned this Court for review. This Court granted review, and we now reverse the district court and remand this cause with directions.

ANALYSIS

The Gerstners' main contention on appeal to this Court is that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case pursuant to I.R.C.P. 41(b). ² They urge that the district court could and should have instigated movement of the case by less harsh methods before resorting to Rule 41(b). WWP, notwithstanding that it had indulged in the delay, defends the dismissal based on its assertion of the Gerstners unexcusable and unreasonable delay. WWP invokes Idaho case law for the principle that prejudice is presumed to result from such delay.

When this Court hears a case which is on a petition for review from an opinion of the Court of Appeals, and

the issues presented to the Court of Appeals concerned a decision of a district court, we consider the correctness of the district court's decision. While we value the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the insight it gives us in addressing the issues presented on appeal, we do not focus on the opinion of the Court of Appeals, but rather on the decision of the district court.

Sato v. Schossberger, 117 Idaho 771, 775, 792 P.2d 336, 340 (1990).

The keystone of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure is liberality which favors a final decision predicated on the merits over a dismissal based upon a technicality. Rule 1(a) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the rules "shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." It is appropriate to give consideration to the words of wisdom from Justice Shepard and Justice Donaldson, both now deceased, dealing with similar situations. In Harris v. Beco Corp., 110 Idaho 28, 713 P.2d 1387 (1986), Justice Shepard wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that the majority of the Court has departed from the previous strong policy providing parties with their day in court. That policy has held to be the essence of our rules of civil procedure. Sines v. Blaser, 98 Idaho 435, 566 P.2d 758 (1977). As has been said by the United States Supreme Court, 'a person's right to his day in court is basic to our very system of jurisprudence.' In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948).

Harris, 110 Idaho at 30, 713 P.2d at 1389. Justice Donaldson, in Clark v. Olsen, 110 Idaho 323, 715 P.2d 993 (1986), wrote:

We begin our discussion by noting that technical rules of pleading have long been abandoned in this state. Rauh v. Oliver, 10 Idaho 3, 9, 77 P. 20, 21-22 (1904). The general policy behind the current rules of civil procedure is to provide every litigant with his or her day in court. Sines v. Blaser, 98 Idaho 435, 437, 566 P.2d 758, 760 (1977). The rules are to be construed to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding. I.R.C.P. 1(a). The purpose of a complaint is to inform the defendant of the material facts upon which the plaintiff bases his action. Fox v. Cosgriff, 64 Idaho 448, 454, 133 P.2d 930, 932-33 (1943). A complaint need only contain a concise statement of the facts constituting the cause of action and a demand for relief. I.R.C.P. 8(a)(1); Stone v. Bradshaw, 64 Idaho 152, 128 P.2d 844, 846 (1942).

With these considerations in mind, we turn to the complaint at issue. Clark's complaint, as quoted above, asked the court to declare Ordinance No. 428 and the subsequent conveyance void, to resolve the controversy between the litigants, to declare the duties of the defendant concerning the controversy, to order the defendants to carry out their respective duties, and to grant all other relief to which Clark was found to be legally entitled. The district court's order of March 2, 1987, provided the following relief:

'Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be, and hereby is granted in the following respects:

'(a) IT IS ORDERED that Montpelier City Ordinance # 428 be, and hereby is declared void and of no force and effect.

'(b) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the attempted transfer of title from the City of Montpelier to one Ivan Phelps of the following described real property through Montpelier City Ordinance # 428 is declared invalid and is hereby set aside....'

It is clear that the order did not grant all the relief prayed for in the complaint. Clark's complaint did not merely seek a determination that the ordinance and subsequent conveyance were void. It sought to have the controversy resolved. The complaint specifically asks the court to declare the duties of the defendants with respect to their improper conduct and to provide Clark with whatever relief he is legally entitled to. As it now stands, the district court's decision has left Clark with a bundle of rights and no legal remedies to secure those rights. It appears from the record and arguments before this Court that nothing has been done to ultimately resolve this controversy. Although the ordinance and conveyance have been held invalid, Kunz' carport is still encroaching onto a dedicated public street and Clark is still without access to his property. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that Clark has received all the relief prayed for, or, in fact, any relief at all. We therefore hold that the district court erred in determining that Clark had received all the relief prayed for and in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Clark, 110 Idaho at 325, 715 P.2d at 994.

Rule 1(a) is a constant reminder that "a just result is always the ultimate goal to be accomplished." Sines v. Blaser, 98 Idaho 435, 439, 566 P.2d 758, 762 (1977). Further, as this Court held in Bunn v. Bunn, 99 Idaho 710, 712, 587 P.2d 1245, 1247 (1978):

A 'determination' of an action within the meaning of Rule 1 is meant to be a determination of the controversy on the merits--not a termination on a procedural technicality which serves litigants not at all. A determination entails a finding of the facts and an application of the law in order to resolve the legal rights of the litigants who hope to resolve their differences in the courts. The 'liberal construction' of the rules required by Rule 1, while it cannot alter compliance which is mandatory and jurisdictional, will ordinarily preclude dismissal of an appeal for that which is but technical noncompliance. This will be especially so where no prejudice is shown by any delay which may have been occasioned.

See also Clark v. Olsen, 110 Idaho 323, 715 P.2d 993 (1986) (Bistline, J., concurring specially); Neal v. Harris, 100 Idaho 348, 597 P.2d 234 (1979); ...