Harmon v. Szrama

Decision Date07 July 1967
Docket NumberNo. 8569,8569
CitationHarmon v. Szrama, 429 P.2d 662, 102 Ariz. 343 (Ariz. 1967)
PartiesRoy HARMON and Doris Harmon, husband and wife, and father and mother of Peggy Joyce Harmon, Deceased, and Trudy Jean Harmon, an infant by Roy Harmon, her next friend, Appellants, v. La Verne R. SZRAMA and Ted A. Byer, as Administrator of the Estate of Ignatius S. Szrama, Jr., Deceased, Appellees.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Alan Philip Bayham, Phoenix, for appellants.

Tupper, Skeens, Rapp & Morris, by Gerald D. Tupper, Phoenix, for appellees.

LOCKWOOD, Justice:

Appellants Roy Harmon and Doris Harmon, husband and wife, and parents of Trudy Jean and Peggy Joyce Harmon, were the plaintiffs below. They brought a civil action against the defendants La Verne R. Szrama and the administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, Ignatius S. Szrama, Jr. who are appellees here. The basis of their complaint is that on June 19, 1962 the deceased Szrama entered the plaintiffs' home, shot and wounded the plaintiff Doris Harmon and Trudy Jean, and shot and killed Peggy Joyce Harmon. Later the same night, Szrama killed himself.

Plaintiffs claimed that the wrongful shooting of the three Harmons was a direct and proximate result of the conduct not only of Ignatius Szrama, Jr. but also of his wife, La Verne Szrama, who induced her husband's action in shooting and wounding one and killing the other of the Harmon children and in wounding Doris Harmon, because of certain incidents which occurred two years before the shooting. These incidents involved a family fight between La Verne and Ignatius Szrama, as a consequence of which La Verne took refuge in the Harmon home and the plaintiff Doris acquiesced in La Verne Szrama's staying in and using the home as a refuge to protect her from her husband Ignatius. Plaintiffs claim that the defendant La Verne Szrama knew that her husband was a vengeful person and would harbor a grudge for years. For these reasons plaintiffs claim that La Verne Szrama's conduct was also a proximate cause of Ignatius' conduct which resulted in the death of Peggy Joyce Harmon, and the wounding of the plaintiff Doris Harmon and the other child, Trudy Jean Harmon.

The Superior Court, after examining the pleadings and deposition then on file, on July 3, 1964 granted defendant La Verne Szrama's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint as to La Verne for failure to state a cause of action against her.

The plaintiffs' sole contention on appeal is that it was error for the Superior Court to grant the motion for summary judgment, since material issues of fact were raised by plaintiffs' affidavit controverting the motion, which would necessitate determination by the trier of fact.

The complaint was in the nature of a tort claim, for damages for the killing of one child, and wounding of the other child and the mother. The injuries suffered by the plaintiffs thereby were alleged to be the proximate result of the defendant La Verne's conduct in 'bringing plaintiff Doris Harmon, her home and family into the Szrama family fight and subjecting them to the vengeance of Ignatius Szrama, Jr.'

Plaintiffs' affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, in addition to the allegation of the complaint, claimed that ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
18 cases
  • Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 2002
    ...is also a question for the jury. Molever v. Roush, 152 Ariz. 367, 374, 732 P.2d 1105, 1112 (App. 1986) (citing Harmon v. Szrama, 102 Ariz. 343, 429 P.2d 662 (1967)). 21. Intentional interference with contract requires the preponderance standard. Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 C......
  • Molever v. Roush
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 19 Agosto 1986
    ...question of causation is one of fact for a jury except in those instances where no reasonable persons could disagree. Harmon v. Szrama, 102 Ariz. 343, 429 P.2d 662 (1967); Moore v. Maricopa County, 11 Ariz.App. 505, 466 P.2d 56 (1970). However, when the consequences of an attorney's alleged......
  • Neely v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 19 Octubre 1978
    ...alternative hypotheses of causation, a jury may not base its verdict upon surmise or conjecture. See, e. g., Harmon v. Szrama, 102 Ariz. 303, 429 P.2d 662, 664 (1967) (en banc); Hall v. Wallace, 59 Ariz. 503, 130 P.2d 36, 38 (1942); Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Blake, 53 Ariz. 49......
  • Compton v. National Metals Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 22 Septiembre 1969
    ...the moving party, if the facts show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Roy Harmon et al. v. LaVerne R. Szrama et al. (1967), 102 Ariz. 343, 429 P.2d 662; Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. (1967), 102 Ariz. 406, 432 P.2d 139; Mortensen v.......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • 3:7 Unsettled Law Doctrine
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona AZ Legal Malpractice Law Chapter 3 Causes of Action For Clients – Negligence and Vicarious Liability (§ 3:1 to § 3:9)
    • Invalid date
    ...interests. -----Note----- [94] 102 Ariz. 341, 429 P.2d 660 (Ariz. 1967), [95] Id. at 341-42, 429 P.2d at 660-61. [96] Id. at 343, 429 P.2d at 662. [97] [98] 152 Ariz. 367, 732 P.2d 1105 (App. 1986). [99] Id. at 372, 732 P.2d at 1110. [100] 156 Ariz. 418, 752 P.2d 507 (App. 1987). [101] Id. ......