Pakos v. Clark

• Decision Date: 23 April 1969
• Citation: 253 Or. 113,453 P.2d 682
• Parties: Robert F. PAKOS, Appellant, v. Donald E. CLARK, Earl Johnson, Bruce Danielson, James Pierce, Joseph Quinlin and Donald Rocks, Respondents.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 682

453 P.2d 682

253 Or. 113

Robert F. PAKOS, Appellant, v. Donald E. CLARK, Earl Johnson, Bruce Danielson, James Pierce, Joseph Quinlin and Donald Rocks, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 2.

Argued and Submitted March 5, 1969.

Decided April 23, 1969.

Charles E. Hodges, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Jon Woodside, Portland.

Richard Roberts, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., Portland.

Before PERRY, C.J., and SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN, and HAMMOND, JJ.

HAMMOND, Justice pro tem.

Plaintiff brings this action against the Sheriff of Multnomah County and five of the sheriff's deputies claiming damage arising from certain acts that he alleges caused plaintiff mental suffering and anxiety. The specific acts charged against the defendants and forming the basis for this action are:

'* * *.

'V

'That the defendants did on or about the 24th day of April, 1964, maliciously do the following acts to the plaintiff;

'(1) Made statements to plaintiff that he was of unsound mind;

'(2) Made gestures to plaintiff indicating plaintiff was of unsound mind;

'(3) Threatened to incarcerate plaintiff without cause or reason;

'(4) Accused plaintiff of committing the crime of larceny

'(5) Made derogatory statements to plaintiff about plaintiff and his prior commitments;

'(6) Ridiculed plaintiff concerning the law suits presently pending against neighbors concerning the commitment of plaintiff's wife;

'(7) Ridiculed plaintiff about plaintiff's complaint against certain neighbors of plaintiff;

'(8) Represented to plaintiff that he was mentally ill;

'(9) Caused plaintiff apprehension by unduly delaying plaintiff in the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.

'* * *.'

Plaintiff appeals from an order of involuntary nonsuit granted by the court as to each of the defendants upon their motion at the conclusion of plaintiff's case in chief. The granting of the order is the only assignment of error.

In deciding this matter we are guided by the rule that a motion for nonsuit admits the truth of plaintiff's competent evidence and of every inference of fact that can be reasonably drawn therefrom; and that in considering the motion the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Schenk v. Lamp, 229 Or. 72, 365 P.2d 1068 (1961); Copenhagen, Inc. v. Kramer, 224 Or. 535, 356 P.2d 1064 (1960).

The record reveals the plaintiff to be a 54-year-old man of Czechoslovakian extraction. During the period in controversy he operated a small farm while his wife worked for Western Union. The history of the couple's relationship with their neighbors is replete with charges and countercharges of misconduct. When the first child was born to the couple the plaintiff delivered the baby at the family home. It was reported to plaintiff later that certain neighbors were saying that he had sewed up his wife's private parts with black thread.

In 1960, after hearings in Multnomah County, Mr. and Mrs. Pakos were both committed to Eastern Oregon State Hospital. They remained at the institution about eleven months. During that period their baby was cared for at a hospital nursery. The defendant Earl Johnson first met plaintiff May 9, 1960, when plaintiff reported to him regarding an altercation in which a number of persons were allegedly involved. The following day Johnson served plaintiff with a warrant in the insanity proceedings which resulted in the commitment above described.

Following the release of plaintiff and his wife from the state hospital and the subsequent judicial restoration of their competency they each brought actions against a number of defendants, mostly neighbors of the plaintiff, seeking a total of two million dollars ($2,000,000) in damages for injuries allegedly flowing from the commitments. In the instant case plaintiff claims that the commitment and the following law suits acted to furnish notice to these defendants of plaintiff's sensitivity.

On April 20, 1964 the defendant Danielson, as deputy sheriff, visited plaintiff at his home and inquired of plaintiff regarding a report made to him that plaintiff had on that date stolen two flats of petunias from a store. Plaintiff denied the theft and Danielson returned later the same day with a clerk from the store and further inquiry was made of plaintiff regarding the complaint. No arrest was made and there is no record of a charge being filed in any court. Plaintiff testified that he telephoned the sheriff's office several times on April 23 to determine whether a warrant had been issued for his arrest because of the alleged theft. He relates that he talked to an officer on one call whose conversation he recalled as follows:

'A He identified himself as Don Larson, administrative assistant to Don Clark, and he said, 'Mr. Pakos, we can't tell you whether there is a warrant for you or not. You must come down to the courthouse to see about that.' And he said that I was to go to the traffic office the next morning at 8 o'clock, and he said it would be taken care of there. Then I was to return and let him know how I came out.'

The following morning, April 24, 1964, plaintiff drove his wife to her employment at Western Union and also took with him the couple's first child, now six years old, and their three-month-old daughter. Mrs. Pakos was left at her place of employment at about 6:45 a.m. and plaintiff then drove directly to the county courthouse, taking the children with him, the baby being carried in a plastic carrier.

Plaintiff says that he went first to the office of defendant Donald E. Clark, the then sheriff. He saw a light in the office and spoke to an unidentified man. Pakos relates that he received these instructions from that person:

'A He said, 'Mr Pakos, it's about that flower deal.' He said, 'The man that came to your house was Officer Zornado, and you go right on upstairs. They are waiting for you.'

'And I told him, 'I was told that they opened up at 8 o'clock.'

'And he says, 'No. You go right on up. They are waiting for you.'"'

Plaintiff says that as directed he went to the traffic office on the eighth floor of the courthouse and there met the defendant Lieutenant Quinlin to whom he stated that he had been told to come there 'in regard to whether there was a warrant or not,' to which Quinlin replied, "Before we can go any further, we have to find out who the man was that came out to your place."

Pakos states that Lieutenant Quinlin brought in Officer Zornado and then Officer Pierce (one of the defendants) and each time plaintiff said, 'that wasn't the man.' He then recalls that the defendant Danielson came into the room at 8:30 a.m. and 'I asked him his name, and he said, 'My name is Beovich. " It is contended that Danielson thereby misrepresented himself.

The evidence indicates that Pakos was at the sheriff's office a total of about three hours. He describes his conduct as patiently waiting, talking calmly to officers and inquiring whether there was a warrant for his arrest. He left the courthouse at least once during this period to put money in a parking meter. He does not contend that he was detained against his will, but simply that he could not get the information he came for.

The sheriff's deputies who were called as adverse party witnesses described Pakos's conduct as disturbed, threatening, wildly gesturing, accusatory and, 'He was yelling and swearing, and you name it.'

Plaintiff's complaint about the conduct of the defendant Johnson is described in his testimony as follows:

'Q Well, first of all, did you have any more conversation with Earl Johnson? Did you have any conversation with him that day?

'A I did at the tail end of the waiting period.

'Q What happened when Earl Johnson came there?

'A Lieutenant Quinlin had again gone over to the Criminal Division. He didn't come back. But Mr. Earl Johnson came in, and he said to me, he said, 'You are crazy as a bedbug. I am going to get ahold of somebody and I'm going to have you put right back in the insane asylum at Pendleton where you were before. I'm going to take these children and turn them over to the juvenile authorities.'

'And I tried to explain to Mr. Johnson that I was there on legitimate business, that I was there to see about a warrant, and I said to Mr. Johnson, 'If you can do that on your own, that would show corruption.'

'When I said that, he started raging and hollering and police officers came from every direction. They had him surrounded. They were saying, 'No, Earl, don't do that. Please let him go. No, please, Earl, don't lose your head. Let the man go.''

Johnson describes the incident as one in which he was trying to humor Pakos and quiet him down; to get his attorney and come back. He states that after Pakos had ranted and raved for nearly an hour he decided that he should have a mental hearing and that he signed the necessary papers in the Mental Health Department for that purpose. Officer Danielson also signed the papers.

Plaintiff testified that after his experience with the defendant Johnson he went down the stairway to the office of defendant Rocks on the first floor of the courthouse. Rocks was Administrative Assistant to Sheriff Clark. He relates his experience with Rocks as follows:

'A I asked Mr. Rocks if he could help me out in regard to that matter.

'Q Now, what did Mr. Rocks do or say?

'* * *

'A He said he had something very important to talk about and started questioning me about my wife's movements after she got off working up to the bus depot in regard to getting into cars with men.

'Q And what else happened?

'A As Mr. Rocks was having this conversation, he would lean over the desk and puff out his cheeks and bulge his eyes at me.

'Q Now, could you describe the motions that he made or the gestures that he made?

'A Well, he blew his cheeks full of air and--

'Q Could you just demonstrate that to the...