Shields v. Martin
| Citation | 109 Idaho 132,706 P.2d 21 |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 15125,15125 |
| Parties | Stephen SHIELDS, individually, and as the natural father and guardian ad litem of Christopher Shields, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Respondent, v. James MARTIN, Defendant-Respondent, Cross-Appellant and Lauri Ann Halsey, an individual, Defendant-Respondent, and the City of Boise, a municipal corporation; and John Doe, a detective, Defendants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Lojek & Penland, Richard C. Boardman (argued), Boise, for plaintiff-appellant, cross-respondent.
Quane, Smith, Howard & Hull, Allyn L. Sweeney (argued), Boise, for defendants-respondents cross-appellants.
The marriage of Stephen Shields, a plaintiff herein, and Laurie Halsey terminated in a divorce decree which awarded Halsey custody of one-year-old Christopher, a second plaintiff herein. A few years later the court placed custody in Shields, and the incident which gave rise to this lawsuit arose while Shields had custody of Christopher.
Shields and Christopher were living in Boise where Christopher attended a daycare center when Shields was at his work. The incident is simply stated. Halsey came to Boise where she enlisted the aid of Boise Police Officer Martin. The two of them, co-defendants herein, went to the daycare center where, making use of a copy of the superseded, four-year-old custody decree which had placed custody of Christopher in Halsey, they obtained Christopher and took him from the daycare center. Immediately after the abduction, Halsey absconded, taking Christopher with her.
There was evidence introduced at trial, which the jury was at liberty to believe, and did believe, that Martin advised the daycare center operator that the document was valid and binding and that Christopher should be relinquished. Martin also told the daycare operator that she could not call Shields before the delivery of the child to Halsey.
Later, when notified that Christopher had been abducted, Shields contacted Martin, told him the true facts as to custody, and requested help in finding Christopher. Martin flatly refused and would not furnish any information. Shields eventually found and recovered Christopher and subsequently initiated this action to recover damages for himself and for Christopher.
The complaint of Shields and Christopher alleged the joint and several liability of Martin and Halsey for the wrongful abduction of Christopher and sought recovery of damages allegedly incurred by both plaintiffs. Halsey, after filing an answer, did not appear at trial either in person or by counsel. Martin appeared at trial and was represented by counsel.
At the instructions conference, over plaintiffs' objection, the district court refused to give plaintiffs' requested jury instruction No. 3 instructing the jury on joint and several liability:
YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT where two or more persons unite in an act which constitutes a wrong to another, intending at the time to commit it, or performing it under circumstances which fairly charge them with intending the consequences which follow, they incur a joint and several liability for the acts of each and all of the joint participants. The law does not require the injured party to establish how much of the injury was done by one person and how much of the injury was done by another. Rather, it permits the injured party to treat all concerned in the injury jointly and all are liable to respond to the plaintiff in a total sum as damages. All those who actively participate in a wrongful act, by cooperation or request, or who lend aid or encouragement to the wrongdoer, or ratify and adopt his acts for their benefit, are equally liable with him. Express agreement is not necessary, and all that is required is that there should be a common design or understanding, even though it be a tacit one.
The court refused the instruction in favor of two special verdict forms, which treated the tortious conduct of the two defendants as being two separate and distinct tortious causes of actions:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Special Verdict Form No. 1
We, the jury, answer the questions submitted
to us in Special Verdict Form No. 1 as follows:
QUESTION NO. 1: Did Defendant James
Martin violate Plaintiff Stephen Shields' Federal
Constitutional rights?
then please answer Question No. 2. If you
answered the above question "No," then omit
Questions 2, 3 and 4, and proceed to Question 5.
QUESTION NO. 2: Was Defendant James
Martin's conduct the proximate cause of the
damages, if any, alleged by Stephen Sheilds?
then please answer Question No. 3. If you
answered the above question "No," then omit
Questions 3 and 4, and proceed to Question 5.
QUESTION NO. 3: Were Defendant James
Martin's actions performed in good faith?
then please answer Question No. 4. If you
answered the above question "Yes," then omit
Question 4, and proceed to Question 5.
QUESTION NO. 4: What is the total amount
of damages sustained by Plaintiff Stephen Shields
as a result of Officer Martin's violation of
Plaintiff's Constitutional rights?
Martin violate Plaintiff Christopher Sheilds'
Federal Constitutional rights?
then please answer Question No. 6. If you
answered the above question "No," then omit
Questions 6, 7 and 8, and simply sign the Verdict
Form and proceed to Special Verdict Form No. 2.
QUESTION NO. 6: Was Defendant James
Martin's conduct the proximate cause of the
damages, if any, alleged by Christopher Shields?
then please answer Question No. 7. If you
answered the above question "No," then omit
Questions 7 and 8, and simply sign the Verdict Form
and proceed to Special Verdict Form No. 2.
QUESTION NO. 7: Were Defendant James
Martin's actions performed in good faith?
then please answer Question No. 8. If you
answered the above question "Yes," then omit
Question 8, and simply sign the Verdict Form and
proceed to Special Verdict Form No. 2.
QUESTION NO. 8: What is the total amount
of damages sustained by Plaintiff Christopher
Shields as a result of Officer Martin's violation of
Plaintiff's Constitutional rights?
ANSWER: $10.00
-----
Special Verdict Form No. 2
We, the jury, answer the questions submitted
to us in Special Verdict Form No. 2 as follows:
QUESTION NO. 1: Was Christopher Shields
falsely imprisoned by defendant Lauri Halsey?
please omit Question No. 4 and simply sign the
Verdict Form. If you answered Yes to Question
No. 3, please answer Question No. 4, and then sign
the Verdict Form.
QUESTION NO. 4: What is the total amount
of damages sustained by plaintiff?
are entitled to punitive damages from the defendant
Lauri Halsey?
----- The form dealing with Martin's conduct was submitted to the court by counsel for Martin. The second form appears to have been prepared by the court, and was patterned after the other. After judgment was entered on the special verdicts, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment and make Martin and Halsey jointly and severally liable for all damages suffered by each plaintiff. In denying the motion, the court stated:
The Motion to Correct the Judgment in this case is denied. The defendants are not jointly and severally liable. Each defendant was found liable under different theories. Different duties were owed by each and breached by each. Further, Officer Martin could not have been found liable of the torts committed by Laurie Ann Halsey. He was found liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Mrs. Halsey could not have violated 42 U.S.C. 1983. They each committed different acts which harmed the plaintiff--acts which were different in character and degree. The jury fixed an award for the amount of harm caused by each. There is no basis for joint and several liability.
Plaintiffs' appeal is directed at the denial of the motion to amend the judgment. Martin's cross-appeal challenges both the jury's finding that he is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the award and amount of attorney's fees granted to the plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Martin further argues that mere negligence is insufficient for imposition of liability under § 1983, on which basis he contends that the damage awards against him are improper as a matter of law since, at most, his conduct constituted negligence. We will take up each issue in turn.
We agree with plaintiffs' argument that Martin and Halsey were not separate and independent tortfeasors, but were joint tortfeasors whose combined acts, which were committed in concert, caused the plaintiffs' harm. In determining whether two or more defendants are jointly and severally liable, ordinarily the first and only inquiry is whether the defendants acted in combination and in a concerted manner in causing the harm of which the plaintiff is complaining. Under some circumstances, however, a second inquiry is made to ascertain if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. Wall
...Pace, 780 P.2d 520 (Colo. 1989) (mother suing grandparents for conspiring with father to conceal child's whereabouts); Shields v. Martin, 109 Idaho 132, 706 P.2d 21 (1985) (father suing mother and police department for abduction); Wood v. Wood, 338 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 1983) (mother suing fathe......
-
Larson v. Dunn, I-
..."that the child is away from home against the will of the parent." Restatement Sec. 700 comment b; but see Shields v. Martin, 109 Idaho 132, 139-41, 706 P.2d 21, 29 (1985) (civil rights action allowed on negligence theory against police officer for aiding in child's abduction). Of course, a......
-
Nation v. State, Dept. of Correction
...standard." Miller v. Ririe Joint Sch. Dist. No. 252, 132 Idaho 385, 387, 973 P.2d 156, 158 (1999) (citing Shields v. Martin, 109 Idaho 132, 141, 706 P.2d 21, 30 (1985)). "Any elements of legal analysis which figure in the district court's decision are, however, subject to de novo review." I......
-
Kessel v. Leavitt
...to maintain claim for damages arising from defendant's interference with plaintiff's custody of his minor child); Shields v. Martin, 109 Idaho 132, 706 P.2d 21 (1985) (permitting recovery of damages for tortious interference with custodial relationship), superseded by statute as noted in Do......