Spackman v. Good
| Decision Date | 10 October 1966 |
| Citation | 245 Cal.App.2d 518,54 Cal.Rptr. 78 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Suzanne SPACKMAN and Paul Spackman, Minors, by and through the Guardian of their Estates, Paul J. Spackman, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Lorens H. GOOD, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 7913. Division 1, California |
Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and from the judgment awarding damages upon a complaint alleging willful injury from misconduct causing emotional and mental distress and disturbance.
The plaintiffs, Suzanne and Paul, were born, respectively, on July 28, 1946 and Sept. 20, 1948; when defendant's alleged misconduct occurred were 15 and 13 years of age; at time of trial were 17 and 15; and now are 20 and almost 18.
One of the unusual facets of the case is the fact that these minors, who are the real parties in interest 1 testified that they did not believe the defendant had injured them physically or emotionally, and did not wish to proceed with the action which had been instituted by the guardian of their estates contrary to their wishes.
For years plaintiffs were subjected to an unhappy home environment. Suzanne testified that as long as she could remember her father and mother were 'always quarreling.' This was a day-to-day occurrence which constantly disturbed her; and often was accompanied by physical violence of one toward the other. Paul testified that his father used to 'beat up' his mother 'quite a bit'; and while she was living with him she tried to commit suicide 'about seven times.' One of these suicide attempts was followed by placement in a sanitarium. This state of affairs existed before the Spackmans met the Goods in the latter part of 1960. On Christmas of that year the Spackman and Good families were together at the latter's home; champagne was served; and Suzanne was served 'two glasses', first by her father and then by the defendant. This was the first time she had had champagne. Previously she had been served wine 'now and then' at her home, by both her father and her mother.
On June 1, 1961 Mr. Spackman separated from Mrs. Spackman and left the family home in Del Mar at 2102 Coast Boulevard. This was followed by an action for divorce filed by Mrs. Spackman on July 13, 1961.
When the father left, the plaintiffs remained with their mother. On August 17, 1961, the court, in the divorce action, made its order awarding custody of plaintiffs to Mrs. Spackman pendente lite; and on May 21, 1962 entered an interlocutory decree of divorce decreeing both Mr. and Mrs. Spackman were entitled to a divorce and awarding custody of the plaintiffs to Mr. Spackman. The events upon which the charges of misconduct alleged in the instant complaint are predicated occurred during the time the plaintiffs were in the custody of Mrs. Spackman.
After filing the divorce action, and about the first of August, 1961, Mrs. Spackman and plaintiffs had moved to an Ocean Front Street residence owned by the Goods where they lived for about five months; thereafter moved to another house owned by the Goods across the street from the latters' residence, where they stayed until February or March, 1962; and then moved into the Good residence, where Suzanne occupied a bedroom previously occupied by 'Sissy' Good, defendant's 19 year old daughter. The members of the Good family living in this residence at this time consisted of the defendant, his wife, his daughter 'Sissy', and another daughter, 21 years of age. The stay in the Good residence was a temporary one, pending improvement of an adjoining cottage into which Mrs. Spackman and the plaintiffs moved about the 1st of April.
The evidence in the case on the issue of liability, in overall context, was directed to proof that the defendant was an evil, immoral, depraved, sinful person; established specific acts of misconduct involving plaintiffs; but in larger measure concerned transgressions involving the plaintiffs' mother, the defendant's wife, and minors other than plaintiffs.
Applying the controlling test on appeal (see Thomas v. Hunt Mfg. Corp., 42 Cal.2d 734, 736, 269 P.2d 12; Johnson v. Griffith, 19 Cal.2d 176, 179, 120 P.2d 6), the evidence on the issue of defendant's misconduct involving Suzanne supports the conclusions defendant furnished intoxicating liquor which he permitted Suzanne and her friends to consume; participated in administering and compiling the results of a written sex questionnaire known as the 'New Decency Test'; kept in his study drinking glasses upon which were pictures of nude women which Suzanne saw on one occasion; in the presence of Suzanne on 'more than two' occasions advocated the philosophy that no sexual act was wrong if the participant did not believe it was wrong; owned a book entitled 'A Radical Approach to Child Rearing' by A. S. Neill, commonly given the title 'Summerhill,' which he loaned to Suzanne at her request following a suggestion by two of her teachers that she read it; participated in a controversial discussion with a witness named Moehling, in the presence of Suzanne concerning the subject of rape; suggested that Moehling demonstrate his contention, using Suzanne as the victim, which Moehling refused to do; permitted Suzanne to sleep on a couch with a boy named Beere, both of them being fully clothed; permitted Beere, while under the influence of alcohol, to spend the night in the same bedroom with Suzanne; and transported Suzanne, at her request, to a State camp ground known as La Costa Downs where she and a number of boys engaged in a drinking party and unchaste conduct. Premised upon the conclusion the foregoing misconduct was tortious and resulted in emotional and mental distress and disturbance, the jury awarded Suzanne compensatory damages in the sum of $25,000 and exemplary damages in the sum of $35,000, or a total of $60,000.
The foregoing summarization is based upon evidence legally admissible on the issue of defendant's misconduct as distinguished from hearsay testimony admitted for other purposes, and is limited to a consideration of the misconduct involving Suzanne.
As to the matter of furnishing intoxicating liquor, there is testimony defendant on 'more than a few' occasions furnished beer, champagne, and bourbon which he permitted Suzanne and others to drink; and that he entered a plea of guilty to the criminal charge of countributing to the delinquency of a minor by furnishing such.
Respecting the sex quiz, there is evidence indicating the existence of two questionnaires, one of which had been brought from school by Suzanne and her associates while the other, although its source was not identified, had been used at defendant's residence; that the questions propounded thereby elicited information concerning the homosexual and heterosexual activity of the persons answering, whose replies consisted of numbers, and their experience in the premises was determined by adding the total of the numbers given as answers; that Suzanne answered the questionnaire either at school or at defendant's home; and that defendant's participation in the test was to total the numbers given in the answers, although there is no evidence he did such with respect to any questionnaire answered by Suzanne.
The evidence respecting the photographs of nude women on drinking glasses was that defendant had such on display in his den or study; Moehling testified he and Suzanne looked at them on one occasion; and Suzanne testified she had seen them once by accident, did not think they were 'right', and did not 'approve' of having nudes portrayed on drinking glasses.
There is testimony the defendant gave lectures in which he discussed the philosophy of sexual behavior advocated in the book 'Summerhill'; defined terms identifying abnormal sex acts which are referred to in that book; and purportedly advocated acceptance of this philosophy. In his lectures on the philosophy that right and wrong in sex matters is relative, depending upon the attitude of the participant, defendant asserted that if anyone believes his sexual behavior is right, he is not accountable therefor to another, even to God. It is contended, in support of the judgment, defendant's advocacy of this philosophy caused Suzanne to change her attitude toward her religion. When interrogated about this, Suzanne testified there had been a change in her attitude which she attributed to reading several books respecting other religions, in preparation for a term paper at school, and it was not 'due to talking to Mr. Good.'
The incident involving Suzanne sleeping on a couch with Beere occurred in the early part of February, 1962, in the front room of the Good residence, and came to the attention of defendant when he placed a blanket over the two young people, who slept there for the night. Suzanne testified Beere did not molest her while they were on the couch together, and when she awoke in the morning he had gone. The second incident involving Beere occurred on March 16, 1962, at which time Suzanne was occupying the bedroom formerly occupied by 'Sissy' Good. Beere testified that on the night in question he and Suzanne had been drinking liquor furnished by the defendant; close to midnight, when they were in the bedroom, where there were two beds at right angles, defendant placed the two beds together, pulled back the sheets and said it would be all right for them to stay there for the night; following this both of them spent the night in bed without clothes on. Suzanne testified Beere was intoxicated; she and 'Sissy' brought him from the living room into the bedroom and laid him on one of the beds,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inland Mediation Bd. v. City of Pomona
...of causing" severe emotional distress. Christensen, 54 Cal.3d at 903, 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181; see also Spackman v. Good, 245 Cal.App.2d 518, 530, 54 Cal.Rptr. 78 (1966). Plaintiff need not, however, demonstrate that Keagy acted with a "malicious or evil purpose." KOVR-TV, 31 Cal.Ap......
-
Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
...a conscious disregard of the probable results." (BAJI No. 12.77 (1992 re-rev.) (7th ed. pocket pt.) p. 27; see Spackman v. Good (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 518, 530, 54 Cal.Rptr. 78; see also Davidson v. City of Westminster, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 210, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894; Ledger v. T......
-
Golden v. Dungan
...at p. 738, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, and 59 Cal.2d at p. 311, 29 Cal.Rptr. 33, 379 P.2d 513. See also, Spackman v. Good, supra, 245 Cal.App.2d 518, 528--530, 54 Cal.Rptr. 78, and Tate v. Canonica, supra, 180 Cal.App.2d 898, 909, 5 Cal.Rptr. In State Rubbish etc. Assn. v. Siliznoff, sup......
-
Fletcher v. Western National Life Ins. Co.
...Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216; State Rubbish Etc. Assn. v. Siliznoff, 38 Cal.2d 330, 337--339, 240 P.2d 282; Spackman v. Good, 245 Cal.App.2d 518, 528--529, 531--534, 54 Cal.Rptr. 78; Rest.2d Torts, § 46.) Whether treated as an element of the prima facie case or as a matter of defense, it must......
-
Emotional distress
...to inflict the injury, or 2) the realization that the injury was substantially certain to result from his conduct. Spackman v. Good , 245 Cal. App. 2d 518, 529, 54 Cal. Rptr. 78, 85 (1966); CACI 1603. §1:23 Conduct Directed at Plaintiff “It is not enough that the conduct be intentional and ......