KNOEPKE v SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-80 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1980 ESTHER KNOEPKE, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY C O . , et al., D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f J u d i t h B a s i n , The H o n o r a b l e W. W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : R o b e r t L. J o h n s o n and T o r g e r O a a s , Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: R o b e r t J . Emmons, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana D z i v i , C o n k l i n & Nybo, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana A l e x a n d e r and Baucus, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : October 9, Filed : 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C. Court. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the The p l a i n t i f f s i n f o u r w r o n g f u l d e a t h and s u r v i v o r s h i p l a w s u i t s , E s t h e r Knoepke, A l l a n Samson and J u d i t h M i k k e l s o n , Thomas from and J u n e B r a d y , the judgment and F r a n k of the and M a r i o n D u s e k , Judicial Tenth appeal Court, District J u d i t h B a s i n County. On December 2 8 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e Hon. Lessley directed the e n t r y of judgment entered June 1977, 7, dismissed all the plaintiffs' lawsuits. in final which the nonresident W. W. an o r d e r LeRoy Hon. of McKinnon defendants from the I n h i s o r d e r , J u d g e L e s s l e y f o u n d no r e a s o n f o r d e l a y i n g t h e e n t r y o f J u d g e McKinnon's o r d e r and therefore directed final R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. to the appeal The , this Knoepke v . pursuant before to previous attempt Court declined order did to not S o u t h w e s t e r n Ry. 595 P.2d 3 7 6 , 36 S t . R e p . i s now p r o p e r l y appeal entered the dismissal See, Mont. s t a t e d below, order, because comply w i t h R u l e 5 4 ( b ) . (1979), be In the plaintiffs' a p p e a l J u d g e McKinnon's entertain Co. judgment us. For 957. reasons we a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s from t h e s e l a w s u i t s . Plaintiffs are passengers killed Stanford, the airplane. tragic Plaintiffs defendants and relatives of a l l e g e t h a t an employee o f negligently operated the T h i s Court has twice reviewed t h e f a c t s of t h i s accident, in S o u t h w e s t e r n Ry. Co. 35 S t . R e p . survivors i n a n a i r p l a n e c r a s h which o c c u r r e d n e a r Montana. nonresident the, l e g a l 523. -- o e p--, Kn ke (1978), The Haker supra, Mont . case involved and in , Haker v. 578 P.2d 7 2 4 , a wrongful d e a t h and s u r v i v o r s h i p l a w s u i t b r o u g h t by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e e s t a t e of a passenger killed i n t h i s same a i r p l a n e c r a s h . Although t h e f a c t s surrounding t h i s a c c i d e n t a r e provided i n o u r p r e v i o u s Knoepke and Haker d e c i s i o n s , we s h a l l r e i t e r a t e them b r i e f l y . On S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 1973, an a i r p l a n e p i l o t e d by A r t h u r Myllymaki, J r . , c r a s h e d i n t o t h e h i l l s s u r r o u n d i n g S t a n f o r d , Montana. The aircraft was owned by defendant, Charles Newman and l o a n e d t o d e f e n d a n t , D u d l e y Newman, f o r a f l i g h t from A r i z o n a t o W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e . Washington, Dudley d e f e n d a n t Sawyer Newman Aviation airplane t o Stanford, Following t h e f l i g h t t o gave Myllymaki, Company, a pilot permission fly the relatives. t o v i s i t Myllymaki's to for At t h e t i m e o f t h e c r a s h , Myllymaki was g i v i n g a j o y r i d e t o h i s f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s , L y l e Myllymaki, Zane A a r o Samson, L e s l i e David Dusek. , P a t r i c i a and J o h n Raymond B r a d y and None s u r v i v e d t h e a i r p l a n e c r a s h . E s t h e r Knoepke i s t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r Plaintiff the i n c l u d i n g Lenny Haker t h r e e minor children of Patricia and L y l e Myllymaki. P l a i n t i f f s A l l a n Samson and J u d i t h M i k k e l s o n a r e t h e p a r e n t s and l e g a l h e i r s o f Zane Aaro Samson. P l a i n t i f f s Thomas and J u n e B r a d y a r e t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s and l e g a l h e i r s o f J o h n Raymond B r a d y . P l a i n t i f f s F r a n k and Marion Dusek a r e t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s and l e g a l h e i r s o f L e s l i e David Dusek. The o r i g i n a l d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e Knoepke l a w s u i t i n c l u d e d t h e A r i z o n a R a i l w a y Company, Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company and t h e s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Arthur Myllymaki's e s t a t e , C e c e l i a K. Bailey. The original defendants in the other lawsuits included S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company, Aviation Company and Cecelia Bailey. The three Sawyer corporate defendants a r e a l l Arizona c o r p o r a t i o n s . Other d e f e n d a n t s l a t e r included i n t h e s e l a w s u i t s were C h a r l e s Newman, Dudley Newman and D a r r e l l Sawyer. Charles Newman and Dudley Newman a r e b r o t h e r s and a r e b o t h r e s i d e n t s of t h e S t a t e of Arizona, and o f f i c e r s and s t o c k h o l d e r s i n Southwestern Railway brothers engaged are Company. in a Additionally, p a r t n e r s h i p doing S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company. Arizona r e s i d e n t , the two business D a r r e l l Sawyer, as another i s t h e p r i n c i p a l s t o c k h o l d e r and g e n e r a l manager o f Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company. He a l s o d o e s b u s i n e s s i n d i v i d u a l l y a s Sawyer A v i a t i o n Company and a s Sawyer S c h o o l of Aviation. I n r e s p o n s e t o t h e c o m p l a i n t s f i l e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s , defendant Sawyer Aviation Company entered a "special a p p e a r a n c e " i n e a c h c a s e moving t o q u a s h s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s , claiming lack District of Court. challenging jurisdiction in the Montana Defendant f i l e d a n answer personal Southwestern Railway Company i n t h e Samson, the jurisdiction B r a d y and Dusek s u i t s a l s o of the District Court. S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company was n o t named a s a d e f e n d a n t i n t h e Knoepke answer suit. Defendant i n a l l four cases. Cecelia K. Bailey filed an Extensive discovery took p l a c e a f t e r t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s made t h e i r i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e . On S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , motion requesting from h e r lawsuit 1976, t h e Knoepke p l a i n t i f f filed a t h a t A r i z o n a R a i l w a y Company b e d r o p p e d a s a defendant. S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company b e Knoepke r e q u e s t e d substituted in that its place. On t h e same d a y , t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n a l l f o u r s u i t s moved t o add Dudley -8ef Newman, Thomas Newman and Darrell Sawyer as endants. On J u n e motions to 7, 1977, Judge McKinnon add D u d l e y Newman, Sawyer a s d e f e n d a n t s . granted plaintiffs' C h a r l e s Newman and Darrell The j u d g e o r d e r e d t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company i n t h e Knoepke l a w s u i t . judge further interposed by ordered the that defendants the in defenses the interposed a s t o the joined defendants. suits The previously be deemed At t h e same t i m e , however, J u d g e McKinnon e n t e r e d t h e following order : " I T I S ORDERED a s f o l l o w s : "1. The m o t i o n o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s D a r r e l l Sawyer a n d S a w y e r A v i a t i o n Company t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t a s t o s a i d D e f e n d a n t s b e , and i t i s hereby, granted. "2. The m o t i o n o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s S o u t h w e s t e r n R a i l w a y Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , D u d l e y Thomas Newman and C h a r l e s R. Newman, t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t a s t o s a i d D e f e n d a n t s b e , and i t i s hereby, granted. "3. The m o t i o n o f t h e P l a i n t i f f s f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment be and i s h e r e b y , d e n i e d . " The p l a i n t i f f s ' . McKinnon attorney thereupon d i s q u a l i f i e d Judge Judge jurisdiction W. of cases the Lessley W. and thereafter entered the assumed December 1979 o r d e r d i r e c t i n g e n t r y o f judgment on J u d g e McKinnon's o r d e r . From this order for final judgment, plaintiffs appeal, p r e s e n t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r our review: Is a " s p e c i a l a p p e a r a n c e " made by a p a r t y d e f e n d a n t 1. to quash service of a summons allowed under t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Pro c e d u r e ? May a D i s t r i c t C o u r t u s e a f f i d a v i t s t o d e t e r m i n e 2. i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a p a r t y t o a l a w s u i t without denying any of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e s u i t t h e r i g h t t o a t r i a l ? Did 3. the District Court err by ordering the d i s m i s s a l of t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s from t h e l a w s u i t ? In their responding additional issue: briefs, defendants raise an Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n i t s J u n e 1977 o r d e r j o i n i n g t h e a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t s w i t h o u t n o t i c e ? W shall discuss e these issues in the order they are presented. If attack a p a r t y t o a l a w s u i t p l a n s t o appea.r i n c o u r t the court's personal jurisdiction, a to special a p p e a r a n c e of t h e p a r t y , a s o p p o s e d t o a g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e , i s no l o n g e r r e q u i r e d . distinction R u l e 1 2 , M.R.Civ.P., between special and abolished the general appearances. Following s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s a p a r t y can a t t a c k t h e c o u r t ' s personal jurisdiction simply by raising the jurisdiction i s s u e i n an i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e t o p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m by m o t i o n b e f o r e answering t h e c l a i m o r i n an answer t o t h e c l a i m . If t h e p a r t y ' s i n i t i a l response t o t h e opponent's claim r a i s e s a personal j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s u e , then the p a r t y is not subject to the general response. power the District initial the court s o l e l y because of t h e Arizona defendants included a t t a c k s Court's personal jurisdiction responses t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' response, claims the S e e , 2A M o o r e ' s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 5 1 2 . 1 2 . In t h i s case, on of the for defendant defendants lack of Sawyer response a response serve Aviation as complaints. the personal "special jurisdiction. moved court Company t o dismiss labeled motion to the their I n each jurisdiction. appearance", a in A 1though its contents dismiss the initial the lack for of of The c o u r t d i d n o t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by g r a n t i n g a motion t h a t used t h e a n t i q u a t e d l a b e l of s p e c i a l appearance. On t h e s e c o n d i s s u e , court erred by using the plaintiffs affidavits and contend t h a t discovery the material included i n t h e c o u r t f i l e t o determine whether t h e deceased p i l o t was a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f h i s employment w i t h t h e Arizona defendants when the airplane crash occurred. P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n h e r e b a s e d on the discovery d e c i s i o n of than over a and the defendant's factual the materials amounts to a ultimate t o r t l i a b i l i t y rather determination Arizona affidavits, of defendants. the court's W e jurisdiction disagree. This d e t e r m i n a t i o n was n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e c o u r t t o r e s p o n d t o t h e Arizona defendants' jurisdiction. claim regarding the court's S u f f i c i e n t minimum c o n t a c t s b e t w e e n Montana and n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s m u s t b e f o u n d t o e x i s t i n o r d e r for the court defendants. agree jurisdiction of exercise S e e , S t a t e ex F i r s t Jud. D i s t . W e to jurisdiction rel. Goff v. over D i s t r i c t Court of ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 5 7 Mont. 4 9 5 , 487 P.2d with defendants' these argument 292. that while and u l t i m a t e l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t where d i s p u t e s f a c t e x i s t a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o d e t e r m i n a t i o n by m o t i o n , common collateral issues related to the defendant's connection with the t o r t i o u s a c t a r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l which may be resolved before trial. The issues court's use of a f f i d a v i t s t o r e s o l v e t h e s e c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e s was c o r r e c t . The p l a i n t i f f s ' constitutional r i g h t s w e r e n o t v i o l a t e d by the court's action. In Halsey (unpublished Brant opinion, v. Gatens Civil No. Cattle 761, et Co. decided al. August 20, 1 9 6 9 ) , t h e Hon. W i l l i a m Jameson u s e d a f f i d a v i t s t o d e c i d e a .j s d i c t i o n uri personal question before Judge question McKinnon. quite In similar Halsey, to the affidavits s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s w e r e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o n e of the named defendant, defendants a non-Montana J u d g e Jameson f o u n d employer, was employed resident. by a second Through t h e a f f i d a v i t s , t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t was which d e f e a t e d named the plaintiff's claim of not the minimum c o n t a c t s between t h e n o n - r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t and t h e S t a t e o f Montana. With regard determine j u r i s d i c t i o n , to his use of the affidavits the court held: . . . "The u s e o f a f f i d a v i t s ( t o determine pers o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ) under Rule 1 2 ( d ) is p r o p e r . While t h e r u l e i t s e l f does n o t s p e c i f y t h e t y p e of e v i d e n c e w h i c h may b e p r e s e n t e d , R u l e 4 3 ( e ) p r o v i d e s t h a t , 'When a m o t i o n i s b a s e d on f a c t s n o t a p p e a r i n g o f r e c o r d t h e c o u r t may h e a r t h e m a t t e r on a f f i d a v i t s p r e s e n t e d by t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s , b u t t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h a t t h e m a t t e r to be h e a r d w h o l l y o r depositions.' p a r t l y on o r a l testimony or " R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , r e l a t i n g t o m o t i o n s f o r summary judgment, p r o v i d e s t h a t , ' S u p p o r t i n g and o p p o s i n g a f f i d a v i t s s h a l l be made o n p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e , s h a l l s e t f o r t h s u c h f a c t s a s would be a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , and s h a l l show a £ £ i r m a t i v e l y t h a t t h e a f f i a n t is competent t o t e s t i f y t o t h e m a t t e r s stated therein.'" Buttressing their a r g u m e n t on t h i s i s s u e , p l a i n t i f f s c i t e H a r r i n g t o n v . H o l i d a y Rambler C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 3 2 , 525 P.2d 556. I n H a r r i n g t o n , we commented on t h e u s e o f a f f i d a v i t s a s follows: "The most t r o u b l e s o m e a s p e c t h e r e i s t h a t d e f e n d a n t was p e r m i t t e d s i m p l y t o s a y 'Nay' upon a f f i d a v i t and t h e r e b y p r e v e n t p l a i n t i f f s from having t h e i r day i n c o u r t . W a r e n o t disposed t o e s a y it i s a l w a y s i m p r o p e r t o g r a n t a m o t i o n t o dismiss f o r lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e d e f e n d a n t when a t a h e a r i n g on t h a t m o t i o n t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s n o t h i n g more i n s u p p o r t o f i t s p o s i t i o n t h a t a n a f f i d a v i t , b u t we d o f e e l t h a t i n t h e normal c o u r s e o f t h i n g s p l a i n t i f f s a t l e a s t ou g h t t o have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine t h e defendant. Fundamental f a i r n e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t t o the extent p l a i n t i f f s a r e denied such an o p p o r t u n i t y , d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t s h o u l d be g i v e n less weight." The case now than Harrington. before Here, us significantly is different extensive discovery materials a f f i d a v i t s were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t . and W approve of t h e e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s use of t h e s e e x t e n s i v e d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l s and affidavits nonresident in its determining defendants. The jurisdiction plaintiffs over were the given a s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o examine t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s t h r o u g h d e p o s i t i o n s and i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t o d e v e l o p t h e i r argument r e g a r d i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e i n . Plaintiffs' erred third issue asserts the i n a c t i n g on i t s own i n d i s m i s s i n g defendants from these lawsuits. District Court the nonresident Plaintiffs argue that because t h e defendants d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y f i l e a motion t o d i s m i s s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , t h e c o u r t was p o w e r l e s s t o d i s m i s s the defendants. Plaintiffs, however, misstate the defendants' actions. An examination of the initial p l e a d i n g s f i l e d by t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s i n d i c a t e s t h e defendants s p e c i f i c a l l y requested the court t o dismiss the actions for lack necessitated of jurisdiction. These e x p r e s s r e q u e s t s t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of jurisdiction d i s m i s s a l of d e f e n d a n t s from t h e l a w s u i t s . and The d e f e n d a n t s ' r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s empowered t h e c o u r t t o a c t . The fourth defendants in issue their brought is briefs filed by in the this nonresident appeal. The d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by g r a n t i n g plaintiffs' motions to add additional parties to the l a w s u i t s without f i r s t providing n o t i c e of t h e motion t o t h e defendants. W a r e asked t o c o n s i d e r t h i s i s s u e under t h e e " d o c t r i n e of compensatory e r r o r " . find the court's action W d e c l i n e t o do s o . e caused no prejudice to W e the d e f e n d a n t s and t h e r e f o r e , we s h a l l n o t a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n . For the the foregoing reasons, District Court dismissing we a f f i r m t h e judgment the nonresident from t h e s e l a w s u i t s . I i W e Concur: Chi, f J u s t i c e 17 - Justice of defendants
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
