Farman v. Farman

Citations: 611 P.2d 1314; 25 Wash. App. 896; 1980 Wash. App. LEXIS 2186Docket: 7343-5-I

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; April 21, 1980; Washington; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Patricia A. Farman sued her ex-husband, John Farman, and his new wife, Pamela S. Farman, for damages due to alleged outrageous conduct and intentional and negligent infliction of mental distress. The plaintiff claimed Pamela made over 1,000 harassing phone calls, which led to a jury awarding her $15,000 for emotional distress. Patricia’s claims stemmed from a series of anonymous calls beginning in late 1976, after her separation from John, which caused her significant anxiety and health issues, leading to the use of prescribed medication for her condition. The harassment persisted even after her divorce in January 1977 and continued until she obtained an unlisted phone number, which John later disclosed to Pamela. Following a bizarre birthday card from an anonymous sender, the harassing calls resumed. A call-trapping device eventually traced one call back to John and Pamela's home, leading to Pamela's admission of making a limited number of calls, although she denied the total alleged by Patricia. The court dismissed the complaint against John and the marital community due to insufficient evidence, reinforcing that a spouse not committing a tort cannot be held liable, as established in prior Washington Supreme Court rulings.

In 1972, the legislature amended community property laws, stating that a married person’s separate property is generally protected from claims related to the other spouse's injuries, unless there would be joint responsibility if the marriage did not exist (RCW 26.16.190). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that John Farman should have known about his wife's actions that led to her causing harm, implying negligence on his part. Despite the plaintiff's claims, the court found no evidence of joint tortious conduct between John and Pamela Farman, as the necessary elements of concerted action, unity of purpose, and mutual knowledge were absent. The court noted that the plaintiff's argument, which suggested John’s failure to identify the caller could impose liability, lacked supporting legal authority. Furthermore, the court addressed the concept of community liability, affirming that Pamela's harassing calls were not made for the benefit of the marital community, as her motive was personal animosity towards the plaintiff, not a community interest. Thus, the court did not find grounds for liability against John's separate property.

Community liability cannot be established based on the theory of community benefit when a reasonable person would not expect the wrongful acts to yield the desired positive outcome for the community. In this case, the anonymous calls made by Pamela were unlikely to strengthen her marriage to John Farman, and could potentially have the opposite effect. The plaintiff references the Benson v. Bush case, where community liability was found despite no benefit to the community from the tortious act. In Benson, the husband's actions directly involved managing community property. The 1972 amendment to community property laws does extend liability to the wife's torts, but the management aspect present in Benson is absent here. Pamela’s actions did not stem from her role as an agent of the community, as they began before her marriage and did not benefit the community. The mere use of a community telephone does not suffice to attribute her wrongful conduct to the community. Additionally, Pamela's argument regarding insufficient evidence for emotional distress damages is dismissed, as the determination of damages is left to the fact-finder, with substantial evidence typically being supported by accompanying physical harm or shock.

Plaintiff presented testimonies indicating her nervousness, significant weight loss, withdrawal, and fear of going home at night, along with difficulty performing job duties and use of tranquilizers. Witnesses noted that her condition improved after learning the identity of the caller, leading to the cessation of the calls. The jury had substantial evidence to conclude that the plaintiff experienced extreme emotional disturbance. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against John Farman and the marital community, along with the judgment awarding damages, while also denying reconsideration on June 19, 1980, and noting pending Supreme Court review as of January 30, 1981. The plaintiff's argument for community liability based on 'recreational activity' was found inapplicable, as this concept relates to the family car doctrine rather than the current case context. Additionally, the cited case of LaFramboise v. Schmidt was distinguished, as that involved a community liability scenario tied to financial gain from the activity in question.