{"id":2217,"date":"2018-04-07T13:42:55","date_gmt":"2018-04-07T21:42:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2217"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:22:47","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:22:47","slug":"ps-102-chapter-4-article-2-due-diligence-painter-v-olney","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/ps-102-a-course-outline\/ps-102-understanding-case-summaries\/ps-102-chapter-4-an-introduction-to-due-diligence-case-law\/ps-102-chapter-4-article-2-due-diligence-painter-v-olney\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 2 – Due Diligence – Painter v. Olney"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary
\nPainter v. Olney, 37 Wn. App. 424, 680 P.2d 1066 (1984).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff Painter filed a claim<\/a> arising from a motor vehicle collision against Defendants Olney and Kometz. The vehicle that struck Plaintiff was owned by Olney and driven by Kometz.<\/span><\/p>\n

Painter’s attorney had a copy of the police traffic collision report that contained:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Kometz’s full name and address (823 N.E. 190th St.)<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Kometz’s home phone number<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Kometz’s business number<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. The name of Kometz’s employer (Olney)<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Olney’s full name and address.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    For about 18 months after the accident, Kometz lived at the address contained in the report. She then moved to Kirkland but left a forwarding address with postal officials. At all times pertinent, her business telephone number remained the same. At all times pertinent, Defendant<\/a> Olney lived at the address contained in the report.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The summons and complaint<\/a> was taken by a process server to 823 – 190th St. According to the process server’s affidavit<\/a> of nonservice, the server was told by the people<\/a> living there that Olney and Kometz had moved about two years ago, and they had no clues as to where they may<\/a> be. In fact<\/a>, Kometz and Olney never lived together at this or any other address, and the attempt was made at a different, though similar address (190th, not N.E. 190th).<\/span><\/p>\n

    Painter’s attorney then prepared an affidavit<\/a> and motion<\/a> for service of summons by publication, stating that “personal service<\/a> cannot be made on defendants within this state to the affiant<\/a>’s best knowledge, information<\/a> and belief”.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Judicial<\/a> History<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Superior court upheld the validity of the service of process by publication.  The Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient effort to locate the defendants, and rendered the service by publication inappropriate.  The action<\/a> was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Specific Issue<\/strong><\/span>
    \nIs strict compliance required for statutes authorizing service by means other than     personal service<\/a>?<\/span>      Yes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Holding<\/strong><\/span>
    \nFirst and basic to any     litigation<\/a> is jurisdiction<\/a>.  First and basic to jurisdiction<\/a> is service of process.  Statutes authorizing service by means other than personal service<\/a> require strict compliance.  An honest and reasonable<\/a> effort should be made to find the defendant<\/a> prior to alternative service of process.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Reasoning<\/strong><\/span>
    \nThe plaintiff, in having an     agent<\/a> call only at a house where it appears that neither defendant<\/a> had ever lived and then abandoning the search, despite possessing additional information<\/a> regarding the defendant<\/a>’s whereabouts, did not make the honest and reasonable<\/a> effort necessary to allow for service by publication.<\/span><\/p>\n

    C4PSE Comment<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    The record does not reflect exactly what the plaintiff’s attorney provided to the process server. However, the server either knew, or should have known, that the case<\/a> was the result of an automobile accident. In such a situation it is reasonable<\/a> for a server to ask the client for a copy of the accident report. Had this occurred the outcome of this case<\/a> would most likely have been much different than it turned out.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Summary Painter v. Olney, 37 Wn. App. 424, 680 P.2d 1066 (1984). Facts Plaintiff Painter filed a claim<\/a> arising from a motor vehicle collision against Defendants Olney and Kometz. The vehicle that struck Plaintiff was owned by Olney and driven by Kometz. Painter’s attorney had a copy of the police traffic collision report that contained: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":2213,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2217","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2217","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2217\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}