Scott

Scott v. Ross

Good Law
140 F.3d 1275·98 Daily Journal DAR 3567·1998 WL 159359·49 Fed. R. Serv. 222·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6889
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 8, 1998No. 96-35050California5,231 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beezer, J.

Opinion by Judge BEEZER; Dissent by Judge SCHWARZER.

Defendant-appellant Cult Awareness Network (“CAN”) appeals the jury’s verdict finding CAN liable for conspiracy and negligence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

In 1991, Kathy Tonkin and her six children joined the Life Tabernacle Church (“Life Tabernacle”), a branch of the United Pentecostal Church International. Tonkin remained a member for over a year before withdrawing. She urged her sons to withdraw from Life Tabernacle, but her three oldest sons, appellant Jason Scott (“Scott”), Thysen and Matthew, refused. At the time Scott was 18 years of age, Thysen, 16 and Matthew, 13.

Tonkin believed Life Tabernacle had a destructive effect on her sons and sought help in having them removed from the church’s influence. Tonkin contacted Shirley Landa after a referral from the Seattle Community Service hotline. Landa was involved in various “anti-cult” activities and worked as CAN’S Washington state “contact.” A “contact” is “an unpaid volunteer who is available in given areas to speak to members of the public on behalf of CAN.” CAN has described itself as “a national nonprofit organization…

Dissenting Opinion

Schwarzer, J.

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that CAN was liable for the consequences of Landa’s negligent referral. Under Washington law, to impose liability on a principal for the acts of its agents, á plaintiff must establish not only the existence of an agency relationship but also that “the relation ... exist[ed] at the time, and in respect to the particular transaction out of which the injury arises.” Hamm *1287 v. Camerota, 48 Wash.2d 34, 290 P.2d 713, 715 (1955); Roletto v. Department Stores Garage Co., 30 Wash.2d 439 , 191 P.2d 875, 877 (1948). 1 There was ample evidence for the jury to find that Landa, as a CAN-appointed contact person, was CAN’s agent. However, there was no evidence from which the jury could find that Landa acted as CAN’s agent “in respect to the particular transaction out of which the injury arises.” The relevant evidence showed the following:

Landa belonged to several cult-related organizations in addition to CAN. She was listed on the Seattle crisis hotline as “Parents Awareness.” Tonkin called Community Services and then reached Landa on her private line. Tonkin had never heard…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.