State ex rel. Sivnksty v. Duffield, Judge et al.
71 S.E.2d 113 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-resident who voluntarily enters a jurisdiction for personal reasons, and is subsequently arrested and incarcerated, is not immune from the service of civil process while confined, because the purpose of the immunity rule is to encourage voluntary appearance for judicial proceedings, a condition not met in such cases.
Facts:
- Mike Sivnksty, a non-resident of Gilmer County, West Virginia, voluntarily drove into the county on June 30, 1951.
- Sivnksty intended to remain in Gilmer County for a period extending over the July 4th holiday.
- On that same day, while driving in the Town of Glenville, an automobile operated by Sivnksty struck and injured two children, Johnny Bob DeVaughn and Alma Jean DeVaughn.
- Shortly after the incident, a town police officer arrested Sivnksty.
- Unable to obtain bond, Sivnksty was incarcerated in the Gilmer County jail and held there until July 2, 1951.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnny Bob DeVaughn filed an action of trespass on the case for personal injuries against Mike Sivnksty in the Circuit Court of Gilmer County.
- While Sivnksty was incarcerated in the Gilmer County jail, he was served with a summons for DeVaughn's civil action.
- Sivnksty appeared specially in the civil action and filed a plea in abatement, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction because he was immune from service as a non-resident prisoner.
- The circuit court sustained a demurrer to Sivnksty's plea in abatement, rejecting his immunity claim, and set the case for trial.
- Sivnksty (as petitioner) then sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to prohibit the circuit court judge from proceeding with the civil action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a non-resident of a county, who voluntarily enters that county for personal reasons but is subsequently arrested and incarcerated there, immune from service of civil process for a suit arising out of the incident that led to his arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Riley
No. A non-resident who voluntarily enters a county for reasons other than to attend a judicial proceeding is not immune from civil process if he is later arrested and incarcerated. The underlying public policy for immunity is to encourage non-residents to appear voluntarily for criminal proceedings without fear of being served in a civil suit. That policy does not apply here because Sivnksty did not enter Gilmer County in response to any criminal process; he came of his own volition for personal reasons. His subsequent incarceration, while making his presence involuntary, does not trigger the immunity rule because the initial purpose of his presence was unrelated to any judicial proceeding. The court adopts the widely held view that incarceration, in itself, does not grant a prisoner immunity from service of process.
Dissenting - Lovins
Yes. A non-resident defendant in a criminal proceeding should be immune from civil process, regardless of the reason for his initial entry into the jurisdiction. The critical factor is that once Sivnksty was arrested and jailed, his presence in Gilmer County became involuntary. Forcing him to defend a civil action in a foreign county, far from his home and reputation, is unjust and subjects him to harassment while he should be focused on his criminal defense. The majority's holding creates a risk of abuse, where out-of-county motorists could be arrested on minor pretexts simply to establish jurisdiction for a civil lawsuit.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the immunity from service doctrine in West Virginia. It establishes that the immunity's protection is contingent upon the reason for the non-resident's presence in the jurisdiction, not merely their status as a criminal defendant. By distinguishing between those who enter a jurisdiction to answer legal process and those who enter for other reasons and are subsequently arrested, the court ties the immunity directly to its underlying public policy of encouraging voluntary appearances. This ruling makes it more difficult for non-resident criminal defendants to avoid civil jurisdiction if their presence was not for the purpose of attending court, thereby impacting travel-related torts and jurisdictional challenges.
Unlock the full brief for State ex rel. Sivnksty v. Duffield, Judge et al.