PS 102 – Chapter 3 – Article 2 – Immunity from Service – Anderson vs Ivarsson

Summary
Supreme Court
Anderson v. Ivarsson, 77 Wn. 2d 391 (1969).

Facts

Mr. and Mrs. Ivarsson are residents of Switzerland. They came to this state for the purpose of attending a hearing in a guardianship matter involving their minor daughter. During a mid-morning recess of the hearing, the Ivarssons were served with a summons and complaint for an action arising from default on a loan of money made to them by Mr. Anderson. The loan of money was to cover traveling expenses in attending an earlier hearing in this state with respect to their daughter.

Ivarssons moved to quash the service of summons and complaint on the grounds that they, as non residents of the state, were immune from service of process while attending a judicial proceeding within this state.

Judicial History

Superior Court entered an order quashing the service of the summons. The Appellate Court vacated the order and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Specific Issue

Is the general rule of immunity from service of process on a non resident witness or party in an unrelated civil action while temporarily within this state for purpose of attending the trial or hearing of a pending civil suit rigorously enforced upon all occasions? No

Holding

The underlying purpose of the rule extending immunity from the service of unrelated civil process to non resident suitors and witnesses, attending upon a local civil judicial proceeding, is to insulate the pending litigation against the interference and vexation which might arise from the untimely intervention of unrelated litigation. The privilege of the immunity is therefore, primarily a privilege of the courts rather than a right of the individual, resting as it does, upon the foundation of judicial convenience and the furtherance of the orderly and unfettered administration of justice. The exemption is not one to be arbitrarily and rigorously enforced upon all occasions but rather it can and should be extended or withheld only as judicial necessities dictate; provided the service of process does not in fact interrupt and interfere with the in court proceedings.

Reasoning

The courts recognized there are certain limitations upon the application of privilege of immunity. One of them being that should a person, while going to, attending, or coming from, a local judicial proceeding, wrong or injure an innocent third party resident, then the privilege of immunity may be withdrawn. These were the circumstances in this case and the court ruled accordingly by not extending the privilege to the Ivarssons.

C4PSE Comment

This case is in stark contrast to State ex rel Gunn vs Superior Court and establishes firmly the idea that immunity from service is a privilege granted by the courts and is not a right of the the individual. Comparing these two cases emphasizes the concept that the service of process is considered “fact specific” by the courts.