Volume 69 — Washington Reports, Second Series

<bold>[1] Landlord and Tenant — Obligations of Lessor — Taxes.</bold> In the absence of a contractual obligation for the payment of taxes and assessments on real property, the duty to pay them rests on the lessor. <bold>[2] Equity — Subrogation — When Available.</bold> Subrogation is an equitable doctrine, founded in the facts and circumstances of each case and on the principles of natural justice. In general it will be applied wherever any person, other than a volunteer, will suffer damage because of unjust enrichment of another; however, the doctrine will not be applied if it would work injustice to the rights of those having equal or superior equities, nor will it be enforced against a bona fide purchaser for value without notice or one who, in good faith, has changed his position in reliance upon the act which subsequently is claimed to have been a mistake. <bold>[3] Subrogation — Insurance — Title Insurance — Payment of</bold> <bold>Claims — Relief by Subrogation.</bold> The doctrine of subrogation will not be applied to relieve a title insurance company of its contractual obligation simply because it is able to point to someone who has inadvertently benefited by its negligence in giving an expert opinion and insuring a title, since the title insurance company received consideration not only for rendering an expert opinion, but also for acting as insurer of its accuracy. [2] See Ann. 137 A.L.R. 700; Am. Jur., Subrogation (1st ed. § 10<italic>et seq.</italic>).

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Entrapment — When Available.</bold> Entrapment occurs only where the criminal design originates in the mind of the police officer and not with the accused, and the accused is lured or induced into committing a crime he had no intention of committing; when the crime does originate in the mind of another, an officer may, when acting in good faith, make use of deception, trickery or artifice. <bold>[2] Same — Entrapment — Use of an Informer.</bold> Use of a decoy or informer to present an opportunity for commission of a crime does not constitute entrapment. <bold>[3] Same — Entrapment — Instructions — Evidence in Support —</bold> <bold>Necessity.</bold> The trial court properly refused to instruct on the defense of entrapment where there was no evidence to support the instruction. [2] See Ann. 18 A.L.R. 147, 86 A.L.R. 264; Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 143 <italic>et seq.</italic>

<bold>[1] Trial — Taking Case From Jury — Sufficiency of Evidence.</bold> A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence admits the truth of the nonmovant's evidence and all inferences which reasonably can be drawn therefrom, and requires that the evidence be interpreted most favorably to the nonmovant and most strongly against the movant; and, even though the nonmovant's evidence is in some respects unfavorable to him, he is not bound by the unfavorable portion, but is entitled to have his case submitted to the jury on the basis of the evidence which is most favorable to his contention. <bold>[2] Same — Taking Case From Jury — Discretion of Court.</bold> In the consideration of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a case tried before a jury, no element of discretion is involved and such dismissal can be granted only when the court can say, as a matter of law, that there is no substantial evidence to support the nonmovant's claim. <bold>[3] Husband and Wife — Alienation of Affections — Elements —</bold> <bold>Prima Facie Case.</bold> To establish a prima facie cause of action for alienation of affections, a complaining spouse must show an existing marriage relation, a wrongful interference with the relationship by a third person, a loss of affection or consortium, and a causal connection between the third party's conduct and the loss. <bold>[4] Same — Alienation of Affections — Elements — Intent.</bold> Although alienation of affections may be designated as an intentional tort, the alleged tort-feasor's intent or purpose does not have to be established by evidence independent of his conduct, since in the eyes of the law, a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts. <bold>[5] Same — Alienation of Affections — Elements — Interference</bold> <bold>With Marital Relationship.</bold> To satisfy the requisite of a wrongful interference with the marital relationship in an action for alienation of affections, it must appear from the evidence that the alleged tort-feasor engaged in some kind of affirmative action without justification or excuse, the design of which was to accomplish an alienation or diversion of the affections of the plaintiff's spouse. It is not necessary that the tort-feasor be motivated by spite or malice, or that adultery or improper relations have occurred. <bold>[6] Same — Alienation of Affections — Defenses — Privilege.</bold> A parent, near relative or one standing in a professional or semiprofessional relationship to a marital partner may be clothed with a qualified privilege to reasonably and in good faith intervene in the domestic affairs of a married couple; however, the privilege may be overcome by evidence that the interference in the marital affairs was<page_number>Page 537</page_number> prompted by malice or ill will, accompanied by falsehoods, implemented by threats, utilized recklessly, or motivated by an unlawful, immoral or improper purpose. An intermeddling stranger without claim of privilege intervenes at his peril, and bears the burden of otherwise justifying or excusing his action. <bold>[7] Same — Alienation of Affections — Elements — Loss of</bold> <bold>Affection or Consortium.</bold> Loss of affection or consortium, necessary to an action for alienation of affections, concerns itself principally with the diminution, diversion, or alienation of the love, society, companionship, aid, and/or comfort of the alienated spouse; and, in the absence of a showing of adulterous conduct, may ordinarily be demonstrated by substantial evidence of any statement, behavior, conduct, or attitude on the part of the alienated spouse from which a loss or impairment of conjugal attachment can reasonably be inferred. <bold>[8] Same — Alienation of Affections — Defenses — Lack of</bold> <bold>Conjugal Affection.</bold> A defense showing of lack of conjugal affection at the time of the alleged alienation goes only to mitigation of damages and does not constitute a bar to the action. <bold>[9] Same — Alienation of Affections — Damages — Jury Question.</bold> Damages flowing from an alienation of conjugal affection are incapable of mathematical calculation and present a jury question. <bold>[10] Same — Alienation of Affections — Elements — Causal</bold> <bold>Relationship.</bold> Causal relationship between the third party's conduct and the loss of affection or consortium is satisfied by the introduction of substantial evidence that the conduct of the asserted tort-feasor aided in causing the alienation, and it is not necessary that the conduct be the sole cause, but merely that it be a causal factor. <bold>[11] Same — Alienation of Affections — Defenses — Separated</bold> <bold>Spouse.</bold> One who interferes with the right of discordant spouses to become reconciled can be subjected to liability in a suit for alienation of affections. <bold>[12] Same — Alienation of Affections — Defenses — Exercise of</bold> <bold>Religious Belief.</bold> Good faith and reasonable conduct are the necessary touchstones to any qualified privilege that may arise from any invited and religiously directed family counseling, assistance, or advice. The privilege is nullified and liability is projected where there is ill will, intimidation, threats, or reckless recommendations of family separation directed toward alienating the spouses. [9] See Ann. 36 A.L.R.2d 548; Am. Jur., Husband and Wife (1st ed. § 543).