 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davidson v. South Metro Human Services12/11/2001
Ricky Davidson, a man who has suffered from schizophrenia since he was a teenager, fatally stabbed his father, Milton Davidson, on May 14, 1996. Appellant Janet Davidson, Ricky Davidson's mother and Milton Davidson's wife, initiated this negligence and wrongful death action against respondent South Metro Human Services (South Metro), a non-profit corporation that provided mental health and support services to Ricky Davidson. In the hour before Milton Davidson's death, South Metro employee Wayne Goellner visited the Davidson home because Ricky Davidson appeared there exhibiting bizarre behavior.
The district court granted summary judgment to South Metro, concluding that South Metro was not liable in negligence because it had no legal duty to protect the Davidsons or to warn them that they could be in danger. We agree and affirm. We also grant South Metro's motion to strike those portions of appellant's brief and appendix that refer to matters outside the record.
DECISION
I.
The elements of a negligence claim include duty, breach, proximate cause, and injury in fact. Nickelson v. Mall of Am. Co., 593 N.W.2d 723, 725-26 (Minn. App. 1999). "Whether a duty exists is a question of law and subject to de novo review." Id. at 726 (citation omitted). At common law, a defendant had no duty to control the conduct of a third person or to warn those endangered by that third person's conduct. Cairl v. State, 323 N.W.2d 20, 25 n.7 (Minn. 1982). The courts, however, have made an exception to this rule where the defendant is in a special relationship with either the third person or with the victim of the defendant's conduct. Id. In either case, the relevant inquiry involves the forseeability of the harm. Lundgren v. Fultz, 354 N.W.2d 25, 27-28 (Minn. 1984). Forseeability is generally a threshold legal question for the court to decide. Cooney v. Hooks, 535 N.W.2d 609, 612 (Minn. 1995).
Even conceding that a special relationship existed here, we agree with the district court's conclusion that it was not forseeable that Ricky Davidson would harm his parents. The record shows that Ricky Davidson had no recent history of threatening or assaulting others. His prior conduct included only two isolated incidents: (1) in 1995 he threw a chair at a hospital employee; and (2) in 1994 he delivered a death threat to his brother over the telephone while in a psychotic state. On the day that he fatally stabbed his father, Ricky Davidson was sleep deprived and hallucinating, but he had not threatened anyone present at his parents' home. Nor did any of the people present that day believe that they were in danger of imminent harm. Indeed, Ricky Davidson's girlfriend, who was present and is a nurse, admitted that his behavior did not concern her and that she did not believe it could have met the legal standard for his involuntary commitment. See Minn. Stat. ยง 253B.05, subd. 2 (1996) (requiring, for involuntary commitment, mentally ill person to be in imminent danger of injuring self or others).
Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err by concluding that the harm perpetrated here was not foreseeable, because Ricky Davidson had no recent history of threatening others and did not threaten anyone present at his parents' home that day. See Lundgren, 354 N.W.2d at 26-27 (psychiatrist who assisted mentally ill patient in retrieving his guns confiscated by sheriff held to have special relationship with patient who randomly shot restaurant patron where it was forseeable that patient would exhibit such conduct based on prior violent thoughts and expression, two prior incidents of brandishing weapons, and fixation with guns and harming others); Rum River Lumber Co.
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|