 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
P.G. v. State6/30/2000
before, had no problems, that he -- that he was just a kid that needed a place to stay . . . ." Relying on McNutt's statements, the Greens agreed to take foster custody of Billy; he arrived at their home the same day.
DFYS gave the Greens few special instructions about foster parenting and no specific information about Billy. As Penny's mother testified in her deposition:
here was no orientation at all. We just went over there, met with her, she came over and looked at the home, we went over and got [Billy]. That was it. . . . [my daughter and son-in-law] just, I guess, assumed you take care of a foster child just like you take care of any child; you feed them, clothe them, love them, care for them, just like you do any child.
Billy lived with the Greens and their two children until February 1992. Neighbors reported Billy to the Department of Fish and Game for shooting at a moose with a BB gun. Billy also became involved in a new "pantsing" incident, pulling down the pants of another child, "underwear all[,] in front of many people." When confronted by the Greens, Billy's anger escalated, and his attitude deteriorated; the Greens felt that they could not control him, and ultimately relinquished custody to DFYS.
After Billy left the Greens, their children disclosed that Billy had repeatedly assaulted them, sexually and physically abusing the daughter and physically abusing the son. The children said that Billy had also threatened to rape the daughter and kill the children's parents and pets if the children told anyone about his misconduct. The Greens reported Billy's assaults to the police. After investigating the reports, the state filed delinquency charges against Billy, who ultimately admitted engaging in conduct amounting to fourth-degree assault and was adjudicated a delinquent.
The Greens sued the state in January 1993, alleging that DFYS knew or should have known that Billy posed a serious threat of harm and that the agency negligently injured them and their children by breaching its duties to protect the Greens and provide them with information before it placed Billy in their home.
DFYS moved for summary judgment, characterizing Count III of the Greens' complaint -- their claim for failure to disclose information -- as a claim of misrepresentation and arguing that, as such, it was barred by AS 09.50.250(3) -- a provision immunizing the state from claims arising out of misrepresentation. The superior court partially granted the state's motion, dismissing Count III because it included allegations of misrepresentation.
After the parties took numerous depositions, the Greens moved for summary judgment on their remaining claims. DFYS eventually filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The superior court granted summary judgment to the state and dismissed the case, finding insufficient evidence in the record to establish that Billy's actions were foreseeable.
The Greens appeal the superior court's summary judgment orders.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we consider whether there were any genuine issues of material fact and whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
B. Did the Superior Court Err in Finding No Genuine Issues of Material Fact?
1. DFYS's duty of care to the Greens
In summarily rejecting the Greens' claim that DFYS failed to exercise the care necessary to prevent Billy from harming them, the superior court assumed "that the State owed a duty of reasonable care t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|