 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hunter v. State9/13/2002
The Department later lost touch with the juvenile and unsuccessfully tried to recontact him. During this time, the juvenile raped Harris, an elderly widow. Id.
Harris was an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department, and this Court held that the Department was not liable, stating that there was no evidence in the record that any state employee "intentionally and knowingly did or failed to do any act which created an unreasonable risk of harm to Harris. Specifically, no act or omission of the employees involved a high degree of probability that the kind of harm which Harris suffered would result therefrom." Id. at 299, 1160. Further, the Court stated that,
" or can the Department's failure to act with greater dispatch be considered reckless, willful or wanton because nothing in [the juvenile's] antecedent behavior or present comportment presaged the vicious exploits committed against Harris such that a reasonable person could foresee the need to restrain [the juvenile] from society. The most drastic prediction recorded was that [the juvenile] might be an above average sexual risk to his female peers, which Harris was not." Id.
In Farnsworth v. Ratfliff, 134 Idaho 237, 999 P.2d 892 (2000), Farnsworth sought damages for injuries sustained after an altercation with a fellow inmate while incarcerated. The suit was not filed until after the statute of limitations ran. Farnsworth then sued his lawyer. On summary judgment, the district court noted that Farnsworth would have to show that he would have had some chance to prevail on the underlying action. Id.
Farnsworth argued that because the officers involved knew that the inmate had been involved in an attack on an inmate, it was foreseeable that he might attack Farnsworth. This Court stated that "the type of foreseeability the Harris standard envisions is must narrower than the 'mere possibility of aggressive tendencies harbored by the state's ward.' The officers must have known, or had reason to know, Schwin's attack on another inmate was highly likely to occur." Id. at 240, 895. This was a summary judgment case, but it is noteworthy that the Court held that even a prior incident of similar conduct did not demonstrate that another attack was "highly likely to occur." Id.
Under the Harris and Farnsworth standard " he specific harm . . . must be manifest or ostensible, and highly likely to occur" Harris at 299, 1160. The specific harm in this case is murder. Although the State considered Hood a forcible rapist and reasonable minds might find that he was a threat to commit rape again, that does not meet the "specific harm" requirement set forth in Harris.
The State's witness, Dr. Mario Paparozzi, admitted that people can get killed during rape. This generalized statement does not establish a high likelihood that Hood would murder. Hood successfully completed a retained jurisdiction program and had been placed on probation by a district judge who was fully informed of Hood's background. Certainly probation would not have been allowed had there been a foreseeability of a high likelihood Hood would murder. Nothing occurred during the probation prior to the killing that would lead to a different conclusion than that he could successfully complete probation.
VI.
THE CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY
Mr. Wash argues that it owed no duty to Hunter at the time she was murdered. She was not employed by Mr. Wash at that time, and the event did not occur in connection with work.
"Idaho follows the general rule that, absent special circumstances, one does not have a duty to control the conduct of ano
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|