 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schoenfield v. Navarre12/2/2005
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{ } This appeal comes to us from a summary judgment issued by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of appellees in the wrongful death action following the suicide of Eric Schoenfield. Because we conclude that no material issues of fact remain and appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.
{ } Appellant, Wendy Schoenfield, individually and as the representative of the estate of her husband, Eric Schoenfield, filed a wrongful death suit against appellees, Toledo Police Chief Michael J. Navarre and eight Toledo police officers. Appellant's claims were based upon incidents preceding her husband's suicide, including his unsuccessful attempt to purchase a firearm at a Meijers store at 1:30 a.m. on March 27, 2000, and subsequent questioning by police officers. Meijers store employees alerted police after Schoenfield left, saying that he "acted suspicious," had bloody scratches or cuts on his arms and hands, and had wanted to purchase a powerful muzzle-loader type rifle to allegedly use for dove hunting. Within minutes after he left the store, police stopped Schoenfield, questioned him and searched his car. Schoenfield explained that the scratches were caused by a cat and that he wanted to purchase the rifle for dove hunting. Although police doubted these explanations, Schoenfield was calm and denied that he had any intentions of doing harm to himself or others. After talking with Schoenfield for approximately 20 minutes, the police permitted him to leave at about 2:12 a.m. since they had no reason to further detain him.
{ } While officers were talking with Schoenfield on site, an officer left and went to Schoenfield's home to check for possible domestic violence crimes, including injury to his wife. Schoenfield's wife assured the officer that there had been no domestic violence, but confirmed that the couple was having marital problems. She told police that Schoenfield was upset, had probably punched something, causing the scratches. She also said that her husband was depressed and she feared he might be contemplating suicide, which he had attempted in the past. Several transmissions occurred between the officer at the house and the sergeant in charge at the scene. At the final transmission, appellant requested that the officers hold her husband until she could get there. He had, however, already been released.
{ } Schoenfield checked into a motel early that morning, but switched to another motel when his wife discovered where he was. Later that morning, he purchased a gun from a K-Mart. After making several phone calls and writing a suicide note, Schoenfield shot and killed himself.
{ } Appellant claimed that because police failed to take her husband into custody, they had breached a duty to protect him, which ultimately caused his death. Appellees moved for and were granted summary judgment.
{ } Appellant now appeals from that judgment arguing the following five assignments of error:
{ } "I. The trial court erred when it granted appellees' motion for summary judgment as to appellant's common law custodial duty claim [Count I], as a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether appellee breached this duty thereby causing harm.
{ } "II. The trial court erred when it granted appellees' motion for summary judgment as to appellant's violation of policies/procedures claim [Count II], as a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether appellees violated their policy thereby causing harm.
{ } "III. The trial court erred when it failed to recognize that appellant's claim for supervisory liability for failure to adequately train [Count
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|