 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eves v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge County6/21/2005
Submitted on Briefs: May 11, 2005
Helen Eves, on behalf of her deceased son Zachary Eves Bear Don't Walk (Zachary), appeals from the grant of summary judgment to Anaconda-Deer Lodge County (County). We affirm.
We address the following issue on appeal:
Whether a special relationship existed between the County and Zachary such that the County had a duty to protect him from harm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Zachary voluntarily committed himself to the Montana State Hospital (Hospital) at Warm Springs in late 1996. On March 3, 1997, Zachary, without telling anyone, left the hospital grounds and walked into the countryside. The temperature that day was approximately 37 degrees, and snow was on the ground. Once the Hospital's staff discovered Zachary had left, the nursing supervisor telephoned local law enforcement to report his disappearance. She reported to the dispatcher that she was concerned with Zachary's ability to care for himself and asked if county police could locate him. The dispatcher told the nursing supervisor that, because Zachary was a voluntarily committed patient, the police had no legal basis to stop and detain him. County police officer Daniel Blume was notified of Zachary's disappearance, but he did not initiate a search. Instead, Blume kept lookout for Zachary during his routine patrol of the general area where Zachary was believed to be. Blume did not see any signs of Zachary. The nursing supervisor did not ask for a search and rescue operation, nor is there any indication that the dispatcher advised against such a request.
Zachary's body was found several weeks later in a field approximately six miles from the Hospital. An autopsy report stated that he died of exposure one to three days after he left the Hospital.
Helen Eves brought this suit against the County asserting wrongful death and survivorship claims against the County. She argued that the County owed a duty to try to find Zachary and that it breached that duty. The County moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted its motion. Eves now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. We apply the same criteria as the district court according to Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. Gullett v. Van Dyke Const. Co., 2005 MT 105, 11, 327 Mont. 30, 11, 111 P.3d 220, 11. Summary judgment shall be granted if the evidence filed with the court "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P.
DISCUSSION
Whether a special relationship existed between the County and Zachary such that the County had a duty to protect him from harm.
Generally, government officials do not owe a duty to specific members of the public, but only to the public as a whole. This rule of law is known as the "public duty doctrine."
Nelson v. Driscoll, 1999 MT 193, 21, 295 Mont. 363, 21, 983 P.2d 972, 21. Ordinarily the County would not have owed Zachary a duty, such as searching for him and making sure no harm came to him. However, this Court has recognized exceptions to the doctrine. Specifically, an exception "arises when there exists a special relationship between the police officer and an individual giving rise to a special duty that is more particular than the duty owed to the public at large." Nelson, 22 (citations omitted). We have recognized four circumstances where a "special relationship" may arise. Nelson, 22.
Eves argues that County officials established such a relationship under two of these circum
Page 1 2 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|