SCHAFER v STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14491 I N THE S P E E C O W O THE STATE O MN A A UR M F F 3TN 1979 ScHAFER and DONNA SCHAFER, Parents and natural guardians of BETTY MAE SCHAFER, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, STATE O lDNTANA, DEPARTMENT OF F rnSrITUTIONS, mJ T I VIEW SCHOOL, u A Y N Defendants and Respondents. Appeal froan: D i s t r i c t Court of the Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J m s D. Freeborn, Judge presiding. a e Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Jack M. Scanlon, Anaconda, mntana Garrity, Keegan and Brown, Helena, mntana For Respondents: Garlington, I;ohn and Robinson, Missoula, Mntana S u l d t t e d on b r i e f s : Filed : " .k?' , Decided: g j& January 24, 1979 MAT! 2 1 im Mr. ~ustice Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f s A l b e r t and Donna S c h a f e r b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n l o n ~ p r i 1 5 , 1977, a s p a r e n t s and n a t u r a l g u a r d i a n s o f B e t t y Mae S c h a f e r ( B e t t y Mae) f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s a r i s i n g o u t o f a n automobile accident. The S t a t e Department o f I n s t i t u - t i o n s ( t h e S t a t e ) answered, a l l e g i n g a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e and s u p e r v e n i n g c a u s e i n a d d i t i o n t o g e n e r a l d e n i a l s o f n e g l i g e n c e and c a u s a t i o n . On c o m p l e t i o n o f d i s c o v e r y , t h e S t a t e f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment o n t h e p r i m a r y b a s i s t h a t , a s a matter o f law, none o f t h e a c t s of t h e S t a t e w e r e n e g l i g e n t n o r d i d t h e y c o n s t i t u t e t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f B e t t y Mae's i n j u r i e s . On August 1, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , S i l v e r Bow County, g r a n t e d summary judgment i n f a v o r of t h e S t a t e . S c h a f e r s a p p e a l from t h i s o r d e r . The f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g t h i s a p p e a l b e g i n i n March 1973. A t that time, B e t t y Mae, t h e t r u e p l a i n t i f f i n i n t e r e s t , was committed t o t h e Mountain V i e w S c h o o l f o r G i r l s u n d e r o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Third J u d i c i a l District. was then t h i r t e e n years old. She Both Mountain V i e w S c h o o l and t h e A f t e r c a r e S e r v i c e s Bureau, r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s u p e r v i s i n g a c h i l d a f t e r r e l e a s e from Mountain V i e w , a r e i n t h e C o r r e c t i o n s D i v i s i o n o f t h e S t a t e Department o f I n s t i t u t i o n s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , B e t t y Mae was n o t a n i d e a l p a r t i c i p a n t i n e i t h e r t h e Mountain V i e w o r A f t e r c a r e programs. r e p e a t e d l y r a n away from Mountain V i e w . She When p l a c e d i n a f o s t e r home i n Harlem p u r s u a n t t o a f o r m a l A f t e r c a r e a g r e e ment, s h e r a n away and was, i n f a c t , " k i c k e d o u t " o f t h a t home, r e t u r n i n g t o Mountain V i e w i n O c t o b e r 1974. A 1975 p l a c e m e n t i n a J o b C o r p s program i n Oregon was a l s o unsucc e s s f u l b e c a u s e B e t t y Mae r a n away. I n J a n u a r y 1976, B e t t y Mae w a s a g a i n t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e f o s t e r home i n H a r l e m . T h i s t i m e , w h i l e s h e had some prob- l e m s , B e t t y Mae d i d o b t a i n a job a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o A f t e r c a r e p e r s o n n e l , h e r o v e r a l l b e h a v i o r improved. I n September 1976, s h e r e q u e s t e d and r e c e i v e d a n a u t h o r i z e d l e a v e f o r a home v i s i t t o Anaconda f o r t e n d a y s . According t o h e r d e p o s i t i o n , B e t t y Mae had made such v i s i t s p r e v i o u s l y w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t , always r e t u r n i n g when s h e w a s supposed t o . T h i s t i m e , however, B e t t y Mae d e c i d e d t o s t a y i n Anaconda and f i n d a job. She c o n t a c t e d t h e l o c a l A f t e r c a r e c o u n s e l o r f o r a n e x t e n s i o n of h e r l e a v e f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l week u n t i l s h e found a job. mission t o do t h a t . The c o u n s e l o r gave h e r p e r - B e t t y Mae d i d f i n d a j o b , b u t a p p a r e n t l y a d e c i s i o n had n o t y e t been made a s t o t h e wisdom of a l l o w i n g B e t t y Mae t o remain i n Anaconda. Her p a r e n t s saw no problem, b u t b o t h t h e Deer Lodge County t r u a n c y o f f i c e r and t h e Anaconda C i t y P o l i c e j u v e n i l e o f f i c e r w e r e opposed. N o f o r m a l m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l A f t e r c a r e agreement t r a n s f e r r i n g B e t t y Mae t o Harlem was e x e c u t e d . B e t t y Mae's a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g t h i s home v i s i t a r e d i s p u t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . I t appears she stayed with her p a r e n t s f o r a few d a y s b u t e v e n t u a l l y moved i n t o h e r s i s t e r ' s apartment. There i s a l s o some i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t s h e f r e q u e n t e d l o c a l t a v e r n s , a l t h o u g h t h e A f t e r c a r e workers deny any knowledge o f t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s . I t does appear u n d i s p u t e d t h a t B e t t y Mae d i d a t t e n d p a r t i e s a t which s h e consumed l i q u o r and used d r u g s . I t w a s following such a p a r t y t h a t t h e automobile accident giving rise t o t h e i n s t a n t l i t i g a t i o n occurred. On e October 1 8 , 1976, a f t e r l e a v i n g a p a r t y , B e t t y ~ a was a p a s s e n g e r i n a c a r d r i v e n by Mark S t i g e n . S t i g e n was d r i v i n g from Anaconda t o B u t t e a t n i g h t on a n i c y highway a t a speed i n e x c e s s of 8 0 m i l e s p e r h o u r . H e l o s t c o n t r o l of h i s v e h i c l e , and i t r o l l e d , throwing B e t t y Mae o u t . Stigen has a d m i t t e d d r i v i n g i n a careless and n e g l i g e n t manner. This a c t i o n was t h e n b r o u g h t s e e k i n g damages f o r t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by B e t t y Mae. I n i t s s i m p l e s t form t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d summary judgment i n f a v o r of t h e S t a t e . The S c h a f e r s ' t h e o r y of t h e c a s e , and t h e r e a s o n s u i t w a s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s , i s t h a t t h e S t a t e was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o p r o p e r l y s u p e r v i s e B e t t y Mae i n a l l o w i n g h e r t o remain i n Anaconda and e v e n t u a l l y t o b e i n j u r e d i n t h e automobile a c c i d e n t . I n support of t h i s t h e o r y , S c h a f e r s r e p e a t e d l y c i t e t o B e t t y Mae's p a s t b e h a v i o r , t o t h e o f f i c i a l r e p o r t s and recommendations t h a t s h e b e c l o s e l y s u p e r v i s e d a t a l l t i m e s , and t o t h e f a i l u r e of Aftercare t o e x e r c i s e t h i s supervision during t h e days immediately p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t . From t h i s sequence o f e v e n t s , S c h a f e r s would h o l d t h e S t a t e l i a b l e f o r t h e i n j u r i e s B e t t y Mae s u f f e r e d . While w e a g r e e t h a t B e t t y Mae had a h i s t o r y of i r r e s p o n s i b l e b e h a v i o r which t h e S t a t e was c h a r g e d t o c o n t r o l , w e c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o r l i a b i l i t y of t h e S t a t e extends t o t h e i n c i d e n t involving o r i n j u r i e s incurred by B e t t y Mae under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The c r u x of t h i s c a s e i s t h e e l e m e n t of n e g l i g e n c e known a s f o r e s e e a b i l i t y . T h i s e l e m e n t s e r v e s a s a l i m i t on l i a b i l i t y f o r a c t s which m i g h t , under o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , be negligent. The s u b s t a n c e of f o r e s e e a b i l i t y a s i t r e l a t e s t o n e g l i g e n c e i s t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who c o u l d n o t f o r e s e e any d a n g e r o f i n j u r y from h i s c o n d u c t o r any r i s k from a n i n t e r vening f o r c e i s n o t n e g l i g e n t . Mang v . E l i a s s o n ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 431, 436, 458 P.2d 777, 780. Absent f o r e s e e a b i l i t y , t h e r e i s no d u t y ; a b s e n t d u t y , t h e r e i s no n e g l i g e n c e . F o r e s e e a b i l i t y i s measured on a s c a l e of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s ; i t i s n o t measured a b s t r a c t l y . Ford v. Rupple ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 56, 64, 504 P.2d 686, 691. The p e r s p e c t i v e i s from t h e t i m e of t h e a l l e g e d l y n e g l i g e n t a c t : ". . . i n weighing t h e l i k e l i h o o d of harm, t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of i n j u r y and t h e v a l u e of t h e i n t e r e s t t o b e s a c r i f i c e d - - t h e law j u d g e s t h e a c t o r ' s conduct i n t h e l i g h t of t h e s i t u a t i o n a s i t would have a p p e a r e d t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e man i n h i s s h o e s a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n complained o f . Not what a c t u a l l y happened, b u t what t h e r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n would t h e n have f o r e s e e n a s l i k e l y t o happen, i s t h e key t o Mans v . the question ofreasonableness ~ l i a s s o n , 153 Mont. a t 436-37, 458 P.2d a t - 7 8 1 . (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) . . ." A s t h e law i s n o t concerned w i t h what a c t u a l l y happened, n e i t h e r i s i t concerned w i t h m e r e p o s s i b i l i t i e s : ". . . Negligence c a r r i e s w i t h i t l i a b i l i t y f o r consequences which i n t h e l i g h t o f a t t e n d a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have been a n t i c i p a t e d by a p r u d e n t man, b u t n o t f o r c a s u a l t i e s which, though p o s s i b l e , w e r e wholly improbable." J a c k s o n v. W i l l i a m Dingwall Co. ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 145 Mont. 1 2 7 , 135, 399 P.2d 236, 2 4 0 . Applying t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e f a c t s of t h e c a s e a t hand, w e a r e u n a b l e t o see how t h e S t a t e c o u l d have p o s s i b l y f o r e s e e n t h e sequence of e v e n t s l e a d i n g t o B e t t y Mae's injuries. The i n t e r v e n i n g f a c t o r s of cated t h i r d person (1) a p o s s i b l y i n t o x i - ( 2 ) d r i v i n g a t n i g h t ( 3 ) t o o f a s t ( 4 ) on a n i c y r o a d r e s u l t i n g i n i n j u r i e s t o B e t t y M a e , who volunt a r i l y chose t o be a passenger i n t h e automobile, completely s e v e r any l i a b i l i t y f o r any a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e S t a t e . To s t r e t c h t h e c o n c e p t of f o r e s e e a b i l i t y t o t h i s e x t e n t i s t o do away w i t h t h e e l e m e n t e n t i r e l y and make t h e S t a t e t h e a b s o l u t e i n s u r e r of any p e r s o n under i t s supervision. Furthermore, with regard t o t h e f o r e s e e a b i l i t y of t h e a c t s o f t h i r d p e r s o n s , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n L e n c i o n i v . Long ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 139 Mont. 135, 1 3 9 , 361 P.2d 455, 457: .. "I. Wrongful a c t s of i n d e p e n d e n t t h i r d p e r s o n s , n o t a c t u a l l y i n t e n d e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , a r e n o t r e g a r d e d by t h e law a s n a t u r a l conseq u e n c e s of h i s wrong, and h e i s n o t bound t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e g e n e r a l p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c h a c t s , any more t h a n a p a r t i c u l a r a c t by t h i s o r t h a t 1 11 individual. .. T h i s s t a t e m e n t a p p l i e s t o t h e f o r e s e e a b i l i t y by t h e S t a t e of Stigen's negligent driving. S c h a f e r r e l i e s on t h e s i m i l a r c a s e s o f Gibson v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 3 r d C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) , 457 F.2d 1391, and Bjornemo v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( D . Mont. 1 9 7 6 ) , No. CV-75-73-BU. a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e i r f a c t s . These c a s e s I n both cases, a Job Corps e n r o l l e e i n j u r e d a t h i r d p e r s o n : i n Gibson, by p l u n g i n g a s c r e w d r i v e r t h r o u g h t h e temple of a J o b Corps i n s t r u c t o r ; i n Bjornemo, by smashing a s t o l e n t a x i i n t o another vehicle a t an intersection. I n both cases t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s was h e l d n e g l i g e n t f o r f a i l i n g t o p r o p e r l y s u p e r v i s e and r e s t r a i n t h e e n r o l l e e s who were known t o have b e h a v i o r problems. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , however, i t was n o t B e t t y Mae who, b e c a u s e of l a c k of r e s t r a i n t , i n j u r e d a t h i r d p a r t y . In- s t e a d , s h e was a " p a s s i v e " p a r t i c i p a n t i n a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t , a n e v e n t which e a s i l y c o u l d have o c c u r r e d no m a t t e r what t y p e of s u p e r v i s i o n t h e S t a t e e x e r c i s e d o v e r h e r , s h o r t of l o c k i n g h e r i n a room somewhere. Such r e s t r i c - t i v e d e t e n t i o n i s n o t t h e g o a l of o u r j u v e n i l e i n s t i t u t i o n s and programs. 53-30-202 MCA. See s e c t i o n 80-1410, R.C.M. Nor do t h e s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g t h e s e programs impose s u c h a d u t y upon them. R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n See s e c t i o n s 80-1401, 1947, now s e c t i o n s 53-1-201, 53-30-202 MCA. -1410, I n s h o r t , t h e f a c t t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d as i t d i d had no r e l a t i o n t o t h e S t a t e ' s c o u r s e of a c t i o n immediately p r i o r t o the accident. B e t t y Mae w a s showing an a p p a r e n t improvement i n h e r b e h a v i o r , had s e c u r e d p r o p e r p e r m i s s i o n t o come t o Anaconda f o r a home v i s i t , and once i n Anaconda had r e c e i v e d p e r m i s s i o n t o remain and l o o k f o r a job which s h e found. Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e S t a t e c o u l d n o t be c a l l e d n e g l i g e n t , e s p e c i a l l y when t h e p u r p o s e of t h e A f t e r c a r e program i s t o e a s e t h e t r a n s i t i o n from i n s t i t u t i o n t o community. 226 MCA. S e c t i o n 80-1414, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 53-30- I n d e e d , t h e t y p e o f a c c i d e n t i n which B e t t y Mae was i n v o l v e d c o u l d have happened a s e a s i l y i n Harlem w i t h h e r f o s t e r p a r e n t s d r i v i n g a s i n Anaconda w i t h Mark S t i g e n driving. F i n a l l y , S c h a f e r s a r g u e t h a t t h e e l e m e n t of f o r e s e e a b i l i t y a l w a y s c r e a t e s a n i s s u e f o r t h e j u r y and q u o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from 57 Am.Jur.2d N e g l i g e n c e 5205 a t 579: "Where i t i s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t was n o t t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y bec a u s e t h e r e s u l t c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y have been foreseen, it i s o r d i n a r i l y a question f o r the j u r y whether t h e r e s u l t s h o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have been f o r e s e e n . Even though t h e f a c t s a r e n o t i --d i s p u t e d , i f t h e r e -s room f o r a r e a s o n a b l e d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n a s t o whether a n i n t e r v e n i n g a c t was n e g l i g e n t and f o r e s e e a b l e , t h e q u e s t i o n i s one f o r t h e jury." (Emphasis added.) Accord, S t e n b e r g v . B e a t r i c e Foods Co. , 576 P.2d 725, 727, 35 St.Rep. (1978), 294, 296. Mont . The empha- s i z e d p o r t i o n s of t h i s q u o t e p o i n t o u t t h e weakness of S c h a f e r s ' argument. W e conclude, a s d i d t h e D i s t r i c t Court, t h a t t h e r e i s no "room f o r a r e a s o n a b l e d i f f e r e n c e of o p i n i o n a s t o whether [ t h e S t a t e ' s ] a c t was n e g l i g e n t and f o r e s e e able." I f w e w e r e t o adopt Schafers' p o s i t i o n , every negli- g e n c e c a s e would have t o go t o t h e j u r y , thus eliminating t h e summary judgment p r o c e d u r e which i s a p a r t of o u r l e g a l process. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.