361 P.3d 808
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- Infant ARB (born 2008) suffered a spiral fracture to his left humerus on Nov. 18; hospital physicians suspected nonaccidental trauma and CPS/DSHS investigated.
- DSHS social worker Lofgren relied on child abuse specialist Dr. Duralde’s opinion that the injury was accidental, removed the hospital hold, and returned ARB to his parents on Nov. 19 without obtaining hospital records or separately interviewing parents despite inconsistent accounts.
- A safety plan was drafted but not followed up on; no CPT was convened and DSHS made no further contact between Nov. 21 and Dec. 23.
- On Dec. 22 ARB suffered severe brain and additional skeletal injuries; DSHS thereafter filed dependency proceedings and parental rights were later terminated.
- ARB’s guardians sued DSHS for negligent investigation; at trial the jury found DSHS negligent but that the negligence was not a proximate cause of ARB’s injuries. The trial court entered judgment for DSHS.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding errors in jury instructions on superseding cause and in the statement of DSHS’s duty, but upheld denial of DSHS’s CR 50 motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was a superseding-cause instruction proper, allowing jury to treat Mejia’s later abuse as breaking the causal chain? | ARB argued instruction was inappropriate; Mejia’s later abuse was a foreseeable harm arising from a faulty investigation and placement decision. | DSHS argued Mejia’s intervening act was an independent superseding cause absolving DSHS of proximate causation. | Court held the superseding-cause instructions were erroneous because the subsequent abuse was a foreseeable hazard and did not break the causal chain. |
| Did the trial court correctly instruct the jury on DSHS’s duty under RCW 26.44.050? | ARB contended DSHS had a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation and provide protective services. | DSHS argued its duty is limited by M.W. to liability only for biased/faulty investigations that result in harmful placement decisions. | Court held the trial court’s instruction misstated the law; liability requires a biased/incomplete investigation that leads to a harmful placement decision per M.W. |
| Were DSHS’s proposed duty instructions (reflecting M.W.) properly rejected? | ARB implicitly defended the broader instruction. | DSHS proposed instructions limiting liability to biased/incomplete investigations causing harmful placement; trial court rejected them. | Court held rejecting DSHS’s proposed instructions in favor of the broader instruction was legal error. |
| Was denial of DSHS’s CR 50 motion to dismiss erroneous? | ARB argued sufficient evidence supported causation issues for the jury. | DSHS argued no reasonable jury could find facts that would permit removal or prevention of injury. | Court held denial was proper: conflicting expert testimony created factual issues for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.W. v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 149 Wn.2d 589 (2003) (limits negligent-investigation liability to biased/incomplete investigations resulting in harmful placement decisions)
- Campbell v. ITE Imperial Corp., 107 Wn.2d 807 (1987) (analysis and factors for determining intervening/superseding cause)
- Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768 (1985) (elements of negligence and proximate cause principles)
- Rekhter v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 180 Wn.2d 102 (2014) (standards for jury instructions sufficiency)