Beers v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
155 Idaho 680
| Idaho | 2013Background
- Heidi Beers, age 13, injured jumping from a bridge during a Ward campout organized by an LDS ward in Meridian, Idaho in 2007.
- Gregory and Caralee Beers sued the COP and fourteen Ward members for negligence and, on behalf of Heidi, for civil child abuse under I.C. § 6-1701; district court granted summary judgment on negligence against COP and most Ward members.
- District court denied summary judgment on the negligence claim as to Richard and Kathy Kartchner, but dismissed other negligence claims; ward members moved for summary judgment on the civil child abuse theory, which was denied for four members who were present at the injury.
- The Beerses appeal the negligence ruling and cross-appeal the denial of summary judgment on the child abuse claims for Sharolyn Ririe, Garrett Haueter, Mark Kropf, and Brent Rasmussen.
- The court holds that COP and Ward members owed no duty to Heidi for negligence, but reverses to grant summary judgment in favor of four Ward members on the child abuse claims and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did COP and Ward owe a duty to Heidi for negligence? | Beerses: duty arising from special relationship or undertaking. | COP/Ward: no duty absent special relationship or undertaking. | No duty; district court proper on negligence. |
| Did the Ward have a special relationship with Heidi that imposed a duty? | Ward controlled/paid supervision; owed duty to Heidi. | No custody/control; no special relationship. | No special relationship found; no duty. |
| Did any Ward member undertake a duty to supervise Heidi or the bridge-jumping? | Multiple Ward members undertook supervision; created duty. | No undertaking by Ward members to supervise Heidi or bridge jumping. | No undertaking established for the relevant duty. |
| Whether the cross-appeal on I.C. § 6-1701 claims is proper and whether those claims should be dismissed. | Cross-appeal improperly framed; argument on duty under child abuse statute. | Cross-appeal proper; statute defines willful conduct but duty limited to custodians. | Cross-appeal proper; district court erred in denying summary judgment; four Ward members granted summary judgment on child abuse claim. |
| Does I.C. § 6-1701 imposes a duty on persons not having custody to act for child safety? | Broad interpretation of willful willfully causes/permits harm applies. | Duty limited to those having care or custody; no duty on non-custodians. | Duty does not extend to non-custodial Ward members; summary judgment for four Ward members affirmed on child abuse claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 133 Idaho 388 (Idaho 1999) (no general duty to prevent harm absent unusual circumstances)
- Rife v. Long, 127 Idaho 841 (Idaho 1996) (custody/supervision factors in duty extension; court cautions against broad extension)
- Steed v. Grand Teton Council of the Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 172 P.3d 1123 (Idaho 2007) (defines willful standard for I.C. § 6-1701 with negligence standard of care)
- Baccus v. Ameripride Servs., Inc., 145 Idaho 346 (Idaho 2008) (undertaking a safety-related service creates a duty limited to the undertaking)
- Martin v. Twin Falls School Dist. No. 411, 138 Idaho 146 (Idaho 2002) (duty limited to the scope of the undertaken activity; not all future similar acts)