Dreama Bowden, Administratrix v. Monroe Co. Commission
239 W. Va. 214
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- On November 27, 2009, 70‑year‑old Lowell Bowden was fatally mauled by multiple pit bulls in Monroe County; the dogs were kept at the Blankenship residence.
- Dreama Bowden, administratrix of the estate, sued Monroe County, Monroe County Commission, county dog warden Patricia Green (individually and officially), and others for negligence (including statutory duties under W. Va. Code § 19‑20‑1 et seq.) and wrongful death; punitive damages were also alleged against Green.
- Bowden alleged she had called 911, spoke with Dog Warden Green, and was told “the county would take care of it,” and that Green thereafter visited the Bowden home.
- The County moved to dismiss/for summary judgment invoking the public duty doctrine; Bowden asserted the special‑relationship exception and was allowed to amend after this Court’s prior remand.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the County, concluding Bowden failed to show a special relationship, and then sua sponte entered a final dismissal of the entire action.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed: it found genuine factual disputes on each element of the special‑relationship test and vacated the sua sponte dismissal, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a special‑relationship exception to the public duty doctrine applies (precluding summary judgment) | Bowden: her 911 call, alleged phone contact and in‑person visit by Dog Warden Green with assurances that “the county would take care of it,” plus prior complaints and Green’s own encounter with an aggressive dog, establish the four Wolfe elements (assumption of duty, knowledge of risk, direct contact, justifiable reliance) | County: testimony denies any contact/assurance; prior incidents insufficient to show knowledge that inaction would lead to fatal multi‑dog attack; evidence is self‑serving and speculative | Reversed summary judgment — factual disputes exist on all Wolfe elements; whether a special duty arose is for the trier of fact |
| Whether the circuit court erred by sua sponte dismissing remaining claims after the summary judgment order | Bowden: the summary judgment did not dispose of all claims; the court lacked authority to dismiss unaddressed claims sua sponte | County: some dismissed claims were moot given summary judgment; dismissal of certain non‑appealing defendants not relevant to this appeal | Reversed the dismissal order as it was premised on the now‑reversed summary judgment; vacated and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Randall v. Fairmont City Police Dep’t, 186 W. Va. 336, 412 S.E.2d 737 (1991) (statute limiting political subdivision liability incorporates common‑law special‑duty rule)
- Wolfe v. City of Wheeling, 182 W. Va. 253, 387 S.E.2d 307 (1989) (four‑factor test for special relationship with local government)
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; view facts in light most favorable to non‑moving party)
- Bowden v. Monroe Cty. Comm’n, 232 W. Va. 47, 750 S.E.2d 263 (2013) (prior appellate remand allowing amended complaint/discovery)
- Parkulo v. West Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 199 W. Va. 161, 483 S.E.2d 507 (1996) (public duty doctrine limits liability for nondiscretionary governmental functions)