Estate of Brennan v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc.
832 F. Supp. 2d 1370
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Plaintiff Victoria Britton, as administrator of Kyle Brennan’s estate, sues the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Gerald Gentile, Denise Gentile, and Kyle’s father Thomas Brennan for wrongful death.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on Sept. 8, 2010; plaintiff opposed; oral argument held Oct. 13, 2010; circuit court mandate later reinvoked the ruling.
- Plaintiff alleges Scientology and the Gentiles, aware of Kyle’s condition, withdrew Kyle’s Lexapro per Scientology policy, proximately causing suicide; she also alleges one or more defendants allowed access to a loaded .357 handgun.
- Plaintiff asserts a principal-agent theory between Scientology and the Gentiles, with liability arising from Scientology’s opposition to psychotropic medication.
- Court scrutinizes whether Lexapro-related causation can be proven; finds gaps in evidence about Lexapro use, timing, and causation; rejects statutory theories and agency theories; primarily holds no duty or proximate cause for Scientology or the Gentiles.
- Court grants summary judgment in favor of all defendants, concluding mere possession of a gun and lack of foreseeability preclude liability; no genuine issue of material fact remains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the death causally linked to Lexapro withdrawal? | Britton contends Lexapro withdrawal, mandated by Scientology policies, proximately caused Kyle’s suicide. | Defendants argue there is no evidence Kyle consistently took Lexapro or that its withdrawal caused suicide. | No genuine issue; no sufficient causation evidence; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Did Scientology or Gentiles owe a duty or proximately cause Kyle’s suicide? | Plaintiff asserts a duty through Scientology’s influence and agency to prevent suicide. | No duty or proximate causation established; defendants remote from the suicide; no liability. | No duty or proximate cause; defendants entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Are statutory or agency theories viable bases for liability? | Plaintiff relies on Florida statutes and volunteer-act theories to impose liability. | Statutes and volunteer-act theories do not fit the facts; not applicable. | Statutory theories inapplicable; agency theories fail; no liability under these theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Camp, 284 So.2d 691 (Fla.1973) (duty to invitees unified under reasonable care standard)
- McCain v. Florida Power Carp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992) (foreseeability informs duty and proximate cause)
- Williams v. Davis, 974 So.2d 1052 (Fla.2007) (distinguishes duty from proximate causation via foreseeability)
- Chalhoub v. Dixon, 338 Ill.App.3d 535 (Ill.App.2003) (suicide not foreseen as proximate result of stepfather’s possession of gun)
- Paddock v. Chacko, 522 So.2d 410 (Fla.5th DCA1988) (no duty to predict an individual’s propensity to self-harm)