459 P.3d 802
Kan. Ct. App.2020Background
- On July 4, 2014, Wichita Police Officer Ryan Snyder tased and then shot Icarus Randolph four times in Randolph's front yard; Randolph died shortly thereafter. Randolph had a history of serious mental illness and was nonresponsive; his mother had called 911 to request help.
- Officer Danny Brown and Officer Snyder responded; Snyder took control of the scene, family members described him as dismissive; confrontation unfolded within about 10–13 minutes of the call.
- Snyder deployed a Taser (one probe struck Randolph) and then, after seeing a pocketknife, drew his pistol and fired four shots; facts about Randolph’s comportment (stuporous vs. aggressive) and Snyder’s perceptions are disputed.
- Plaintiffs (Randolph’s estate and multiple family-witnesses) sued Snyder, Brown, and the City under the Kansas Tort Claims Act alleging negligence, negligent use of force, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death/survival claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; the court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded—holding summary judgment proper on many negligence claims but improper on several intentional-tort and IIED claims where material facts are disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary-function immunity bars negligence claims about officers’ pre-yard conduct | Snyder’s handling before Randolph exited (failure to follow Policy 519, failure to summon ambulance/supervisor) was negligent and actionable | Officers’ on-scene judgment calls are discretionary policy choices protected by K.S.A. 75-6104(e) | Affirmed: discretionary-function immunity bars negligence claims based on conduct before Randolph left the house (Brown and Snyder shielded) |
| Whether self-defense privilege defeats estate’s assault and battery claims for Taser and shooting | Estate: Taser discharge and shooting were unprivileged uses of force causing battery/wrongful death | Snyder: he subjectively and objectively believed force (including deadly force) was necessary; stand-your-ground and self-defense justify uses | Mixed: summary judgment affirmed for assault (no evidence Randolph apprehended threat). Reversed for battery claims — disputed facts preclude resolving self-defense on summary judgment for both Taser and shooting |
| Whether negligent-use-of-force is a cognizable claim and survived summary judgment | Estate pleaded negligent use of force as alternative to battery | Snyder: either the claim is not recognized or facts do not support it; intentional shooting is a battery, not negligence | Court: Kansas may recognize negligent-use-of-force in some circumstances, but here the facts showed intentional deadly force—district court right to dismiss negligent-use-of-force claim |
| Whether family members’ assault, IIED, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims survive summary judgment | Family: drawing/using weapons and shooting caused assault, IIED, and NIED to witnesses | Snyder: acts privileged or immunized; NIED requires near-contemporaneous physical harm | Held: reversed re assault and IIED for handgun display/shooting (material disputes about privilege); affirmed dismissal of assault claims based on Taser and affirmed dismissal of negligent infliction of emotional distress (no qualifying contemporaneous physical injury) |
| Whether adoptive immunity (K.S.A. 75-6104(i)) incorporates federal qualified immunity to bar state torts | Plaintiffs: adoptive immunity shouldn’t import unrelated federal immunities | Snyder: qualified immunity (for § 1983) should be adopted and bar state claims via adoptive immunity | Held: adoptive immunity does not incorporate federal qualified immunity for distinct state-law tort claims; Snyder may not rely on that ground at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Trear v. Chamberlain, 308 Kan. 932 (summary-judgment standards and burdens)
- Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. v. Oliver, 289 Kan. 891 (summary-judgment standards)
- Golden v. Den-Mat Corporation, 47 Kan. App. 2d 450 (affirmative defenses on summary judgment)
- Thomas v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 293 Kan. 208 (when policy is mandatory and discretionary-function immunity inapplicable)
- Estate of Belden v. Brown County, 46 Kan. App. 2d 247 (scope of discretionary-function immunity for police tactical decisions)
- Woodruff v. City of Ottawa, 263 Kan. 557 (police tactical decisions may be immunized)
- State v. Andrew, 301 Kan. 36 (self-defense privilege explained)
- Baska v. Scherzer, 283 Kan. 750 (definitions/elements of civil assault and battery)
- Keiswetter v. State, 304 Kan. 362 (KTCA immunities and analysis)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (policy behind qualified immunity)