Keiswetter v. State
304 Kan. 362
| Kan. | 2016Background
- Helen Keiswetter was later found injured after minimum-security inmate Christopher Zorn escaped from Norton Correctional Facility, entered her home, and assaulted her; she died eight months later.
- Ron Keiswetter (son/administrator) sued the State for wrongful death and personal injury, alleging several theories but ultimately proceeding only on the claim that the State negligently failed to prevent Zorn’s escape and confinement.
- The State moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty to the victim and asserting immunity under KTCA exceptions, notably the police protection exception (K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-6104(n)).
- The district court granted summary judgment based on the public-duty doctrine, lack of a special duty, and KTCA police-protection immunity; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, assumed (without deciding) that a duty to Keiswetter existed, and focused on whether the KTCA police-protection exception bars liability.
- The Supreme Court held the State is immune under the KTCA police protection exception and affirmed the lower courts’ judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State is immune under KTCA police-protection exception for failure to prevent an inmate's escape and subsequent assault | Keiswetter argued the State breached an individual duty to confine Zorn and is not immune when a specific duty to an individual exists | State argued duty to confine inmates is a police-protection function benefitting the public and is exempt from liability under K.S.A. 75-6104(n) | Held: State is immune under the police-protection exception; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the public-duty doctrine should block recovery absent a special relationship | Keiswetter contended public-duty doctrine should not preclude his claim | State maintained any duty was public, not a special duty owed to Helen | Not decided as dispositive—court resolved case on statutory immunity rather than reevaluate the doctrine |
| Whether Cansler and related precedent permit applying police-protection immunity to correctional confinement duties | Keiswetter relied on Washington (Ct. App.) to argue exception doesn't apply to breaches of specific duties to individuals | State relied on Cansler and other precedent to show confinement duties are police-protection functions | Held: Court agreed with State that Cansler supports immunity for confinement-related failures absent other exception (e.g., duty to warn) |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment on negligence | Keiswetter argued discovery showed facts supporting negligence | State argued immunity relieves it from liability regardless of factual disputes | Held: Because immunity applies as a matter of law, summary judgment was appropriate; no need to resolve factual issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Shirley v. Glass, 297 Kan. 888 (2013) (elements of negligence claim require duty to plaintiff)
- Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73 (2011) (KTCA liability requires absence of statutory exception; standard for reviewing immunity)
- Cansler v. State, 234 Kan. 554 (1984) (operation of penal institutions is a police-protection function; police-protection exception can apply to confinement duties)
- Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278 (1984) (police/fire protection exception covers policy/method decisions on providing protection, but not all negligent acts during response)
- Beck v. Kansas Adult Authority, 241 Kan. 13 (1987) (affirmed that methods of providing police protection can be immunized under the KTCA)
- Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358 (1982) (public-duty doctrine and requirement of a special relationship to impose liability)