Knight v. Merhige
133 So. 3d 1140
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Paul Merhige, an adult with a long history of violent behavior, threats to family members, involuntary Baker Act commitments, and a prior suicide attempt, lived with and was financially supported by his parents, Michael and Carole Merhige, for many years.
- The Merhiges later provided Paul with a condominium in Miami; he became reclusive and stopped mental-health treatment and medications.
- Without warning the hosts or certain family members, the Merhiges invited Paul to a large Thanksgiving dinner hosted by Muriel and Jimmy Sitton; Paul asked who would attend and when people would leave.
- At the Sittons’ home, Paul retrieved a firearm, shot and killed multiple relatives (including two sisters and a six-year-old), and wounded another; Paul later pled guilty and was sentenced to life.
- Survivors sued the Merhiges for negligence, alleging (1) the Merhiges created a foreseeable zone of risk by inviting Paul, and (2) under the “undertaker’s doctrine” / Restatement §319 they had a special relationship or custody-based duty to control Paul.
- The trial court dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; the appellate court affirmed, holding no legal duty existed as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inviting Paul created a legal duty because it foreseeably created a zone of risk | Merhige invitation foreseeably exposed attendees to harm given Paul’s violent history; foreseeability alone should impose duty (McCain-centered approach) | Foreseeability alone is insufficient; imposing duty on family inclusion would be unworkable and contrary to policy | No duty — foreseeability alone insufficient; public policy bars imposing duty for including an adult family member |
| Whether the Merhiges had a special relationship with plaintiffs giving rise to a protective duty | Family ties and financial support made Merhiges responsible to protect relatives | No recognized special relationship existed between Merhiges and plaintiffs; family status alone does not create duty | No — family relationship to an adult does not create the protective special relationship needed |
| Whether the Merhiges had control over Paul (person/instrumentality/premises) sufficient to impose duty | Merhiges financially supported and previously housed Paul, and could invite him — enough control to impose duty | Paul was an emancipated adult; parents lacked legal custody/control over his person, premises, or the firearm | No — parents of an emancipated adult are not liable absent functional custody or the sort of control found in institutional custodians |
| Whether Restatement §302B (creation of risk by affirmative act) or similar principles impose duty | Plaintiffs invoke §302B/Restatement to argue affirmative act (bringing Paul into contact) created a foreseeable risk and thus duty | Even accepting §302B-type analysis, public policy favors a categorical no-duty rule in this family-inclusion context | Even under §302B theory, court declines to impose duty on public policy grounds; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1992) (duty framed by whether defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk)
- Carney v. Gambel, 751 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (parents not liable for acts of emancipated adult child; no duty to control adult)
- Clay Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2003) (elements of negligence; duty is question of law)
- Shurben v. Dollar Rent-A-Car, 676 So.2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (duty to warn customers of foreseeable criminal conduct in a business relationship)
- Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1979) (public policy analysis applied to tort claims in family context)
- Ard v. Ard, 414 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 1982) (family/parental immunity and policy considerations in intra-family torts)