968 N.W.2d 646
S.D.2021Background
- Donald London, a 42-year-old with diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia and a prior felony (prohibiting firearm possession), returned to his grandmother’s farmhouse in early January 2015.
- Law enforcement removed and secured firearms after a January 5–6 encounter; Donald agreed to evaluation but was not admitted for inpatient care and later returned to the farmhouse.
- On January 7, amid disputed phone calls (the Koenigs allege Bonnie told Donald ATF agents were coming; Bonnie denies this), Donald armed himself, engaged officers, and shot Sgt. John Koenig, who survived; Donald later pled guilty but mentally ill to aggravated assault.
- Sgt. Koenig and his wife sued Donald and Bonnie London for negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent entrustment (the entrustment claim was later abandoned). Bonnie moved for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Bonnie, finding no legal duty to control an emancipated adult son, no foreseeable high risk from Bonnie’s alleged statement, and no gratuitous assumption of a supervisory duty; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonnie owed a duty to control Donald or prevent his misconduct | Koenigs: Bonnie’s alleged statement (ATF coming) foreseeably escalated Donald’s delusions and created liability even absent a special relationship | Bonnie: No special relationship with emancipated adult; no duty to control third-party criminal acts | Court: No duty—no special relationship and affirmative conduct did not create a foreseeable high risk of intentional criminal harm |
| Whether Bonnie gratuitously undertook a duty to supervise Donald | Koenigs: Bonnie participated in Donald’s care and thus assumed a supervisory duty (failure increased risk) | Bonnie: She didn’t take control; Donald lived independently, underwent independent evaluation, and she was not in communication during the standoff | Court: No gratuitous undertaking—no relinquishment of control by Donald and no basis to impose parental supervisory duty over an adult |
Key Cases Cited
- E.P. v. Riley, 604 N.W.2d 7 (S.D. 1999) (duty threshold and special-relationship framework)
- Walther v. KPKA Meadowlands Ltd. P’ship, 581 N.W.2d 527 (S.D. 1998) (special-relationship and duty to protect analysis)
- Smith ex rel. Ross v. Lagow Const. & Dev. Co., 642 N.W.2d 187 (S.D. 2002) (affirmative acts/omissions can create a foreseeable high risk under Restatement §302B)
- Kirlin v. Halverson, 758 N.W.2d 436 (S.D. 2008) (examples of recognized special relationships affecting duty)
- Knight v. Merhige, 133 So.3d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (parental affirmative conduct and foreseeability—declined to impose duty where high-risk foreseeability not shown)