418 P.3d 967
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- Andrew Muscat is a profoundly disabled person placed in a group home run by Creative Innervisions (Creative); an ISP required one-on-one supervision at all times and forbade entering public restrooms alone.
- In Dec. 2012, staffer Temitayo Akande left Muscat unsupervised at a church; Muscat then followed and inappropriately touched a child, was arrested, later found competent, pled guilty to attempted child molestation and attempted kidnapping, and was sentenced to prison and lifetime probation.
- Muscat sued Creative for negligence, negligent supervision/training/hiring, and violation of the Arizona Adult Protective Services Act (APSA), alleging harms including loss of freedom and emotional distress resulting from his prosecution and incarceration.
- Creative moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing Muscat’s claims were barred by the wrongful-conduct rule and failed to state a cognizable claim; the superior court granted the motion and dismissed the claims.
- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of Muscat’s negligence claims, holding harms flowing solely from a lawful criminal conviction/incarceration are not legally cognizable injuries for negligence, but vacated and remanded dismissal of the APSA (vulnerable adult) claim for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Creative owed and breached a duty of care to Muscat for supervision | Muscat: Creative had a special relationship and contractual/ISP duty to provide one-on-one supervision and breached it by leaving him alone | Creative: Wrongful-conduct rule bars recovery for harms arising from plaintiff's own criminal acts; complaint fails to state a cognizable claim | Court: Duty and breach alleged exist, but not dispositive because alleged harms are not legally cognizable injuries when they flow solely from a lawful criminal conviction/incarceration — negligence claims dismissed |
| Whether Muscat stated a viable APSA (vulnerable adult) claim under A.R.S. §46-455(B) | Muscat: Creative abused/neglected a vulnerable adult and caused injury, so APSA permits suit | Creative: (Did not meaningfully brief this in motion; issue not resolved below) | Court: Dismissal of APSA claim vacated and remanded for the superior court to analyze in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (recognizing negligence elements and duty from special relationships)
- Walker v. Mart, 164 Ariz. 37 (refusing to recognize an injury where harm arises solely from lawful conditions of criminal status; analyzing legally cognizable "injury")
- DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr. Inc., 144 Ariz. 6 (special relationship where institution charged with care/custody of persons likely to harm themselves)
- Glaze v. Larsen, 207 Ariz. 26 (criminal-related malpractice claims require conviction be set aside for civil recovery)
- Slade v. City of Phoenix, 112 Ariz. 298 (malicious prosecution elements require favorable termination)
- Levine v. Kling, 123 F.3d 580 (liberty of a guilty criminal is not a legally protected interest for tort recovery)
- Barnes v. Outlaw, 192 Ariz. 283 (loss-of-consortium is derivative and depends on success of underlying claim)