Newman v. LICHFIELD
2012 MT 47
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Newman, as personal representative, sues Lichfield and WWASP for Karlye's suicide at Spring Creek Lodge Academy.
- Spring Creek was operated under WWASP model with related entities (Teen Help, National Contract, Peacox) and contractual fee structures.
- Karlye was admitted in 2004; no formal suicide risk assessment was performed upon intake and staff had limited awareness of her history.
- District Court limited evidence to Karlye-specific facts and excluded broader foreseeability and prior program history evidence.
- Jury trial in 2010 resulted in a defense verdict; Newman appeals three evidentiary and liability rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreseeability evidence scope | Newman: should prove what defendants knew about risks. | Foreseeability not at issue due to settlement; pre-Karlye acts attributed to Spring Creek. | Abuse of discretion; remand for broader foreseeability evidence. |
| Joint tort liability | Lichfield/WWASP acted in concert or aided others; joint liability under Restatement §876. | Need Sloan elements; disputed knowledge and substantial assistance; triable issues exist. | No error; material facts in dispute; partial summary judgment appropriate to deny. |
| Exclusion of history/evidence of programs | Szalavitz testimony and program history relevant to notice and duty. | Hearsay, lack of expertise, relevance concerns; prejudicial impact. | No abuse; May revisit on retrial with limitations per Issue One. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. Fauque, 239 Mont. 383 (Mont. 1989) (adopts Restatement § 876 joint liability framework)
- Poole v. Poole, 299 Mont. 435 (Mont. 2000) (duty and foreseeability standard in negligence)
- Fisher v. Swift Transp. Co., 181 P.3d 601 (Mont. 2008) (foreseeability as duty element; public policy considerations)
- Lopez v. Great Falls Pre-Release Servs., 986 P.2d 1081 (Mont. 1999) (reasonableness standard for foreseeability)