997 F. Supp. 2d 1071
E.D. Cal.2014Background
- Decedent, a 13-year-old, died by suicide in September 2010 after bullying for being gay; mother sues school district and two officials for multiple claims.
- Uncontroverted facts show bullying occurred across sixth to eighth grade but Decedent appeared happy in many periods.
- A school counselor discussed suicidal comments made by Decedent in sixth grade, but no ongoing mental health treatment or commitment occurred.
- Decedent communicated suicidal thoughts and planned actions in late 2010, including text messages and notes; he prepared a suicide plan.
- Plaintiff asserts school did not prevent harassment and that Defendants’ conduct proximately caused the suicide; Defendants move for partial summary judgment on certain state and federal claims.
- Court denied Defendants’ motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to proximate cause, including whether Decedent suffered an uncontrollable impulse to commit suicide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proximate cause exists under uncontrollable impulse test | Walsh contends Defendants’ neglect caused an uncontrollable impulse | Defendants argue no uncontrollable impulse from bullying; Decedent was capable of control | Fact issue; denial of summary judgment on proximate cause |
| Whether uncontrollable impulse can be established via chain of causation alternative | Plaintiff suggests chain-of-causation theory may apply | Kealoha chain-of-causation not applicable to §1983 claims | Chain-of-causation theory not applicable to §1983 claims; issue remains for trial under uncontrollable impulse |
| Whether a special relationship and foreseeability impose a duty to prevent suicide | Special relationship may create duty to prevent foreseeable suicide | School generally lacks duty beyond ordinary care; no explicit California precedent for schools | Potential duty exists but evidence insufficient; jury to decide foreseeability and breach |
| Whether assuming a duty to prevent suicide, there was breach given no mental-health treatment | Defendants knew harassment existed and could foresee distress | Defendants lacked training in suicide prevention; evidence insufficient of breach | Genuine factual disputes remain; not resolved on summary judgment |
| Scope of foreseeability and duty limited to state-law negligence claims; §1983 claims treated separately | Foreseeability principles apply to state claims; special relationship doctrine not applicable to §1983 | Kealoha does not govern §1983; liability premised on fault | Kealoha not controlling; unresolved factual questions to be decided by jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Tate v. Canonica, 180 Cal.App.2d 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960) (suicide as intervening act; uncontrollable impulse exception discussed)
- Soto v. City of Sacramento, 567 F.Supp. 662 (E.D. Cal. 1983) (discusses uncontrollable impulse in §1983 context)
- Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554 (9th Cir. 2009) (insufficient evidence of uncontrollable impulse; prior suicide notes considered)
- Lenoci v. Leonard, 21 A.3d 694 (Vt. 2011) (deliberate suicide; not an uncontrollable impulse)
- Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp., 9 Cal.App.4th 88 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (duty to prevent suicide with special knowledge; hospital context example)
- Kealoha v. Director, 713 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 2013) (chain-of-causation test; not controlling for §1983)
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687 (U.S. 1999) (fault-based tort claims; not workers’ compensation doctrine)
- Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (constitutional context; school duty limitations)