Woods v. State Ex Rel. Montana State Hospital
2015 MT 8
Mont.2015Background
- In June 2008 Justin Schiller was involuntarily committed to Montana State Hospital (MSH) after heavy drinking, ingesting Percocet, expressing suicidal ideation, and history of self-harm and depression.
- While at MSH clinicians noted Schiller’s alcohol-related aggression toward his girlfriend Catherine Woods, problems with anger control, and that loss of the relationship could lead to high-risk behavior; no record shows Schiller made a specific threat naming Catherine or describing a specific means.
- Schiller was discharged after 12 days; he later purchased a handgun and, in November 2008, shot and killed Catherine and then died by suicide.
- Catherine’s parents sued MSH under § 27-1-1102, MCA, alleging MSH had a statutory duty to warn Catherine of the risk posed by Schiller; MSH moved for summary judgment arguing no specific communicated threat was made.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State; the Woodses appealed arguing MSH should have warned based on foreseeable risk and Schiller’s admissions of past aggression.
- The Montana Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the statutory duty to warn was triggered by the facts in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSH had a duty to warn Catherine under § 27-1-1102, MCA | Woodses: Schiller’s admissions of alcohol-related aggression, history of violence, and risk after relationship end put a reasonably skillful clinician on notice and required a warning | State: Statute requires a communicated actual threat of physical violence by specific means against an identifiable victim; no such communication occurred | Court: Duty is narrow; no evidence Schiller communicated an actual, specific threat by specific means against Catherine, so no duty to warn |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976) (establishes broad duty to protect foreseeable victims when therapist determines patient poses serious danger)
- Thompson v. County of Alameda, 614 P.2d 728 (Cal. 1980) (narrows duty to threats against named or readily identifiable victims)
- Gudmundsen v. State, 203 P.3d 813 (Mont. 2009) (construing § 27-1-1102, MCA, as creating an extremely narrow duty to warn)
- In re Mental Health of M.C.D., 225 P.3d 1214 (Mont. 2010) (applies statute to a specific communicated threat and finds duty to warn)
- DeVasier v. James, 278 S.W.3d 625 (Ky. 2009) (statute requires an active expression of threat to the professional; mere passive presence of risk insufficient)