Brooks v. Logan, 903 P.2d 73

Brooks v. Logan

903 P.2d 73

Idaho

1995

Check Treatment

*1 distinguishing We find Baranick’s basis for 903 P.2d 73 unpersuasive. impor- Kunz Because of their BROOKS, individually, James and Diane agricultural economy, tance to opera- Idaho’s guardians and as ad litem for their mi- irrigation tors of ditches and canals have daughter, Brooks, nor Amber Dianne long been held liable for their actions law, Repre- heirs at and as the Personal 904, 906, negligent. are Id. at sentatives for the estate of their minor 929, 981; e.g., Stephenson see v. Pioneer child, Jeffrey Brooks, Plaintiffs-Ap- M. Dist., Irrigation P. pellants, (1930); Co-opera- Burt v. Farmers’ Co., Irrigation tive 168 P. LOGAN, individually, Laura and as an em- 1078, 1082 In Kunz the Court ex- ployee of Joint School District No. principle tended this to reservoir and dam and Joint School District No. an inde- operators they, operators because like the pendent political subdivision of the state canals, irrigation integral part are an Idaho, Defendants-Respondents. artificial storage delivery systems water well-being. essential to Idaho’s economic No. 21013. Kunz, 117 Idaho at 792 P.2d at 929. Idaho, Supreme Court of policy limiting These liability reasons for Boise, January 1995Term. operators implicated just of reservoir are strongly regard Aug. upstream riparian 1995. they regard

landowners as were with to the Rehearing Denied Oct. Therefore, downstream owners Kunz. policy principle

there is no sound basis in distinguish Kunz from the

instant case. Because the owner did not flooding property

show that the of his operator’s negligence,

caused the trial properly

court dismissed the claim for dam-

ages past flooding. for

CONCLUSION.

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the damages рast flooding.

claim for

vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the claim injunctive relief and remand the case to

the trial court for further consideration. We grant prescrip- trial

reverse the court’s of a

tive easement. result, light of the mixed we award no attorney appeal.

costs or fees on

McDEVITT, C.J., TROUT, SILAK SCHROEDER, JJ., concur.

486

TROUT, Justice. wrongful This is a death action and an negligent action for infliction ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍of emotional arising distress from the suicide of fourteen- year-old Jeffrey Brooks.

I. BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS case, In Jeffrey (Jeff), Brooks who School, was a High student at Meridian teacher, English asked his respondent Logan (Logan), Laura to make entries into a daily journal part English composi- as of an assignment. tion He beginning did this September and continued to the December, end of following 1990. The Janu- ary he committed suicide at his home. suicide, After Logan through Jeff’s read journal his entries in the and then turned it over to a subsequently counselor who deliv- parents, ered it to Jeff’s James and Diane (the Brooks). Brooks The Brooks then Logan, called according and to them she indicated that journal she had “re-read” the provisions and decided that the Brooks should composition pro- have it. When the ject began, Logan advised the students that reading journals; she would be their howev- er, after a few expressed months Jeff con- cerns that he fully express could not himself knowing would read his entries. journal Thereafter passage Jeffs contains a by Logan written in which she indicated that journal content, she would not read the for but would instead check the entries for dates affidavit, length. In her claims journal she never read advising Jeff’s after She, therefore, him that she would not. dis- putes the Brooks’ assertion that she “re- journal read” Jeff’s after his death. To the contrary, she maintains that she read the journal entries for the first time after Jeff’s death. contains some passages in which he alludes to death or depression, but there is no definite statement contemplating that he was suicide. Bush, Boise, Law Offices of Comstock & brought against Logan The Brooks suit Bush, appellants. argued. A. John (the and the Meridian School District Dis- Smith, Hull, trict) Quane, Boise, alleged Howard & and have that the District has Julian, respondents. argued. Brian regarding investigation training teachers, argues Ida- District that based qualified to take The (ITCA), it is immune Tort Claims Act ho action to detect and assist stu- affirmative alleged stemming any fail- liability from depression suffer from or suicidal dents who perform duties. ure to the above allege ideation. addition the Brooks Logan jointly have a District any granting sum Review of order displays help for a who suicidal seek student requires us to make two mary judgment tendencies school. (1) there remains determinations: whether fact; genuine material issue and the District filed motion for non-moving party is entitled whether the summary judgment seeking to dismiss Sharp judgment of law. v. W.H. as matter grounds on the that there are Brooks’ claims Moore, Inc., Idaho dispute; was owed no facts (citing Siqueiros, Mitchell v. Jeff; *4 to Jeffs act of and the District 396, In 99 P.2d 1074 Idaho 582 foreseeable; committing suicide not and determinations, making the Court will those liability from the District is immune under any infer the facts and reasonable construe granted The trial court I.C. 6-904. light most in the ences drawn therefrom motion, finding they and the District’s (cit non-moving party. the Id. favorable to Jeff, owe a care to and that did not of Pocatello, City v. 112 Idaho ing Anderson of failing they liability for immune from to were (1986); 176,731 P.2d 171 Hirst v. Saint Paul implement prevention program. a suicide 792, Co., 683 & Marine Ins. 106 Idaho Fire question was at least a factual Because there (Ct.App.1984)). 440 P.2d Logan had the about whether indeed read Dist. Czaplicki Gooding Joint Sch. In journal, judge the entire concluded for 231, 326, (1989), 640 No. 116 Idaho 775 P.2d judgment purposes summary the of the mo- we stated that: had tion he would deem that she read the summary judg ruling In on a motion for that, journal. spite of the court still con- immunity un upon an defense ment based responsibility cluded that to (ITCA), a Tort Act der the Idaho Claims take The us action. case now before judge determine whether trial should first appeal grant summary judgment. from the of allegations plaintiffs’ supporting the generally of action for record state a cause II. private person entity or be “a would which money damages under laws liable for the UNDER THE IDAHO IMMUNITY the Idaho.” v. Sho of state of Walker CLAIMS ACT TORT 991, 995, 739 County, P.2d shone analysis requires issue an of This the de 294 court must then separate complaint under two sec- Brooks’ exception liability whether an to termine tions. alleged mis under the shields the ITCA liability. of In consideration

conduct inquiry private initial as to whether the Program A. Suicide Prevention entity or could be held liable individual First, allegations we address the that the allegеd complaint, under the facts the District had a to: essentially tort ask “is there such a we 1) investigate hire well-trained [Id.] under the laws Idaho?” teachers; qualified Czaplicki 775 P.2d at 644. find 2) faculty train all adequately members allegations supporting Brooks’ that the detection, recognition, and the means and generally for state a cause of action record potentially prevention of suicidal behavior entity private person or any student; exhibited money damages the for under laws liable is, negli- Idaho: that the tort of the state of 3) steps take affirmative to detect as- gence. suffering from disabilities sist its students analytical process stage The next the depression such as severe or suicidal idea- requires us applicable to such motion tion. availability evaluate exception body, of an decision-making in this case the liability District, under the ITCA. legislature The ITCA sub- through pubbe jects the political state and its input subdivisions to and discussion. The courts do not have hability negligent for its acts or omissions. fact-finding ability legislature City City, Ransom v. Garden departments executive and should ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍not at- (citing tempt to competing balance the detailed and 6-903). discretionary excep- function legislative elements of or executive decisions. upon tion District which the relies states: City, Sеe Ransom v. Garden Idaho Exceptions governmental (1987)(citations omitted). liability.—A governmental entity employees and its Making a determination that our local acting scope while within course and schools should be at forefront of the employment their prevention and without malice or unquestionably impor- effort is an criminal any intent shall be liable pubbe policy tant issue which must be left to claim which: Thus, the sound discretion of District. any we hold that Arises out of act or District immune from omission of habihty employee governmental upon discretionary an entity based func- care, exercising ordinary exception implement tion rеbanee failure or the performance prevention execution or of a statu- program, or train its staff *5 function, tory regulatory or prevention. whether or not such valid, regulation the be statute or or based performance the exercise or or the B. Failure to Warn perform failure to exercise or a discretion- allege Brooks also the Dis ary part function on the or of a capacity trict and in her as a District governmental thereof, entity employee or employee duty to have a alert warn and/or whether or not the discretion be abused. parents the family and of a student and/or 6-904(1). § I.C. the school authorities ab suicidal of tenden determining appli for test the essence, cies In exhibited at school. the cability discretionary immunity of function aheged Brooks have had a looks at the nature of the conduct. Routine help bght to seek of for Jeff in his suicidal requiring matters not evaluation of broad thoughts. In the applying test for determin pobey bkely “operational,” factors wib be ing discretionary applicability of function involving whereas decisions a consideration routine, immunity, we have determined that financial, economic, pobtical, of the and social everyday requiring matters not evaluation оf particular plan bkely effects of a are “discre pobey bkely “operation broad factors will be tionary” immunity. accorded and will be al”, liability. and thus are not immune from Pocatello, City Lawton v. 126 Idaho of City City, Ransom v. 113 Idaho Garden of (citing 886 P.2d 336 Ransom 202, 205, Here, 743 P.2d Lo 73 202, 205, City v. City, Garden 113 Idaho of gan’s alleged failure to warn the Brooks or (1987)). 743 P.2d then evaluate entries, school authorities about chahenged bght conduct of the dual by solely is a decision the teacher made policies by discretionary advanced func financial, require does not an evaluation of exception: govern tion permit those who pobtical, effеcts. economic and social While unduly by to do being so without inhibited routine, everyday hopefuby it is not a deci judicial liability

the threat of and to limit sion, it the exercise of nevertheless involves second-guessing pobey of basic decisions en practical judgment planning pobey or and not government. trusted to other branches of Thus, activity appears formation. to be case, Applying analysis this to this it “operational”. appears implement clear that the decision Next, prevention program, including

a we whether the school consider district, unduly training a districts or inhibited teachers in the discre teachers will tionary implement carrying jobs when there is a function. The decision to out their using prevention habihty ordinary threat less than program a suicide should be left for necessarily begin must Ransom, gence of action 743 P.2d at cause Idaho at care. duty. Ransom, an evaluation legisla- we noted that provided public that the defense of ture Duty A. Assumed gov- employees shall be undertaken entity challenged act or if the argue ernmental that the trial court The Brooks employee is within the course of the determining omission incorrect in not in- scope employment and does not assume the District did Id., citing intent. deposition malice or criminal Logan’s volve They argue ease. 6-903(c). are long acknowledge § as these factors I.C. So principal of the Meridian met, entity governmental They entitled duty. an assumed existence of indemnification, contribution, reim- any Logan’s actions out of arose claim in the past. incurred defense in the bursement helping troubled students 6-903(d)). Fi- employee. (citing Id. I.C. duty is of an assumed “A claim breach 6-903(e) nally, creates rebuttable duly of care negligence where the action any presumption that act or omission an undertaking.” voluntary from a results employee place of his within the time and Matthews, Runft, Leroy, & v. Jones Coffin employment scope оf his em- is within the criminal in- ployment without malice or Compa- B. (citing Parson Bowling Jack legislative tent. Id. We believe that these nies, 1030, 793 P.2d 703 any provisions alleviate fears should voluntary duty oth- This is distinct personally they might be teachers that held result of party may have er potentially failing help seek for a liable for undertaking relationship. Id. another Id. suicidal student. 611-12, at 865-66. help plaintiff duty, to seek student an alleging The decision assumed When thoughts not in- prove with known suicidal does volunteered must that the defendant *6 decision, policy it is a a rather failed to exercise help plaintiff volve basic the and then missing a a teacher’s in allegation decision made as result of is this due care. That knowledge a Nothing supports and in the course of that teacher’s find- in the record case. employment. Accordingly, hold Logan help we that to Jeff and ing that volunteered duty duty Quite not fall within to seek assistance does of care for him. thus assumed a discretionary exception of the function the indi- opposite, the evidence in record the 6-904(1). discretionary § the function re- approached Since never Jeff cates that entries, exception apply, not and the ad- garding does Ms and at least may District be liable if we find the existence not read the en- that she would visеd Jeff legal duty. Further, aof the record does not reflect tries. to assist Jeff Logan ever volunteered

that alleged personal depres- turmoil or with his III. below, the upon the record trial sion. Based correctly Logan’s found that occasional court A DUTY EXISTENCE OF past helping students did actions of troubled duty in assuming in a tMs result her not negli elements of common law The case. (1) law, by duty, recognized gence include a a

requiring defendant to conform to cer the Relationship B. Custodial (2) conduct; a tain breach standard (3) no The trial court there is com duty; the held a causal connection between inju duty prevent absent resulting to suicide thе mon law defendant’s conduct and Alegria relationsMp” between the District ries; damage. “custodial actual loss or 135, point out Logan and the District 619 P.2d and Jeff. Payonk, 101 Idaho duty imposed this courts have Nampa Me that other (citing Brizendine v. 580, Dist., a custodial relation prevent suicide absent Irrigation 548 to ridian (1976)). duty no analysis ship there can be estab and thus Thus an P.2d 80 Indeed, the cases cited summary negli- in tMs ease. judgment for a lished propriety of a by (1989). the Brooks involve situations where the 778 P.2d relationship defendant custodial opinion over that we statutory noted that this plaintiff. the duty exemplifies The courts have held when the role of the state to the person school, being in hospital detained in a children which is a role described jail, person suicide, parentis. and that then one in loco Id. commits 778 P.2d quoted may at 338. We favorably institution be liable if from a the suicide Wash ington opinion pointed which City See out that foreseeable. Murdock v. “the Keene, duty pupils a school district to its 137 N.H. owes A.2d 755 anticipate reasonably ‘[t]o presented are not foreseeable dan that situation here. gers precautions and to take protecting negligence relied in this action is a ” in custody children its dangers.’ failure such parents to communicate ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍to the Id. at 778 P.2d (quoting at 340 schоol Carabba pos- authorities allegedly information v. Anacortes Sch. Dist. No. 72 Wash.2d by sessed teacher concerning the child’s suicide, contemplated not a failure physically school prevent authorities Thus, previous under our law we case have by exercising suicide control Jeff. over Ac- determined that a duty, school district has a cordingly, duty predi- do not we find that a 33-512(4), exemplified in I.C. to act affir- cated on relationship a custodial arises this matively prevent foreseeable harm to its case. argu- students. District made several appeal, urges ments on one of which Statutory Duty C. Court find that no arises this case injury Next, because the off the occurred school the Brooks contend that the grounds. argument We do per- not find this Idaho Code creates a protect rationale, Under suasive. Lo- students, District’s health and morals and further gan prevent would have a prevention extends to the grounds. suicide if it occurred on the school a student at his home. The Conversely, if stepped he had one foot off the argue 33-202, Brooks first that I.C. suicide, grounds and committed requires ages children between the of seven arise. We do not believe this subjects sixteen to instructed in com arbitrary pur- line can For be drawn. monly usually taught public schools poses of this mоtion we must assume Idaho, gives “special rise to a relationship.” occurred, all, negligence if at while Jeff was They argue special statute creates attending school failed to seek duty, parents private and that can bring *7 help. alleged negligence The result of the is cause of action based on this statute. The place element that take did not 33-512(4), § pro Brooks also cite which Therefore, grounds. the school we find that vides that the school district of board trust question Logan duty of whether had a duty protect ees have “[t]o a the morals and essentially question help seek for Jeff is a pupils.” They argue hеalth of the this is a already by been has addressed this special relationship codification of be Court. tween schools and students and thus estab duty by lishes the owed school officials. Accordingly, duty we find that there is a which arises between a teacher or school statutory court district found that the previ- a district and student. This 33-512(4) § codified in I.C. not ex did ously recognized by Court as sim- been tend to the circumstances of We this case. ply duty to in a exercise reasonable care disagree. Previously, we have ruled that supervising attending are they students while legislature when the enacted I.C. 33- school. 512(4), statutory duty it a created which re quires reasоnably district in to act IV. the face of foreseeable risks of harm. Cza Dist., plicki Gooding v. Joint School 116 OTHER NEGLIGENCE ELEMENTS OF 326, 640, (1989); 331, Idaho 775 P.2d 645 Doe A. Breach and Causation Durtschi, 466, v. 110 Idaho 716 P.2d 1238 (1986). again statutory negligence We discussed this The second element of action, Bauer v. Minidoka Dist. No. of Sch. cause of that of breach

491 knowledge of Jeffs suicidal requires measuring Logan had negligent party, allegedly actions, against thoughts her or inactivi- conduct that of an ordi and whether party’s A acting ty, suicide. motion for prudent under all the resulted in Jeffs narily person if existing. must denied summary judgment and conditions then be circumstances conflicting Payonk, 619 inferences v. 101 Idaho is such that Alegriа evidence (1980) 135, therefrom, (citing Nagel v. Ham if reasonable P.2d 137 can be draw mond, 96, 90 408 P.2d 468 conclusions. Id. people might Idaho different reach existed is What circumstances and conditions the trier fact the leave for of We therefore by the question to be determined factual has been whether the determination of Lab., 112 trier of fact. Toner v. Lederle breach was the breached whether 348, 328, 297, 732 P.2d 317 injuries. Idaho resulting cause (Bakes, concurring specially) (citing J. 15, Meyer, v. 154 O’Connor Intervening, Superseding Cause B. (1944)). Thus, the of fact deter 174 trier will argue and the District what circumstances and conditions ex mine is taking act his own life intentional Logan’s at time оf the isted in classroom the intervening re superseding, cause which suicide, actions, compare her and will lack any liability. do not from lieves them action, ordinarily prudent of an to those argument persuasive light our find this acting under such conditions. teacher by a previous holdings requiring an act third element, causation, The third re an person force in order to establish or other quires fact to determine whether the trier of intervening, superseding cause. Mico reasonably the District could have Skyline Leasing, Inc. v. Mobile Sales & anticipated foreseen or the failure to (1975), Corp., 546 P.2d help might the student for result refer adopted it had thе defini Court noted that injury Alegria, to that student. See 101 Ida superseding cause from the Restate tion ho 619 P.2d at Factual issues of at (1965). (Second) of Torts ment jury proximate again cause are for the A is an act of third superseding cause resolve, McKinley v. and not court. person or other force which its inter- Fanning, 100 Idaho 595 P.2d prevents being lia- vention the actor for harm to another his anteced- ble conflicting question Faced factual factor negligence ent a substantial of whether read the or wheth- about, omitted) (citation bringing er have his suicidal she could detected 411-12, at The con- 546 P.2d 57-58. Id. thoughts journal, if for the she had read cept supervening inapplicable causation dispute purposes this factual of this motion actions were the foreseeable result when the light in the most favorable to must viewed alleged failure to exer- Durtschi, of the school district’s non-moving party. Doe v. protect its students. Doe cise due care to Idaho *8 Durtschi, 472, 716 P.2d Hubbard, 110 Idaho (quoting Ashby v. (1979)). The have Brooks sub- from Mr. Brooks in which mitted an affidavit allegation present is no case there Logan journal prior he had claims read the party or some “other force” was that third Additionally, death. the Brooks cause; superseding intervening, rather Hamilton, of Dr. submitted the affidavit very injury occurred is that which which reading upon that based his states was the foreseeable con- the Brooks maintain journal, interviews with the and clinical Logan’s and District’s al- sequence of it was suffer- family, apparent was that Jeff negli- leged negligence. allegedly their It he ing from adolescent turmoil and had been death, not caused Jeff’s some gence which may help, his have been referred for party’s intervening third action. note prevented. inapplicable both the that this doctrine action, and Brooks’ cause wrongful death By submitting these affidavits the negligent infliction of emotional of action for question raised the whether Brooks have this, distress. In a situation such as we II. question

believe the appropriately is more comparative one of negligence. 6-801. WHAT DID NOTICE LOGAN HAVE It jury is for to compare the negligence THAT JEFF WAS CONTEM- actors, Jeff, Brooks, all the including PLATING SUICIDE? Logan and the District. Taylor, Harrison v. only The Logan notice that could have had that contemplating Jeff was suicide must be (citing McKinley Fanning, 100 Ida- upon journal. based the contents of Jeffs ho 595 P.2d 1084 This is not a There is an of fact determination to be issue whether read summary made at judg- journal. Therefore, ment. this this must Court as- journal. sume that did read Jeffs Thus, this Court must consider what notice V. imparted was her assumed CONCLUSION reading journal. following of Jeffs ex- cerpts аre the in Jeffs entries dispute Based the factual arising depres- make reference to record, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍death from the in affidavits and the sion Jeff could potential arguably relate to legal Jeff, of a Jeff breach owed to committing suicide. we find that summary judg- the motion for ment improperly granted. was We award Well, Edgar poe, Allen I can live with costs, fees, appellants. but no to the studying espe- about stuff he wrote cially story the one short about the evil SILAK, JJ.,

JOHNSON concur. eye. year We read that one in En- last glish really enjoy McDEVITT, C.J., poems class. I and short in concurs result. poems I “Horror” storie’s. used to write YOUNG, Tem., concurring Pro Justice in pronounced myself until I in dead one of part dissenting part. poems them and how could I write I, A-B, I parts concur in II III A-B-C and stories if I dead?? A-B, dissent from IV and V for the reasons Really, though, it was accidental that it hereinafter stated. see, happened, I went into medium de- pression poems special and wrote to two I. people my They life. girls were both but, I anyway, told them that it was too RESTATEMENT OF DUTY OF SCHOOL say goodby way bad that I like UNDER DISTRICT PREVIOUS but, only way it be I CASE LAW poems felt still better. I have those two majority part has stated in III C that my change case I mind. previous “under our case law we have deter I don’t if I will. I met some know old duty, mined that a district exem recently friends so I’m for awhile. I hеre plified 33-512(4), in I.C. to act affirmative you may following all know that ly prevent harm to its stu foreseeable really added). right I out because haven’t come out (emphasis emphasized dents” As I Education, and said what meant since it’s a little Eisel v. 324 Md. Board of (1991), many people far Not fetched. follow me foreseeability 597 A.2d 447 is the *9 but, original because I’m so cares!?!!? important most who determining variable in duty exists, whether a tort and without it prevent

there can to suicide. &11/6 11/7/90 negligence “The broad of is what a test rea things ... the in sonably prudent person Some of here are would foresee and light foresight strong standings. written would do in the of this under have emotional things Negli the 57A There are thаt kill some- circumstances.” Am.Jur. could ____ gence § 135. one

493 schools, hav- and reform hospitals jails, as 12/21/90 control custody of physical ing actual vaguely entries journal of Jeffs The rest (2) omitted); and (citations persons over having writing, his in problems with his dealt mental such as institutions or “persons personal of his girl, some on a “crush” a mental- other psychiatrists hospitals, par- his characteristics, relationship with his to deemed professionals, trained health Christ- receive ents, to expected he what en- expertise training and special have a or inter- collecting mas, of “unusable his illness and/or detect mental abling to them esting stuff.” have suicide, and which potential the is an issue there determining whether necessary prevent to or control power the have or Logan knew should added) (citations fact whether of (emphasis suicide.” that on contemplating suicide Jeff was that known omitted). entries, duty of one’s journal his of basis the raises rule general the exception to This facts as upon the be determined care must high a Logan, who was question whether the time, the and not at the they appeared train- teacher, special had English 37A Am. suicide. committed Jeff fact that her to enable expertise which ing Therefore, 195-97, Negligence Jur.2d mentally ill Jeff whether detеrmine portions quoted any, of significance, if basis of on the suicide contemplating and/or on the must be based not of journal entries. his suicide. committed Jeff fact that English Training of dealing issue an with the Logan’s general The rule A. of to Deter- suicide Her person for the Enable liability of a Did Not Teacher Mentally Ill McLaughlin v. Sulli- Jeff Was was stated mine Whether another (1983), as Contemplating A.2d Suicide. van, 461 123 N.H. 123 and/or follows: to hold refused consistently have Courts rule, actions negligence general aAs psychiatrist or a is not who that someone another of suicide seeking damages for the who has professional trained mental-health of suicide act enabling lie because will not expertise training and special had in- deliberate, intentional a po considered mental illness and/or them to detect finding a precludes tervening act which prevent has a for suicide tential defendant, responsi- fact is given a McLaughlin, occurring. See suicide harm, omitted). (citations ble for have (1983) (lawyers do A.2d necessary training expertise either recognized also McLaughlin court The commit will a client judge foresee rule have general to this exceptions two responses to appropriate fashion or to suicide gen- to the exception The recognizеd. been Iverson, 10 Wis.2d risk); Bogust v. a such under application possible that has rule eral of (professor N.W.2d McLaugh- was stated of this ease facts degree of philosophy a doctor education as follows: lin doctor a medical qualified as person is not the ex- exception focuses The second en in mental disorders specialist aor prevent duty of specific care of a istence psy student’s need for realize him to abled imposed as been This suicide. parents to advise or need chiatric treatment (citation omitted), on essen- law matter of disturbances); Board Eisel v. of emotional defendants, both tially classes two Education, A.2d 447 324 Md. relation- special to have are held whom stu duty to (student’s warn counselors typi- individual. the suicidal ship with daughter’s suicide their parents dent’s someone “is such cases cal defendant and re friends made to which were threats care, is in custodial who has though even to counselors by them ported potential, know about position to making statements such daughter denied prevent sui- measures to take and fails counselors). Comment, 1978 occurring.” cide from be- difference factual distinguishing Specifically at 581. Ariz.St.L.J. *10 exist, to found Eisel, was where tween such institutions imposed on: been McLaughlin and Bogust, and ingless where no in the probably sense that there are exist, was found to Eisel there was every times when adolescent could be simi- direct evidence that planned suicide was by larly diagnosed. Furthermore, diagnosis question decedent in and there was no any way does not indicate in Logan, how as a special need for training to foresee high teacher, English expect- could be suicide; decedent intended to commit while ed to mentally determine that Jeff was ill in McLaughlin Bogust, the suicide was contemplating suicide on and/or basis held to be unforeseeable no to take journal Jeff’s entries. prevent affirmative action to suicide еxisted Dr. Read’s Jeffrey statement that “had each because of the defendants lacked the timely Brooks been referred to a competent special training required to detect mental professional psychologist, counselor or ... potential illness for suicide and/or avoided,” his suicide pure would have been foresee that the deceased intended suicide. speculation that should not be upon relied authority Under and reasoning, the raising any factual issue in this case. Jeff should be held unfore- We can reasonably assume that Jeff had by Logan seeable and that she had no thoughts suicidal because hе committed sui- to take prevent affirmative action to his However, cide. there is no evidence special suicide because of her training lack of record when he had thoughts those suicidal to detect potential mental illness and/or or that thoughts those suicidal were commu- for suicide of Jeff. Logan. may nicated to suspect, ques- One B. No speculate Evidence tion or making Has Been Submitted whether Jeff was prior Raises an Issue reference thoughts

Which of Fact Wheth- to some suicidal er quoted excerpts journal. Knew or Should Have from his How- ever, Known From Jeffs Journal Entries those statements alone arе not admissi- Mentally That He was Ill Con- ble having evidence that he was and/or suicidal templating Suicide. thoughts at the time he wrote them in his journal. appellants tacitly acknowledge that the determination of whether Jeff was men-

tally contemplating ill suicide is a and/or III. medical issue which could be determined professionals mental-health trained ob- CONCLUSION Read, taining the services of Dr. who is a Bogust: As the trial court stated psychologist special training exper- To hold that a teacher who has no tise to him enable to detect mental illness training, experience education or in medi- potential Jeff commit sui- and/or required reсognize cal fields is in a cide. student a diagnosis condition the of which However, Dr. Read did not diag- make his inis a specialized and technical medical journal nosis basis entries require field beyond reason. alone. He also conducted clinical interviews 102 N.W.2d at of James and 230. Diane Brooks. See Dr. Read’s affidavit, Thus, para. opinion his is not foregoing reasoning On the basis upon they appeared based the facts as at the authorities,.! would affirm the action of time Logan. Jeff submitted his granting summary the district court in judg- Furthermore, way there is knowing ment in favor the defendants. diagnosis how Dr. much Read’s is based knowledge his after-the-fact that Jeff had suicide.

committed diagnosis

Dr. Read’s that Jeff “suffer-

ing fairly common turmoil adolescent friend,

surrounding girl identity his ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍rebellion,” alone, standing

issues of is mean-