Gourneau v. Wolf Point School Board

Citations: 2013 MT 300; 372 Mont. 182; 311 P.3d 760; 2013 WL 5634125; 2013 Mont. LEXIS 422Docket: DA 13-0210

Court: Montana Supreme Court; October 15, 2013; Montana; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Roxanne Gourneau, representing her deceased son Dalton, appeals a summary judgment from the Fifteenth Judicial District Court in favor of the Wolf Point School Board regarding negligence claims. The issue revolves around whether the School Board is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dalton, a 17-year-old senior at Wolf Point High School, committed suicide after facing disciplinary action for violating school policies by possessing tobacco, which is prohibited. Dalton had a history of disciplinary issues and was aware of the school's rules. Following a meeting with school officials, including the Principal and Superintendent, Dalton was informed of a 60-day suspension from wrestling due to his violation. Distressed over the potential impact on his ability to compete in the State tournament, Dalton left school and subsequently took his life at home. The court upheld the School Board's summary judgment, confirming that there was no basis for the negligence claims against them.

Gourneau filed a 2011 complaint against Wolf Point, the State of Montana, and Henry Hamill, claiming her son Dalton's death resulted from Wolf Point's negligence. The allegations included various forms of negligence, such as "respondeat superior," negligent hiring and supervision of Hamill, wrongful death, and emotional distress. The District Court granted summary judgment to Wolf Point on February 27, 2013, prompting this appeal.

The standard of review for summary judgment is de novo, requiring that no genuine issue of material fact exists for the movant to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The party seeking summary judgment must first prove the absence of genuine issues, after which the non-moving party must present sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue. Negligence requires establishing a legal duty, breach, causation, and damages, with the existence of a legal duty being a question of law.

The District Court concluded that Wolf Point had no duty to prevent Dalton's suicide based on presented facts. Gourneau contended that there were disputed facts regarding Wolf Point's relationship with Dalton, particularly concerning issues such as disciplinary consistency and knowledge of Dalton's mental state. Legal duty hinges on foreseeability, which assesses whether the defendants could reasonably anticipate that their actions could cause harm to the plaintiff. Without foreseeability of danger or risk from intervening causes, no duty exists, leading to the absence of negligence.

Recovery for negligence related to another's suicide is generally barred, as the act is viewed as a deliberate intervening event that absolves the defendant of liability. However, a duty to prevent suicide may arise in specific contexts, particularly when a party has custodial responsibilities and is aware of the individual's suicidal tendencies. Such cases often involve institutions like hospitals or prisons. A duty exists only if the custodian knows or should know about the potential for suicide. 

In the case of Pretty On Top v. Hardin, the court upheld summary judgment for a prison after a prisoner committed suicide, finding the act unforeseeable due to the absence of prior mental health issues or suicide attempts. The court emphasized that suicide is considered an intentional act, reinforcing the general rule of non-liability. 

Similarly, in Krieg, the court affirmed summary judgment for a landlord when a tenant committed suicide, citing the lack of evidence indicating that the tenant's suicidal tendencies were known or should have been known to the landlord. 

In Marazzato v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., although expert testimony suggested the potential for harm from an isolated work environment, the plaintiff failed to prove that the employer was aware of any foreseeable risk related to the employee's confinement, leading to summary judgment in favor of the defendant. 

In the current case, the court agreed with the District Court's conclusion that Wolf Point had no legal duty regarding Dalton's suicide since it was deemed unforeseeable. Evidence presented showed Dalton's extensive disciplinary issues, but none indicated that he posed a risk of suicide, supporting Wolf Point's motion for summary judgment.

No evidence indicates that Dalton harmed himself, exhibited dangerous behaviors, or threatened suicide despite repeated reprimands. Gourneau, as the non-moving party, needed to provide competent evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact, but failed to demonstrate that any school representative, including Hamill, was aware of a potential risk of suicide. Gourneau's complaint recognized that Dalton had no history of mental health issues. Legal precedents, such as Morrow v. Balaski and Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., establish that a special relationship between public schools and students, which might impose a duty to prevent suicide, does not generally exist without unique circumstances. The court noted that Wolf Point did not exercise custodial care over Dalton akin to that of a hospital or prison, and Dalton's suicide occurred at home, hours after school ended. Gourneau did not provide sufficient evidence to support a special relationship or foreseeability of Dalton’s suicide. Alleged factual disputes regarding Dalton's disciplinary issues did not demonstrate that Wolf Point could have reasonably foreseen his suicide. The only remaining factual issue—whether Wolf Point was aware of Dalton’s state of mind—lacked supporting evidence. Gourneau could not admit or deny that Dalton never threatened suicide, although there was a belief that Dalton expressed suicidal thoughts to a school aide on the day of his suicide.

No affidavit or deposition testimony exists from Wallette or anyone with direct knowledge of Dalton's statements to school officials, limiting the available evidence. The court emphasizes adherence to admissible evidence in summary judgment reviews, referencing relevant case law that excludes affidavits lacking personal knowledge or based on hearsay. Gourneau's claims are deemed conclusory due to the absence of competent evidence, failing to establish a genuine issue of material fact. The only record evidence regarding Dalton’s mental state indicates he felt “pretty low” after discussions with administrators, which, while understandable, does not imply the school was aware of any suicidal tendencies. The court finds no basis for concluding that the school should have recognized any risk of harm arising from its actions. Consequently, the court affirms the District Court's judgment, ruling that Wolf Point is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.