Beers ex rel. Beers v. Corp.

• Decision Date: 11 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 39319.,39319.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: Gregory and Caralee BEERS, individually and on behalf of Heidi L. Beers, a minor, Plaintiffs–Appellants–Cross–Respondents, v. The CORPORATION OF the PRESIDENT OF the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER–DAY SAINTS; Warren Ririe; Phil and Merlinda Haueter, husband and wife; Garrett Haueter, an individual; Richard and Kathy Kartchner, husband and wife; Beth Rasmussen ; Mark Kropf ; Kirt and Katie Nielsen, husband and wife; Bradley J. Day, an individual, Defendants–Respondents, and Sharolyn Ririe, an individual; Brent Rasmussen, an individual; Brenda Kropf, an individual; Garrett Haueter, an individual, Defendants–Respondents–Cross–Appellants.

155 Idaho 680

316 P.3d 92

Gregory and Caralee BEERS, individually and on behalf of Heidi L. Beers, a minor, Plaintiffs–Appellants–Cross–Respondents,

v.The CORPORATION OF the PRESIDENT OF the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER–DAY SAINTS; Warren Ririe; Phil and Merlinda Haueter, husband and wife; Garrett Haueter, an individual; Richard and Kathy Kartchner, husband and wife; Beth Rasmussen ; Mark Kropf ; Kirt and Katie Nielsen, husband and wife; Bradley J. Day, an individual, Defendants–Respondents,andSharolyn Ririe, an individual; Brent Rasmussen, an individual; Brenda Kropf, an individual; Garrett Haueter, an individual, Defendants–Respondents–Cross–Appellants.

No. 39319.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2013 Term.

Dec. 11, 2013.

Murphy Law Office, PLLC, Meridian, for appellants. Michaelina B. Murphy argued.

Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Chartered, Boise, for respondent The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints. Larry C. Hunter argued.

Parsons Behle & Latimer, Boise, for respondents Ririe, Haueter, Rasmussen and Kropf. Joseph Kevin West argued.

SUBSTITUTE OPINION, THE COURT'S PRIOR OPINION DATED NOVEMBER 26, 2013 IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN.

HORTON, Justice.

Heidi Beers, a minor, was injured after jumping from a bridge into the Payette River Heidi had been attending a campout organized by ward members of her church. Her parents, Gregory and Caralee Beers, brought suit individually and on behalf of their daughter against the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the COP) and fourteen individual defendants. The Beerses' complaint advanced claims of negligence against all defendants and a claim based upon I.C. § 6–1701 (tort actions in child abuse cases) against the individual defendants. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment in part, dismissing all negligence claims except for those brought against two individual defendants, Richard and Kathy Kartchner, who have not participated in this appeal. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment as to the statutory claim against five individual defendants, including Richard Kartchner. The Beerses timely appealed and the four individual defendants have cross-appealed from the district court's order denying their motion for summary judgment as to the statutory claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Heidi Beers was thirteen years old when she was injured. She belonged to the Autumn Faire Ward (the Ward) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church)¹ in Meridian, Idaho. The Ward organized a campout to take place in Smiths Ferry, Idaho, during the summer of 2007. Ward members were invited to a campout to be held August 17–18, 2007, at a cabin owned by Frank and Gloria Skinner. A similar campout had been held in 2005 and 2006. In 2007, the campout was planned by Lisa Panek, chair of the Ward Activities Committee. Ward members were notified of the upcoming event through flyers and a sign-up sheet for a Dutch oven dinner. The only formal activities planned for the campout were the Dutch oven dinner, an evening devotional, and a breakfast. There was no RSVP required and no list of attendance taken.

Heidi wanted to attend, however her parents were not interested in going. Heidi originally planned to attend with a friend's family, but they could not go. Heidi then contacted another friend and asked if she could "get a ride" to the campout. This friend spoke to her mother, Kathy Kartchner, and asked if they could give Heidi a ride to the campout. Ms. Kartchner agreed and testified that it was her understanding that she was only providing a ride to Heidi, as Heidi's grandfather would also be attending the campout. Heidi's parents did not speak with any Ward member regarding Heidi's attendance. The record is silent as to whether Heidi's grandfather agreed to look out for her during the campout.

Heidi rode up with the Kartchners on the evening of Friday, August 17. After her arrival, she rode from the Skinners' cabin to the Smiths Ferry Bridge with around twenty other youths in Bradley Day's pickup. Mr. Day told the youths that he would take them to the bridge if they obtained their parents' permission. After confirming that they had received permission, Mr. Day took them down to the bridge. Heidi had not sought or obtained permission from anyone to attend. Upon arriving at the bridge, some of the youths checked under the bridge for rocks or other obstructions. Many then proceeded to jump from the bridge into the river. Heidi did not jump. There were no injuries that evening and the youths then returned to the campsite.

Heidi spent the evening with her friends, and they stayed up late talking. Rather than sleeping in a tent provided by the Kartchners, Heidi and her friends slept in the Skinners' cabin. The next morning, following breakfast, members of the Ward began to separate. Some returned home, others went hiking or fishing, and some returned to the bridge to play in the water and jump into the river. Heidi went to the bridge. Before anyone jumped from the bridge, there was another inspection for rocks or other obstructions. Garrett Haueter, an adult present at the bridge, told everyone to jump in the location that had been checked.

Many of those present then began to jump from the bridge into the river. Heidi spoke briefly to Sharolyn Ririe, another adult present at the bridge. Heidi told her that she was scared to jump. Ms. Ririe said that she would also be afraid to jump, as she had a fear of heights. Eventually, Heidi summoned the courage to jump. She climbed over the railing but was outside the area that had been inspected. Heidi hit the water and felt instant pain and numbness. She does not believe that she hit anything on the way down or that she hit the river bottom. Thus, it appears that she jumped directly over one of the bridge support columns. Regardless of the mechanism of injury, Heidi suffered a compound fracture

of her ankle. Several of those present helped Heidi to shore where she was attended to by several Ward members.

Defendant Mark Kropf, a physician and Ward member, was summoned. He arrived and attended to Heidi with the help of paramedics from Cascade, as well as an emergency room team from St. Alphonsus that happened to be floating the river. One of the emergency room team members, Dr. Ho, was a physician with expertise in dealing with trauma. Dr. Ho reduced the fracture and brought the bone back within the skin. Heidi was then transported by Life Flight to the hospital.

Heidi's parents then brought this action, individually and on Heidi's behalf, against the Church and fourteen Ward members, asserting claims of negligence and civil child abuse under I.C. § 6–1701² against the individual defendants and claiming negligence on the part of the COP. The COP and the Ward members moved for summary judgment.³ The Beerses did not oppose the request for summary judgment dismissing their claims against three defendants, Merlinda Haueter, Kirt Nielsen and Katie Nielsen. The district court granted the motions as to the Beerses' negligence claims against all other defendants except Richard and Kathy Kartchner, holding that neither the COP nor the Ward members⁴ owed Heidi a duty of care. The Beerses appeal, arguing that both the COP and the Ward members owed Heidi a duty of care arising out of a special relationship and the undertaking of a duty to supervise her.

The district court denied the motions for summary judgment as to the child abuse claim against four Ward members (Sharolyn Ririe, Garrett Haueter, Brenda Kropf and Brent Rasmussen) who were present when Heidi was injured. The district court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they should have known that Heidi was likely to be injured. These four Ward members cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred by finding that an affirmative duty to act exists in the absence of a special relationship to the child.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c) ; G & M Farms v. Funk Irr. Co., 119 Idaho 514, 516–17, 808 P.2d 851, 853–54 (1991). Furthermore, "[a]ll doubts are to be resolved against the moving party, and the motion must be denied if the evidence is such that conflicting inferences may be drawn therefrom, and if reasonable people might reach different conclusions." Id.

Generally, to state a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish four elements: "(1) a duty, recognized by law, requiring a defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting injuries; and (4) actual loss or damage."

Grabicki v. City of Lewiston, 154 Idaho 686, 691, 302 P.3d 26, 31 (2013) (quoting Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 272, 281 P.3d 103, 109 (2012) ). "Whether a duty exists is a question of law, ‘over which this Court exercises free review.’ " Gagnon v. W. Bldg. Maint., Inc., 155 Idaho 112, 115, 306 P.3d 197, 200 (2013) (quoting Turpen v. Granieri, 133 Idaho 244, 247, 985 P.2d 669, 672 (1999) ).

III. ANALYSIS

A. The district court properly granted summary judgment as to the Beerses' negligence claims.

The Beerses argue that the district court erred in finding that the COP and the Ward members owed no duty to Heidi. As previously noted, a cause of action for negligence must establish: "(1) a duty, recognized by law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting injuries; and (...