Dean v. Childs

• Decision Date: 21 July 2004
• Docket Number: Docket No. 244627.
• Citation: 684 N.W.2d 894,262 Mich.App. 48
• Parties: Marie DEAN, Personal Representative of the Estates of Taleigha Marie Dean, Deceased, Aaron John Dean, Deceased, Craig Logan Dean, Deceased, and Eugene Sylvester, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey CHILDS and Charter Township of Royal Oak, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

684 N.W.2d 894

262 Mich.App. 48

Marie DEAN, Personal Representative of the Estates of Taleigha Marie Dean, Deceased, Aaron John Dean, Deceased, Craig Logan Dean, Deceased, and Eugene Sylvester, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey CHILDS and Charter Township of Royal Oak, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 244627.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 13, 2004, at Detroit.

Decided May 13, 2004, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication July 21, 2004.

Boyer & Dawson, P.C. (by William G. Boyer, Jr.), Sterling Heights, for the plaintiff.

Garan Lucow Miller, P.C. (by Rosiland Rochkind and Roger A. Smith), Detroit, for the defendants.

Before: COOPER, P.J., and GRIFFIN and BORRELLO, JJ.

COOPER, P.J.

Defendants Jeffrey Childs and the Charter Township of Royal Oak (the township) appeal by leave granted, following remand from our Supreme Court, the trial court's order partially denying their motion for summary disposition.¹ We affirm the trial court's denial of Childs's motion with regard to the state law claims, reverse the denial of the township's motion with regard to the failure to train claim pursuant to 42 USC 1983, and remand for further proceedings.

I. Facts and Procedural History

On April 6, 2000, plaintiff's home in Royal Oak Township was set on fire, allegedly by an arsonist. The fire was initially limited to the front of the house. Plaintiff successfully escaped while a firefighter attempted to rescue her four children, who were trapped in the rear of the home. Childs² ignored a fire hydrant directly across the street from the burning home, choosing instead to connect to a hydrant a block away. Although Childs was informed of the rescue attempt at the rear of the home, he ordered the fire crew to fight the fire by shooting water at the front of the home. This action immediately forced the fire and smoke toward the rear of the home. Plaintiff claims that the action destroyed any hope of rescuing the children. All four children perished in the fire.

In her third amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that Childs was grossly negligent and that his actions were the proximate cause of her children's deaths. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Childs took "affirmative actions that significantly increased the risk of danger" to plaintiff by driving to a distant fire hydrant and by preventing the rescue of the Dean children by forcing the fire toward the rear of the house. Plaintiff further alleged that both defendants deprived her of life and liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC 1983, and that their actions showed "deliberate indifference to the risk of injury or death" and the safety of others. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the township knowingly failed to adequately staff, fund, and train its fire department.

Defendants thereafter moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and MCR 2.116(C)(8), which the trial court granted in part.³ The trial court dismissed all claims against Childs under 42 USC 1983, because "there was no clearly established constitutional right to any particular level of competence in fighting fires."⁴ The trial court also dismissed plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the township regarding its failure to adequately fund and staff its fire department. Plaintiff's failure to train claim against the township was left intact, as that issue "was not raised or addressed" in defendant's motion for summary disposition. The trial court denied defendants' motion with regard to the state law wrongful death claims against Childs.⁵

II. Legal Analysis

We review a trial court's determination regarding a motion for summary disposition de novo.⁶ A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7) "tests whether a claim is barred because of immunity granted by law, and requires consideration of all documentary evidence filed or submitted by the parties."⁷ A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the pleadings alone and should be granted only if the factual development of the claim could not justify recovery.⁸

A. 42 USC 1983

The power of citizens to sue the state for a deprivation of their civil rights is granted in 42 USC 1983. The statute provides in part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.[⁹]

The only remaining claim pursuant to § 1983 is that the township deprived plaintiff of life and liberty without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment in that its failure to properly train its fire department was the proximate cause of her children's deaths.

To establish a § 1983 claim, the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, must show that a constitutional violation occurred.¹⁰ If a violation is found, the court must then determine "whether the violation involved `clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'"<sup>11</sup> If no constitutional violation occurred, the defendant has qualified immunity from liability.<sup>12</sup> "Qualified immunity is `an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.'"¹³

The township asserts that plaintiff has failed to show a constitutional violation based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago Co Dep't of Social Services.¹⁴ According to DeShaney, the Due Process Clause does not confer an affirmative right to governmental aid, including protective services, even if the aid is necessary to secure life, liberty or property.¹⁵ There are two exceptions to this general rule. First, when the government places a person in custody, thereby preventing him from protecting himself, a special relationship is created. This special relationship places the government under a heightened duty to protect that person.¹⁶ Second, the government has a duty to protect under the "state-created danger theory" when the government either created the danger or took actions rendering the person more vulnerable to the danger.¹⁷

Plaintiff's claim clearly does not fall into the first DeShaney exception, as the Dean children were not in the custody of the township at the time of their deaths. Therefore, the issue before us is whether the township created the danger or rendered plaintiff more vulnerable to harm by failing to adequately train its fire department. To establish a claim under the state-created danger theory, a plaintiff must show

1) an affirmative act by the state which either created or increased the risk that the plaintiff would be exposed to an act of violence by a third party; 2) a special danger to the plaintiff wherein the state's actions placed the plaintiff specifically at risk, as distinguished from a risk that affects the public at large; and 3) the state knew or should have known that its actions specifically endangered the plaintiff.[¹⁸]

The Sixth Circuit has held that the failure to act cannot form an affirmative act to support a state-created danger.¹⁹ However, the United States Supreme Court has held that a municipality may be liable under § 1983 for the failure to train municipal employees under certain circumstances.²⁰ In Canton v. Harris, the Supreme Court held "that the inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for § 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact."²¹ The inadequate training must represent a "city policy," which the Harris Court described as follows:

It may seem contrary to common sense to assert that a municipality will actually have a policy of not taking reasonable steps to train its employees. But it may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need. In that event, the failure to provide proper training may fairly be said to represent a policy for which the city is responsible, and for which the city may be held liable if it actually causes injury.[²²]

Although the plaintiff in Harris was in police custody, failure to train has since been recognized as a valid cause of action in noncustodial situations.²³ However, in a noncustodial situation, the government action often relates to an emergency service, which must, by necessity, be carried out quickly without deliberation.²⁴ The standard is, therefore, much higher than deliberate indifference. A plaintiff must prove that the government action showed an affirmative intent to cause harm.²⁵ Unfortunately, plaintiff failed to properly plead her § 1983 claim regarding the township's failure to train its fire department. Plaintiff alleged that the township's actions showed "deliberate indifference" to the safety of others. This standard is insufficient to meet the burdensome requirements of a § 1983 state-created danger claim in a noncustodial situation. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse the trial court's partial denial of summary disposition with regard to the township.

B. State Law Claims

As we noted supra, the trial court denied Childs's motion for summary disposition with regard to plaintiff's state law wrongful death claims. Childs asserted both a statutory and common-law basis for immunity from liability.

Under MCL 691.1407(2), a municipal employee is immune from tort liability if: (1) the employee reasonably believes that his actions are within the scope of his...