Lundman v. McKown

• Decision Date: 04 April 1995
• Docket Number: C5-94-893,Nos. C1-94-891,C3-94-892,C0-94-896 and C2-94-897,C7-94-894,C9-94-895,s. C1-94-891
• Parties: Douglass G. LUNDMAN, as trustee for the next of kin of Ian Douglass Lundman, deceased, Respondent, v. Kathleen McKOWN (C2-94-897), William McKown (C5-94-893), Mariano Victor Tosto (C3-94-892), Quinna Lamb, n/k/a Quinna Giebelhaus (C1-94-891), Clifton House, Inc. (C9-94-895), Appellants, Metropolitan Open School, Defendant, The First Church of Christ, Scientist (C0-94-896), James Van Horn (C7-94-894), Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 807

530 N.W.2d 807

Douglass G. LUNDMAN, as trustee for the next of kin of Ian Douglass Lundman, deceased, Respondent, v. Kathleen McKOWN (C2-94-897), William McKown (C5-94-893) Mariano Victor Tosto (C3-94-892), Quinna Lamb n/k/a Quinna Giebelhaus (C1-94-891) Clifton House, Inc (C9-94-895), Appellants, Metropolitan Open School, Defendant, The First Church of Christ, Scientist (C0-94-896), James Van Horn (C7-94-894), Appellants.

Nos. C1-94-891, C3-94-892, C5-94-893, C7-94-894, C9-94-895,

C0-94-896 and C2-94-897.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

April 4, 1995.

Review Denied May 31, 1995.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The imposition of punitive damages against a church, based on its teaching of spiritual healing, violates church's right under state and federal constitutions to espouse religious faith and doctrine.

2. The constitutional right to the free exercise of religion does not extend to conduct that threatens a child's life.

3. A notice of illegality may fall short of the fair notice requirement for criminal prosecution without falling short of the less rigorous notice of illegality required to assert a common law negligence claim.

4. A civil claim against a person whose religious faith embraces spiritual healing is not barred because it is that faith that causes the person to fail to act in accord with state's interest in child welfare.

5. An individual has a legal duty to aid another when there is a special relationship between the parties.

6. A special relationship creating a duty to aid exists when the first party is particularly vulnerable and dependent and the other party holds "considerable" power over the first party's welfare or accepts a responsibility to protect the first.

7. There is a rebuttable presumption that a stepparent assumes an in loco parentis duty of care to a child.

8. Duty and causation are separate elements of a negligence claim.

9. Mere knowledge of a child's illness does not create a special relationship that supports a duty of care.

10. Without more, telephone advice is an insufficient ground to find that a nursing home assumed a duty of care or that a special relationship was established.

11. A jury's finding of agency is perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence where evidence unequivocally shows that the alleged principal lacked the right to control the alleged agent.

12. When a person acts on a genuinely held religious belief in spiritual healing, the standard of care is that of a reasonable person acting on that same belief. But that standard of care requires that the religious belief yield to the state's interest in protecting the welfare of children suffering from life-threatening diseases.

13. Marital privilege does not apply to testimony that is not adverse to the interest of a spouse asserting the privilege.

14. Clergy privilege does not apply to testimony that does not concern a confidential communication.

15. A trial court may, without abusing discretion, admit testimony that is offered to explain inconsistent testimony and is admissible for that purpose, though it would be inadmissible for another purpose.

16. A trial court may, without abusing discretion, exclude privileged evidence inadvertently disclosed to party-opponent.

17. A trial court may, without abusing discretion, admit evidence regarding religious 18. A trial court may, without abusing discretion, allow testimony regarding party's liability insurance where testimony is part of a narrative answer that places no emphasis on the item, and information has already been properly admitted in a different form.

documents and policies where objecting party has introduced similar testimony and exhibits.

19. A trial court may, without abusing discretion, strike an irrelevant and immaterial affidavit and instruct the jury to disregard it.

James H. Kaster, Nichols, Kaster & Anderson, Minneapolis, Robert J. Bruno, Robert J. Bruno & Associates, Burnsville, for respondent Douglass G. Lundman, as trustee for the next of kin of Ian Douglass Lundman, deceased.

Terrence J. Fleming, Ansis V. Viksnins, Lindquist & Vennum, Minneapolis, for appellant Kathleen McKown.

Ronald J. Riach, Franke & Riach, Roseville, for appellant William McKown.

Larry B. Leventhal, Michael C. Hager, Larry B. Leventhal & Associates, Minneapolis, for appellant Mariano Victor Tosto.

D. Patrick McCullough, McCullough, Smith & Wright, St. Paul, for appellant Quinna Lamb, n/k/a Quinna Giebelhaus.

Donna J. Blazevic, Charles E. Lundberg, Gregory W. Deckert, Bassford, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, P.A., Minneapolis, for appellant Clifton House, Inc.

Terrence J. Fleming, Ansis V. Viksnins, William G. Christopher, Holland & Knight, Tampa, FL, for appellant The First Church of Christ, Scientist.

Wendy J. Wildung, Sidney J. Spaeth, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, for appellant James Van Horn.

Seth M. Colton, Maun & Simon, P.L.C., St. Paul, Stanton Gregg Kunzi, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for amici curiae American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Ass'n, Minn. Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, and Minn. Medical Ass'n.

Steven K. Green, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in Support of Appellant, The First Church of Christ, Scientist.

Karl L. Cambronne, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut & Brooks, P.A., Minneapolis, William S. Fallon, Chancellor, The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, St. Paul, for amicus curiae The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, et al.

Peter M. Lancaster, Timothy E. Branson, Paul J. Robbennolt, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, for amicus curiae Minn. Civ. Liberties Union.

Michael Weiner, Yaeger, Jungbauer, Barczak & Roe, Sharon L. Van Dyck, Schwebel, Goetz, Sieben & Moskal, Minneapolis, for amicus curiae The Minn. Trial Lawyers Ass'n.

Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE, P.J., DAVIES and MULALLY, ^* JJ.

OPINION

DAVIES, Judge.

The parties appeal from a judgment imposing liability and the denial of their posttrial motions in this wrongful death action. We affirm as to some parties and reverse as to others.

FACTS

Ian Lundman died at age 11 from juvenile-onset diabetes following three days of Christian Science care. A medical professional would have easily diagnosed Ian's diabetes from the various symptoms he displayed in the weeks and days leading up to his death (particularly breath with a fruity aroma). Although juvenile-onset diabetes is usually responsive to insulin, even up to within two hours of death, the Christian Science individuals who cared for Ian during his last days failed to seek medical care for him--pursuant to a central tenet of the Christian Science religion. This wrongful death action followed.

We begin the morning of May 6, 1989, when, after having been ill and lethargic intermittently for several weeks, 11-year-old Ian Lundman complained to his mother that he was again not feeling well, specifically that he had a stomachache. Ian's mother, appellant Kathleen McKown (mother), noticed that Ian had lost a "noticeable" amount of weight, had a fruity aroma on his breath, and lacked his normal energy. Consistent with the tenets of the Christian Science church, which she espoused, mother began treating Ian through prayer. Throughout the day, Ian continued to complain of a stomachache.

When Ian again complained to his mother about not feeling well the next morning (day two), she became more concerned. Because the Christian Science Church recommends that a journal-listed practitioner be hired when a parent is concerned about a child's health, mother contacted appellant Mario Tosto regarding Ian's condition. As a "journal-listed" practitioner, Tosto appears in a Christian Science publication as someone who is specially trained to provide spiritual treatment through prayer. Mother hired Tosto to begin praying for Ian.

When, despite his illness, Ian attended Sunday School that morning, his Sunday School teacher observed that he appeared tired. Ian's mother was concerned about his low energy level and his continued need to eat mints to mask his breath odor. She noted during an afternoon visit to his grandmother's home that the usually-active Ian lacked energy to do anything but lie on the sofa. Ian also vomited while at his grandmother's home.

Ian was unable to sleep the night of May 7, and several times in the early morning hours of May 8 (day three) he complained of illness, seeking his mother's help and comfort and stating that he did not want to be alone. Ian's fear of being alone caused mother to have still greater concern. At this point, the downward spiral of Ian's health accelerated. He was unable to keep any food down that morning; Ian's visible weight loss, coupled with his inability to eat, caused mother to fear that her son might die.

Seeking further outside help, mother and appellant William McKown (her husband and Ian's stepfather) made several telephone calls on day three. First, pursuant to church directives, mother contacted appellant James Van Horn, who served as the one-person Christian Science Committee on Publications (CoP) for Minnesota. Learning that she intended to rely on Christian Science care, Van Horn verified that mother had contacted a journal-listed practitioner; and he later notified appellant The First Church of Christ Scientist (First Church) in Boston, that a child of a Christian Scientist was seriously ill. (First Church is known as the "mother" church of Christian Science.)

Second, mother called a Christian Science nursing home, appellant Clifton House, and a nurse advised her to give Ian small quantities of liquids. Third, William McKown (who is also a Christian Scientist) made a follow-up call to Van Horn because, fearing that Ian might be suffering from a contagious disease, he wanted Van Horn to give him telephone numbers for state or local health departments. (The church, as a regular practice, alerts Christian...