Riordan v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop

Decision Date16 January 2003
Docket NumberNo. 02-0296-CV-2-ODS.,02-0296-CV-2-ODS.
Citation242 F.Supp.2d 635
PartiesLamoni K. RIORDAN, Plaintiff, v. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS d/b/a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

Victor A. Bergman, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Kansas City, MO, Anne E. Post, Post Law Firm, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for plaintiff.

Robert Bruce Best, Jr., Joseph H. Knittig, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for defendant.

ORDER (1) DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFEDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) DENYING DFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS DISCLOSURES; AND (3) AMENDING THE SCHEDULING AND TRIAL ORDER

SMITH, District Judge.

Pending are Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 36) and Defendant's motion to strike two of Plaintiffs expert disclosures (Doc. # 40). For the following reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied in part and granted in part, and Defendant's motion to strike two of Plaintiffs expert disclosures is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lamoni Riordan's claims arise out of an accident that occurred on April 13, 1985, on property owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Latter-Day Saints ("CPB"). Plaintiff, who was five years old at the time, was injured by a riding lawnmower operated by his father, Ken Riordan, who was employed by CPB. As a result of the incident, Plaintiffs right foot was amputated. Plaintiff filed suit against CPB on February 15, 2002, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, and CPB removed the case to this Court. Plaintiff alleges that (1) under the doctrine of respondeat superior, CPB is liable for the negligent acts of its employee; and (2) CPB negligently maintained the lawnmower.

Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on November 27, 2002, arguing that Plaintiffs respondeat superior claim was barred by parental immunity1, and Plaintiffs negligent maintenance claim fails as a matter of law. On December 18, 2002, Defendant filed its Motion to Strike Two of Plaintiffs Expert Disclosures due to Plaintiffs failure to comply with the disclosure requirements set forth in Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A. STANDARD

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim only if there is a showing that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See generally Williams v. City of St. Louis, 783 F.2d 114, 115 (8th Cir.1986). "[W]hile the materiality determination rests on the substantive law, it is the substantive law's identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant that governs." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ill U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see also Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664 (8th Cir.1992). In applying this standard, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588-89, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Tyler v. Harper, 744 F.2d 653, 655 (8th Cir.1984), cert, denied, 470 U.S. 1057, 105 S.Ct. 1767, 84 L.Ed.2d 828 (1985). However, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the ... pleadings, but ... by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56], must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).

B. DISCUSSION
1. Respondeat Superior Claim

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs respondeat superior claim is barred by the doctrine of parental immunity; therefore, CPB may not be held liable for the actions of its employee because its employee's parental immunity precludes Plaintiff from bringing a claim against both his father and CPB. Defendant also advances that it is protected by parental immunity against Plaintiffs claim that Defendant provided an unsafe lawnmower because this alleged conduct is "inseparably linked" to the employee's negligent conduct. The parties and the Court find that there is a split among the states on this issue; some states permit a respondeat superior claim when an employee is entitled to immunity2 and other states do not.3 No recorded Missouri cases address whether a child can bring a suit against a parent's employer based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, the Missouri courts have addressed the relationship between official and spousal immunity and the doctrine of respondeat superior.4

"[O]fficial immunity insulates state employees from suit in their individual capacities when liability arises from discretionary acts or omissions of a state employee." Betts-Lucas v. Hartmann, 87 S.W.3d 310, 327 (Mo.App.2002) (citations omitted). "The doctrine of official immunity recognizes that `society's compelling interest in vigorous and effective administration of public affairs requires that the law protect those individuals who, in the face of imperfect information and limited resources, must daily exercise their best judgment in conducting the public's business.' " Green v. Lebanon R-IH School Dist, 13 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Mo.banc 2000) (quoting Kanagawa v. Missouri ex rel. Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 836 (Mo. banc 1985)). Whether an employee is entitled to official immunity solely depends on the nature of his or her actions. Kanagawa v. Missouri ex rel. Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Mo. banc 1985). A public official will not be liable to the public for negligence that is directly related to the performance of discretionary duties; however, a public official may be held liable when performing purely ministerial duties. Green, 13 S.W.3d at 284 (citations omitted). Whether a duty is discretionary or ministerial depends upon the facts of the case and the weighing of such factors as the nature of the duty and the extent to which the duty involves policymaking or the exercise of professional judgment. Harris v. Munoz, 43 S.W.3d 384, 387 (Mo.App.2001) (citations omitted). Unlike parental or spousal immunity, official immunity does not depend upon the relationship between the parties but solely rests on the type of action or duty performed.

The Missouri Courts of Appeals have specifically addressed whether an individual can maintain a cause of action against a public employee's employer when that employee is entitled to official immunity. The courts have held that when a state employee is entitled to official immunity, the plaintiff is barred from bringing a cause of action based on respondeat superior against the employer. See e.g., State ex rel. Conway v. Dowd, 922 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Mo.App.1996); Peoples v. Conway, 897 S.W.2d 206 (Mo.App.1995).

However, the Missouri Supreme Court has held that when a husband is entitled to spousal immunity, his wife is not barred from bringing a cause of action against her husband's employer. Mullally v. Langenberg Bros. Grain Co., 339 Mo. 582, 98 S.W.2d 645, 646 (1936) (quoting Schubert v. August Schubert Wagon Co., 249 N.Y. 253, 164 N.E. 42 (1928)). Specifically, the Court stated, "[a] trespass, negligent or willful, upon the person of a wife, does not cease to be an unlawful act, though the law exempts the husband from liability for the damage. Others may not hide behind the skirts of his immunity." Id.; see also Jones v. Kinney, 113 F.Supp. 923, 925-26 (W.D.Mo.1953) (recognizing the similarities between Kansas and Missouri law and, in dicta, observing that under Missouri law, a wife was entitled to maintain an action against her husband's employer notwithstanding spousal immunity).

In its opinion abrogating parental immunity, the Missouri Supreme Court recognized the similarity between parental immunity and spousal immunity. Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Mo. banc 1991) (stating that parental immunity can be analogized to spousal immunity in that both are designed to preserve family harmony). Like the majority of jurisdictions, Missouri premised its adoption of parental immunity on "the belief that allowing children to sue their parents would disturb the unity and harmony of the family." Id. at 854 n. 1. Protecting family harmony was also one of the bases for the doctrine of spousal immunity.5 Additionally, both spousal and parental immunity are based on the relationship between the parties. Conversely, whether a person is entitled to official immunity depends on the type of conduct.

The Court finds that the similarities between spousal and parental immunity are indicative of how the Missouri Supreme Court would approach a case under like circumstances. In view of the foregoing analysis and Missouri case law, that court would hold that the child of an employee can maintain a cause of action against his parent's employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior even though the parent is immune from being sued by his or her child. Additionally, the Court finds that the doctrine of parental immunity does not shield Defendant from liability for Plaintiffs negligent maintenance claim. Therefore, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied with regards to Plaintiffs claim of negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

2. Negligent Maintenance Claim

In order to overcome summary judgment in a negligence case, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the failure by a defendant to perform that duty; (3) the breach of duty was the cause in fact and proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages. Heffernan v. Reinhold, 73 S.W.3d 659, 664 (Mo.App.2002) (citing Finocchio v. Mahler, 37 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Mo.App.2000)). The parties have not disputed that Defendant owed a duty...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Davis v. Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, No. ED 85007 (MO 9/20/2005)
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 20 Septiembre 2005
    ...banc 1986). 3. The 8th Circuit decision affirmed the opinion of the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, 242 F.Supp.2d 635 (W.D. Mo. 2003). In its opinion, the District Court noted the similarity of spousal and parental immunity, because both immunities were based upo......
7 books & journal articles
  • Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2014 Contents
    • 5 Agosto 2014
    ...or substantially justified); Riordan v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , 242 F. Supp. 2d 635 (W.D. Mo. 2003) (disclosure that fails to provide all required information may be treated as though no disclosure made at all); Saudi v. Valme......
  • Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Handling Federal Discovery
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...after case removed to federal court); Riordan v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , 242 F. Supp. 2d 635 (W.D. Mo. 2003) (striking plaintiff’s experts unwarranted when failure to fulfill disclosure requirements due to difficulty in obtaining re......
  • Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2018 Contents
    • 8 Agosto 2018
    ...after case removed to federal court); Riordan v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , 242 F. Supp. 2d 635 (W.D. Mo. 2003) (striking plainti൵’s experts unwarranted when failure to fulill disclosure requirements due to di൶culty in obtaining requir......
  • Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2021 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2021
    ...after case removed to federal court); Riordan v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , 242 F. Supp. 2d 635 (W.D. Mo. 2003) (striking plainti൵’s experts unwarranted when failure to fulill disclosure requirements due to di൶culty in obtaining requir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT