Rondini v. Bunn
| Decision Date | 07 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1190439 |
| Citation | 338 So.3d 749 |
| Parties | Michael W. RONDINI, as personal representative of the Estate of Megan Rondini, deceased v. Terry J. BUNN, Jr. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Leroy Maxwell, Jr., and Austin Russell of Maxwell Tillman, Birmingham; and Julie E. Heath and Patricia H. Davis of Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter, LLP, Dallas, Texas, for appellant.
Richard E. Smith and Rachel J. Moore of Christian & Small LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
This case involves a wrongful-death claim filed by Michael W. Rondini ("Rondini"), as personal representative of the estate of Megan Rondini ("Megan"), to recover damages for the death of his daughter Megan, who committed suicide almost eight months after she was allegedly sexually assaulted while enrolled as a student at the University of Alabama. Rondini sued Megan's alleged assailant, Terry J. Bunn, Jr., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division ("the federal court"), claiming that Bunn's alleged sexual assault and false imprisonment of Megan proximately caused her death. After Bunn moved for summary judgment, the federal court concluded that it would be prudent for this Court to weigh in on whether Rondini's wrongful-death claim was viable under Alabama law.
In accordance with Rule 18, Ala. R. App. P., the federal court certified the following question of law for this Court's review:
"Whether a decedent's suicide, which occurs several months (in this case, nearly eight months) after a defendant's intentional tort (i.e., sexual assault and/or outrage) is a superseding cause breaking the chain of causation between the intentional tort and the decedent's death?"
We now answer that question as follows: The suicide of a person who was sexually assaulted does not constitute a superseding cause that, as a matter of law, breaks the chain of causation between the sexual assault and the victim's death so as to absolve the alleged assailant of liability.
In its certification to this Court, the federal court provided the following background information:
After the alleged sexual assault, Megan was treated by a therapist, who diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") and anxiety stemming from PTSD. She resumed attending classes that fall but eventually withdrew from the University of Alabama and returned to her parents’ home in Austin, Texas, where she sought additional counseling from other health-care providers who similarly concluded that she was suffering from PTSD and anxiety, as well as depression.
In early 2016, Megan enrolled at Southern Methodist University ("SMU") in Dallas. She met with a local psychiatrist after moving to Dallas and eventually sought counseling from the SMU health clinic. An intake form she completed at the SMU health clinic on February 24, 2016, indicates that she was experiencing suicidal thoughts and had a history of PTSD, anxiety, and depression stemming from a sexual assault that had occurred the previous summer. Two days later, on February 26, 2016, Megan committed suicide.
Rondini sued Bunn in the federal court, seeking relief under Alabama's wrongful-death statute, § 6-5-410, Ala. Code 1975, which authorizes an action and the recovery of damages against a person whose "wrongful act, omission, or negligence" causes the death of another person. § 6-5-410(a). Rondini alleged in the operative complaint (1) that "Bunn unlawfully and intentionally detained and imprisoned Megan" and (2) that Bunn "forcefully and intentionally raped Megan." Rondini further alleged that "Megan's death was the direct and proximate result of [those] intentional and malicious actions."
Bunn denied the allegations of false imprisonment and sexual assault. He further asked the federal court to dismiss Rondini's wrongful-death claim, arguing, among other things, that Megan's suicide was an intervening or superseding cause that broke the causal connection between his alleged wrongful actions and her death.1 Citing Prill v. Marrone, 23 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2009), and Gilmore v. Shell Oil Co., 613 So. 2d 1272 (Ala. 1993), the federal court denied Bunn's motion, stating that those cases stand only for the principle that suicide is a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation flowing from a defendant's negligent actions -- no Alabama court had extended that principle to wrongful-death claims stemming from intentional torts committed against an individual who later commits suicide.
About two years later, Bunn moved for summary judgment. In that motion, he renewed his argument that Megan's suicide was a superseding cause that defeated Rondini's wrongful-death claim. After reviewing the evidence and concluding that Rondini had submitted substantial evidence to support the false-imprisonment and sexual-assault allegations underpinning his wrongful-death claim, the federal court again considered the question of whether a defendant's intentional conduct can be both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of a tort victim's suicide. It ultimately held that "a reasonable juror could conclude that [Bunn's] conduct was the cause-in-fact of Megan's suicide" but that "proximate causation is less certain." Rondini v. Bunn, 434 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1278 (N.D. Ala. 2020). The federal court further concluded that this Court was "in the best position" to answer the key legal question remaining in the case -- "whether suicide is an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation stemming from a defendant's intentional tort to the decedent's death" -- and it therefore stayed the case so that we could answer the certified question it posed. Id. at 1278-79. We accepted the federal court's request to answer the certified question.
Both Rondini and Bunn have framed their arguments around this Court's decision in Gilmore, and we therefore begin our analysis with a review of that case. In Gilmore, a 17-year-old boy, Michael Gilmore, went to visit a friend who worked at a convenience store. After finding a handgun on a shelf under the cash register, Michael used that handgun to commit suicide behind the cashier's counter. Michael's estate later sued the store, the store's owner, the franchisor (Shell Oil), and the friend/employee, alleging that they had "negligently or wantonly" allowed Michael to fatally injure himself with a handgun that he had found at the store.2 613 So. 2d at 1273. After the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Michael's estate appealed.
The Gilmore Court began its analysis by noting that liability will be imposed in a negligence case only when the injury is a natural and probable consequence of a negligent act that an ordinarily prudent person should reasonably foresee would result in an injury. 613 So. 2d at 1274-75.
Indeed, the Court emphasized that a negligent party is ultimately not liable in spite of its negligence if " ‘some independent agency intervenes and is the immediate cause of the injury.’ " Id. at 1275 (quoting Hall v. Booth, 423 So. 2d 184, 185 (Ala. 1982) ). The Court explained that such an act breaks the chain of causation leading back to the initially negligent party if the act is by itself sufficient to be the sole cause in fact of the injury. Id. at 1275.
The Gilmore Court further acknowledged that this Court had previously held that an injured party's own conduct could not be an intervening cause, see Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Maddox, 236 Ala. 594, 601, 183 So. 849, 854 (1938), but clarified that such conduct might be if it (1) is so highly extraordinary or unexpected that it falls outside the realm of reasonable foreseeability as a matter of law and (2) goes beyond mere contributory negligence and is of a higher culpability level than the defendant's negligence. Gilmore, 613 So. 2d at 1275 (citing 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence §§ 650 and 652 (1989) ). Applying this law to the facts before it, the Court explained that Michael's death was "an unexplainable tragedy" but was "not the ordinary and naturally flowing consequences of the defendants’ negligent conduct." 613 So. 2d at 1278. Rather, the Court concluded, "suicide and/or deliberate and intentional self-destruction is unforeseeable as a matter of law, and civil liability will not be imposed upon a defendant for a decedent's suicide." Id. Thus, the Court determined, Michael's "act of intentionally and deliberately shooting himself in the head was unforeseeable as a matter of law and was sufficiently culpable to supersede the defendants’ negligence as the proximate cause of Michael's death." Id. at 1275-76.
Since Gilmore, courts applying Alabama law have recognized that, in most circumstances, no action will lie to recover damages for allegedly causing another person's suicide. See, e.g., Vinson v. Clarke Cnty., 10 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1303 (S.D. Ala. 1998) (). But this Court has recognized two exceptions to this principle: (1) when there is a custodial relationship between the defendant and the decedent that indicates that the defendant might have foreseen the decedent's...
To continue reading
Request your trial