Stewart v. Kids Inc. of Dallas
Citation | 245 Or.App. 267,261 P.3d 1272 |
Decision Date | 31 August 2011 |
Docket Number | 07P1791; A139501. |
Parties | Jack STEWART, guardian ad litem for Jane Doe, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.KIDS INCORPORATED OF DALLAS, OR, an Oregon non-profit corporation; and SLD, INC., an Oregon corporation, dba Dairy Queen of Dallas, Defendants–Respondents. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William D. Brandt argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. With him on the briefs was William D. Brandt, P.C.David Doyle, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Kids Incorporated of Dallas, OR.Matthew J. Kalmanson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent SLD, Inc. With him on the brief was Hoffman Hart & Wagner LLP.Before WOLLHEIM, Presiding Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge, and DUNCAN, Judge.*DUNCAN, J.
Plaintiff brought this action for negligence against defendants Kids Incorporated of Dallas, Or (Kids Inc.), and SLD, Inc., dba Dairy Queen of Dallas (Dairy Queen), seeking damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff's ward, Jane Doe, when she was sexually assaulted while attending a car wash fund-raiser sponsored by Kids Inc. at Dairy Queen's restaurant. Defendants each moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff's complaint “fail[ed] to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim.” ORCP 21 A(8). The trial court granted defendants' motions, ruling that the harm suffered was unforeseeable as a matter of law. Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgments dismissing his claims against each defendant with prejudice. Because we agree with the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff's complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable to either defendant, we affirm.
In determining the sufficiency of a complaint under ORCP 21 A(8), we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint and give the plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from those allegations. Bailey v. Lewis Farm, Inc., 343 Or. 276, 278, 171 P.3d 336 (2007).
Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleged the following facts: Jane Doe, who was then 13 years old, was invited to participate in a car wash fund-raiser sponsored by Kids Inc. held on the premises of Dairy Queen. While attending the car wash, Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by an adult male in the men's restroom of the restaurant. The complaint alleged, in paragraph 5, that defendants knew or should have known that their conduct caused a foreseeable risk of harm. Specifically, paragraph 5 alleged that the assault occurred
Thus, paragraph 5 alleged that there was a “reasonable probability” that sexual predators would come to the car wash to harm children and that defendants knew or should have known of that probability because teenage girls were participating in the car wash, the car wash was advertised, and sexual predators might have had contact with teenage girls participating in the car wash.
The complaint also detailed separate allegations of negligent conduct specific to each defendant. In particular, paragraph 6 alleged that Kids Inc. was negligent in the following particulars:
Paragraph 12 alleged that defendant Dairy Queen “was negligent and failed to maintain a safe premises” as follows:
In sum, paragraphs 6 and 12 each alleged specific failures to act by Kids Inc. and Dairy Queen, respectively, and that, had defendants not failed to act, the sexual assault on plaintiff's ward could or would have been prevented. Thus, unlike in paragraph 5, paragraphs 6 and 12 do not allege any facts relating to defendants' knowledge or notice that their conduct caused a risk of foreseeable harm.
Dairy Queen moved to dismiss the complaint under ORCP 21 A(8), or, alternatively, to make paragraph 12 more definite and certain under ORCP 21 D. Kids Inc. joined in Dairy Queen's motions. Defendants argued, inter alia, that, as a matter of law, the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to establish defendants' liability for the criminal conduct of a third party. 1
In response, plaintiff argued that the complaint properly alleged a special relationship between Jane Doe and each defendant and, based on those relationships, defendants had a duty to “anticipate or guard against the intentional or criminal misconduct of others.” According to plaintiff, the complaint was sufficient to establish that “defendant[s] knew, or should have known, of the risk to plaintiff's ward from a sexual predator” based on the following pleaded facts: “(1) a highly publicized event; (2) featuring teenage girls; (3) a public drive-in restaurant * * *; (4) the existence of an internet with websites such as MySpace which are frequented by sexual predators that utilize that vehicle to search the internet for victims as well as opportunities.”
The court granted defendants' motions, ruling that “the harm here is going to be unforeseeable to both of the [defendants] as a matter of law,” and giving plaintiff 20 days to replead. The court subsequently, on April 30, 2008, entered an order to that effect. After plaintiff did not replead within the required time period, on June 2, the court entered an order granting defendants' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scheffel v. Or. Beta Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity
...against criminal conduct by third parties that the defendant reasonably could foresee. Stewart v. Kids Incorporated of Dallas, OR, 245 Or.App. 267, 278, 261 P.3d 1272 (2011), rev. dismissed as improvidently allowed, 353 Or. 104, 295 P.3d 51 (2012) ; see also McPherson v. Oregon Dept. of Cor......
-
Chapman v. Mayfield
...person created an unreasonable risk that the person would become violent. See, e.g., Stewart v. Kids Incorporated of Dallas, OR, 245 Or.App. 267, 283, 261 P.3d 1272 (2011), rev. dismissed as improvidently allowed,353 Or. 104, 295 P.3d 51 (2012) (equating requirement that a plaintiff demonst......
-
Tomlinson v. Metro. Pediatrics, LLC
...that relationship may create, define, or limit the defendant's duty to the plaintiff[.]" Stewart v. Kids Incorporated of Dallas, OR, 245 Or.App. 267, 275, 261 P.3d 1272 (2011), rev. dismissed as improvidently allowed, 353 Or. 104, 295 P.3d 51 (2012) (some internal quotation marks and citati......
-
F. T. v. W. Linn-Wilsonville Sch. Dist.
...end, a school's liability for harm to its students "does not extend to unforeseeable risks of harm." Stewart v. Kids Incorporated of Dallas, OR , 245 Or. App. 267, 279, 261 P.3d 1272 (2011), rev. dismissed , 353 Or. 104, 295 P.3d 51 (2012) (emphasis omitted). And, so, for example, in Fazzol......