D A 0 6

- 0 5 7 6

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U

R T O F T H E S T

A T E O F M O N T

A N A

2 0 0 9 M T 5 6

F R A N Y A R N A L L G U

D M U N D S E N

,

o n h e r b e h a l f a n d a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e

E s t a t e o f J A M E S Y

A R N A L L a n d a s g

u a r d i a n

a n d c o n s e r

v a t o r f o r D E R E K Y

A R N A L L

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l a n t

,

v

.

S T A T E O F M O N T

A N A

, e x

. r e l

, M o n t a n a S t a t e

H o s p i t a l W a r m S p r i n g s

, a n d D O E S 1

- 5

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l e e

.

A P P E A L F R O M : District Court of the First Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f L e w i s a n d C l a r k

, C a u s e N o

. A D V 2 0 0 4

- 5 8 5

H o n o r a b l e D o r o t h

y M c C a r t e r

, P r e s i d i

n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

R i c h a r d J

. P y f

e r

, D o u b e k & P y f

e r

, L L P

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

E l i z a b e t h S

. B a k e r

, H u g h e s

, K e l l n e r

, S u l l i v a n & A l k e

, P L L P

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : J u l y 3

, 2 0 0 7

D e c i d e d : F e b r

u a r y 2 4

, 2 0 0 9

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k February 25 20092

Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 D e r e k Y a r n a l l k i l l e d h i s b r o t h e r

, J a m e s Y a r n a l l

, s i x d a y s a f t e r D e r e k w a s r e l e a s e d

f r o m t h e M o n

t a n a S t a t e H o s p i t a l ( M S H )

. F r a n G u d m u n d s e n

, t h e m o t h e r o f b o t h D e r e k

a n d J a m e s

, b r o u g

h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e F i r s t J

u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t

, L e w i s

a n d C l a r k C o u n

t y

, t o r e c o v

e r d a m a g e s f o r t h e w r o n g f u l d e a t h o f J a m e s

. T h e D i s t r i c t

Court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment and Fran appeals. We affirm.

¶ 2 F r a n r a i s e d t h e f

o l l o w i n g i s s u e o n a p p e a l : W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n

g r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t o t h e S t a t e i n t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s p e c t s :

(a) that § 27

- 1

- 1103, MCA, grants immun ity from liability to the State;

( b ) t h a t t h e S t a t e c a

n n o t b e h e l d n e g

l i g e n t p e r s e

, a

n d

( c ) t h a t b e c a

u s e J a m e s Y a r n a l l w a s n o t a f o r e s e e a b l e p l a i n t i f

f

, t h e S t a t e d i d n o t

o w e h i m a d u t y

.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL B ACKGROUND

¶ 3 On August 2, 2001, Derek w a s t a k e n t o S t

. P e t e r ’ s H o s p i t a l i n H e l e n a f o l l o w i n g

a n e m e r g

e n c y d e t e n t i o n b y t

h e B o z e m a n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t

. D e r e k s u f f e r s f r o m

s c h i z o

- a f f e c t i v e d i s o r d e r

. B y t h e t i m e D e r e k w a s s e e n i n t h e e m e r g e n c y r o o m a t t h e

h o s p i t al , he was nearly catatonic. According to his psychiatric report, he had been off his

medication s for several months resulting in “poor self

- care, inadequate nutrition,

preoccupation with internal stimuli

, a n d s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n

. ” T h e r e p o r t f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e d

D e r e k a s e x t r e m e l y w i t h d r a w n

, b a r e l y a b l e t o c o n v

e r s e

, a n d a d a n g

e r t o h i m s e l f b e c a u s e

h e w a s u n a b l e t o c a r e f

o r h i s o w n n e e d s

.3

¶ 4 A f t e r a h e a r i n g

, D e r e k w a s i n v o l u n t a r i l y c o m m

i t t e d t o M S H b y t h e E i g h t e e n t h

J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, G a l l a t i n C o u n t y

, f o r a p e r i o d n o t t o e x c e e d t h r e e m o n t h s

. In the

Minute Entry for the August 2, 2001 commitment hearing, the District Court directed that

Derek “be hospitalized no longer than necessary to balance his medications and for the

psychiatric staff to be comfortable t hat he is of no danger to himself.”

¶ 5 B y S e p t e m

b e r 1 8

, 2 0 0 1

, D e r e k w a s c o m p l i a n t w i t h h i s m e d i c a t i o n s

, w a s a t t e n d i n g

g r o u p p r o g r a m s a t t h e h o s p i t a l

, a n d h a d earned a four

- hour campus pass allowing him to

go out unsupervised on the hospital grounds. Both Der e k ’ s p s y c h i a t r i s t a n d p s y c h o l o g i s t

a t M S H l a t e r t e s t i f

i e d i n t h e i r d e p o s i t i o n s t h a t

, w h i l e h o s p i t a l i z e d

, D e r e k s h o w e d n o s i g n s

of aggression or violence. He was quiet and withdrawn, but got along with other patients

and never made any threats of violent b e h a v i o r

. D e r e k ’ s p s y c h i a t r i s t f u r t h e r t e s t i f

i e d

t h a t

, d u r i n g p s y c h i a t r i c a s s e s s m e n t s

, D e r e k a l w a y s d e n i e d a n y t h o u g h t s o f c o m m i t t i n g

s u i c i d e o r o f h a r m

i n g o t h e r s

.

¶ 6 D e r e k w a s d i s c h a r g e d f r o m M S H o n S e p t e m

b e r 2 2

, 2 0 0 1

, o n a c o n d i t i o n a l r e l e a s e

w i t h S o u t h C e n t r a l M o n t a n a C o m m

u n i t y M e n t a l H e a l t

h C e n t e r ( S o u

t h C e n t r a l ) p r o v i d i n g

h i s o u t p a t i e n

t t r e a t m e n t

. A t t h e t i m e o f h i s r e l e a s e f r o m M S H

, D e r e k h a d h i s o w n

a p a r t m e n t

, r e g

u l a r m o n t h l y i n c o m e f

r o m h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s

, a p l a n i n

place for cont inued follow

- up with his medications and for care by treatment providers

familiar with his history, a week’s supply of medications, and a two

- week prescription

for his continuing medications.

¶ 7 While Derek was at MSH, James stayed at Derek’s apartment to loo k after things,

and, a fter Derek ’ s r e l e a s e

, J a m e s c o n t i n u e d t o s t a y a t t h e a p a r t m e n t o f f a n d o n

. F r a n s a w4

o r s p o k e w i t h D e r e k s e v e r a l t i m e s d u r i n g t h e w e e k f o l l o w i n g h i s r e l e a s e

, a n d s h e a n d h e r

h u s b a n d

, G a r y

, t o o k D e r e k o u t t o d i n n e r o n e e v e n i n g

. A t o n e p o i n

t d u r i n g t h a t w e e k

,

Derek told Fran that he didn’t really want James around because James was getting “ in

[his] face.” In the early morning hours of September 29, 2001, less than one week after

D e r e k ’ s r e l e a s e f

r o m M S H

, D e r e k a n d J a m e s g o t i n t o a n a r g

u m e n t d u r i n g w

h i c h D e r e k

k i l l e d J a m e s by striking him with a heavy metal bar

.

¶ 8 T h e S t a t e f

i l e d d e l i b e r a

t e h o m i c i d e c h a r g

e s a g a i n s t D e r e k i n G a l l a t i n C o u n t y

. H e

s u b s e q u e n

t l y p l e d g

u i l t y t o m

i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m

i c i d e a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o t h e

c u s t o d y o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c H e a l t h a n d H u m a n S e r v i c e s

. H e w a s o r d e r e d t o b e

p l a c e d i n a n a

p p r o p r i a t e c o r r e c t i o n a

l o r m e n t a

l h e a l t h f a c i l i t y f o r c u s t o d y c a r e a n d

t r e a t m e n t f

o r a p e r i o d o f 4 0 y e a r s

. Derek is currently in the custody of MSH. Following

a challe ng e t o D e r e k ’ s g

u i l t y p l e a

, t h i s C o u r t u p h e l d h i s c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n i n a n

O p i n i o n i s s u e d o n N o v

e m b e r 2 3

, 2 0 0 4

. S e e S t

a t e v

. Y a r n a l l , 2004 MT 333, 324 Mont.

164, 102 P.3d 34.

¶ 9 O n A

u g u s t 9

, 2 0 0 4

, F r a n f

i l e d a c i v i l C o m

p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e S t a

t e o n b e h a l f o f

h e r s e l f individually and a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n

t a t i v e o f J a m e s ’ s e s t a t e

, a n d o n b e h a l f o f

D e r e k

, a s h i s g

u a r d i a n a n d c o n s e r v

a t o r

. F r a n a l l e g

e d i n h e r C o m

p l a i n t t h a t M S H

, a n

a g e n c y o f t h e S t a t e

, w a s n e g l i g e n t i n i t s d e c i s i o n t o c o n d i t i o n a l l y r e l e a s e D e r e k f r o m

i n p a t i e n t c a r e ; t h a

t M S H h a d a d u t y t o s u p e r v i s e a n d m o n i t o r D e r e k d u r i n g t h e

t h r e e

- m o n t

h t e r m o f h i s c o m m

i t m e n t ; a n d t

h a t M S H f

a i l e d t o p r o p e r

l y s u p e r v i s e D e r e k

o n h i s r e t u r n t o t h e c o m

m u n i t y o r t o p u t i n p l a c e p r o p e r s u p p o r t m e c h a n i s m s t o m o n i t o r

a n d t r e a t h i s c o n d i t i o n

.5

¶ 1 0 T h e S t a t e f

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n D e c e m b e r 1 6

, 2 0 0 5

. T h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g o n t h e m o t i o n a n d

, a f t e r t h e s u b m

i s s i o n o f b r i e f

s b y

b o t h p a r t i e s

, t h e c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r h o l d i n g t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r i n a b e y a n c e t o g i v e F r a n

a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x

h a u s t h e r a d m

i n i s t r a t i v e remedies with the Montana Medical Legal

Panel (the Panel).

¶ 1 1 Following the Panel hearing, Fran filed additional affidavits with the court on her

behalf and a s e c o n d h e a r i n g o n t h e S t a t e ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t w a s h e l d

. O n

J u l y 2 4

, 2 0 0 6

, t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s D e c i s i o n a n d O r d e r w h e r e i n i t d e t e r m

i n e d

t h a t t h e S t a

t e w a s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g

m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w o n a l l c l a i m s r a i s e d i n F r a n ’s

C omplaint. Fran appeals t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s D e c i s i o n a n d O r d e r

.

S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W

¶ 1 2 We review a district cou rt ’ s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t r u l i n g d e n o v

o u s i n g t h e s a m e

M

. R

. C i v

. P

. 5 6 c r i t e r i a a p p l i e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. E a s t g a t e V i l l a g e W a t e r a n d S e w

e r

v

. D a v i s

, 2008 MT 1 4 1

, ¶ 1 8

, 3 4 3 M o n t

. 1 0 8

, 1 8 3 P

. 3 d 8 7 3 ( c i t i n g W a t k i n s T r u s t v

.

L a c o s t a , 2004 MT 1 4 4

, ¶ 1 6

, 3 2 1 M o n t

. 4 3 2

, 9 2 P

. 3 d 6 2 0 )

. S u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r

o n l y w h e n n o g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t a n d t h e m o v

i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o

j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w

. Eastgate Village

, ¶ 1 8

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, a

l l r e a s o n a b l e

i n f e r e n c e s w

h i c h m a y b e d r a w

n f r o m t h e o f

f e r e d p r o o f m

u s t b e d r a w

n i n f a v o r o f t h e

p a r t y o p p o s i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

. Eastgate Village

, ¶ 1 8

. I f t h e r e i s a n y d o u b t

r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n

, i t s h o u l d b e d e n i e d

. Eastgate

Village

, ¶ 1 8 ( c i t i n g 3 6 0 R a n c h C o r p

. v

. R & D H

o l d i n g

, 2 7 8 M o n t

. 4 8 7

, 4 9 1

, 9 2 6 P

. 2 d

2 6 0

, 2 6 2 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; W

h i t e h a w k v

. C l a r k

, 2 3 8 M o n

t

. 1 4

, 1 8

, 7 7 6 P

. 2 d 4 8 4

, 4 8 6

- 8 7 ( 1 9 8 9 ) )

.6

¶ 1 3 In addition, we review a district court ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

t h e y a r e c o r r e c t

. Eastgate Village

, ¶ 1 9 ( c i t i n g Montana Pet. Tank Comp. Bd. v.

Crumleys

, 2 0 0 8 M T 2

, ¶ 3 2

, 3 4 1 M o n t

. 3 3

, 1 7 4 P

. 3 d 9 4 8 ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

v. Gibson, 2 0 0 7 M T 1 5 3

, ¶ 9

, 3 3 7 M o n t

. 5 0 9

, 1 6 3 P

. 3 d 3 8 7 )

.

D I S C U S S I O N

¶ 1 4 Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to the State.

¶ 1 5 I n i t s D e c i s i o n a n d O r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t

, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m

i n e d t h a t t h e S t a t e w a s i m m

u n e f r o m l i a b i l i t y

, w a s not negligent p e r

s e , and did not owe James a duty

. We will examine each o f t h e c o u r t ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i n

t u r n

.

¶ 1 6 S o v

e r e i g n i m m u n i t y p r o t e c t s g

o v e r n m e n t a l e

n t i t i e s f r o m l i a b i l i t y f

o r t h e n e g

l i g e n t

a c t s o f t h e i r o f

f i c e r s a n d e m

p l o y e e s

. Orr v. State

, 2 0 0 4 M T 3 5 4

, ¶ 5 4

, 3 2 4 M o n t

. 3 9 1

,

1 0 6 P

. 3 d 1 0 0 ( c i t i n g B a r r y L

. H j o r t

, T h e P a s s i n g o f S o v e r e i g n I m m u n i t y i n M o n t a n a :

T h e K i n g i s D e a d ! 34 Mont.L.Rev. 283 (1973)). In 1972, the Delegates to Montana’s

Constitutional Convention concluded that the doctrine was “an anachronism,” Orr, ¶ 54,

and that it “ no longer has a rational justification in law

, ” Montana Constitutional

Convention, Report of the Bill of Rights Committee, Vol. II, p. 637.

¶ 1 7 T h e M o n t a

n a C o n s t i t u t i o n d o e s p r o v i d e

, h o w e v

e r

, t h a t i m

m u n i t y m a y b e

e s t a b l i s h e d b y a s p e c i f

i c p r o v i s i o n e n a c t e d b y a s u p e r m a j o r i t y o f b o t h h o u s e s o f t h e

L e g i s l a t u r e :

S t a t e s u b j e c t t o s u i t

. T h e s t a t e

, c o u n t i e s

, c i t i e s

, t o w

n s

, a n d a l l o t

h e r

l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t i e s s h a l l h a v e n o i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t f o r i n j u r y t o a7

p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y

, e

x c e p t a s m a y b e s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d b

y l a w b y a 2 / 3

v o t e o f e a c h h o u s e o

f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

.

M o n t

. C o n s t

. a r t

. I I

, § 1 8 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. S e c t i o n s 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2 a n d

- 1 1 0 3

, M C A

,

r e g a r d i n g l i a b i l i t y o f m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s

, a r e t w o s u c h p r o v i s i o n s

. T h e s e s t a t u t e s

p r o v i d e

, i n r e l e v

a n t p a r t :

D u t y t o w a r n o f v i o l e n t b e h a v i o r

. A m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l

h a s a d u t y t o w a r n o f o r t a k e r e a s o n a b l e p r e c a u t i o n s t o p r o v

i d e p r o t e c t i o n

f r o m v i o l e n t b e h a v

i o r o n l y i f t h e p a

t i e n t h a s c o m

m u n i c a t e d t o t h e m e n t a

l

h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l a n a c t u a l t h r e a t o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e

n c e b y s p e c i f i c m e a n s

a g a i n s t a c l e a r l

y i d e n t i f i e d o r r e a s o n a b l

y i d e n t i f i a b l e v i c t i m

. . . .

S e c t i o n 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2

, M C A ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

.

I m m u n i t y f

r o m l i a b i l i t y

. ( 1 ) N o m o n e t a r y l i a b i l i t y a n d n o c a u s e o f

a c t i o n m a y a r i s e a g

a i n s t a n y m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l f

o r f a i l i n g t o

p r e d i c t

, w a r n o f

, o r t a k e p r e c a u

t i o n s t o p r o v

i d e p r o t e c t i o n f

r o m a p a t i e n t ’ s

t h r e a t e n e d v i o l e n t b e h a v

i o r u n l e s s h e h a s a d u t y t o w a r n o f v i o l e n t

b e h a v i o r

, a s p r o v i d e d i n 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2

. . . .

Section 27

- 1

- 1103, MCA (emphasis ad ded).

¶ 1 8 S e c t i o n s 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2 a n d

- 1 1 0 3

, M C A

, w e r e e n a c t e d i n 1 9 8 7 i n r e s p o n s e t o c a s e s

f r o m o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s d e c i d i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a t h e r a p i s t

, w

h o s e p a t i e n t p o s e s

a d a n g e r o f v i o l e n c e t o o t

h e r s

, h a s a d u

t y t o w a r n p o t e

n t i a l v i c t i m s

. S e e 1 9 8 7 M o n t

.

L a w s

, c h a p t e r 2 1 4

. I

n o n e o f t h e f

i r s t s u c h c a s e s

, t h e C a l i f

o r n i a S u p r e m e C o u r t r

u l e d t h a t

o n c e a t h e r a p i s t d e t e r m

i n e s

, o r r e a s o n a b l y s h o u l d h a v e d e t e r m i n e d

, t h a t a p a t i e n

t p o s e s a

s e r i o u s d a n g

e r o f v i o l e n c e t o a n o t

h e r

, t h e t h e r a p i s t “ b e a r s a d u t y t o e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e

c a r e t o p r o t e c t t h e f

o r e s e e a b l e v i c t i m o f t h a t d a n g e r

. ” T a r a s o f f v

. R e g e n t s o f U n i v e r s i t y

o f C a l i f o r n i a

, 5 5 1 P

. 2 d 3 3 4

, 3 4 5

- 4 6 ( C a l

. 1 9 7 6 )

. T h e c o u r t i n T a r a s o f f w a s u n w i l l i n g t o

i m p o s e a b l a n k e t l i a b i l i t y f

o r t h e u n p r e d i c t a b l e c o n d u c t o f p a t i e n t s w i t h m e n t a l d i s o r d e r s

,8

b u t a t t h e s a m e t i m e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a d o c t o r “ a s s u m e [ s ] s o m e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e

s a f e t y

, n o t o n l y o f t h e p a t i e n t h i m s e l f

, b u t a l s o o f a n y t h i r d p e r s o n w h o m t h e d o c t o r

k n o w s t o b e t h r e a

t e n e d b y the patient. ” Tarasoff , 551 P.2d at 344

.

¶ 1 9 T h e C a l i f

o r n i a S u p r e m e C o u r t n a r r o w e d i t s h o l d i n g i n T a r a s o f f f o u r y e a r s l a t e r i n

T h o m p s o n v

. C

o u n t y o f A l a m e d a , 614 P.2d 728, 738 (Cal. 1980), wherein the court held

that a therapist’s duty to warn is limited to a “named or readily identifiable victim.” In

o t h e r w o r

d s

, “ p u b l i c e n t i t i e s a n d e m

p l o y e e s h a v

e n o a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y t o w a r n o f t h e

r e l e a s e o f a n i n m a t e w i t h a v i o l e n t h i s t o r y w

h o h a s m a d e nonspecific threats of harm

directed at nonspecific victims

. ” T h o m p s o n

, 6 1 4 P

. 2 d a t 7 3 5 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

.

¶20 Courts following Tarasoff’s r a t i o n a l e a t t e m p t e d t o b a

l a n c e t h e i n t e r e s t i n

p r o t e c t i n g p u b l i c s a f

e t y a g a i n s t t h e c o u

n t e r v a i l i n g p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g t r e a t m e n t o f t h e

m e n t a l l y i l l

. S e e E

m e r i c h v

. P h i l a d e l p h i a C e n t e r f o r H u m a n D e v e l

o p m e n t

, I n c

. , 720

A

. 2 d 1 0 3 2

, 1 0 3 9 ( P a

. 1 9 9 8 ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h e d i f

f i c u l t y “ i n p r e d i c t i n g v i o l e n t b e h a v i o r

,

t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o n f

i d e n t i a l c o m m

u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e r a p i s t a n d p a t i e n t

, a n d t h e

policy that patients be placed in the least re strictiv e environment”).

¶ 2 1 A s n o t e d

, § § 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2 a n d

- 1 1 0 3

, M C A

, w e r e e n a c t e d i n r e s p o n s e t o T a r a s o f f

a n d i t s p r o g

e n y

. S e c t i o n 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2

, M C A

, i m p o s e s a d u t y o n m e n t a l h e a l t h

p r o f e s s i o n a l s t o w a r n o f o r t a k e r e a s o n a b l e p r e c a u t i o n s t o p r o v

i d e p r o t e c t i o n f

r o m v i o l e n t

behavior “only if the patient has communicated to the mental health professional an

actual threat of physical violence by specific means against a clearly identified or

r e a s o n a b l y i d e n

t i f i a b l e v i c t i m

. ” A

b s e n t t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, “ [ n ] o m o n e t a r y l i a b i l i t y a n d

n o c a u s e o f a c t i o n m a y a r i s e a g a i n s t a n y m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l f o r f a i l i n g t o p r e d i c t

,9

warn of, or take precautions to provide protection from a patient’s threatened violent

behavior . . . .” Section 27

- 1

- 1103(1), MCA.

¶ 2 2 I n t h e c a s e s u b j u d

i c e , t he District Court determined that the State was immune

f r o m l i a b i l i t y i n t h i s c a s e b a s e d u p o n § § 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2 a n d

- 1 1 0 3

, M C A

. T h e c o u r t

c o n c l u d e d t

h a t b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e s h o w e d n o e v i d e n c e t h a t D e r e k

c o m m u n i c a t e d s p e c i f

i c t h r e a t s t o a

n y s p e c i f i c victims, the State did not have a duty to

warn of violent behavior , and was, thus, immune from liability.

¶ 2 3 Fran contends on appeal that the District Court erred in concluding that the S tate is

i m m u n e f r o m l i a b i l i t y b e c a u s e § 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 3

, M C A

, d o e s n o t p r o v i d e i m m u n i t y t o a h e a l t

h

c a r e f a c i l i t y s u c h a s M S H

. S he claims instead that immunity under this statute is limited

t o “ m e n t a l h e a l t

h p r o f e s s i o n a l s

, ” w

h i c h

, a s d e f

i n e d i n § 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 1

, M C A

, d o e s n o t

i n c l u d e h o s p i t a

l s

.

¶ 2 4 I n 1 9 7 3

, t h e M o n t a n a L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d t h e T o r t C l a i m s A c t a n d t h e

C o m p r e h e n s i v e S t a t e I n s u r a n c e P l a n ( T i t l e 2

, c h a p t e r 9

, p a r t s 1 t h r o u g h 3

, M C A )

. U

n d e r

§ 2

- 9

- 1 01(1), MCA, state liability attaches under the Tort Claims Act “only where a

p r i v a t e p e r s o n s i m

i l a r l y w o u l d b e l i a b l e

. ” D r u g g e v

. S t a t e

, 2 5 4 M o n

t

. 2 9 2

, 2 9 4

- 9 5

, 8 3 7

P

. 2 d 4 0 5

, 4 0 6 ( 1 9 9 2 )

. T h u s

, w h e r e M o n t a n a l a w p r o t e c t s p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s f

r o m l i a b i l i t y

,

i t a l s o p r o t e c t s t h e S t a t e

. I

n t h i s c a s e

, i f a m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l w o u l d n o t b e l i a b l e

u n d e r t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e s t a t u t e s

, n e i t h e r w o u l d t h e S t a t e b e l i a b l e u n d e r

those same conditions.

¶ 2 5 T h e r e f

o r e

, u n d e r § § 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2 a n d

- 1 1 0 3

, M C A

, t h e S t a t e w o u l d b e i m m u n e f r o m

l i a b i l i t y i n t h i s c a s e u n l e s s D e r e k communicated to his mental health professional s “ a n10

actual threat of phy sical violence by specific means” against James, an issue which we

determine later in this Opinion.

¶ 2 6 Fran also argues that granting immunity to the State in this case deprives her of

h e r c o n s t i t

u t i o n a l r i g

h t t o f u l l r e d r e s s u n d e r A

r t i c l e I I

, § 1 6 o f t h e M o n t a n a C o n s t i t u t i o n

.

H o w e v e r

, F r a n p r e s e n t s n o a r g

u m e n t o r a u

t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s p o s i t i o n a s r e q u i r e d

b y M

. R

. A

p p

. P

. 1 2 ( 1 ) f

. A s a g e n e r a l r u l e

, w e w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r u n s u p p o r t e d i s s u e s o r

a r g u m e n t s s i n c e w e a r e u n d e r n o o b l i g a t i o n t o l o c a t e a

u t h o r i t i e s o r f

o r m u l a t e a r g u m e n t s

f o r a p a r t y i n s u p p o r t o f p o s i t i o n s t a k e n o n a p p e a l

. I n r e M a r r i a g e o f M c M a h o n

, 2002

MT 198, ¶ 6, 311 Mont. 175, 53 P.3d 1266

. Consequently, we reje ct this argument.

¶ 2 7 We next turn to the question of whether the exception langua g e o f § 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 2

,

M C A

, w a s t r i g g e r e d h e r e f o r p u r p o s e s o f d e n y i n g i m m

u n i t y f r o m s u i t t o t h e S t a

t e u n d e r

§ 27

- 1

- 1103, MCA.

¶ 2 8 T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e o f r e c e n t a c t s o f

v i o l e n c e o r a g g r e s s i o n b y D e r e k

, t h e S t a t e w a s n o t negligent per se

. The court based its

c o n c l u s i o n o n § 5 3

- 2 1

- 1 2 6 ( 2 )

, M C A

, w h i c h p r o v i d e s :

T h e s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f i n a h e a r i n g h e l d p u r s u a n t t o t h i s s e c t i o n i s

p r o o f b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n y p h y s i c a l f a c t s o r

e v i d e n c e a n d c l e a r a

n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e a s t o a l l o t h e r m a t t e r s

. However, the respondent ’ s m e n t a l d i s o r d e r m u s t b e p r o v

e d t o a r e a s o n a b l e

m e d i c a l c e r t a i n t y

. I

m m i n e n t t h r e a t o

f s e l f

- i n f l i c t e d i n j u r y o r i n j u r y t o

o t h e r s m u s t b e p r

o v e d b y o v e r t a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s

, s u f f i c i e n t l y r e c e n t i n t i m e

a s t o b e m a t e

r i a l a n d r e l e v

a n t a s t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ’ s present condition.

[ E m p h a s i s a d d e d

. ]11

¶ 2 9 Fran argues on appeal that the District Court applied the wrong statute. She

contends that instead of applying § 53

- 21

- 126(2), MCA, the court should h ave applied

§ 5 3

- 2 1

- 6 0 1 ( 2 ) ( c )

, M C A

, w h i c h p r o v i d e s :

The mission of Montana state hospital is t o s t a b i l i z e p e r s o n s w i t h

s e v e r e m e n t a l i l l n e

s s a n d t o r e t

u r n t h e m t o t h e c o m

m u n i t y a s s o o n a s

p o s s i b l e i f a d e q u a t e c o m m u n i t y

- b a s e d s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s a r e a v a i l a b l e

. [ E m p h a s i s a d d e d

. ]

Thus, Fran claims t h a t u n d e r § 5 3

- 2 1

- 6 0 1 ( 2 ) ( c )

, M C A

, t h e r e i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t a s t o

w h e t h e r D e r e k w a s s t a b i l i z e d s u f f i c i e n t l y t o b e r e l e a s e d f

r o m t h e h o s p i t a l a n d w

h e t h e r

t h e r e w a s a d e q u a t e c o m m u n i t y

- b a s e d s u p p o r

t s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e to Derek. She also

claims that MSH failed to sufficiently assess Derek or to adequately stabilize his

psychotropic medications prior to discharge.

¶ 3 0 I n a d d i t i o n

, F r a

n a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t J a m e s w a s

n o t a f o r e s e e a b l e p l a i n t i f

f a n d t h a t t h e S t a

t e d i d n o t o w e J a m e s a d u t y

. S h e c o n t e n d s t h a t

because James was living in Derek’s apartment with Derek, James was a reasonably

foreseeable plaintiff.

¶ 3 1 E ven assuming, arguendo, that Derek was not s tabilized and that § 53

- 2 1

-

601(2)(c)

, MCA, was violated, that would not abrogate the State’s immunity under

§ 27

- 1

- 1103, MCA, because § 27

- 1

- 1102, MCA, requires proof that Derek made “an

actual threat of physical violence by specific means against a clearly identified or

reasonably identifia b l e v i c t i m

. ” T h i s e x c e p t i o n t o l i a b i l i t y i s e x t r e m e l y n a r r o w

. I t

r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f ( 1 ) a n a c t u a l t h r e a t o f p h y s i c a l v

i o l e n c e

, ( 2 ) b y s p e c i f

i c m e a n s

, a n d ( 3 )

a g a i n s t a c l e a r l y i d e n t i f

i e d o r r e a s o n a b l y i d e n t i f i a b l e v i c t i m

. I n o t h e r w o r d s

, t

h i s12

exception c annot hinge on “stabilization” or the breach of some other statute. In like

f a s h i o n

, F r a n ’ s a r g

u m e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e t e r m

i n i n g t h a t J a m e s w a s n o t a

f o r e s e e a b l e p l a i n t i f

f a n d t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t o w e J a m e s a d u t y

, a l s o f a i l s

. A g a i n

, t h e r e

w a s n o p r o o f o f

f e r e d t h a t D e r e k m a d e a n a c t u a l t h r e a t o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e b y s p e c i f i c

m e a n s a g a i n s t J a m e s

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, i n a s m u c h a s F r a n d i d n o t o f

f e r p r o o f t h a t D e r e k

engaged in conduct which triggered the specific statutory exception of § 27

- 1

- 110 2,

M C A

, t h e S t a

t e i s e n t i t l e d t o i m

m u n i t y f r o m s u i t u n d e r § 2 7

- 1

- 1 1 0 3

, M C A

.

CONCLUSION

¶ 3 2 Based on the foregoing, we hold that the District Court did not err in granting the

State’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

¶ 3 3 A f f i r m e d

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N

W e C o n c u r :

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T

/ S / P A T R I C I A C O T T E R

/ S / J O H N W A R N E R

/ S / J I M R I C E