Opinion ID: 1372176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Escape cases from other states.

Text: According to the opinion by Justice Peterson, the cases from other jurisdictions require a recognizable high risk of harm    invariably including a history of past conduct (often described as a `propensity for violence toward others') which alerts the person having physical custody to the risk of physical harm to others in the event of an escape. [5] This statement is not accurate. Rather, in my view, these cases demonstrate a trend away from rigid rules dealing with what actions are and are not foreseeable and a movement toward a review of each case to determine the actual foreseeability presented by the facts involved. Indeed, in an annotation discussing these cases in 44 A.L.R.3d 899 it is stated, at 901: The foreseeability of the escapee's actions appears to be the primary determinant of the public authorities' liability to a third person for the consequences of those actions. Even if it be true, as stated by Justice Peterson, that all previous cases have involved escaped prisoners with a history of propensity for violence, it does not follow that liability must be limited to such cases. The courts apparently have not previously been presented with a case involving an escape engineered by a confederate.