Opinion ID: 2355918
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does Cain Need to Prove Lack of Third Party Intervention?

Text: In addition to the four requirements of the statute, the commission argues there is an additional requirement for the state to waive sovereign immunity: a lack of third party intervention. The commission bases its argument on Alexander , where this Court said that the placement of the partition was dangerous because its existence, without intervention by third parties, posed a physical threat to plaintiff. Alexander, 756 S.W.2d at 542 (emphasis added). The language in Alexander was not meant to add a fifth element under section 537.600.1(2); rather it was used to contrast Alexander from two previous decisions. Those two cases are Kanagawa and Twente v. Ellis Fischel State Cancer Hospital, 665 S.W.2d 2 (Mo.App.1983). In Kanagawa , the plaintiff was attacked by an escaped rapist. The court held there was no dangerous condition when the state allowed the rapist to escape because there was no physical defect in the property. In Twente , the plaintiff was raped in a hospital parking lot. Again, the court held that a lack of security in the parking lot was not a dangerous condition because there was no physical defect. The Alexander Court, after eliminating the physical defect requirement, used intervention by third parties to distinguish criminal acts by third parties with an indirect connection to state property from negligent acts of state employees. The commission's argument relies on appellate court decisions that expanded the third party intervention language of Alexander in a manner that is not consistent with the statute. In State ex rel. St. Louis State Hospital v. Dowd, 908 S.W.2d 738 (Mo.App.1995), the plaintiff was a part-time employee who was cleaning out a paper shredder. His boss turned on the shredder causing plaintiff to lose four fingers. The court of appeals held there was no exception to sovereign immunity because the injury was caused by third party intervention. Id. at 741. Similarly in Farrell v. St. Louis County, 190 S.W.3d 401 (Mo.App.2006), an inmate was working in the kitchen when another inmate, who was stacking tables, slid a table too fast. The inmate injured his shoulder trying to stop the sliding table. The court of appeals held that the plaintiff did not qualify for the dangerous condition exception because the injury was caused by third party intervention. Id. at 403-404. In State ex rel. Nixon v. Westbrooke, 143 S.W.3d 737 (Mo. App.2004), the plaintiff was removing debris on a highway, following an accident. He was struck by a car when the highway patrol removed the cones that were diverting traffic. The appellate court concluded there could be no recovery because of the intervening acts of the highway patrolmen. Id. at 740. This expansion of Alexander's third party intervention language is unfounded. The language of [section 537.600.1(2)], which refers to conditions created by the negligence of state employees, unquestionably contemplates some negligence by agents of the public entity. Alexander, 756 S.W.2d at 542. Much of the confusion has arisen because Alexander failed to define who is a third party. A third party is someone whose act intervenes but who is not connected to the state in any kind of employment or agency relationship. Using this definition, the rapists in Kanagawa and Twente would be considered third party intervenors, while the state employees in Dowd , Farrell [7] and Westbrooke would not be third parties. To the extent that Dowd , Farrell , and Westbrooke are inconsistent with this decision and section 537.600.1, they should no longer be followed. There was no third party intervention in this case. Fitzpatrick, whose actions undoubtedly caused the dangerous condition, was for the purposes here in the employ of the state. Her movements were controlled by the state. She was instructed by her state supervisor as to which tree to cut down, provided with a chainsaw by the state, and paid by the state for her work. For third party intervention to be a factor in this case, a person outside the inmate work crew and MoDOT would have had to have intervened. This did not occur.