Court Opinion

ID: 9673445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:11:58.961866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.255230
License: Public Domain

NORTON, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court’s denial of summary judgment. Included in respondent’s wrongful death action against the county is a claim that the jail staff were negligent in implementing the jail’s suicidal inmate policy. In affirming summary judgment, the majority concludes that, because the jail staffs implementation *452of the suicidal inmate policy implicates Traut-line’s liberty interests, statutory immunity applies. I disagree.
The majority cites Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40 (Minn.1996), Cairl v. State, 323 N.W.2d 20 (Minn.1982), and Papenhausen v. Schoen, 268 N.W.2d 565 (Minn.1978), for the proposition that the decision to release a mental patient from involuntary treatment is a discretionary function because such a decision involves the inmate’s liberty. Notably, these cases involve inmates being released into the community. Therefore, in these cases, the governmental subdivision had to balance the inmate’s liberty interest in being free from incarceration against the public’s interest in safety and protection. See, e.g., Cairl, 323 N.W.2d at 23. Trautline, however, was not being released into the community. Rather, he was being placed in prison, either in a supervised setting pursuant to the jail’s suicide policy or in the regular prison population. Consequently, the above cases do not support the majority’s decision here because, in determining the proper disposition for Trautline, Traxler was not balancing Traut-line’s liberty interest in being free from incarceration versus the public’s interest in safety.
The legislature did not intend that the immunity exception swallow the general rule of recovery for negligent governmental operations. Id. With that in mind, the court must narrowly construe the immunity exception to liability and focus on its underlying purpose. Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230, 231 (Minn.1988). The purpose of immunity is to shield from liability any decisions involving the evaluation and weighing of social, political, and economic considerations. Id. at 232. Thus, not all of a governmental subdivision’s complex professional decisions invoke immunity.
For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court has recently held that the professional decision of whether a suicidal person should be hospitalized or treated as an outpatient is not a public policy decision protected by immunity. Terwilliger v. Hennepin County, 561 N.W.2d 909, 913 (Minn.1997). In Terwil-liger, the court recognized that a professional’s medical evaluation of whether to hospitalize a suicidal patient or treat as an outpatient does not involve balancing public policy interests such as public safety or the state’s policy of open door treatment of the mentally ill. See id. at 912 (observing that, in Cairl, court was concerned with youth’s mental illness and public safety). Rather, such treatment decisions are on the operational level. Likewise, in this case, Traxler’s decision did not involve interests such as public safety or the state’s policy of open door treatment of the mentally ill. The county has not shown that Trautline’s alleged liberty interest is sufficient to overcome the general rule of liability for negligence. Shielding the county with immunity in this case, under the guise of an alleged liberty interest, runs counter to the legislature’s intention that immunity not swallow the general rule of liability.
The majority also erroneously concludes that the suicidal inmate policy allowed jail staff to deviate from the policy’s suicide prevention steps. Relying on Johnson, 553 N.W.2d at 48, the majority concludes that the jail staff acted within their discretion when implementing the policy because the policy does not set forth who is to determine if an inmate suffers from suicidal ideation and does not preclude the jail staff from relying on the professional judgment of a mental health worker. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, the suicide policy does state who is to determine if an inmate suffers from suicidal ideation sufficient to trigger the prevention steps. The policy says, “if anyone * * * report[s] a suicidal tendency in an inmate” the inmate should be treated as at risk. (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, the majority errs by concluding that the suicidal inmate policy does not preclude the county from relying on the advice of a mental health worker. The majority does not fully address the rationale of Johnson when it states that the “county is entitled to immunity where manual did not prohibit conduct at issue.” In Johnson, not only was the county’s conduct not prohibited by the release agreement, but the county had a demonstrated practice or custom justifying their conduct. In this case, the record does not show that the jail staff had a custom or practice of deviating from the suicide preven*453tion steps based on the recommendation of a mental health professional. Therefore, a question of fact exists with respect to whether the jail staff properly implemented the policy.
There is no precedent for expanding the immunity exception to cover all governmental decisions that remotely implicate an alleged liberty interest. The jury should be allowed to determine whether the jail staff properly implemented the suicidal patient policy.