Court Opinion

ID: 9657392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:24:42.678106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:44.688866
License: Public Domain

KLAPHAKE, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority’s reversal of the punitive damages award, and the compensatory award against Clifton House, and the affirmance of the compensatory award against Kathleen McKown, William McKown, Quinna Lamb, and Mario Tosto. I write separately, however, because (1) James Van Horn assumed a duty of care towards Ian, and (2) the jury finding of an agency relationship between the First Church in Boston and appellants is not perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence. Accordingly, I would also hold James Van Horn and the First Church liable for compensatory damages.
*8331. Van Horn
The existence of a duty is a question of law. Carlson v. Mutual Service Ins., 494 N.W.2d 885, 887 (Minn.1993). Generally, there is no duty to aid another, unless the defendant stands in a “special relationship” with a foreseeable plaintiff. Harper v. Herman, 499 N.W.2d 472, 474 (Minn.1993); Wood v. Astleford, 412 N.W.2d 753, 755 (Minn.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 24, 1987). A special relationship exists where: (1) one party has custody of another under circumstances that deprive the other person of normal opportunities of self-protection, Harper, 499 N.W.2d at 474 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (1965)); or (2) one party gratuitously accepts the responsibility of acting to protect another, even though there was no initial duty to protect another. Walsh v. Pagra Air Taxi, Inc. 282 N.W.2d 567, 570-71 (Minn.1979).
Appellant James Van Horn was the one-person Committee on Publications (CoP) who implemented First Church policy on healing for the State of Minnesota. The First Church Board of Directors in Boston supervised him in his duties, which included advising Christian Scientists on their healing actions. First Church written policies required him to directly interact with parents, nurses, practitioners, and other caregivers of seriously ill children.
The trial court found that Van Horn assumed a duty of care toward Ian based in part on his “considerable power over Ian’s welfare.” The majority reverses on the ground that no special relationship arises solely from the fact that Van Horn knew that a child was ill. But the majority’s account of Van Horn’s role in providing care fails to acknowledge his direct control over both Ian’s care and the people administering that care.
Van Horn had conversations with William McKown, Kathleen MeKown, and Quinna Lamb, the journal-listed nurse, regarding Ian’s condition, and he himself ’ called the First Church officials in Boston regarding Ian’s condition. Each of these conversations amounted to much more than a simple relaying of facts that Ian was ill.
Van Horn spoke with Kathleen McKown when she first believed that her son’s life was in danger. Because First Church policy requires that the CoP be contacted when a child is seriously ill and not improving, Van Horn knew from day one that Ian’s condition was poor and potentially life threatening. In that initial call, Van Horn verified that Kathleen McKown had retained a journal-listed Christian Science Practitioner pursuant to First Church policy. Second, Van Horn called his boss, the National CoP, and discussed the fact that Ian was seriously ill and not improving. Van Horn was contacted a third time that same day when William McKown called to tell him that Ian was possibly suffering from an “aggressive” contagious disease. Pursuant to First Church policy regarding a child’s failing health, in that conversation, Van Horn provided William MeKown with telephone numbers of local health officials. Finally, when Quinna Lamb arrived to provide Christian Science nursing care, she immediately called Van Horn to report her presence.
These facts support the trial court’s legal conclusion that Van Horn assumed a duty to Ian based on a special relationship. Van Horn “gratuitously accepted” the responsibility to protect Ian through his constant contact with Ian’s caregivers as they tended to his failing health, and he received continuous updates on Ian’s failing condition. Although others directly provided Ian’s care, they relied on Van Horn’s continuous advice about the options according to First Church policy. There is evidence in the record that the CoP is instructed to tell parents who contact him regarding their seriously-ill children that “[w]hile care must be taken to cooperate with officials, only information necessary to allay any suspicion or fear that the child is not being adequately eared for should be given.” By acting consistently with this instruction, Van Horn insulated Ian from public intervention which may have saved his life. This evidence provides a sufficient basis from which the trier-of-fact could have reasonably inferred that Van Horn assumed a duty of care toward Ian. This is not a case of duty arising from simple knowledge of an illness.
*8342. The First Church
The majority also declines to find that the First Church assumed a duty toward Ian on the ground that the jury finding of agency is contrary to the evidence. Again, I disagree.
Whether an agency relationship exists is generally a question for the jury unless the evidence is conclusive. PMH Properties v. Nichols, 263 N.W.2d 799 (Minn.1978). Here, the jury found by special verdict that Van Horn, Tosto, and Lamb were agents for the First Church. On review of a special verdict, the answers to the questions will not be set aside:
[U]nless they are perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence or where the evidence is so clear to leave no room for differences among reasonable people. The evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the jury verdict. If the jiffy’s special verdict finding can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 493 N.W.2d 302, 309 (Minn.App.1992) (citations omitted), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 12, 1993).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury verdict that an agency relationship existed, the jury’s finding of agency is not perverse or contrary to the evidence. There was evidence in the record of an agency relationship founded on the First Church’s listing of Tosto and Lamb in the Christian Science Journal. The First Church certified through this list that Lamb and Tosto met the First Church’s “stringent” requirements to qualify as a nurse or practitioner. Further, the evidence suggests that a Journal listing demonstrated the “love, strength and support of the Mother Church” for each individual. Hence, the jury could reasonably find an agency relationship.
The majority holds that there was no agency relationship because the First Church had no control over Lamb or Tosto’s actions. See Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 198-99, 241 N.W.2d 788, 791 (rejecting the jury’s finding of agency where “defendant’s right of control ⅜ * * is totally lacking”) (citing Restatement, Agency 2d, § 1, comment b). But it is clear that the First Church installed Lamb and Tosto as a Christian Science nurse and practitioner, and had the power to remove them from the Journal list for failure to follow church tenets. The First Church’s removal of names from the Journal list would have ended Lamb and Tosto’s careers as Christian Science nurse and practitioner. Under these facts, the jury could reasonably find that the First Church had control over them.