Court Opinion

ID: 9669792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:09:27.909552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:00.319420
License: Public Domain

PAGE, Justice
(concurring specially).
While I agree with the result reached by the court, I write separately to express my belief that North Homes should be held strictly liable for Kist’s actions. The court declines to address Fahrendorffs argument that North Homes is strictly liable because Fahrendorff did not raise the issue in her pleadings. While litigants are usually bound by the theory presented to the district court, we may base our decision upon a theory not presented “where the question raised for the first time on appeal is plainly decisive of the entire controversy on its merits, and where * * * there is no possible advantage or disadvantage to either party in not having had a prior ruling by the trial court on the question.” Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro. Airports Comm’n, 250 Minn. 130, 135, 84 N.W.2d 282, 286 (1957) (citations omitted). Here, the question of whether North Homes had a legal duty to act for Fahrendorffs protection such that they should be held strictly liable is a question of law that was fully briefed in this court by both parties and fully argued in the district court.1 Therefore, I would address the issue on its merits.
“In order to create absolute liability, [we must find] that the legislative purpose of * * * a statute is to protect a limited class of persons from their own inexperience, lack of judgment, inability to protect themselves or to resist pressure, or tendency toward negligence.” Zerby v. Warren, 297 Minn. 134, 139, 210 N.W.2d 58, 62 (1973). Minnesota Statutes § 260.011 (1998), provides in relevant part:
Subdivision 2(a). The paramount consideration in all proceedings concerning a child alleged or found to be in need of protection or services is the health, safety, and best interests of the child. * * * pUrp0se 0f ⅛6 jaws reiating to juvenile courts is to secure for each child alleged or adjudicated in need of protection or services and under the jurisdiction of the court, the care and guidance * * * as will best serve the spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the child; * * * and, when removal from the child’s own family is necessary and in the child’s best interests, to secure for the child custody, care and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by the parents.
MinmStat. § 260.011, subd. 2(a).
One of the purposes of section 260.011 is to protect children adjudicated in need of protection from physical harm. Fahren-dorff is a child who was admitted, pursuant to a court order, to a 24-hour residential program because the juvenile court determined that removal from her family was necessary and in her best interests. As a provider of services for children in need of protection, North Homes had an absolute duty to protect Fahrendorffs health, safety, and best interests and to provide care “as nearly as possible * * * to that which *914should have been given by [her] parents.” Id. North Homes failed to protect Fahren-dorff from Kist’s sexual assault. Thus, North Homes should be held strictly liable for any injuries Fahrendorff suffered as a result of that sexual assault.

. A review of the record makes it clear that both parties argued the issue of strict liability during the hearing on North Homes' summary judgment motion. Thus, it is somewhat inaccurate for the court to contend that Fah-rendorff first raised the issue of strict liability on appeal.