Court Opinion

ID: 9543850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:49:47.817245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:19.563849
License: Public Domain

LEVINSON, Justice,
in which KLEIN, Justice, joins, dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the presence of a legally cognizable “special relation*174ship” between an “actor” and an individual facing harm is a precondition to the existence of a duty to take reasonable action to prevent the harm. I disagree, however, for at least four reasons, with the calculus employed by the majority in this case in determining whether Perreira and Corregedore shared such a “special relationship.”
I. PRELIMINARY RUMINATIONS
First, the majority places far too much emphasis on the lack of a “custodial” relationship between Corregedore and Perreira. The majority asserts that its “review of cases in other jurisdictions advances only one type of special relationship that consistently imposes a duty on an actor to prevent another’s suicide, namely a relationship predicated on a custodial relationship.” Majority opinion at 160, 925 P.2d at 330. In support of its assertion, the majority cites Haworth v. State, 60 Haw. 557, 592 P.2d 820 (1979), and Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 604 P.2d 1198 (1979), for the Hawai'i rule that “a state, by reason of the special relationship created by its custody of [a] prisoner [or a juvenile in a youth correctional facility], is under a duty to the prisoner to take reasonable action to protect the prisoner against unreasonable risk of physical harm.” Majority opinion at 159, 161, 925 P.2d at 329, 331 (emphasis omitted) (some brackets added and some omitted); Haworth, 60 Haw. at 563, 592 P.2d at 824. The majority further cites several cases from other jurisdictions, at 160-161, 925 P.2d at 330-331 of its opinion, that are consistent -with the proposition, articulated in City of Belen v. Harrell, 93 N.M. 601, 603 P.2d 711, 713 (1979), and with which I agree, that “[w]hen one party is in the custodial care of another, as in the ease of a jaded prisoner, the custodian has the duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care for the protection of the life and health of the person in custody.” Majority opinion at 161, 925 P.2d at 331 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Beyond perceiving one context in which the traditional restrictive rule has consistently been relaxed, these cases neither speak to nor preclude other contexts in which a similar duty should be recognized. The majority correctly acknowledges that a custodial relationship is simply one example in a list of “Special Relations Giving Rise to Duty to Aid or Protect” described in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (1965), see majority opinion at 159 & n. 2, 925 P.2d at 329 & n. 2, but fails to concede either: (1) that “[s]ection 314A of the Restatement sets forth a nonexclusive list of special relationships upon which a court may find a duty to protect,” Doe v. Grosvenor Properties (Hawaii) Ltd., 73 Haw. 158, 163, 829 P.2d 512, 515 (1992) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A comment b (1965)) (emphasis added); see also Maguire v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 79 Hawai'i 110, 113, 899 P.2d 393, 396 (1995) (“In determining whether such a [special] relationship exists, this court looks to section 314A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts,' which sets forth a non-exclusive list of ‘special relationships’ upon which a court may find a duty to protect.” (Citations omitted and emphasis added)); or (2) that “[t]he law appears ... to be working slowly toward a recognition of the duty to aid or protect in any relation of dependence or of mutual dependence.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A comment b (1965).1
*175Inasmuch as the section 314A list of “special relationships” is non-exclusive, the majority is not being completely forthcoming when it asserts that lack of custody is an *176absolute bar to the establishment of such a special relationship. For example, the majority suggests that “[a]n exception to th[e] rule [i.e., that there is no cognizable claim for relief sounding in negligence in connection with the suicide of another] allows the imposition of a duty to prevent suicide[,] but only in a custodial situation where suicide is foreseeable.” Majority opinion at 160, 925 P.2d at 330 (citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). The majority further maintains that “we have followed the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A(4) and recognized a reasonable duty of care to prevent suicide only on the part of a defendant who had actual custody of a suicidal person.” Id. at 160, 925 P.2d at 330 (citing Figueroa, 61 Haw. at 376-80, 604 P.2d at 1202-04) (emphasis added). Thus, the majority argues that “the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A(4) ... weigh[s] against creating ... a duty [in this case].” Id. at 161, 925 P.2d at 337.
The majority seems to misapprehend the meaning of “non-exclusive.” “ ‘Exclusive’ means ‘with no exceptions’ and should be used carefully,” A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 336 (2d ed. 1995), or “not admitting of something else,” or “limited to the object or objects designated.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 497 (1989). A “non-exclusive” list, therefore, is not limited to the object or objects designated and is subject to exception and does admit of something else. I fail to comprehend how the recognition of a duty in one context, in and of itself, can “weigh against” the recognition of another duty in a different context, unless the two are mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the absence of a custodial relationship between Corregedore and Perreira does not end—but merely begins—a complete and cogent analysis of the dispositive issue presented in this appeal.
Second, the majority overlooks the salient fact that distinguishes the present case from every decision cited in its opinion—the clear “foreseeability” of Perreira’s suicide, which there is no dispute in the record that Cor-regedore fully recognized and, by his own conduct (ie., telephoning Perreira’s social worker), took at least some action to seek to prevent. Cf., e.g., Seibel v. Kemble, 63 Haw. 516, 521, 631 P.2d 173, 176-77 (1981) (“There is much uncertainty in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and in the prediction of future behavior.”), cited at 168, 925 P.2d at 338 of the majority opinion; Cygan v. City of New York, 165 A.D.2d 58, 566 N.Y.S.2d 232, 238 (1991) (in wrongful death action against the city for the suicide of a police officer, “[t]he record ... contained] not one scintilla of evidence either to indicate that decedent was suicidal or that the [Police] Department should somehow have anticipated that he was”), cited at 160, 925 P.2d at 330 of the majority opinion; Krieg v. Massey, 239 Mont. 469, 781 P.2d 277, 279 (1989) (“Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to show that [the decedent’s] suicidal tendencies had been communicated to [the defendant].”), cited at 161, 925 P.2d at 331 of the majority opinion; see also Bogust v. Iverson, 10 Wis.2d 129, 102 N.W.2d 228, 230 (1960) (“[T]here is no allegation of fact that would have apprised the defendant, as a reasonably prudent man, that [the decedent] had [suicidal] tendencies.”).
Although I agree that “[m]ere foreseeability of the harm or knowledge of the danger[ ] is insufficient to create a legally cognizable special relationship giving rise to a legal duty to prevent harm,” Nally v. Grace Community Church, 47 Cal.3d 278, 253 Cal.Rptr. 97, 108, 763 P.2d 948, 959 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007, 109 S.Ct. 1644, 104 L.Ed.2d 159 (1989), see also majority opinion at 168, 925 P.2d at 338, even the majority impliedly admits that “foreseeability” nevertheless weighs heavily in traditional duty analysis. See majority opinion at 160, 925 P.2d at 330.2 See also Maguire, 79 Hawai'i at 114, 899 P.2d *177at 397 (“[U]nder the business visitor relationship exception [set forth in section 314A], a landholder only has a duty to protect ... if such acts are reasonably foreseeable.” (Emphasis added.)); (McLaughlin v. Sullivan, 123 N.H. 335, 461 A.2d 123, 127 (1983) (“Duty and foreseeability are inextricably bound together. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.”) (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) (Emphasis added.)); Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 22, 551 P.2d 334, 342 (1976) (“The most important.. . consideration] in establishing duty is foreseeability. As a general principle, a defendant owes a duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct, with respect to all risks which make the conduct unreasonably dangerous.”) (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) (Emphases added.) Thus, this court—as well as every jurisdiction that the majority cites to support its decision not to recognize a legally cognizable duty in the present case—considers, as a significant factor, the presence or absence of any evidence in the record before it of the “foreseeability” of the alleged harm for purposes of determining the existence of a legal duty.
Third, the majority artificially inflates the significance of the “actor’s” formal training and professional licensing. These qualifications are clearly relevant where there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the “foreseeability” of preventable harm. See, e.g., Cygan, 566 N.Y.S.2d at 238 (“[Liability exists for the failure to prevent a suicide ... where an institution or mental health professional with sufficient expertise to detect suicidal tendencies and with the control necessary to care for the person’s well-being fails to take such steps.”). The “foreseeability” of Perreira’s suicide in the present case, however, was completely undisputed. Corregedore cannot, and, by virtue of his own conduct, does not, assert that he had any doubt as to the significance of Perreira’s expressed intention.
Thus, the status of Corregedore’s formal training and licensing is relevant in the present case only to the question whether he acted reasonably to seek to prevent3 the “foreseeable” harm, of which he had actual notice. See Bogust, 102 N.W.2d at 230 (holding, in action against a school guidance counselor, that “as a teacher [the defendant] cannot be charged with the same degree of care based on [knowledge of the suicidal tendencies of the decedent] as a person trained in medicine or psychiatry could exercise”); Nally, 253 Cal.Rptr. at 118, 763 P.2d at 968-69 (Kaufman, J., concurring) (“As in every negligence case, the precise nature of the defendant’s duty will necessarily vary with the facts.... The scope of the duty contemplated is commensurate with the nontherapist counselor’s background and stated mission.”) (Citation omitted.); Brooks v. Logan, 127 Idaho 484, 903 P.2d 73, 82-83 (1995) (Young, J., concurring and dissenting) (“The distinguishing factual difference between Eisel[ v. Board of Education, 324 Md. 376, 597 A.2d 447 (1991) ], where a duty was found to exist, and McLaughlin and Bogust, where no duty was found to exist, is that in Eisel, there was direct evidence that suicide was planned by the decedent in question and there was no need for special training to foresee that the decedent intended to commit suicide; while in McLaughlin and Bogust, the suicide was held to be unforeseeable and no duty to take affirmative action to prevent suicide existed because each of the defendants lacked the special training required to detect mental illness and/or the potential for suicide to foresee that the deceased intended suicide.”). That status, however, merely begs the foundational question as to whether Corregedore was subject to a duty to take some action to prevent the harm.
*178Finally, fourth, just as this court has consistently exhibited a willingness to extend protections under the Hawaii Constitution beyond the scope of “atrophied” federal constitutional rights, see State v. Quino, 74 Haw. 161, 176-77, 840 P.2d 358, 365 (1992) (Levinson, J., concurring), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1031, 113 S.Ct. 1849, 123 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993), so should we be inclined, where appropriate, to recognize an affirmative duty in tort even though other jurisdictions have failed to do so. After all, “[i]n the past this court has expressed a willingness and a duty to depart from long established rules, and a readiness to act where precedent is lacking, in order to effect desirable changes in the common law.” Bissen v. Fujii, 51 Haw. 636, 646, 466 P.2d 429, 435 (1970) (Levinson, J., dissenting) (citing Lemle v. Breeden, 51 Haw. 426, 462 P.2d 470 (1969)).
Justice is not always served by slavish adherence to limited applications of established doctrines. In Johnston v. KFC Nat’l Management Co., 71 Haw. 229, 232-33, 788 P.2d 159, 161 (1990), we noted that:
“[A]s our ideas of human relations change[,] the law as to duties changes with them.... Changing social conditions lead constantly to the recognition of new duties.” W.P. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on The Law of Torts § 53, at 359 (5th ed. 1984). This court, however, is reluctant to impose a new duty upon members of our society without any logical, sound, and compelling reasons taking into consideration the social and human relationships of our society.
As the Connecticut Supreme Court aptly stated:
“Experience can and often does demonstrate that a rule, once believed sound, needs modification to serve justice better.... The adaptability of the common law to the changing needs of passing time has been one of its most beneficent characteristics!!.]”
Ely v. Murphy, 207 Conn. 88, 94, 540 A.2d 54, 57 (1988) (quoting Herald Publishing Co. v. Bill, 142 Conn. 53, 62, 111 A.2d 4, 8 (1955); Ozyck v. D’Atri, 206 Conn. 473, 482-83, 538 A.2d 697, 702 (1988) (Healey, J., concurring)).
(Brackets in original.)
While, traditionally, “[t]he fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another’s aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action,” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965), the commentary to this “traditional” rule regarding duty notes that:
The origin of the rule lay in the early common law distinction between action and inaction, or “misfeasance” and “non-fea-sance.” In the early law one who injured another by a positive affirmative act was held liable without any great regard even for his fault. But the courts were far too much occupied with the more flagrant forms of misbehavior to be greatly concerned with one who merely did nothing, even though another might suffer serious harm because of his omission to act. Hence liability for non-feasance was slow to receive any recognition in the law. It appeared first in, and is still largely confined to, situations in which there was some special relation between the parties, on the basis of which the defendant was found to have a duty to take action for the aid or protection of the plaintiff.
The result of the rule has been a series of older decisions to the effect that one human being, seeing a fellow man in dire peril, is under no legal obligation to aid him, but may sit on the dock, smoke his cigar, and watch the other drown. Such decisions have been condemned by legal writers as revolting to any moral sense, but thus far they remain the law. It appears inevitable that, sooner or later, such extreme cases of morally outrageous and indefensible conduct will arise that there will be further inroads upon the older rule.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 comment c (emphasis added).
I grant that the majority’s unwillingness to recognize any duty on Corregedore’s part in the present case may not be “revolting to any moral sense” (emphasis added), although it is to mine. Reasonable minds might differ *179■with respect to the competing policy considerations at issue in determining whether Corregedore and Perreira shared a “special relationship.” However, I firmly believe that we should not shirk from perceiving such a duty simply because other jurisdictions have not.
Understanding the subjectivity of my personal “moral sense” (as well as the majority’s), but considering Corregedore’s official job description and the analysis set forth in the cases cited in the majority opinion, see section II.B. of this opinion, infra, I would recognize a legally cognizable duty on Cor-regedore’s part to take reasonable action to seek to prevent Perreira’s “foreseeable” suicide, of which he was placed on actual notice.
“‘[Djuty’ is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.” Cootey v. Sun Inv., Inc., 68 Haw. 480, 484, 718 P.2d 1086, 1090 (1986). While not directly responsible for Perreira’s psychological counseling, Corregedore was bound by a host of expressly and officially enumerated responsibilities in his capacity as a Veterans Service Counselor. See section II.A. of this opinion, infra. Specifically, Cor-regedore was professionally obligated to attend to Perreira’s personal and psychological problems. Id. Accordingly, and as an implicit adjunct of those professional obligations, it follows, based on the uncontrovert-ed record before us, that Corregedore was required by his job description to take reasonable action to seek to prevent Perreira’s suicide.
I am fully aware that “whether a duty exists is a question of fairness that involves a weighing of the nature of the risk, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the risk, and the public interest in the proposed solution.” Hao v. Campbell Estate, 76 Hawai'i 77, 80, 869 P.2d 216, 219 (1994) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In this connection, our general reluctance to “impose a new duty upon members of our society without any logical, sound, and compelling reasons” is both understandable and well founded. Johnston, 71 Haw. at 232, 788 P.2d at 161.
But the duty that we should recognize in the present ease—that a Veterans Service Counselor must employ reasonable means to seek to prevent a suicide when on actual notice of a client’s suicidal intent—is not only a modest one, but is supported by “logical, sound, and compelling reasons.” On the record before us, for example, the trier of fact could reasonably find that Corregedore. could easily have warned Perreira’s father of the immediate danger posed by Perreira’s threat of self-destruction. And, as the majority takes pains to recite, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Corregedore did so. Corregedore testified that he advised Per-reira’s father of Perreira’s threat of suicide and urged him “to keep an eye on [Per-reira].” On the other hand, Perreira’s father claimed that Corregedore did not. Majority opinion at 157, 925 P.2d at 327. At the core of the present appeal is the question whether this genuine issue of fact is “material” for purposes of Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 56.
“[Wjeighing ... the nature of the risk, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the risk, and the public interest in the proposed solution,” Hao, 76 Hawai'i at 80, 869 P.2d at 219, imposing a duty on a Veterans Service Counselor to employ reasonable means to seek to prevent a client’s suicide when on actual notice of the client’s suicidal intent seems minimal, logical, sound, and compelling to me.
II. CORREGEDORE WAS SUBJECT TO A DUTY TO EMPLOY REASONABLE MEANS TO SEEK TO PREVENT PERREIRA’S INTENDED SUICIDE, OF WHICH HE HAD ACTUAL NOTICE, BECAUSE HE WAS OFFICIALLY CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SAFEGUARDING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL WELL-BEING OF HIS CLIENTS.

A. Corregedore’s Job

As noted above, Corregedore worked as a Veterans Services Counselor IV in the employ of the Kaua'i office of the State of Hawai'i Department of Defense, Office of *180Veterans’ Services, Veterans’ Service Branch. Corregedore’s official “position description” established that he was “responsible for administering and independently coordinating a comprehensive island-wide program of assistance to veterans [and] families of veterans[J” As such, Corregedore was expressly employed to “initiate[ ]. and follow[ ] through with a wide range of casework, including the most complex and difficult problems on veterans services[.]” The job included the duty to “identify [clients’] particular needs or problems; decide the appropriate action to be taken and provide the necessary services; apply various interviewing and counseling techniques in assisting the clients to seek ... benefits for which they may be eligible.” A specific requirement of his position was the ability to “analyze a veteran’s problem and correctly apply the appropriate rules, regulations, and skills to resolve the specific problem[.]”
Consonant with his official position description, Corregedore described his job duties in an affidavit as
making sure veterans receive all the benefits they are entitled to, coordinating with various agencies to procure the appropriate services, such as ... mental health services and counseling them regarding their day-to-day problems.
... The counseling which I provide to veterans consists of identifying their concerns or problems, and explaining the options available to them to deal with the problem.
Corregedore’s position as a counselor, therefore, required him to ensure that Per-reira received all of the benefits and services he needed and was entitled to, including mental health services and counseling. Concerning the counseling services that he provides directly, Corregedore’s affidavit averred that
I do not provide psychiatric or psychological services to the veterans I counsel. My counseling mainly consists of listening and empathizing with the veterans.
... When confronted with a client with emotional or mental problems I always make arrangements for them to be seen by a mental health professional at the U.S. Veterans Center for evaluation and/or treatment.
Thus, even though Corregedore did not directly provide psychiatric counseling to veterans, he was, as a Veterans Services Counselor, responsible for ensuring that veterans received such psychiatric, counseling as he perceived that they needed. For that reason, Corregedore bore a professional responsibility that I believe established a “special relationship” with his clients, thereby giving rise to a legally cognizable duty to take reasonable action to seek to prevent their “foreseeable” suicides, of which he was on actual notice.4
B. Of The Various Counseling Cases Cited In The Majority Opinion, The Relationships Under Examination in The Eisel and Brooks Opinions Most Closely Resemble The Relationship Between Cor-regedore And Perreira And, Thus, Are Far More Instructive Than The Cases Concerning Licensed ' Mental Health Professionals Or Pastoral Counselors.
The majority cites decisions from several jurisdictions to support its foundational view that a duty—potentially giving rise to tort liability—should not be recognized with respect to therapists, based upon a failure to take reasonable action to prevent outpatient suicides. See majority opinion at 164-166, 925 P.2d at 334-336. However, the majority conveniently dodges the fact that Correge-dore was not Perreira’s “therapist” and, by doing so, obscures the reality that its mar-shalled cases, which analyze the peculiar relationship between a psychiatrist or pastoral counselor and his or her patient or parishioner, are not dispositive of the question whether Corregedore, as a Veterans Services Counselor with clearly and officially delineated vocational responsibilities, owed Perreira, his client, any sort of duty in the present case.
*1811. The generic counselor-counselee relationship is far too broad a paradigm to be instructive in the present case.
One fundamental flaw in the majority’s analysis is that it treats fungibly all persons who in any way engage in any form of interaction that could be legitimately be characterized as “counseling.” Thus, the majority disingenuously posits the “slippery slope” proposition that recognizing any duty on Corregedore’s part in the present case would automatically dictate the imposition of a duty “to prevent suicides” on all “counselors” in all contexts:
Public policy considerations weigh against imposing a duty on all counselors to prevent the suicides of noncustodial clients, because the imposition of such a broad duty could have a deleterious affect on counseling in general. For example, a duty to prevent suicides would force a counselor (e.g., a veterans services counsel- or, a spousal abuse counselor, a chemical dependency counselor, a marriage counsel- or, a priest, a rabbi, a minister, a native Hawaiian kahuna, or even a telephone hotline counselor) to breach counselor-client confidentiality and disclose a client’s suicidal disposition to all of the client’s immediate relatives, regardless of whether the client would prefer to keep such sensitive and potentially embarrassing information confidential.
Majority opinion at 170-171, 925 P.2d at 340-341 (citations omitted) (emphases added).
Without any principled or analytically necessary reason for doing so, the majority thus artificially pries open the floodgates. There is no rational basis for suggesting that all counselors should be treated generically; the unique characteristics of each relationship need to be examined. I maintain that the parameters of Corregedore’s duty to Per-reira is established by his officially delineated responsibility, inter alia, for facilitating the receipt by military veterans of such mental health counseling and therapeutic services as they might need. See infra at section II.B. of this opinion. On the one hand, a spousal abuse counselor, chemical dependency counselor, or marriage counselor could conceivably be subject to a similar duty to take reasonable action to seek to prevent the suicide of a counselee who has clearly and unambiguously informed the counselor of his or her suicidal intent. But that duty would have to be grounded, as in the present case, in the particular job description of the counselor and the specific professional or official obligations and responsibilities that he or she has formally undertaken. A priest, rabbi, minister, native Hawaiian kahuna, or telephone hotline counselor would probably not be subject to such a duty because their respective job descriptions and professional or official obligations and responsibilities—formally undertaken—would not likely establish the requisite “special relationship” with their parishioner, counselee, or correspondent.
2. Pastoral and similar “counseling” relationships are readily distinguishable from that between Corregedore and Perreira.
In Natty, the California Supreme Court declined to recognize a duty on the part of a pastoral counselor to prevent the foreseeable suicide of a parishioner/counselee. 253 Cal.Rptr. at 109-10, 763 P.2d at 960. In so doing, the Natty court declined to extend the “duty to prevent a foreseeable suicide” beyond “hospital-patient relationships where the suicidal person died while under the care and custody of hospital physicians who were aware of the patient’s unstable medical condition.” Id. at 106, 763 P.2d at 956. The Natty court bolstered its holding with the following reasoning:
[W]e are urged that mere knowledge on the part of the defendants that [the decedent] may have been suicidal at various stages in his life should give rise to a duty to refer. Imposition of a duty to refer ... necessarily would imply a general duty on all nontherapists to refer all potentially suicidal persons to licensed medical practitioners.
One can argue that it is foreseeable that if a nontherapist counselor fails to refer a potentially suicidal individual to professional, licensed therapeutic care, the individual may . commit suicide. While under some circumstances eoun-*182selors may conclude that referring a client to a psychiatrist is prudent and necessary, our past decisions teach that it is inappropriate to impose a duty to refer—which may stifle all gratuitous or religious counseling—based on foreseeability alone. Mere foreseeability of the harm or knowledge of the danger, is insufficient to create a legally cognizable special relationship giving rise to a legal duty to prevent harm.
Id. at 108, 763 P.2d at 959 (citation omitted).5
Unlike the clergy-parishioner relationship at issue in Natty, Corregedore’s very job description, as a Veterans Services Counsel- or, required the capacity to recognize “emotional or mental problems” and to effectuate appropriate referrals to mental health professionals as a necessary vocational qualification. In any event, Corregedore’s duty to make such referrals in the first instance is undisputed in the present case;6 thus, we are not faced with the risk of “stifl[ing] all gratuitous or religious counseling.” Furthermore, the recognition of a duty on the part of a Veterans Services Counselor to employ reasonable means to seek to prevent a suicide when on actual notice of a client’s suicidal intent is not really based on “foreseeability” as such, but rather on the intrinsic character of the Veterans Services Counselor-client relationship, which, by its very description, entailed appropriate action in the face of suicidal threats.
I do not dispute the Natty court’s observation that “nontherapist counselors are not professional medical experts on suicide.” See supra note 5; see also majority opinion at - , 925 P.2d at 335-336. But that expertise is immaterial to my analysis because the recognition of the duty that I urge obtains only where the suicide is unambiguously threatened. The trier of fact is always free to consider particular training, or lack thereof, when determining whether a Veterans Services Counselor acted reasonably under the circumstances. See infra note 8; see. also Bogust, 102 N.W.2d at 230; Nolly, 253 Cal.Rptr. at 117-19, 763 P.2d at 968-69 (Kaufman, J., concurring).
3. The standard of care to which Veterans Services Counselors, such as Corregedore, are subject does not implicate the same confidentiality constraints as that applicable to licensed mental health professionals.
The majority fails, in its analysis of what it perceives to be the relevant case law of other jurisdictions, to recognize and account for critical differences between Corregedore’s status as a Veterans Services Counselor and that of mental health professionals licensed by the state. In this connection, and by way of example, the majority notes that,
despite [the fact] that the California Supreme Court ha[d] already held that a psychotherapist had a duty to warn others when a patient under the psychotherapist’s care was likely to cause personal injury to a third party, [see Tarasoff ], a California appellate court subsequently limited Tarasoff, holding that courts should not extend Tarasojf to require psychiatrists to disclose the confidences of their patients when the patients are contemplating suicide. Bellah v. Greenson, 81 Cal.App.3d 614, 146 Cal.Rptr. 535, 539-40 [ (1978) ].... [T]he Bellah court ... explained] that, while a cause of action might exist for traditional, professional malpractice when a psychiatrist’s treatment of a suicidal patient falls below the standard of care for the profession, the plaintiffs were wrong in asserting that Ta-rasojf had created a broad duty on the part of psychiatrists to breach the confidence of their doctor-patient relationships by warning others of the likelihood of a patient’s suicidal disposition.]
*183Majority opinion at 164, 925 P.2d at 334. The Bellah court, as the majority recognizes at 164-165, 925 P.2d at 334-335 of its opinion, substantially grounded its holding in the necessity of “intimate privacy” within the context of psychiatric treatment:
The imposition of a duty upon a psychiatrist to disclose to others vague or even specific manifestations of suicidal tendencies on the part of the patient who is being treated in an out-patient setting could well inhibit psychiatric treatment. ... Intimate privacy is a virtual necessity for successful treatment. Were it not for the assurance of confidentiality in the psychotherapist-patient relationship, many in need of treatment would be reluctant to seek help. Even those who do seek help under such circumstances may be deterred from fully disclosing their problems. An element usually assumed essential is the patient’s trust that matters disclosed in therapy will be held in strict confidence. (See Fleming and Maximov, The Patient of His Victim: The Therapist’s Dilemma (1974) 62 Cal.L.Rev. 1025, 1041.)
Bellah, 146 Cal.Rptr. at 539 (emphases added).
Of course, licensed mental health professionals, such as psychiatrists, are bound by ethical codes that require strict maintenance of their patients’ confidences,7 precisely for the reason described in Bellah—the maximization of the efficacy of the therapeutic process. But, as a Veterans Services Counselor, Corregedore is not a licensed mental health professional and does not personally perform a psychotherapeutic function. By his own undisputed account, he “do[es] not provide psychiatric or psychological services to the veterans [he] counsels].” “When confronted with a client with emotional or mental problems,” he “always makes arrangements for them to be seen by a mental health professional at the U.S. Veterans Center for evaluation or treatment.” (Emphasis added.) That is obviously why, in the face of the emergency precipitated by Perreira’s suicidal declaration, Corregedore immediately telephoned Perreira’s social worker to apprise him of the imminent crisis. That is also obviously why, according to his disputed testimony, Corregedore displayed Perreira’s “last will and testament” to Perreira’s father, “told him about the suicide threat, and urged him ‘to keep an eye on [Perreira].’ ” Majority opinion at 157, 925 P.2d at 327 (brackets in original). Ironically, the majority’s logic would seem to imply that, by engaging in the foregoing crisis intervention, Corregedore somehow breached a duty of confidentiality that he owed to Perreira, thus transforming his prescribed function as a Veterans Services Counselor into an “ongoing tort.” I submit that such reasoning falls of its own weight.
It is precisely because Corregedore is not a licensed mental health professional that he is not subject to the physician’s or psychotherapist’s code of conduct. Accordingly, the majority’s invocation of case authority addressing the potential civil liability of “health care workers ... [for] disclosing confidential information to third parties,” majority opinion at 167-168, 925 P.2d at 337-338, is wholly inapposite to the proper resolution of this appeal. All of the cases cited by the majority deal with physicians and psychiatrists who, as licensed health care professionals, are held to an officially prescribed standard of confidentiality. Recognizing a duty on the part of a Veterans Services Counselor to take reasonable action to seek to avert a client’s suicide—ie., a duty simply to do his or her job—would therefore neither conflict with *184any extant professional oath or obligation nor expose Corregedore, or any other similarly situated counselor, to any recognized form of civil liability.
Another significant distinction between the relationship of a psychiatrist/mental health professional to his or her patient, on the one hand, and of a Veterans Services Counselor to his or her client, on the other, is that a patient can sue the psychiatrist/mental health professional for malpractice, whereas such a claim for relief is not available to the client of a Veterans Services Counselor. Thus, in Bellah, the court noted that the plaintiffs’
complaint alleged the existence of a psychiatrist-patient relationship between [the] defendant and [the decedent], knowledge on the part of the defendant that [the decedent] was likely to attempt suicide, and a failure by [the] defendant to take appropriate preventive measures. We are satisfied that these allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for the breach of a psychiatrist’s duty of care towards his patient. The nature of the precautionary steps which could or should have been taken by [the] defendant presents a purely factual question to be resolved at a trial on the merits, at which time both sides would be afforded an opportunity to produce expert medical testimony on the subject. From the face of [the] plaintiffs’ complaint, we are unable to determine whether [the] defendant did or did not take preventive steps which were consonant with good medical practice in the community.
146 Cal.Rptr. at 538-39.
No malpractice action is available to the plaintiffs in the present ease. Veterans Services Counselors are not currently held to a professional standard of care as psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are. The majority seems to be unwilling to acknowledge that Corregedore owed any duty to Perreira by virtue of the character of their professional relationship. Accordingly, although Corregedore was unquestionably a “link” in Perreira’s therapeutic “chain,” the majority would completely insulate him from any liability arising out of his alleged failure to discharge his vocational obligation to Per-reira. This makes no sense to me.
4. Of the relationships described in the case law cited by the majority, the relationship between Corregedore and Perreira most closely resembles those at issue in the Eisel And Brooks decisions.
I believe that, of the relationships described in the case law cited by the majority, the relationship between Corregedore and Perreira most closely resembles that at issue in Eisel v. Board of Education, 324 Md. 376, 597 A.2d 447 (1991), and Brooks v. Logan, 127 Idaho 484, 903 P.2d 73, 79 (1995), cited and discussed at 171, 925 P.2d at 341 of the majority opinion. In Eisel, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that a high school guidance counselor was subject to a duty to use reasonable means to attempt to prevent the foreseeable suicide of a student. 597 A.2d at 456. The Eisel court observed that
the relationship of school counselor and pupil is not devoid of therapeutic overtones. The “Counselor Job Description” ... lists the first two “[p]riorities of the counseling profession” to be:
“1. Counseling with individuals and groups concerning school adjustment, physical and emotional development, educational planning, and career awareness ....
“2. Identifying students with significant problems and taking steps to provide help for these students.”
Id. at 452. Moreover, in “distinguishing] the [matter before the court] from those cases finding an absence of duty ... in which the custodial relationship between the suicide victim and the defendant was other than that of hospital and patient or jailer and prisoner,” the Eisel court noted that
[t]he negligence relied on is a failure to communicate to the parent the information allegedly possessed by the defendants concerning the child’s contemplated suicide, not a failure by the school authorities physically to prevent the suicide by exercising custody and control over [the decedent victim]. The theory of [the plaintiffs] *185case is that he could have exercised his custody and control, as parent, over [the decedent], had he been warned, and inferentially, that there was nothing known to the counselors about [the plaintiffs] relationship with [his daughter] that would make such a warning unreasonable.
Id. at 451 (emphasis added).
Although the majority maintains that the relationship between Corregedore and Per-reira more closely resembles that between a psychiatrist and a patient or between a pastoral counselor and a counselee, I believe that the relationship is much more analogous to that between the high school counselor and student in Eisel. In Eisel and the present case, the counselors, by virtue of their job descriptions, were officially charged by their employers—the government—with quite specific remedial responsibilities, including ascertaining their clients’ problems and needs and taking steps to address them.
The majority correctly notes that the Maryland Court of Appeals’ opinion in Eisel was influenced by the enactment of that state’s Youth Suicide Prevention School Programs Act and by the fact that the decedent was an adolescent. But these were only two among many factors considered. The Eisel court clearly stated that
Foreseeability is the most important variable in the duty calculus. ... Here, [the decedent’s] suicide was foreseeable because the defendants allegedly had direct evidence of [the decedent’s] intent to commit suicide. That notice to the defendants distinguishes this case from Bogust, [supra,] where the counselor had no notice of contemplated suicide.
The degree of certainty that ... [the decedent] suffered the harm foreseen is one hundred percent.
Id. at 452-53 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Eisel court also considered the “[b]urden on the defendant,” observing that
It may be that the risk of any particular suicide is remote if statistically quantified in relation to all of the reports of suicidal talk that are received by school counselors. We do not know. But the consequence of the risk is so great that even a relatively remote possibility of a suicide may be enough to establish [a] duty. We pointed out in Jacques v. First Nat’l Bank, 307 Md. 527, 537, 515 A.2d 756, 761 (1986), that “[a]s the magnitude of risk increases, the requirement of privity is relaxed—thus justifying the imposition of a duty in favor of a large class of persons where the risk is of death or personal injury.” ...
Moreover, when the risk of death to a child is balanced against the burden sought to be imposed on the counselors, the scales tip overwhelmingly in favor of [a] duty. Certainly the physical component of the burden on counselors was slight. Eisel claims only that a telephone call, communicating information known to the counselors, would have discharged that duty here. We agree.
Id. at 455 (some brackets in original and some added).
The duty that the Eisel court imposed on the school counselor is simultaneously more and less exacting than I would impose on Corregedore, as a Veterans Services Counselor, in the present case. I am not advocating the imposition of a duty where there is merely a “relatively remote possibility of a suicide.” Only where there is a clear and unambiguous expression of a suicidal intent and a stated plan for consummating it would I impose a duty on a Veterans Services Counselor to take definitive action. On the other hand, I believe that whether “only ... a telephone call[ ] communicating information known to the counselor[] would have discharged” Corregedore’s duty in the present case constitutes a genuine issue of material fact—going to the reasonableness, i.e., sufficiency, of Corregedore’s action—for the trier of fact to decide. Although the standard of care that I would impose may not be completely coextensive with that articulated in Eisel, the analysis of the Eisel court remains sound and compelling.
Moreover, the fact that the school counsel- or in Eisel boasted an advanced degree in guidance and counseling and had some, albeit limited, training in suicide prevention, Eisel, 597 A.2d at 452, is immaterial to my “duty” analysis in the present case because Correge-*186dore could—and did—readily and reasonably “foresee,” without formal academic training, that Perreira intended to commit suicide. I believe that Eisel strongly supports the recognition of a duty on Corregedore’s part to employ reasonable means to seek to prevent Perreira’s intended suicide—of which he was actually aware. Accord Hoeffner v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361, 429 S.E.2d 190, 194 (1993) (“[A] professional’s duty to prevent suicide requires the exercise of that degree of skill and care necessary to prevent a patient’s suicide that is ordinarily employed by members of the profession under similar conditions and circumstances.”).
In Brooks, the parents of a child who committed suicide filed a wrongful death action against their son’s teacher and the school district. 903 P.2d at 75-76. The parents alleged that their son, Jeff, had made journal entries as part of an exercise assigned by the teacher, which “allude[d] to death or .depression”—although the entries contained “no definite statement that he was contemplating suicide”—and that the teacher had read the entries prior to Jeffs suicide; the defendants disputed the latter allegation. Id. at 75. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, (2) the defendants owed no duty to Jeff, and (3) the school district was statutorily immune from liability. Reversing the trial court’s order, the Idaho Supreme Court noted that
[ujnder the District’s rationale, [the teacher] would have a duty to prevent Jeffs suicide if it occurred on the school grounds. Conversely, if he had stepped one foot off the school grounds and committed suicide, no duty would arise. We do not believe this arbitrary line can be drawn. For the purposes of this motion[,] we must assume that the negligence occurred, if at all, while Jeff was attending school and [the teacher] failed to seek help. The result of the alleged negligence is the only element that did not take place on the school grounds....
Accordingly, we find that there is a duty which arises between a teacher or school district and a student. This duty has previously been recognized by this Court as simply a duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising students while they are attending school.
Id. at 79.
The majority asserts that Eisel and Brooks are inapposite to the present matter because Perreira “had the freedom as an adult to enter or leave the Veterans Administration Clinic and the Office of Veterans’ Services [and to] aecept[] or refus[e] medical treatment as he pleasedf.]” Majority opinion at 171, 925 P.2d at 341. As in Brooks, however, “the result of [Corregedore’s] alleged negligence is the only element that did not take place on the [clinic] grounds.” Brooks, 903 P.2d at 79. And, analogously to Eisel, “a telephone call, communicating information known to the counselors,” may or may not have discharged Corregedore’s duty to Perreira. Eisel, 597 A.2d at 455.
As a final matter, I note that the majority quotes Eisel, which itself cited Farwell v. Un, 902 F.2d 282 (4th Cir.1990), for the proposition that “liability against therapists for outpatient suicides is rarely imposed, ... and some commentators have suggested that liability under these circumstances should never be imposed.” Majority opinion at 162, 925 P.2d at 332. In Farwell, the surviving spouse and children of a patient who committed suicide brought wrongful death and survival actions against the decedent’s physician and psychiatrist. Farwell, 902 F.2d at 283. One of the theories advanced by the plaintiffs was that “both defendants, knowing of [the decedent’s attempted suicide], were then negligent in not either involuntarily committing the decedent or at least taking steps to ensure that he would voluntarily commit in time to prevent his suicide[.]” Id. at 287. The Farwell court held that, under Delaware and Maryland law, a physician who is aware of the suicidal tendencies of a patient has a duty to “inquir[e] after a competent patient’s expression of willingness to commit voluntarily[.]” Id. at 289. Farwell thus recognized a treating physician’s or psychiatrist’s duty to take reasonable action to avert the suicide of an outpatient, a duty which it characterized as a “modest and realistic one.” *187Id. at 289. The recognition of the duty that I urge is equally realistic, but even more modest.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and on the record before us, I would hold that Corregedore owed his client, Perreira, a duty to employ reasonable means to seek to prevent the latter’s intended suicide, of which Correge-dore was on actual notice. I would hold further that it is for the trier of fact to determine whether Corregedore discharged that duty,8 there being a genuine issue of material fact in that regard. See HRCP 56(c). I would, therefore, reverse the circuit court’s order granting summary judgement and remand the case for a trial on the merits.

. In this connection, I submit that the majority's holding in this case is utterly irreconcilable with the key holding in this court’s recent decision in Touchette v. Ganal, 82 Hawai'i 293, 922 P.2d 347 (1996). In Touchette, one of the codefendants, Orlando Ganal (Ganal), intentionally set fire to two residents, resulting in the deaths of several of the plaintiffs (whose claims were asserted by the coplaintiff special administratrix) and catastrophic injury to the coplaintiff, Wendy Tou-chette, suing in her individual capacity. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged, inter alia, that (1) another codefendant, Ganal’s wife, Mabel, “had the opportunity and ability to warn [the plaintiffs] of [Ganal's] severe and extreme emotional and mental distress and depression, and/or instability and/or propensity and/or tendency to cause injury, even death, but, nevertheless, negligently failed to do so,” and that (2) “[e]ven though [Mabel] knew or should have known that [Ganal] was in need of supervision for the protection of others, [Mabel], nevertheless, failed to exercise reasonable care and/or to take other appropriate actions to prevent the injury and death to the [plaintiffs]." Touchette, at 295, 922 P.2d at 349. The circuit court granted Mabel’s motion to dismiss, ruling that “pursuant to § 315 Restatement of Torts (Second) and [Hawai'i] case law[,] [Mabel] had no duty to control the conduct of [Ga-nal][,] as no required 'special relationship’ was *175alleged or shown at hearing.” Id. at 293, 922 P-.2d at 351 (some brackets in original and some added).
On appeal, we vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the matter for further proceedings, id. at 294, 304, 922 P.2d at 348, 358, pursuant to the following rationale:
Sections 314A through 325 address special applications of the general principle set forth in section 314. Comment a to section 314 provides:
The general rule stated in this Section should be read together with other sections which follow. Special relations may exist between the actor and the other, as stated in § 314A, which impose upon the actor the duty to take affirmative precautions for the aid or protection of the other.... The actor’s prior conduct, whether tortious or innocent, may have created a situation of peril to the other, as a result of which the actor is under a duty to act to prevent harm.... The actor may have committed himself [or herself] to the performance of an undertaking, gratuitously or under contract, and so may have assumed a duty of reasonable care for the protection of the other, or even a third person....
[[Image here]]
Section 314A contains a caveat stating that "[t]he Institute expresses no opinion as to whether there may not be other relations which impose a similar dutyL]” and this court has also recognized that the fist of relationships delineated in section 314A is not exclusive or exhaustive. Moreover, comment (b) to section 314A provides:
... The duties stated in this Section arise out of special relations between the parties, which create a special responsibility, and take the case out of the general rule. The relations listed are not intended to be exclusive, and are not necessarily the only ones in which a duly of affirmative action for the aid or protection of another may be found.... The law appears ... to be working slowly toward a recognition of the duty to aid or protect in any relation of dependence....
[[Image here]]
We ... expressly recognize the duly set out in Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 302, 302A and 302B. We therefore hold that: (1) a negligent act or omission may be one which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through either (a) the continuous operation of a force started or continued by the act or omission, or (b) the foreseeable action of the other, a third person, an animal or a force of nature; (2) an act or omission may also be negligent if the actor realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the negligent or reckless conduct of the other or a third person; and (3J an act or an omission also may be negligent if the actor realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the conduct of the other or a third person which is intended to cause harm, even though such conduct is criminal.
Id. at 298-99, 303, 922 P.2d at 352-53, 357 (citations omitted) (brackets in original) (emphases added).
° The majority's retreat from this court’s expansive “duly" analysis in Touchette is baffling, unjustified, and cruel to the plaintiffs in this case, and its attempt to argue the irrelevance of Tou-chette to the present appeal, see majority opinion at 160-162, 925 P.2d at 330-332, fails completely to persuade me to the contrary. My so-called "gratuitous citation" of Touchette does not "reflect ] a fundamental misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our analysis and holdings in that case.” Majority opinion at 161, 925 P.2d at 331. That Touchette is factually distinguishable from the present case is obvious from my recitation supra in this footnote, speaks for itself, and is beside the point. As the majority itself recognizes, however, " '[a] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that no relief can be granted under any set of facts that can be proved in support of its allegations[.]’ ” Majority opinion at 162, 925 P.2d at 332 (quoting Touchette, at 303, 922 P.2d at 357 (citations omitted)) (some brackets in original and some added). Although the majority’s holding that "Corregedore did not have a duty to prevent Perreira’s suicide,” majority opinion at 172, 925 P.2d at 342, distorts the nature of the duty the acknowledgment of which the plaintiff urge in this case, see infra, its clear implication is that—in the majority's view—the plaintiffs’ claims for relief, "beyond doubt,” cannot be granted under any set of facts that can be proved in support thereof. It is in this respect that Touchette is directly relevant.
The majority claims that "our holding in Tou-chette was premised” on "the common law distinction between ‘nonfeasance’ and ‘misfeasance.’ ” Majority opinion at 162, 925 P.2d at 332. "[NJonfeasance implies the failure to act where a duty to act existed.” A Dictionary of Modem Legal Usage 595 (2d ed. 1995) (emphasis in original). “[MJisfeasance refers to an otherwise lawful act performed in a wrongful manner.” Id. at 544 (emphasis in original). If Tou-chette was premised on this distinction, then I am at a loss to explain why Touchette expressly held, inter alia, that liability—based on the breach of a duty owed by an "actor” (i.e., a defendant) to "anolher”—may arise out of “a negligent ... omission ... involv[ing] an unreasonable risk of harm to another through ... the foreseeable action of the other,” under circumstances where the actor's “omission ... involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the conduct of the other ... which is intended to cause harm[J” Touchette, at 303, 922 P.2d at 357 (emphases added). Even though the quoted holding may not have been necessary to the resolution of the dispute before it, the fact remains that the Touchette court held what it held.

. Hawaii case law indicates that the underlying rationale for the custody exception is closely linked to foreseeability. The majority quotes Seibel v. City and County of Honolulu, 61 Haw. 253, 260, 602 P.2d 532, 537-38 (1979), inter alia, for the proposition that
[t]he basis for imposing a duty on the parent, master or institutional custodian to control the *177conduct of a child, servant or ward is that, because of the relationship between the parties, the parent, master or institutional custodian is able or should be able to foresee the risk created by the other and can or should be able to take precautions against that risk.
Majority opinion at 9 (majority’s emphasis omitted and additional emphasis added).

. The majority consistently refers to a “duty to prevent suicide," as if that were the duty that the plaintiffs are seeking to impose upon the defendants in this case. In this respect, the majority is setting up a "straw person.” Actually, the plaintiffs assert only that Corregedore owed Ferreira a duty to take reasonable action to prevent his suicide.

. I do not suggest that Corregedore’s duty is statutorily imposed. In this regard, I express no opinion regarding the majority's analysis appearing in section III.B. of its opinion. .

. The Natty court further stated that "[g]enerally, there is a real question about the closeness of the causal connection between a nontherapist counselor’s failure to refer to professional help and the suicide of a particular suicidal person. By their very definition, nontherapist counselors are not professional medical experts on suicide. Their activities are undertaken pursuant to doctrines explicitly left unregulated by the state.” 253 Cal.Rptr. at 108 n. 7, 763 P.2d at 958-59 n. 7.

. Perreira was under the care of a psychiatrist and a social worker at a Veterans Administration clinic on Kaua’i. See majority opinion at 156, 925 P.2d at 326.

. The majority correctly notes, at 170-171, 925 P.2d at 340-341 of its opinion, that the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) incorporate such confidences into "privileges.” See, e.g., HRE 504.1(b) (1993) ("Psychologist-client privilege”), 505.5(b) (1993) ("Victim-counselor privilege”), and 506(b) (1993) (privilege relating to "Communications to clergy”). The majority neglects, however, to place these privileges in their appropriate evi-dentiary context. " 'Privilege' is the concept whereby a witness is allowed to refuse to testify to a particular matter, transaction[,] or communication, because public policy renders it desirable that [its] confidential nature be preserved." A. Bowman, Hawai'i Rules of Evidence Manual § 501-1, at 146 (1990) (quoting Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 22-80, in 1980 Senate Journal, at 1032) (emphases added) (some brackets in original and some added). Evidentiary privileges are therefore irrelevant to our analysis because they pertain only to disclosures of confidential information within a judicial setting.

. The parameters of the duty would necessarily be shaped by the factual record adduced at trial. In this regard, the task of the trier of fact would be to determine what constitutes "reasonable means" in light of, inter alia, Corregedore’s job description, background, and training.