Dinsmoor v. City of Phx.

251 Ariz. 370

492 P.3d 313

Diannah DINSMOOR, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.CITY OF PHOENIX, A Municipal Corporation; Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 of Maricopa County, A Political Subdivision Of The State Of Arizona; Lynn Miller And Jane Doe Miller, Husband And Wife; Kimberly Heinz And John Doe Heinz, Husband And Wife; Kenneth Palmer And Jane Doe Palmer, Husband And Wife, Defendants/Appellees.

No. CV-20-0214-PR

Supreme Court of Arizona.

August 6, 2021

Bradley R. Jardine (argued), Michael Warzysnki, Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97, Lynn Miller, and Kimberly Heinz

David L. Abney (argued), Ahwatukee Legal Office, P.C., Phoenix; Ryan Skiver, The Skiver Law Firm, Scottsdale, Attorneys for Diannah Dinsmoor

Lynne C. Adams, Eric M. Fraser, Hayleigh S. Crawford, Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Arizona Charter Schools Association, Arizona School Boards Association, and Arizona School Risk Retention Trust

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER authored the opinion of the Court, in which JUSTICES BOLICK, LOPEZ, BEENE, MONTGOMERY, and PELANDER (RETIRED)^* joined.^**

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, opinion of the Court:

¶1 Matthew and Ana were sophomores at Sandra Day O'Connor High School in the Deer Valley Unified School District when they began dating. After the two became entangled in a dispute at school involving Matthew's ex-girlfriend, Ana agreed to meet Matthew after school at a friend's home to talk matters over. While there, Matthew shot and killed Ana and then killed himself. School personnel knew that Ana planned to meet Matthew that day. They also knew that Matthew had been violent with his ex-girlfriend and had possibly threatened her the previous day. Regardless, they did not take any action to protect Ana. The issue before us is whether the school owed Ana a duty of care. We hold it did not owe her a duty under the circumstances here.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Matthew and Ana were in a dating relationship before breaking up during the fall of 2013. Matthew then began dating Raven. During their relationship, Matthew told Raven that Ana had been making derogatory remarks about her. Raven broke up with Matthew in January 2014.

¶3 Soon after their break-up, Matthew taunted Raven at school, and she responded by slapping his face. Matthew retaliated by shoving her to the ground and shaking her. Consequently, the school suspended Raven for five days and suspended Matthew for three days. Matthew did not have any other disciplinary incidents while attending the school.

¶4 Matthew and Ana started dating again, and Matthew told her that Raven had been making derogatory comments about her. On March 5, Ana heard that Raven wanted to hire someone to beat up the couple. Ana approached Raven during lunch at school, and in the ensuing conversation Raven denied harboring ill feelings toward Ana or intending to hurt her. The girls compared notes and concluded that Matthew had been attempting to play them against each other so they would fight over him. According to Raven, Ana was livid and immediately walked over to Matthew, who had been watching, and yelled at him.

¶5 The next day, March 6, Matthew texted Ana, "We'll take care [sic] it when she's walking home from the bus," and "I'll see to it that this stops." Alarmed, Ana warned Raven in a school bathroom that Matthew planned to hurt her. According to Raven, Ana also said Matthew had texted, "I've got a gun. I know where she lives." (Raven never saw the texts, and they did not, in fact, refer to a gun or Raven's home.)

¶6 Raven was understandably distressed and reported Ana's warning to school authorities. Vice principal Kimberly Heinz investigated by speaking separately with Raven and Ana and then reviewing the text messages. Because Matthew was not at school that day, Heinz did not speak with him but planned to do so the next morning. Heinz thought the texts were "very vague," but both Ana and Raven stated Matthew might be planning to hit or hurt Raven because he had done so previously. Heinz also learned that Raven had dated Matthew, Ana was currently dating him, and the girls had just discovered he was pitting them against each other. Ana expressed worry only for Raven, not herself.

¶7 Considering Ana and Raven's concern, Heinz asked for input from school safety officer Kenneth Palmer, an off-duty City of Phoenix Police Officer. Ana told Palmer she thought Matthew was "crazy," but she did not feel personally threatened by him. Raven repeated her belief that Matthew would harm her. Palmer concluded the texts were not threatening.

¶8 Heinz implemented a safety plan for Raven, which included informing Raven's mother of the situation, switching Raven from her classes with Matthew, having a security monitor walk her to the bus, and verifying that someone would pick up Raven from her bus stop. Heinz also informed principal Lynn Miller about the possible threat towards Raven and the plan to protect her. Believing the only potential threat was aimed at Raven, Heinz did not implement a safety plan for Ana.

¶9 March 7 was an early-release day. Heinz checked attendance and discovered Matthew was not on campus, so she could not speak with him as planned. Nonetheless, several students reported rumors to Palmer that Matthew was on campus with a gun. Palmer investigated but concluded the rumors were false. Matthew was absent from all his classes, and Palmer could not locate anyone who had seen Matthew that day. A security monitor searched the hallways and restrooms but could not find Matthew. And immediately before school recessed, Matthew's mother informed Palmer that Matthew had stayed home that day.

¶10 That same morning, Ana told Heinz that Matthew wanted to meet with her after school. Ana said Matthew did not pose any threat to her, and Heinz urged her to "make good choices." Ana also told Palmer she was going to a friend's house after school to see Matthew. Palmer warned her it "was not a good idea" but took no action. Ana went to her friend's house, where Matthew shot and killed her and then himself.

¶11 Ana's mother, Diannah Dinsmoor, sued Heinz, Palmer, Miller, the Deer Valley Unified School District, and the City of Phoenix, alleging negligence-based claims. The trial court entered summary judgment for all defendants, reasoning they did not owe a duty to protect Ana under the circumstances. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for the City but reversed as to the remaining defendants. Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix , 249 Ariz. 192, 201 ¶ 40, 468 P.3d 745, 754 (App. 2020). The court concluded that the District and its agents "owed Ana a duty based on the special relationship between a school and its students." Id. at 197 ¶ 23, 468 P.3d at 750. Because an issue of material fact existed whether Palmer was acting as an agent of the District, the court determined he was also not entitled to summary judgment. Id. at 201 ¶ 39, 468 P.3d at 754.

¶12 The District, Heinz, and Miller (collectively, "the District") petitioned for review. Palmer did not. We granted review to clarify the duty owed by schools to their students, a recurring issue of statewide importance.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of review

¶13 We review the entry of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Glazer v. State , 237 Ariz. 160, 167 ¶¶ 28–29, 347 P.3d 1141, 1148 (2015). Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

II. The school-student duty

A. General principles

¶14 To prevail on her claims, Dinsmoor must establish that the District owed a duty to Ana to conform to a particular standard of conduct to protect her against unreasonable risks of harm. See Gipson v. Kasey , 214 Ariz. 141, 143 ¶¶ 9–10, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007). Duties are based on "special relationships" or on relationships formed by public policy. See Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc. , 243 Ariz. 560, 565 ¶ 14, 416 P.3d 824, 829 (2018). Special relationships include those recognized at common law and those formed by contracts, joint undertakings, and family relationships. See id. ; Stanley v. McCarver , 208 Ariz. 219, 221 ¶ 7, 92 P.3d 849, 851 (2004). "The special relationship imposes a duty to avoid harm from ‘risks created by the individual at risk as well as those created by a third party's conduct.’ " Nunez v. Prof'l Transit Mgmt. of Tucson, Inc. , 229 Ariz. 117, 121 ¶ 17, 271 P.3d 1104, 1108 (2012) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 40 cmt. g (Am. Law Inst. Proposed Final Draft No. 1 2007)). Whether a duty exists is a legal issue we determine de novo. See Quiroz , 243 Ariz. at 564 ¶ 7, 416 P.3d at 828.

¶15 The parties here agree that any duty owed by the District to Ana is grounded on the common law special relationship between a primary or secondary school and its students.¹ See Jesik v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. , 125 Ariz. 543, 546, 611 P.2d 547, 550 (1980) (recognizing this duty). People do not generally have a duty to protect others from harm. See Quiroz , 243 Ariz. at 573–74 ¶¶ 62–63, 416 P.3d at 837–38 ; Lips v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp. , 224 Ariz. 266, 269 ¶ 14, 229 P.3d 1008, 1011 (2010). Nevertheless, the school-student relationship imposes an affirmative duty on schools to protect students from unreasonable risks of harm. See Hill v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. , 191 Ariz. 110, 112, 952 P.2d 754, 756 (App. 1997) (acknowledging that schools have a statutory and common law duty "not to subject students within their charge" to "unreasonable risk[s] of harm through acts, omissions, or school policy"); see also Jesik , 125 Ariz. at 546, 611 P.2d at 550 (noting that a college has duties to make its premises reasonably safe and to protect students from torts). The duty imposed recognizes that the school "is a custodian of students, it is a land possessor who opens the...