In
the case of Dickson v. Frein, No.
16-CV-4887 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 1, 2018 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon
of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed issues of parental
liability for their son’s act in gunning down members of the Pennsylvania State
Police (PSP) during a tragic shooting that occurred in Pike County, Pennsylvania on
September 12, 2014.
In
this matter, there are three (3) civil actions arising out of an incident which resulted in the death of a PSP Corporal and serious physical
injuries and emotional harm to two other members of the PSP.
The adult shooter’s parents, who are named
Defendants in these cases, filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of
demurrers seeking to dismiss the negligence claims against them on the grounds
that they did not know any recognized duty to the shooting victims to the
actions of their adult son. The
shooter’s father also filed a demurrer to one Plaintiff’s claim that the
father was vicarious liable for the tortious conduct of his son.
Applying
the demurrer standard, the court denied the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections
in this regard.
Judge
Nealon noted that, in cases involving firearms that are owned or controlled by
parents and located on their property, Pennsylvania law recognizes a parental
duty to exercise reasonable care in controlling or restricting access to those
fire arms by a minor child, or even an adult child who suffers from mental illness or
a cognitive disability, such that the child’s use of a firearm may create an
unreasonable risk of harm to others.
Judge
Nealon also noted that, even in the absence of a special relationship between
the parents and the shooter, the parents have a duty to refrain from committing
an affirmative act that is likely to affect the conduct of the shooter in such
a manner as to pose an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
In
this matter, the Complaints filed contained allegations that the parents knew that the
shooter suffered from mental illness, cognitive disabilities, delusions, and an
inability to distinguish fantasy from reality since the time that the shooter
was a child.
The Plaintiffs also alleged that, rather than seek warranty mental health treatment for their son, the
parents fostered the child’s fantasies by allegedly financing their adult son’s
military simulation hobby, providing him with fire arms training, and
furnishing him with a text on sniper techniques.
The Complaints also contained allegations that the parents
otherwise psychologically manipulated their son’s vulnerable mental health state and
compromised his cognitive condition in other ways, including positions on ending the
misuse of power by police, which allegedly caused the adult son to allegedly
develop a strong antipathy towards the police.
The
Plaintiffs’ Complaints also alleged that the parents knew that the adult son
had been threatening to kill others who had wronged him or others.
Overall,
the Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaints that, despite their knowledge of
their son’s wayward thoughts, the parents failed to contact police or any mental health
professionals regarding their son’s intentions and actions and, to the
contrary, granted him unfettered access to the firearms that the parents owned
or controlled at their residence, including the weapons their son used during
his attack on the Pennsylvania State Police.
Given
that the Defendant’s parents had not established that it was free and clear
from doubt that they owed no duty of care under Pennsylvania law to the
Plaintiffs, the court denied the Preliminary Objections filed by the parent
Defendants.
Judge
Nealon did otherwise dismiss the separate vicarious liability claim against the
father for the criminal conduct of his son as insufficient as a matter of law
due to the absence of the requisite agency relationship between the father and
the shooter.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.