Buchler v. Oregon Corrections Div.
853 P.2d 798, 316 Or. 499, 1993 Ore. LEXIS 79 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A custodian of a prisoner is not liable for harm caused by the escaped prisoner unless the custodian knew or should have known the prisoner had dangerous propensities making them likely to cause bodily harm. Merely facilitating an escape does not establish legal causation for a third party's subsequent, intervening intentional criminal acts.
Facts:
- The Oregon Corrections Division placed a convicted felon with a criminal record of property crimes, but no violent crimes, on a work crew in a rural area.
- The state was aware that the prisoner may have had a 'violent temper' in childhood and had a long-standing drug problem, but had no knowledge that he had ever caused bodily harm.
- A work crew supervisor left the ignition keys in a state van at the work site.
- The prisoner escaped custody by stealing the van.
- The state notified the Tillamook County Sheriff and the Oregon State Police of the escape.
- Two days later and 50 miles from the escape site, the prisoner burglarized his mother's residence and stole a gun.
- Using the stolen gun, the prisoner shot Charles Seeling and Beverly Buchler.
- Beverly Buchler died as a result of the gunshot wound.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Seeling and the estate of Beverly Buchler (plaintiffs) filed a negligence lawsuit against the Oregon Corrections Division (defendant) in an Oregon state trial court.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding the harm was not legally foreseeable.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- A majority of the Court of Appeals panel reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a jury could find the harm was a reasonably foreseeable result of the state's negligence.
- The defendant (appellant) sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the state legally responsible for violent crimes committed by an escaped prisoner two days after his escape, when the state's alleged negligence only facilitated the escape, the prisoner had no prior history of violent crimes, and the harm was inflicted with a weapon stolen from a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Fadeley, J.
No. The state is not legally responsible for the violent crimes because the harm was not a legally foreseeable result of the prisoner's escape. The court adopts the rule from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 319, which imposes a duty on a custodian only if they know or should know the person in their charge is 'likely to cause bodily harm.' Here, the prisoner's history of non-violent property crimes, a childhood temper, and drug use were insufficient to make it foreseeable he was 'likely' to commit murder. The court also explicitly overrules the 'facilitation' rationale from Kimbler v. Stillwell, holding that merely creating an opportunity for an escape does not legally cause subsequent, independent criminal acts, especially when the instrument of escape (the van) was not the instrument of harm (a gun stolen two days later). Finally, there was no duty to warn the public or specific individuals, as the state lacked specific knowledge of the particular danger the prisoner posed to the plaintiffs.
Concurring - Peterson, J.
No. Concurring with the result, this opinion argues that the 'Fazzolari trilogy' of cases wrongly diminished the role of the court in determining foreseeability as a matter of law. The concurrence advocates for a return to a standard where judges, not just juries, determine whether a harm was 'reasonably foreseeable.' It asserts that Fazzolari created confusion by suggesting almost any foreseeable harm could create a jury question, and agrees that the 'facilitation' logic of Kimbler was incorrect and should be overruled to restore a more traditional judicial gatekeeping function in negligence cases.
Concurring - Unis, J.
No. Concurring only in the result, this opinion makes four points: 1) The majority is incorrect to overrule Kimbler, a motion-to-dismiss case, in the context of this summary judgment appeal. 2) The negligence test should be based on 'reasonably foreseeable' consequences, a minor clarification to Fazzolari. 3) The main concurrence's criticism of Fazzolari is overstated, as its proposed methodology is nearly identical. 4) The majority and concurring justices are hypocritically ignoring their own precedent on when it is appropriate to overrule prior case law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the scope of liability for harms caused by the intervening criminal acts of third parties in Oregon. By formally adopting Restatement § 319, the court established a clear standard for custodian liability that hinges on specific knowledge of dangerous propensities, not general foreseeability. Most importantly, the court's explicit overruling of Kimbler v. Stillwell and its 'facilitation' rationale marks a retreat from a broader view of causation, strengthening the legal principle that independent criminal acts often sever the chain of causation from an initial act of negligence. The case empowers trial judges to grant summary judgment in cases where the connection between a defendant's negligence and the ultimate harm is attenuated.
