Creasy v. Rusk
730 N.E.2d 659 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While adults with mental disabilities are generally held to the same standard of ordinary care as adults without mental disabilities, a person institutionalized with a mental disability who cannot control or appreciate the consequences of their conduct owes no duty of care to a professional caregiver employed to manage them.
Facts:
- Lloyd Rusk suffered from Alzheimer's disease and was admitted by his wife to the Brethren Healthcare Center (BHC) because she was unable to care for him.
- Over three years at BHC, Rusk exhibited periods of agitation, aggression, and combativeness, and would often hit staff members.
- Carol Creasy was a certified nursing assistant employed by BHC whose responsibilities included caring for Rusk and other Alzheimer's patients.
- Creasy knew Rusk had Alzheimer’s disease and was aware of his history of violent and agitated behavior.
- On May 16, 1995, Creasy knew Rusk was particularly agitated and combative.
- While Creasy and another assistant attempted to put Rusk to bed, he kicked Creasy wildly and repeatedly, causing her to suffer injuries to her knee, hip, and back.
Procedural Posture:
- Carol Creasy filed a negligence lawsuit against Lloyd Rusk in an Indiana trial court.
- Rusk moved for summary judgment, arguing he owed no duty of care to Creasy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Rusk.
- Creasy, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
- Rusk, as petitioner, sought transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an institutionalized patient with a mental disability, who lacks the capacity to control his conduct, owe a duty of care to a professional caregiver to refrain from injuring the caregiver while the caregiver is performing their professional duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. While an adult with a mental disability is generally held to the same standard of care as a reasonable person, this duty of care does not extend from an institutionalized patient to a professional caregiver hired to manage the risks associated with the patient's disability. First, the Court adopts the Restatement rule that adults with mental disabilities are held to the standard of a reasonable person, rejecting Indiana's prior approach of factoring mental capacity into the duty analysis. This general rule is based on public policy considerations, such as allocating loss to the party who caused it and incentivizing restraint. However, the court creates an exception for the specific circumstances of this case, applying a three-factor test for duty: relationship, foreseeability, and public policy. The relationship between Rusk and Creasy was that of a patient and a professional caregiver who was hired specifically to encounter the dangers posed by his condition, making it analogous to the 'fireman's rule' where professionals assume the risks inherent in their jobs. Furthermore, the public policy rationales for the general rule are negated here: Creasy assumed the risk, Rusk's family had already taken steps to restrain him by placing him in the facility, and holding Rusk liable would place an unreasonable burden on an institutionalized person for the very conduct that necessitated their care.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Dickson, J.
Yes. A patient with a mental disability owes a duty of reasonable care to their caregiver, and any assumption of risk by the caregiver should be a matter of comparative fault for a jury, not a complete bar to recovery based on a no-duty finding as a matter of law. While concurring that adults with mental disabilities should be held to a reasonable person standard, the dissent argues that the majority errs by creating an exception based on the caregiver's occupation. This exception relies on an assumption of risk rationale that the court previously rejected in the context of the fireman's rule and Indiana's Comparative Fault Act. The caregiver's superior knowledge of the risk should be relevant to the allocation of fault by a jury, not to the threshold legal question of whether a duty exists. Creating this no-duty rule is unwise social policy that unfairly deprives professional caregivers of the tort remedies available to other victims of negligence.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant exception to the general rule of tort liability for individuals with mental disabilities in Indiana. By adopting the 'no-duty' rule for injuries to professional caregivers, the court effectively imports a form of the primary assumption of risk doctrine, similar to the 'fireman's rule,' into the healthcare context. This holding shifts the financial burden for such injuries away from the patient (or their estate/insurer) and squarely onto the employer's workers' compensation system. The ruling creates a clear, though potentially harsh, line that protects vulnerable, institutionalized patients from negligence suits arising from behavior that is a symptom of the very condition for which they require professional care.
