Eisel v. Board of Education

Court of Appeals of Maryland
597 A.2d 447, 324 Md. 376, 17 A.L.R. 5th 957 (1991)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

School counselors have a legal duty to use reasonable means to attempt to prevent a student's suicide, which includes warning the student's parents, when they are on notice of the student's suicidal intent.

Facts:

Nicole Eisel, a 13-year-old middle school student, became involved in Satanism and developed an obsession with death and self-destruction.
Nicole verbally expressed an intention to kill herself to several friends and classmates.
These friends reported Nicole's suicidal statements to their own school counselor, who relayed the information to Nicole's counselor, Dorothy Jones.
Jones and the other counselor questioned Nicole regarding the alleged statements, but Nicole denied making them.
Despite the reports from the other students, the counselors did not notify Nicole's father, Stephen Eisel, or the school administration about the suicidal threats.
Subsequently, on a school holiday, Nicole and another student consummated a murder-suicide pact in a public park.
Nicole was shot and killed by the other student, who then killed herself.

Procedural Posture:

Stephen Eisel filed a wrongful death and survival action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against the Board of Education and specific counselors.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no legal duty to the plaintiff or the decedent.
The Circuit Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that public policy precluded recognizing a duty to intervene to prevent suicide.
Eisel appealed the Circuit Court's judgment.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland issued a writ of certiorari on its own motion to review the case before it was heard by the intermediate Court of Special Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do school counselors owe a legal duty to use reasonable means, such as notifying parents, to prevent a student's suicide when they have been informed of the student's suicidal intent by third parties, even if the student denies making such statements?

Opinions:

Majority - Rodowsky

Yes, school counselors have a duty to use reasonable means to prevent a suicide when on notice of suicidal intent. The court reasoned that foreseeability is the primary factor in establishing duty, and the reports from classmates provided sufficient notice to make the harm foreseeable, despite the student's denial. The court applied a balancing test, weighing the high magnitude of the risk (death) against the minimal burden on the counselors (making a phone call to parents). The court also noted that state statutes regarding youth suicide prevention demonstrate a public policy favoring intervention. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that adolescent suicide is always a superseding cause that insulates third parties from liability, holding that the special relationship between school and pupil justifies imposing a duty to warn.

Concurrence - Murphy

Yes, the entry of summary judgment was erroneous and the case should be remanded. The concurrence agreed with the result based on the specific allegations in the complaint and the evidence in the record. However, the concurring justices expressed concern that the majority opinion provided an overly broad explication of the general principles governing the 'duty' component in negligence actions, going beyond what was strictly necessary to decide the immediate case.

Analysis:

This is a landmark decision in education law and tort liability because it expands the 'special relationship' doctrine to include school counselors in the context of non-custodial suicide prevention. It explicitly rejects the traditional common law view that suicide is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation, at least regarding adolescents in a school setting. The ruling establishes that the duty of confidentiality owed to a student is subordinate to the duty to protect the student's life. Practically, this forces school personnel to err on the side of disclosure to parents when presented with any credible evidence of suicidal ideation, regardless of a student's denials.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Eisel v. Board of Education (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"