Eiseman v. State
518 N.Y.S.2d 608, 511 N.E.2d 1128, 70 N.Y.2d 175 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The State, when mandatorily releasing an ex-felon and admitting them to a public college program, does not owe a heightened duty of care to individual students to prevent the ex-felon's criminal acts, nor does a prison physician's duty in completing a physical examination form for college admission extend to searching out and disclosing the ex-felon's entire medical history to the college community.
Facts:
- Larry Campbell, then 30 years old, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs in 1972 and received a six-year maximum prison sentence.
- During his incarceration, Campbell was diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, paranoid type, with a high criminal potential and low rehabilitation potential, and had a history of drug abuse and suicide attempts.
- In January 1975, Campbell applied for admission to the SEEK (Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge) program at the State University College at Buffalo, revealing his current incarceration.
- In May 1975, Dr. Fernandez, a prison physician, completed a 'Health Report and Physician’s Certificate' for Campbell's college admission, responding 'No' to whether there was 'any evidence of anxiety or other tension states or emotional instability,' and not disclosing Campbell's full medical history or drug addiction.
- In July 1975, Campbell made an unauthorized trip and attempted suicide, leading to a temporary transfer to Matteawan State Hospital before returning to the general prison population.
- On December 19, 1975, Campbell was conditionally released from prison, as statutorily mandated, and began attending the College in the spring semester of 1976.
- Campbell lived on campus, was placed under 'intensive supervision' by his parole officer, and appeared to be adjusting satisfactorily at the College.
- On June 9, 1976, Campbell murdered fellow student Thomas Tunney, raped and murdered fellow student Rhona Eiseman, and seriously injured nonstudent Michael Schostick at an off-campus apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- Rhona Eiseman’s estate and Michael Schostick commenced suit against the State of New York in the Court of Claims (trial court/court of first instance) alleging negligence.
- The Court of Claims dismissed Schostick’s claim but held the State liable for Eiseman’s death based on theories of prison physician negligence and college negligence.
- The Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the Court of Claims' decision regarding the State's liability for Eiseman’s death.
- This court (New York Court of Appeals, highest court) denied Schostick’s motion for leave to appeal.
- Following a trial to assess damages, this court (New York Court of Appeals) granted the State’s motion for leave to appeal.
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 the State owe a heightened legal duty to individual college students, either through a prison physician's health report or a public college's admission of an ex-felon to a special program, to prevent the ex-felon from committing criminal acts against fellow students, when the ex-felon's release was statutorily mandated and his supervision was non-negligent?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
No, the State did not owe a heightened legal duty to individual college students, either through a prison physician's health report or a public college's admission of an ex-felon to a special program, to prevent the ex-felon from committing criminal acts against fellow students. The court determined that Campbell's release from prison was statutorily mandated, therefore the State could not be found negligent for the release itself. Additionally, the actions of corrections officials and parole supervisors in monitoring Campbell's release were recognized as discretionary functions, insulated from liability, and were found to have been conducted non-negligently with a rational basis, even being described as 'stringent.' Regarding the prison physician’s actions, the court concluded that the health report form requested a report of a physical examination, not a certified medical history or a search of prison records. Thus, the physician did not act wrongfully or mislead the college by not investigating Campbell's full medical past. Even assuming the physician’s response was incomplete, the duty of a physician completing such a report extended to the patient and persons known or reasonably known to be relying on him for the patient’s benefit, not to the entire college community. Imposing a duty to the community at large would lead to limitless liability. Concerning the College, the court found no breach of statutory duty, as the College applied the established statutory criteria for admission to the SEEK program and was not obligated to formulate additional eligibility criteria or undertake a heightened duty of inquiry. The court rejected the imposition of such a duty, reasoning that it would contradict legislative policies promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of former convicts into society and the objectives of the SEEK program. The underlying premise that a released ex-felon presumptively poses a continuing, foreseeable risk to the community is at odds with laws and public policy. The college did not have a duty to restrict Campbell, as doing so would conflict with non-discrimination policies for former inmates, and he was, in fact, diligently monitored with no prior complaints about his campus behavior.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of the State's duty of care in negligence actions, particularly concerning the unpredictable criminal acts of third parties, like conditionally released ex-felons. It establishes that a legal duty is a question for the courts, weighing moral and logical judgments against broader social consequences and the need to limit liability to a controllable degree. The decision protects public institutions, such as colleges and correctional services, from being held to an impossibly high standard of foreseeability and prevention for all potential harms, especially when their actions align with statutory mandates and public policies promoting rehabilitation and reintegration of former inmates. This limits the scope of liability for public entities involved in such programs, potentially encouraging their continued existence without undue risk.
