Gipson v. Kasey
214 Ariz. 141, 150 P.3d 228, 496 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 41 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person owes a duty of care when they improperly furnish their prescription drugs to another person. This duty is based on public policy as expressed in statutes that criminalize the unauthorized distribution of prescription medication.
Facts:
- Larry Kasey was prescribed pain pills containing oxycodone for back pain.
- Kasey attended a holiday party with his co-worker, Nathan Followill, and Followill's girlfriend, Sandy Watters.
- At the party, Watters asked Kasey for one of his pain pills.
- Kasey gave Watters eight oxycodone pills of two different strengths, but did not identify them or warn her of the dangers of mixing them with alcohol, which he knew.
- Kasey knew Watters was dating Followill and knew Followill was interested in taking prescription drugs recreationally, having previously refused to give Followill pills because he thought Followill was 'too stupid and immature'.
- Shortly after receiving the pills, Watters told Followill she had them, and Followill took the pills from her.
- Followill, who had also been drinking alcohol, became increasingly intoxicated and left the party with Watters.
- The next morning, Watters found that Followill had died in his sleep from the combined toxicity of alcohol and oxycodone.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Gipson, Followill's mother, filed a wrongful death action against Larry Kasey in the superior court, which is the trial court.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Kasey, ruling that he owed Followill no duty of care.
- Gipson, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The court of appeals reversed the superior court, holding that Kasey did owe a duty of care to Followill and that the case should proceed.
- Kasey, as the appellant, appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which is the state's highest court, and it granted review limited to the issue of duty.
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 a person who provides their prescription drugs to another individual owe a duty of care to a third party who is subsequently harmed by consuming those drugs?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bales
Yes, a person who improperly furnishes their prescription drugs to another owes a duty of care to those who may be harmed as a result. The court's reasoning has three main parts. First, the court expressly held that foreseeability is not a factor to be considered by courts when determining the existence of a legal duty; foreseeability is a factual question for the jury regarding breach and causation. Second, the court rejected a fact-specific analysis of the relationship between the parties as a basis for duty, as duty is a legal question of general application, not a factual one. Finally, the court found that the duty of care arises from public policy, as evidenced by Arizona statutes that criminalize the distribution of prescription drugs to unauthorized persons. These statutes are designed to protect the class of persons to which Followill belonged against the type of harm that occurred, and thus they establish a tort duty. This situation is distinguished from social host immunity for providing alcohol because there is no statutory exemption for providing prescription drugs and no social benefit to such conduct.
Concurring - Justice Hurwitz
Yes, Kasey owed a duty of care, and the majority's conclusion is correct. However, the analysis would be simpler and clearer under the framework of the proposed Restatement (Third) of Torts. This approach presumes that every person has a general duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing physical harm to others. A court should only depart from this general duty and create a 'no-duty' rule in exceptional cases where a clear public policy justifies it, such as the social host immunity rule. In this case, there is no public policy reason to create an exception for individuals who illegally distribute dangerous prescription drugs, so the general duty of care applies.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Arizona's negligence law by removing foreseeability from the judicial determination of duty and reassigning it to the jury's factual inquiry into breach and proximate cause. It firmly establishes that a tort duty can be derived from public policy expressed in criminal statutes, even where those statutes are silent on civil liability. The ruling creates a clear basis for civil liability for individuals who illegally provide prescription drugs to others, holding them accountable for downstream harm and potentially influencing similar cases involving the transfer of regulated or dangerous items.
