Gould v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
543 N.W.2d 282 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who is institutionalized with a mental disability and lacks the capacity to control or appreciate their conduct cannot be held liable for injuries caused to a caretaker who is employed for financial compensation to care for them.
Facts:
- Roland Monicken was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, which caused him to exhibit bizarre and irrational behavior.
- Due to his deteriorating condition, Monicken's family admitted him to the St. Croix Health Care Center, a secured facility.
- Sheri Gould was the head nurse of the center's dementia unit and served as one of Monicken's caretakers.
- Gould was aware that Monicken's condition made him often disoriented, resistant to care, and occasionally combative.
- While Gould was attempting to redirect Monicken to his room by touching his elbow, Monicken knocked her to the floor.
- Gould sustained personal injuries as a result of being knocked down by Monicken.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheri and Scott Gould sued Roland Monicken and his insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, in the Circuit Court of St. Croix County (the trial court).
- American Family filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Monicken was incapable of negligence as a matter of law, which the trial court denied.
- At trial, the court rejected American Family's proposed jury instruction regarding Monicken's mental capacity and instead instructed the jury to apply the objective reasonable person standard without considering his mental illness.
- The jury found Monicken 100% negligent, and a judgment of liability was entered against American Family.
- American Family, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a factual determination of Monicken's mental capacity.
- Both the Goulds and American Family petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for review.
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 general rule holding a mentally disabled person liable for negligence apply to an institutionalized individual with a mental disability who injures a paid caretaker employed to manage their condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Ann Walsh Bradley, J.
No. A person institutionalized with a mental disability, who does not have the capacity to control or appreciate their conduct, cannot be liable for injuries caused to caretakers employed for financial compensation. The court reasoned that the public policy justifications for the general rule holding mentally disabled persons liable for their torts are not applicable in this specific situation. First, the caretaker is not an 'innocent' party in the same way a member of the public is, as they are employed specifically to care for the patient and are aware of the risks involved, making it analogous to the 'firefighter's rule.' Second, liability is not needed as an inducement for the patient's relatives to restrain them, as institutionalization is the ultimate form of restraint. Third, the concern of a defendant feigning a mental disability to avoid liability is not present when the person has a long-term, diagnosed condition like Alzheimer's and is institutionalized. Therefore, applying the general rule would place an unreasonable burden on the institutionalized tortfeasor.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant, policy-based exception to the well-established common law rule that a person's mental disability is not a defense to negligence. It effectively treats injuries to professional caretakers by their institutionalized patients as an occupational hazard, shifting the financial risk away from the patient. This case distinguishes between injuries to the general public and those to trained professionals who have assumed a duty of care, suggesting that liability rules can be tailored to the relationship between the parties. Future cases may explore the boundaries of this exception, such as whether it applies to in-home caretakers or less restrictive institutional settings.
Unlock the full brief for Gould v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.