Haselhorst v. State

Nebraska Supreme Court
240 Neb. 891, 485 N.W.2d 180, 1992 Neb. LEXIS 195 (1992)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The State may be held liable for negligence when its agents fail to follow established regulations regarding the disclosure of a foster child's history and the investigation of suspicious incidents; furthermore, parents may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress resulting from the abuse of their children without witnessing the injury contemporaneously, provided the injury is severe and the familial connection is intimate.

Facts:

In the fall of 1983, Ronald and Janet Haselhorst were licensed as foster parents with no prior experience.
In February 1984, the Department of Social Services (DSS) placed a 15-year-old boy in the Haselhorst home; unbeknownst to the parents, the boy had a history of violence, including attacking his mother and threatening an unborn child with a knife.
DSS regulations required obtaining medical records and sharing information with foster parents, but DSS failed to obtain the boy's psychiatric records or inform the Haselhorsts of his violent tendencies.
On May 2, 1984, the parents reported a suspicious incident where the foster child was seen with his pants down in a room with their son.
DSS caseworker Puls falsely claimed to have consulted a psychiatrist who deemed the behavior normal, and he convinced the Haselhorsts to keep the child without interviewing the children involved.
In January 1985, a second foster child discovered the boy sexually abusing the Haselhorsts' oldest son.
Subsequent investigation revealed the foster child had been sexually abusing all four Haselhorst children throughout his eleven-month placement.
The entire family suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorders requiring extensive therapy.

Procedural Posture:

The Haselhorsts (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit for damages against the State of Nebraska and the Department of Social Services (defendants) in the state district court under the State Tort Claims Act.
The district court (trial court) conducted a bench trial.
The district court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding specific damages to both the parents and the four children.
The State and its agents appealed the judgment to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Is the State liable for damages where its agents failed to disclose a foster child's violent history and adequately investigate suspicious conduct, and can parents recover for emotional distress without strictly witnessing the abuse?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Grant

Yes, the State is liable for negligence and the parents may recover for emotional distress. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that DSS breached its duty by failing to follow its own intake regulations and failing to properly investigate the May 2 incident. The Court rejected the State's argument that the foster child's criminal acts were an intervening cause, holding that because the child's violent behavior was the specific hazard that made the State's conduct negligent, it was foreseeable. Regarding the parents' damages, the Court applied the James v. Lieb standard, ruling that parents need not be present at the scene of the injury to recover for emotional distress if there is an intimate familial relationship and the victim suffers serious injury. The permanent psychological scarring of the children was deemed sufficient to support the parents' claim.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Caporale

No, the parents should not recover damages, although the judgment for the children is correct. Justice Caporale argued that the parents were contributorily negligent as a matter of law for allowing the foster child to continue interacting with their children after the suspicious incident in May. Furthermore, he dissented regarding the bystander recovery rule, arguing that James v. Lieb requires a direct emotional impact derived from the sensory and contemporaneous perception of the injury. He contended that because the parents learned of the abuse weeks or months after it occurred, rather than witnessing it, they did not meet the legal requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Analysis:

This decision is pivotal in family law and torts as it establishes a high duty of care for state agencies managing foster placements, specifically regarding the duty to disclose dangerous histories to foster parents. It creates a precedent that a government agency cannot hide behind the 'intervening criminal act' defense if the criminal act was the foreseeable result of the agency's failure to follow its own safety protocols. Additionally, the case significantly expands the 'bystander recovery' doctrine for negligent infliction of emotional distress, moving away from a strict requirement of witnessing an accident to a broader standard based on the severity of the injury and the closeness of the family relationship.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Haselhorst v. State (1992)

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