Nova University, Inc. v. Wagner

Supreme Court of Florida
1986 Fla. LEXIS 2360, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 332, 491 So.2d 1116 (1986)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An institution that takes charge of a person whom it knows or should know is likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled has a duty to exercise reasonable care to control that person to prevent them from causing such harm.

Facts:

Nova University operated the Living and Learning Center, a residential rehabilitation program for children with behavior problems.
The Center accepted Roland Menzies, an ungovernable child, and Dana Williamson, an emotionally disturbed and delinquent child, as residents.
Both boys, while at the Center, frequently ran away and exhibited a propensity toward physical violence, on occasion injuring younger children.
The Center's staff, including Mr. and Mrs. Stevens who supervised the boys' house, allegedly observed the boys' violent propensities.
The Center had a policy that children were not allowed to leave the premises without permission, but it maintained no security measures to enforce this policy.
On February 16, 1975, Roland and Dana ran away from the Center.
The next day, February 17, 1975, the two boys encountered and beat Peter Wagner, 4, and Christy Wagner, 6.
As a result of the beating, Peter Wagner died and Christy Wagner sustained serious permanent injuries.

Procedural Posture:

Josephine Wagner, the victims' mother, filed wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits against Nova University and its employees in a Florida trial court.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that as a matter of law, they owed no duty to the plaintiffs.
Wagner, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the Center stood in loco parentis to its residents, which precluded summary judgment.
The district court then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.

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 child care institution that accepts as residents delinquent, emotionally disturbed, and/or ungovernable children have a duty to exercise reasonable care in its operation to avoid foreseeable harm to the general public?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, a child care institution that accepts such children has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid harm to the general public. This duty arises not from an in loco parentis relationship, but from the traditional tort principle articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 319. That section provides that one who takes charge of a third person known to be likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent such harm. Because the Center is in the business of taking charge of persons likely to harm others, it has an ordinary duty to exercise reasonable care in its operation to avoid foreseeable attacks by its residents upon third persons.

Dissenting - McDonald, C.J.

No, such a duty should not be imposed because it is unrealistic and will discourage private institutions from assisting troubled juveniles due to the high cost of liability risk. The duty of care should only extend to those directly under the institution's supervision, not to the public at large for acts committed while a youth is away from the premises. An institution acting as a parent should have no greater duty than a natural parent, which under Florida law requires knowledge of a child's proclivity to perform a specific act that causes the injury, not a general duty for unforeseen acts.

Dissenting - Overton, J.

No, a child care institution should have the same duty of care as a parent, not a higher one. The majority's decision to impose a higher duty will likely increase the cost and reduce the availability of these socially necessary child care services.

Analysis:

This decision establishes that a special relationship sufficient to create a duty of care to third parties exists when a facility takes charge of individuals known to be potentially dangerous. It significantly broadens the potential liability for rehabilitation centers and similar institutions by grounding this duty in general tort principles (Restatement § 319) rather than the narrower, fact-intensive in loco parentis doctrine. By not limiting liability to the standard for natural parents (who are typically only liable for failing to control a specific, known dangerous habit), the ruling sets a precedent that could increase security requirements, insurance costs, and operational scrutiny for such facilities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Nova University, Inc. v. Wagner (1986)

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

Premium Feature