Rivers v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 8 N.Y.3d 682 (2007)

A social services agency is not liable for injuries to a foster parent caused by the unforeseeable violent act of a biological parent during a supervised visit when there was no prior history of violence or threats.

Summary

This case addresses the scope of a social services agency’s duty of care to a foster parent injured by the biological parent of a foster child during a supervised visit. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the agency was not liable because the violent act was unforeseeable. The court emphasized that the biological mother had no prior history of violence or threats, and the suddenness of the attack precluded any reasonable opportunity for intervention by the agency’s staff. This decision limits the liability of social services agencies in similar situations where violent acts are not reasonably anticipated.

Facts

The plaintiff, a foster parent, was stabbed by the biological mother of her foster child. The stabbing occurred as the foster parent was leaving the premises of the defendant, Little Flower Children’s Service, after a supervised visit between the child and her biological mother. The biological mother had a history of mental illness but no history of violence or threats towards agency staff or the foster parent.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the Little Flower Children’s Service and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that triable issues of fact existed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Issue(s)

Whether a social services agency can be held liable for injuries sustained by a foster parent due to an unforeseeable violent act by the biological parent of a foster child during a supervised visit, when the biological parent had no prior history of violence or threats.

Holding

No, because the agency had no reason to anticipate a violent outburst or any opportunity to intervene, entitling them to summary judgment.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that even assuming the agency owed the foster parent a duty of care, the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that raised a question of fact regarding breach of that duty or causation. The court emphasized the absence of any prior history of violence or threats by the biological mother. The court noted, “Although the biological mother had a history of mental illness, she had no history of violence, nor had she threatened agency staff or the foster parent in the past. The agency therefore had no reason to anticipate a violent outburst or to take steps to prevent contact between the biological mother and the foster parent.” The court also highlighted the suddenness of the attack, which precluded any opportunity for the agency’s security staff to intervene. These factors, combined, led the court to conclude that the agency was entitled to summary judgment. The decision underscores the importance of foreseeability in determining liability for negligence.