Derby v. Columbia County

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Tort Law
  • Date Filed: 11-27-2024
  • Case #: A180307
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, P.J., for the court; Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Where no special relationship exists and where there is foreseeability, a recovery for a claim of negligence or negligent infliction of emotional distress is possible.

This case occurred after Derby, a man with schizophrenia, attacked his mother with a knife after being released from jail in Columbia County. This case was brought by Derby’s parents who alleged that negligent and inadequate mental health training for jail staff exacerbated and incited Derby’s schizophrenic episode that resulted in the stabbing of his mother. His father brought a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the county because he witnessed the stabbing. The trial court found for the Derby family. 

On appeal Columbia County argued 1) that a special relationship was required to establish liability, 2) that there was insufficient evidence that its training was negligent or caused the harm, and 3)(a) the county has no liability without a special relationship to Derby’s father; and (b) bystander liability does not apply because Derby’s father did not witness the jail’s negligence, only his son’s attack.

The Court of Appeals found on the first issue, a special relationship was not required and that liability could be found on foreseeability alone because the harm to the Derby family was a foreseeable result of Derby’s worsened schizophrenia. The court also found on the second issue, there was evidence that supported the trial jury’s finding that the jail staff’s mental health training was negligent and inadequate. This is because a court will generally not disturb a jury verdict unless there is no evidence from which a jury could have concluded what they did. Here, there was expert testimony and information about how the county trained staff on mental health. The third issue was also decided for the plaintiffs, with the court determining that Derby’s father did meet the bystander recovery requirements when he saw his wife attacked because it was not necessary for him to witness the actual negligence within the jail. 

AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top