Creasy v. Rusk

Supreme Court of Indiana · 2000 · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyMental disabilitynegligencedutymental disabilityAlzheimer's disease

Facts

Lloyd Rusk was a nursing home resident with Alzheimer's disease who had a history of agitation, aggression, and striking staff when they tried to care for him. Carol Creasy was a certified nursing assistant employed by the nursing home and was responsible for caring for Rusk and other Alzheimer's patients; she knew Rusk had Alzheimer's and knew he had been very agitated and combative that evening. While Creasy and another assistant were trying to put Rusk to bed, he was hitting and kicking wildly, and he kicked Creasy several times, allegedly injuring her knee, hip, and lower back. Rusk had been institutionalized because of confusion and memory loss, and the evidence showed he was in an advanced stage of Alzheimer's and unable to control or appreciate the consequences of his actions.

Issue

First, whether Indiana should hold adults with mental disabilities to the same general duty of care as adults without mental disabilities. Second, whether under the relationship between this Alzheimer's patient and his paid caregiver, and in light of public policy, Rusk owed Creasy a duty of care at all.

Rule

A person with mental disabilities is generally held to the same standard of care as a reasonable person under the same circumstances, without regard to the person's capacity to control or understand the consequences of his or her actions. However, duty may be absent when the factual circumstances, especially the relationship between the parties and public policy considerations under the Webb v. Jarvis framework, negate the reasons for imposing that duty; in particular, no duty runs from an institutionalized Alzheimer's patient who cannot control or appreciate his conduct to a paid caregiver employed to confront those very risks.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nina Patel was shopping in a grocery store when Owen Mercer, an adult customer with severe schizophrenia, abruptly pushed a heavily loaded cart into her after becoming confused in the checkout line. Evidence shows Owen could not appreciate the consequences of his conduct at the time.

If Nina sues Owen for negligence, which standard should the court apply to Owen's conduct?

Explanation. The majority adopted the general rule that adults with mental disabilities are ordinarily held to the same reasonable-person standard as other adults, without regard to their capacity to control or understand the consequences of their actions. The special no-duty holding is limited to particular factual circumstances, especially the paid-caregiver setting; it does not alter the baseline standard for claims by ordinary members of the public.