Schools absolved in suicide case

BOISE – Schools must inform parents of students’ suicidal tendencies only if the students show a present trend toward taking their own lives, the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled.

The narrow interpretation of Idaho’s “duty to warn” law was handed down Monday in a case that pitted the family of a teenager who took his own life against two North Idaho school districts.

Russell and Claudia Jo Carrier sued the Pend Oreille School District and its board of trustees, the West Bonner County School District and its board of trustees, and English teacher Michael McNulty, claiming they should have recognized Brian Carrier’s suicidal tendencies and warned the family.

Brian Carrier was a junior at Sandpoint High School during the 1999-2000 school year when he wrote about his most difficult decision as part of an assignment on Hamlet in McNulty’s English class.

“I believe my most difficult decision of all time was not to kill myself,” Carrier wrote in the journal entry for class.

“For a long time and a lot of reasons I was contemplating suicide. I thought it would just solve all my problems. And it would.”

But Carrier went on to say that everyone has thought about killing themselves, and though he once went so far as to get ready to shoot himself he had since turned his life around.

“Those little things that used to bother me so much, now don’t even bother me anymore,” he wrote. “I can now enjoy life and all its little pleasures without any guilt.”

When McNulty read Carrier’s essay, he replied: “I’m glad to see you found a new perspective on your problem – Class and life would be a different place without you. Be sure to talk to someone (me) if these ideas return!”

At the time, McNulty did not tell school officials or Carrier’s parents about the essay, according to court documents. The Carrier family moved to Colville, Wash., where Brian began his senior year.

On Nov. 5, 2000, Brian, then 17, failed to show up for work at a new job, and his parents reported him missing. His body was found a week later in Boundary County; he had committed suicide. It was about six months after he wrote the essay.

The Carrier family argued that the school districts had a duty to warn them under a state law.

They argued the law requires teachers to warn parents any time a “suicidal ideation” is noticed.

“Our son was an excellent student and was involved in normal and healthy extracurricular activities,” the parents said in a statement in November 2002 when they filed suit. “He had not displayed to us that he was depressed, let alone suicidal. Had we been made aware of the contents of the essay, we certainly would have sought appropriate intervention to help our son.”

But the school districts said the duty to warn is narrow and limited, and Brian’s essay did not trigger the duty because doing so would require a teacher to speculate about Brian’s intentions.

To make its unanimous decision, the high court had to interpret what the Legislature intended when it modified the law after a 1995 court ruling.

“The Legislature was well aware of the damages caused by suicides and the risks suicide presents to students and their families and friends. However, it still chose to balance those risks against the liability” found in the 1995 case, Justice Roger S. Burdick wrote for the court.

A policy that uses a broad definition of suicidal tendencies is unworkable, according to the decision. Teachers aren’t given specialized training to prevent suicide, the court noted.

“Only by giving the term ‘suicidal tendencies’ a narrow definition can teachers clearly understand when they have a duty to warn and practically implement the statute,” Burdick wrote.

“Without this clear-cut definition, any time a student mentions death or suicide a teacher would be required to warn parents and/or other authorities.”

Though Brian’s essay provided evidence that he had contemplated suicide in the past, it did not provide evidence of a current trend toward taking his own life, the court found.

“There simply is insufficient evidence that Brian had a current aim or desire to commit suicide at the time he wrote the essay to trigger a duty to warn,” Burdick wrote.

Lawrence Beck, an attorney representing the Carrier family, could not be immediately reached for comment.

Brian Julian, the attorney representing the school districts, said they were pleased with the decision.

“Of course, any suicide of a student is tragic. However, it is a difficult burden for educators to sort out conduct of the student and determine if in fact it is a suicidal tendency,” Julian said.

“The Supreme Court seemed to acknowledge the legislative intent in enacting Idaho code 33-512B by limiting the duty to warn only when there is clear evidence of current or future suicide ideations.”