December 19, 1996

CAN ONE BE LIABLE FOR NOT STOPPING A SUICIDAL ACT?

BY ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

Jack Kevorkian has no convictions -- none of the criminal variety, anyway. But make no bones about it, it's definitely against the law in most states, including Washington, to assist or promote suicide.

But what about preventing suicide? Suppose, for example, my boss kills himself by overdosing on drugs. If he does so while I stand idly by, not bothering to lift a finger to dial 911 or otherwise come to his aid, am I liable for not trying to save his life? This very issue was recently addressed by our state appeals court in Webstad v. Stortini. In that case, it was an aggrieved lover who took her own life in the presence of her romantic partner.

The Webstad case is already well known in some circles since it involves Joseph Stortini, who formerly held the position of Pierce County Executive. In mid-1988, Stortini became romantically involved with Susan Webstad, a married former employee of his who had just transferred to a different county agency. In October 1989, Stortini separated from his wife after telling her about the relationship. The Webstads, on the other hand, eventually got a divorce once the affair was out in the open.

As time went by, the relationship gradually deteriorated. Although Webstad frequently asked Stortini for a definite commitment, he usually demurred or made matters worse by periodically returning to his wife.

When the relationship really slumped, Webstad, who had been treated for alcoholism and took various prescribed medications for high blood pressure, sometimes got so despondent she would dangerously mix alcohol and drugs. During a low moment in November 1989, for instance, Webstad saw a doctor after taking a nonlethal dose of blood pressure medicine and alcohol. A few days later, she was briefly hospitalized after combining alcohol with her just prescribed antidepressant medication. Webstad told the doctor how she felt abandoned, lonely and sad because she'd been jilted by the married man with whom she was having an affair.

Besides hearing about Webstad's problems, Stortini had firsthand knowledge of her drug and alcohol abuse. He once rushed to her apartment when a less-than-sober Webstad called to tell him she was unhappy and about to take some pills. Although Webstad had passed out by the time he arrived, Stortini was able to revive her without medical help. On other occasions, almost always when Webstad had been drinking, she would complain to Stortini about his on-again off-again approach to their relationship, while making suicidal comments like "I just don't want to live." Webstad also said she had a way of taking her life, which Stortini assumed was a reference to taking pills.

Against this background, Webstad went to Stortini's home the evening of August 25, 1991. Following dinner, the two of them watched a movie about divorced couples. When this triggered a discussion about their own relationship, Stortini broke the news that he was hoping to revive his marriage. This was hardly music to the ears of Webstad, who'd been drinking both before and after she arrived. After declaring that Stortini obviously didn't want her and that she knew how to take care of that, Webstad went to the kitchen and downed a handful of blood pressure pills.

After following Webstad into the kitchen, Stortini confirmed that she'd taken numerous pills. Twice during the next hour or so, Stortini asked her to go with him to the hospital or to let him call 911. Although Webstad refused both times, she eventually suggested that he call a pharmacy for advice. Stortini left the room to do so, but didn't have any luck. When he returned, he found Webstad unconscious on the floor and immediately called 911. Rushed to the hospital, Webstad died less than eight hours later. Although officially ruled a suicide, the King County Medical Examiner felt the case involved a "suicidal gesture gone wrong" and that Webstad hadn't fully appreciated the ultimate consequence of her actions.

Stortini was later sued for wrongful death in Pierce County Superior Court. The suit was brought on behalf of Webstad's estate by Russell Webstad, one of the surviving children. Russell claimed, among other things, that Stortini had acted negligently by not preventing his mother's suicide. In March 1994, however, the trial court granted Stortini's motion to dismiss. Webstad's estate appealed.

To cut to the chase, a split court upheld the dismissal. The dissenting judge said that Stortini owed Webstad a duty of reasonable care because he knew she was so dependent on him and that a jury should therefore decide whether Stortini's actions the night of the suicide, including his failure to summon help until Webstad became unconscious, made him liable for her death. The two-judge majority, on the other hand, followed earlier Washington cases applying the rule of law that there is generally no duty to protect others from suicide or other self-inflicted harm.

Although my crystal ball admittedly has a lousy batting average, I wouldn't be surprised if our state Supreme Court agrees to hear the Webstad case. Because its facts are so uniquely compelling, the high court might want to revisit the 'no duty' rule and possibly carve out an exception to the usual rule of nonliability.

Previous columns:

• WHEN THE HARSHEST PENALTY DOESN'T SEEM SEVERE ENOUGH, 11-21-1996
• A BOY'S WRONGFUL DEATH, A DAD'S RIGHTFUL SETTLEMENT?, 11-07-1996
• THE $2.6 MILLION QUESTION, 08-30-1996
• THE CASE AGAINST SELLING BEER TO MINORS, 08-01-1996
• DUE CARE IS REQUIRED WHEN B.A.S.S. FISHIN', 09-28-1995
• THIEVES: WATCH FOR BARGAINS, 08-10-1995
• LADDERS DON'T LEAD TO CRIME, 07-27-1995