Opinion
A21-0317
07-19-2021
Jason L. Gabbert, Appellant, v. Minnesota Twins, LLC, et al., Respondents.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-20-10459 Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Jason L. Gabbert sued respondent Minnesota Twins, LLC for negligence, based on the Star Tribune's publication of an article regarding a previous lawsuit that Gabbert brought against the Twins. In that lawsuit, Gabbert attempted to prevent the Twins from enforcing a trespass notice against him. The district court granted summary judgment for the Twins in that previous lawsuit.
2. The Star Tribune published an article about Gabbert's lawsuit against the Twins. The article summarized the lawsuit and the district court's decision. It quoted a Twins spokesman as follows: "The Court's decision is a matter of public record. The Minnesota Twins believe the Court's decision was correct, and the team does not wish to provide further comment on the matter." The article also quoted documents that the Twins submitted to the district court during the lawsuit, including affidavits by two fans who suggested that Gabbert behaved inappropriately during an incident that led to the trespass notice. Relying on other documents that the Twins had submitted to the district court, the article described Gabbert's history of security incidents at Target Field, including a previous warning by security in 2018 and a trespass notice from the 2017 season. The article reported that Gabbert denied any wrongdoing.
3. According to Gabbert, he was "vilified in the public and media" as a result of the Star Tribune article because members of the public and media appeared to believe the Twins' allegations that he was overly aggressive in attempting to retrieve baseballs in the stands and engaged in physical altercations with other fans.
4. Gabbert commenced the underlying negligence action against the Twins based on the Star Tribune article. Gabbert alleged that the Twins "were negligent by failing to take action that would have spared [him] from the harm born of the Twins' bad acts." The Twins moved to dismiss Gabbert's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court granted that motion, concluding that the Twins did not owe Gabbert a duty of care because there is generally no duty to protect a person from harm caused by a third party, and no exception to that general rule applied in this case.
5. A claim may be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). "We review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief." Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014). We "accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. "A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader's theory, to grant the relief demanded." Id. at 603. A failure to establish any element of a claim defeats the entire claim. Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn. 2003).
6. "Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances." Doe 169 v. Brandon, 845 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Minn. 2014). A plaintiff must prove four elements to recover on a claim of negligence: (1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) causation. Id. The first element—duty of care—is at issue here. The existence of a duty of care is generally a question of law that we review de novo. Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660, 664 (Minn. 2007).
7. Generally, "a person does not owe a duty of care to another—e.g., to aid, protect, or warn that person—if the harm is caused by a third party's conduct." Doe 169, 845 N.W.2d at 177-78. There are two exceptions to that rule. Fenrich v. The Blake Sch., 920 N.W.2d 195, 201-02 (Minn. 2018). Gabbert contends that the second exception applies here. Under that exception, a defendant may be liable for harm caused by a third party if "the defendant's own conduct creates a foreseeable risk of injury to a foreseeable plaintiff." Id. at 202 (quoting Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 23 (Minn. 2011)). When analyzing a defendant's "own conduct" to determine whether that exception applies, courts differentiate between misfeasance and nonfeasance. Id. at 203. Misfeasance is "active misconduct working positive injury to others"; nonfeasance is "passive inaction or a failure to take steps to protect others from harm." Id. (quotations omitted). "If a defendant's conduct is mere nonfeasance, that defendant owes no duty of care to the plaintiff for harm caused by a third party." Id.
8. Gabbert's complaint alleged that he was harmed as a result of the Twins' failure to inform the Star Tribune reporter that the information in the court record was false, failure to allow the media to view a surveillance video, and failure to take efforts to prevent the Star Tribune from publishing the article. On appeal, Gabbert confirms that his claim is for nonfeasance. His brief to this court states that he "correctly charged the [Twins] with nonfeasance, for it was the [Twins'] inaction that allowed [him] to be injured by a third-party."
9. Because Gabbert's negligence claim is based on third-party harm resulting from nonfeasance, there is no recognized duty of care, and his claim fails as a matter of law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: July 19, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Michelle A. Larkin