Missouri Supreme Court rules in favor of Mercy Hospital Joplin in suit over parking lot shooting

Dec. 20—The Missouri Supreme Court this week overturned a Newton County Circuit Court ruling that held a Joplin hospital partly liable for a shooting on the hospital parking lot.

Steven Harner had gone to Mercy Hospital Joplin on Dec. 23, 2015, to visit a family member. He reached his car ahead of the two daughters, who were with him, opened the driver's door and found Kaylea Liska inside.

"What are you doing?" he said he told her, according to later testimony. "Get out of my car."

He yelled for security, grabbing Liska by her ankle as she slid away from him inside the car. Liska had a Ruger .380 — Harner's gun, which was loaded and did not have a safety — in her hand. The vehicle was unlocked, but the vehicle's alarm did work. Harner testified he had a concealed-carry permit and left the gun in the car to comply with Missouri law.

"No, you will not do that," he recalls telling Liska, but she pulled the trigger before he could do anything. The round tore into his throat beneath his chin, blew out his carotid artery on the right side of his neck and damaged the jugular vein and C-3 vertebra. It dropped him to the pavement of the parking lot and left him lying there as Liska ran off, while his daughters came to his aid. He was unable to move his arms and legs, and recalls experiencing a feeling of having "passed" twice.

He said a doctor told him four months later that his wound would ordinarily have been a mortal one.

Liska was sentenced in 2017 to 20 years for first-degree assault. The judge also assessed a concurrent term of three years for armed criminal action. A third count of robbery was dismissed as part of her plea deal. Liska is required by state law to serve 17 years of her 20-year sentence before she becomes eligible for parole.

According to court testimony, while Harner was in the hospital, Liska, who had taken methamphetamines, was wandering around Mercy's parking lot. She asked one person for a ride, but he refused and did not report it to the hospital at the time, not considering the woman a threat. She then entered an elderly couple's unlocked vehicle. When the couple returned to their vehicle, they discovered the woman, who then stole some prescription medication from the vehicle and fled.

That couple informed Mercy of the incident but, according to a court summary, did not report the woman had yelled, threatened or made physical contact with them, or that she had any weapon.

Mercy security did make sweeps of the parking lot to look for the woman but did not watch surveillance video after the latter incident was reported. That video showed Liska entering Harner's car. A dispatcher for the hospital acknowledged that she could have observed all of this before Harner was shot had she reviewed the footage.

After fleeing the couple's vehicle, the woman entered Harner's vehicle, where she remained for about 50 minutes until he arrived.

Business responsibility?

Harner later sued Mercy for negligence, claiming the hospital breached its duty to protect him from the criminal act of a third person on Mercy property, while the hospital asserted it could not be held liable for the criminal acts of a third party. A jury found for Harner and awarded $2 million. Jurors assessed Mercy 75% fault and awarded Harner $1.5 million in damages, also ruling he was 25% responsible.

That case was then appealed.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday: "Mercy argues Harner presented insufficient evidence that Mercy owed a duty to Harner under the known third-person exception to the general rule that businesses have no duty to protect invitees from criminal acts of third persons. The court agrees and reverses."

Such activities, the court said, are rarely foreseeable. An exception would be if a business knows or has reason to know that a third party is harming or about to harm another person. The issue, according to the Supreme Court, was whether Mercy knew Liska was dangerous prior to the shooting.

"Liska did not act in a dangerous or threatening manner until Harner yelled at her when he found her inside his car," the court ruled. "Prior to the shooting, there was no evidence from which Mercy could have known Liska would become violent, as she had not engaged in any verbal or physical altercations on Mercy's premises. There was no evidence Liska had or would likely use a gun prior to her use of Harner's unsecured and loaded pistol, which she found inside his unlocked vehicle."

Harner's attorneys argued that the act of getting into vehicle, and stealing medicine, was invasive, threatening and implied danger, according to the court summary.

Harner's attorney's, based in Springfield, could not be reached for comment. Attorneys for the hospital, also based in Springfield, also were unavailable.