Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Kennewick, Washington personal injury lawyers represented the parties in negligence theory.

Emil Zlatich, Jr., (Mr. Zlatich) and his son and grandson, Emil Zlatich III, and Emil Zlatich IV, respectively, resided together at Mr. Zlatich's home in Kennewick, Washington. Ryan Kaufman[2] was the adult son of the Kaufmans and resided independently. Ryan was Mr. Zlatich's neighbor, and his home shared a common driveway with Mr. Zlatich's home. Ryan and Mr. Zlatich had been neighbors since approximately 2002 and "never argu[ed] or feud[ed]." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 132.

According to Ryan's sister, Heidi Zanotelli, Ryan was diagnosed with depression and psychosis around 2010 or 2011. Ryan suffered from "paranoid delusions" such as believing his food was being poisoned by "the neighbors or whoever." CP at 114, 44. Ryan's brother, Logan Kaufman, stated that Ryan "booby trapped" his front door with a shotgun. CP at 54. Ryan also had delusions that he had a twin sister that his parents "'sold to the government.'" CP at 114.

The Kaufmans assisted Ryan with his mortgage payments and other expenses, helped him obtain mental health treatment, and were generally aware of Ryan's mental health struggles. They also had keys to "a secret indoor shooting range" Ryan maintained on his property. CP at 106.[3] Additionally, Emil III, mentioned he saw the Kaufmans "drive to their son's property, pick him and his dog up and leave, sometimes overnight, during the approximate 6 months prior to the rampage." CP at 114-15.

In the early morning hours of August 25, 2021, Ryan, then 43 years old, lit fire to his home and the outbuildings on his property. Then, outfitted in full tactical gear, Ryan entered Mr. Zlatich's home where he shot and killed Mr. Zlatich and seriously injured Emil III, and Emil IV. Ryan set Mr. Zlatich's home on fire before leaving the property.

After leaving Mr. Zlatich's home, Ryan went to his parent's home in Kennewick, Washington. There, he shot and killed his parents before attempting to set their home on fire. Ryan then ignited fires at the International Brotherhood of Electrcal Workers (IBEW) building and an IBEW training facility. He also set random brush fires by releasing flares from his moving vehicle. Ryan was killed at about 6:30 a.m. "in a firefight with police in West Richland." CP at 116.

In 2023, the Estate of Zlatich filed suit against the Estate of Kaufman through its personal representative, Danielle Zlatich. The complaint alleged the Kaufmans were aware of Ryan's mental health problems, "assumed the role of supervising decedent Ryan's medications and activities," and failed to warn Mr. Zlatich of Ryan's condition. CP at 6. The complaint therefore alleged that the Estate of Kaufman was liable to the Estate of Zlatich for negligently supervising Ryan under sections 315 and 319 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Am. L. Inst. 1965).

The Estate of Kaufman promptly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under CR 12(b)(6). In response, the Estate of Zlatich filed a motion to amend the complaint. The trial court granted the Estate of Zlatich's motion to amend the complaint.

* * *

Legal issue Can parents of an adult child living independently be held liable for their child's criminal acts due to alleged negligent supervision?
Headnote

TORT LAW. NEGLIGENCE AND DUTY TO CONTROL. The case discusses whether parents can be held liable for the criminal acts of their adult child living separately based on the alleged duty to control, as articulated in sections 315 and 319 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and concludes that no such duty exists without a special relationship granting control over the adult child.

PROCEDURAL LAW. APPEALABILITY OF NEW ISSUES. The court considers whether issues not raised at trial can be addressed on appeal, affirming the barring of new legal theories on appeal unless they were previously argued, except under specific circumstances impacting the right to maintain the action.

TORT LAW. SUPERVISION OF ADULT CHILDREN. The court examines the potential extension of parental duties to adult children with mental health issues, determining that there is no legal precedent or requirement for parents to control adult children's conduct in such circumstances.

APPELLATE LAW. REVIEW STANDARDS FOR CR 12(B)(6) DISMISSALS. The standards for reviewing a dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) are applied, underscoring the requirement that no conceivable set of facts could permit recovery if the dismissal is to be upheld.

Key Phrases Trial court's CR 12(b)(6) dismissal. Negligent supervision. Special relationship. Take charge duty. Mental health struggles.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: