## Facts

- Evelyn Riggs lived with her adult son, Perry Riggs, who had a long history of severe mental illness and prior violent or threatening behavior known to Evelyn.
- Karen Dowty (Evelyn’s daughter), Karen’s husband Alvis Dowty, Sr., and their minor child visited Evelyn’s home.
- Upon their arrival, Perry approached their vehicle while armed and shot Alvis in the arm.
- Karen and the child were not physically injured but alleged severe emotional harm from witnessing the shooting.
- The family sued Evelyn (not Perry), alleging Evelyn negligently failed to supervise or control Perry, failed to warn of danger, and failed to protect them; Karen and the child also sought damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether Evelyn owed the visiting family a legal duty to protect them from, or warn them about, Perry’s criminal act, such that she could be liable for negligence.
2. Whether Arkansas recognizes an independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress allowing recovery for bystander emotional harm absent physical impact or another actionable tort.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Evelyn on all claims.
- The court held Evelyn owed no duty, on this record, to control Perry or protect the visitors from his criminal conduct.
- The court declined to recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent cause of action and refused to overrule prior precedent rejecting it.

## Legal Principles

- Duty is a question of law; as a general rule, a person has no duty to control a third party’s conduct to prevent harm to others absent a recognized special relationship.
- A duty to protect against third-party criminal acts arises only in limited settings (e.g., certain custodial or protective relationships), including where a defendant has “taken charge” of a person known to be likely to cause harm in a custodial sense.
- Co-residence and familial caregiving for an adult relative, without a custodial relationship imposing control, do not by themselves create a duty to prevent that relative’s criminal acts.
- Foreseeability of the particular harm remains central to duty analysis; absent sufficient foreseeability and a qualifying relationship, negligence fails as a matter of law.
- Arkansas does not recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress as a standalone tort; mental anguish damages are generally recoverable only when tied to another actionable tort or within recognized exceptions.

## Conclusion

The court held that a mother who lived with an adult son suffering from mental illness did not, without a custodial “taken charge” relationship and sufficient foreseeability, owe visiting family members a duty to protect them from the son’s criminal shooting, and it reaffirmed that Arkansas does not permit recovery under a separate negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress theory for bystander emotional harm alone.


Dowty v. Riggs, 385 S.W.3d 117 (Ark. 2010)