The family of slain University of Idaho graduate student Katy Benoit has taken the first steps toward suing the school.
Gary and Janet Benoit, parents of Benoit, filed a tort claim against the University of Idaho listing several allegations of negligence and recklessness, including the “failure to fully inform the Moscow Police Department of all relevant facts,” Dec. 8.
One month later, UI issued a final statement to The Argonaut when asked why the specific information of Bustamante threatening Benoit with a loaded gun in her mouth and held to her head was not immediately, or at all, passed on to MPD. The statement referenced the previously released timeline and stated the university “acted swiftly and decisively.”
The Benoit family seeks compensation for damages of an unknown amount, but to comply with Idaho Code 6-907 listed $3 million, and with no response from UI in the allotted 90-day period is able to now file a lawsuit. The tort — a wrongful act or infringement of right that can lead to legal liability — was also filed against the UI Board of Regents and state of Idaho. MPD believes Benoit was shot and killed outside her Moscow home by former UI assistant professor of psychology Ernesto A. Bustamante.
The full text of the university statement read:
“At Katy’s first contact with the university, we strongly urged her to go to the police, even though she indicated she did not want the police involved. We did our best to honor her wish, but we did call Moscow police to let them know that we were sending a student to them, that it was related to domestic violence and that it concerned Professor Bustamante. Katy did confirm to us that she had contacted the police. The substance of Katy’s complaint — which included the gun threats — was discussed during the Threat Assessment Team meeting on July 14. The MPD representative at that meeting confirmed that Bustamante had a concealed-carry permit. The university’s notes from that meeting were released as part of the 4,200 documents in October. Katy did not give us her permission until early July for her complaint to be provided to Bustamante; under our policy, he had the right to review and respond to her allegations. Throughout this period, we reiterated to Katy the importance of her personal safety. As we have stated, Bustamante’s resignation was the quickest route to have him exit our community.”
In the section of the tort that addressed conduct and circumstances leading to the incident, the Benoit family said UI also failed to request a thorough investigation of Bustamante’s threats of physical violence toward her “particularly in light of the involvement of firearms.”
According to an affidavit filed by MPD Sgt. Bruce Fagar the day after Benoit’s death, Bustamante threatened Benoit with a handgun on “multiple occasions,” including one incident when he put the gun in her mouth.
Moscow Police Chief David Duke and Lt. Dave Lehmitz confirmed in January that the department did not know the alleged manner of the gun threats until police discovered Benoit’s written complaint in the University Inn Best Western where Bustamante was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot. Duke said when information of the criminal sense is obtained, MPD initiates a record, or case, for investigation. In January, Duke said the manner of the alleged threats from Bustamante would be aggravated assault, which is a felony. To prove aggravated assault, the victim has to feel fear and know the intent to carry out the threats is present, and he said in Benoit’s written complaint to the university “she expressed that fear.”
Other points listed in the tort that
the Benoit family claim contributed to the conduct and circumstances leading
to the incident include UI’s negligent and/or reckless:
– breach of its assumed and contractual duty to protect Benoit from its employee despite knowledge of specific threats to her safety
– breach of its contractual duty to investigate Benoit’s claims of sexual harassment against Bustamante and take immediate, appropriate corrective action to protect her
– failure to follow own safety procedures and policies
– failure to maintain safety policies and procedures consistent with an industry standard
– failure to investigate complaints made by other female students about Bustamante’s behavior
– failure to complete a thorough investigation into Bustamante’s background prior to his hire
– failure to take notice to warnings and “common knowledge” that Bustamante indicated multiple personalities
The tort said UI negligently and recklessly hired, retained and supervised Bustamante and failed in its duty to protect Benoit from him. It also said despite being advised that Bustamante had sexually harassed and threatened to kill Benoit, claimed to have multiple personalities and carried firearms at all times, UI:
– negligently and recklessly permitted and failed in its duty to stop Benoit from being sexually harassed by Bustamante
– negligently and recklessly failed to fully inform law enforcement the danger of Bustamante toward Benoit
– negligently and recklessly failed to require Bustamante, as a condition of employment, to receive mental health care “at a time when he was in obvious need of such care”
– failed in its duty to protect Benoit and the UI student body from Bustamante
