dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion affirming the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the Youth Ranch.
In my view, both the trial court and this Court have restricted their focus to the lack of continuing custody by the Youth Ranch. In doing so, both the trial court and this Court have failed to focus on one of the primary grounds for the Caldwells’ claim against the Youth Ranch. In their amended complaint, the Caldwells alleged, among other grounds for their claim, that the Youth Ranch contributed to the death of Patrick Caldwell when it “[jjointly participated in the decision to release Santiago Espinoza.” R. 59. In their brief opposing the Youth Ranch’s motion for summary judgment, the Caldwells argued that the Youth Ranch “has a duty to the public to act safely concerning the discharge of boys which it knows or should know constitute a risk of harming members of the public upon discharge.” R. 1077. At the hearing before the trial court on the Youth Ranch’s motion for summary judgment, the attorney for the Caldwells told the trial court that he was relying on “cases where a facility had control and the facility made a decision to let the person in their control out.” Tr. 48, 11. 21-24. Addressing this ground for the Caldwells’ claim against the Youth Ranch, I conclude that there are *129genuine issues of material fact concerning the Youth Ranch’s duty that preclude the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Youth Ranch.
The evidence presented to the Court in opposition to the Youth Ranch’s motion for summary judgment indicates: (1) Espinoza was dangerous to other children and staff at the Youth Ranch, (2) the Youth Ranch failed to tell the Department about the degree of Espinoza’s dangerousness, and (3) the Youth Ranch participated jointly with the Department in making the decision whether and when to release Espinoza.
This Court follows the rule that ‘“one owes the duty to every person in our society to use reasonable care to avoid injury to the other person in any situation in which it could be reasonably anticipated or foreseen that a failure to use such care might result in such injury.’” Alegria v. Payonk, 101 Idaho 617, 619, 619 P.2d 135, 137 (1980) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, there is a “general rale that each person has a duty of care to prevent unreasonable, foreseeable risks of harm to others.” Sharp v. W.H. Moore, Inc., 118 Idaho 297, 300, 796 P.2d 506, 509 (1990). In Rife v. Long, 127 Idaho 841, 908 P.2d 143 (1995), the Court said:
Determining whether a duty will arise in a particular instance involves a consideration of policy and the weighing of several factors which include:
[T]he foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved (citations omitted).
In the context of the summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the Youth Ranch, the first question the Court should ask under Rife is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the Youth Ranch could have foreseen injury to others as a result of releasing Espinoza. Foreseeability “includes whatever result is likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonably prudent person would take such into account in guiding reasonable conduct.” Sharp, 118 Idaho at 301, 796 P.2d at 510 (emphasis added). The evidence concerning Espinoza’s dangerousness to others and the Youth Ranch’s joint participation in deciding to release him raise a genuine issue concerning whether the Youth Ranch should have foreseen that Espinoza would harm someone after his release. It is not a question concerning a duty of the Youth Ranch to warn the public or someone in particular that they were in danger from Espinoza. The question is whether the Youth Ranch should have facilitated Espinoza’s release.
Concerning the closeness of the connection between the Youth Ranch’s conduct and the death of Patrick Caldwell, there is no evidence that Patrick had any connection with the Youth Ranch or came in contact with Espinoza there. The three month lapse after Espinoza’s discharge before the murder also diminishes the closeness of the connection. These circumstances indicate that there was not any degree of closeness between the Youth Ranch’s participation in the discharge and Patrick’s murder. Depending on the resolution of the genuine issues of material fact that I see concerning the other considerations in determining whether the Youth Ranch had a duty, this consideration may become significant.
Concerning moral blame, the evidence that the Youth Ranch did not tell the Department about the degree of Espinoza’s dangerousness raises a genuine issue whether that information would have changed the Department’s decision about releasing Espinoza. If, based on that information, the Department would have decided not to agree to Espinoza’s release, there would be a serious question about the moral blame attributed to the Youth Ranch by failing to tell the Department about the degree of Espinoza’s dangerousness. Concerning the social policy of preventing future harm, the same analysis applies and there would be a serious question *130about whether imposing a duty on the Youth Ranch would be appropriate in light of its failure to tell the Department about the degree of Espinoza’s dangerousness.
Concerning the burden that would be placed on the Youth Ranch if a duty is imposed in this case, the evidence indicating the availability of the information at the Youth Ranch about the degree of Espinoza’s dangerousness indicates it would not be a heavy burden to require the Youth Ranch to tell the Department about that dangerousness and not to agree to Espinoza’s release in light of that dangerousness.
Concerning insurance availability for the risk, the Youth Ranch has not presented any evidence to show it lacks insurance coverage for the risk involved in this case.
In my view, the genuine issues of material fact about the degree of Espinoza’s dangerousness and the Youth Ranch’s failure to tell the Department about that dangerousness, together with the question whether the Department would have made the decision to release Espinoza if it had been told about that dangerousness, dictate that summary judgment is not appropriate concerning the issue of the duty the Youth Ranch in connection with the release of Espinoza. Whether the Youth Ranch had a duty, depends on the resolution of these genuine issues of material fact.
I would vacate the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings concerning these genuine issues of material fact.
TROUT, C.J., concurs in dissent.