The Dallas Court of Appeals Grants Summary Judgment on Claim That Hospital Liable for Three Murders Committed By Emergency Room Patient After Leaving the Hospital
Paul Boren, et al. vs. Texoma Medical Center, Inc., ---S.W.3d---, 2008 WL 1886770 (Tex.App.-Dallas)
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Contributed by: Mike H. Loftin
Factual Circumstances
At approximately 7:00 a.m. on March 26, 2005, Andre Thomas presented to the Texoma Hospital emergency room with a self- inflicted knife wound to his chest. The wound was determined to be superficial. The emergency room physician interviewed and examined Andre and found him to be depressed and psychotic. Andre complained of suicidal thoughts and hallucinations. The emergency room physician referred Andre to the mental health department for evaluation and possible hospitalization. The counselor who interviewed Andre agreed with the emergency room physician that Andre needed to be hospitalized. When Andre refused to agree to be hospitalized, the hospital sought an emergency detention order. By 9:30 a.m., the counselor obtained the judge's signature on the emergency detention order; however, Andre had left the hospital before 9:30 a.m. without advising anyone. The hospital called the police and explained the situation.
In the early morning hours of the following day Andre murdered his ex-wife, his own son, and his ex-wife's daughter from another relationship. A wrongful death action was filed against Texoma Hospital alleging that the hospital was negligent in releasing Andre and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the three murders.
The Court's Decision
The Court began by noting that the existence of a legal duty is a question of law for the court to decide based on the factual circumstances. The Court stated that the general rule is that there is no legal duty to control the conduct of others. However, a special relationship can impose a duty to control; for example, a parent and child relationship or a master and servant relationship. In analyzing the factual circumstances of this particular case, the Court determined that the hospital did not have a lawful right to restrain Andre at the time he left the hospital. Given that the hospital did not have a legal right to restrain Andre, the Court decided that it would be inappropriate to find that a special relationship existed and to impose upon the hospital a legal duty to control Andre's conduct.
The Court further stated that before imposing a duty to control, there must be a foreseeable risk of harm. Foreseeability is not measured by hindsight, but instead of what the defendant should have known at the time of the alleged negligence. There is no legal duty to guard against that which cannot reasonably be foreseen in the light of common experience. Applying this standard, the Court held that it was not foreseeable that Andre would kill three people. Andre's evaluation indicated that he was a threat to himself but did not reveal any threat to injure others.
This column is published for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to create an attorney client relationship. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's law firm or its individual partners.
