 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GILMER v. MARTIN5/28/1996
James Gilmer, personally and as personal representative of the estate of Mallie S. Gilmer, sued John W. Martin, M.D., for damages caused when one of Martin's psychiatric patients killed the decedent. Gilmer based his claim on Martin's failure
Summary judgment is appropriate where it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kreutner v. David, ___ S.C. ___, 465 S.E.2d 88 (1995). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence and the inferences which can be drawn therefrom should be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Cafe Associates, Ltd. v. Gerngross, 305 S.C. 6, 406 S.E.2d 162 (1991).
Viewed most favorably for Gilmer the facts of this case are tragic. Debra Ann Pickens was an employee of the Latham Nursing Home in Anderson, South Carolina. Martin, a psychiatrist, treated Pickens since 1985 for anxiety and depression. Martin was aware Pickens was a nurse's aide at the nursing home and occasionally was left alone with elderly, defenseless patients. Martin also knew of at least two and possibly three suicide attempts by Pickens while under his care. However, Pickens never overtly threatened any single individual or any identifiable group of people.
In November 1990, Martin hospitalized Pickens for almost one week for her mental problems. Martin treated Pickens for a "conversion reaction" in late November 1990. He wrote her an excuse to allow her to remain out of work from November 26, 1990 through December 28, 1990, because of her mental status. Martin then placed Pickens in a "survivor's group" under the care of Dr. Harry Diamant, a non-physician counselor employed by Martin. The group offered counseling for victims of rape. It is not clear whether Pickens actually had been raped or was simply delusional as to whether a rape had taken place. Martin did not personally examine Pickens prior to allowing her to go back to her job at the nursing home. He continued to treat Pickens but asked her no questions to determine if she was having audio or visual hallucinations. Martin was also aware Pickens attempted suicide at the nursing home while on duty in January 1991.
Martin did not notify the nursing home of the true status of Pickens's mental state, nor did he take steps to personally
South Carolina does not recognize a general duty to warn of the dangerous propensities of others. Sharpe v. South Carolina Dep't of Mental Health, 292 S.C. 11, 354 S.E.2d 778 (Ct.App. 1987), cert. dismissed 294 S.C. 469, 366 S.E.2d 12 (1988); Rogers v. South Carolina Dep't of Mental Health, 297 S.C. 363, 377 S.E.2d 125 (Ct.App. 1989). "However, when a defendant has the ability to monitor, supervise, and control an individual's conduct, a special relationship exists between the defendant and the individual, and the defendant may have a common law duty to warn potential victims of the individual's dangerous conduct." Rogers v. South Carolina Department of Parole and Community Corrections, ___ S.C. ___, 464 S.E.2d 330 (1995) (Toal, A.J. and Macaulay, A.A.J. dissenting). Such a duty to warn arises when a person being released from custody has made a specific threat of harm directed at a specific individual. Id.
In Rogers v. South Carolina Department of Parole and Community Corrections, Rogers obtained a verdict in a
Gilmer concedes Martin "did not know of a specific threat against Mallie S. Gilmer individually," but claims there should be a duty to warn all "foreseeable" victims, such as in this
Moreover, the facts of Rogers are even more compelling than those presented here since in Rogers the perpetrator had a prior history of criminal conduct toward the v
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|