Turner v. Jordan

Supreme Court of Tennessee · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyComparative FaultPsychiatrist Liabilitypsychiatrist-patient special relationshipforeseeable third partyreadily identifiable victim

Facts

Emma Turner, a nurse on Hubbard Hospital's psychiatric unit, was severely beaten by psychiatric inpatient Tarry Williams. Williams had a history of violent behavior during prior hospitalizations, including an attempted attack on Dr. Jordan, and on the day of the attack Jordan described him as "aggressive, grandiose, intimidating, combative, and dangerous." Despite knowing or having reason to know of Williams's dangerousness and having the ability to control him in the inpatient ward, Jordan took no protective action other than recommending that Williams be encouraged to sign out against medical advice. Later that night, Williams attacked Turner after asking about discharge.

Issue

Did the attending psychiatrist owe a duty of care to protect a hospital nurse from the violent acts of his hospitalized patient? If so, should the patient's intentional assault be compared with the psychiatrist's negligence in allocating comparative fault, and may the trial court itself reallocate comparative fault instead of granting a new trial?

Rule

A psychiatrist owes a duty of care to a foreseeable, readily identifiable third person when, in accordance with professional standards, the psychiatrist knows or reasonably should know that a patient poses an unreasonable risk of harm to that person. A negligent defendant's fault is not compared with a third party's intentional conduct when that intentional conduct is the foreseeable risk the defendant had a duty to prevent. In a jury case, a trial court acting as thirteenth juror may not reapportion comparative fault; if it disapproves the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, it must grant a new trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a psychiatric hospital in Memphis, attending psychiatrist Dr. Neil Parker reviews a patient's chart showing two recent assaults on unit employees and hears during rounds that the patient has become increasingly menacing and paranoid. Dr. Parker notes that the patient is "volatile and dangerous" but does not order medication, seclusion, restraints, transfer, or any warning to staff. Later that evening, the patient punches orderly Luis Moreno while Moreno is distributing linens on the same unit.

If Luis sues Dr. Parker for negligence, which is the strongest argument that Dr. Parker owed Luis a duty of care?

Explanation. The majority held that a psychiatrist may owe a duty to a foreseeable, readily identifiable third person when, in accordance with professional standards, the psychiatrist knows or reasonably should know the patient poses an unreasonable risk of harm. Here, unit staff like Luis are a readily identifiable class of foreseeable victims, especially where the psychiatrist knew of prior assaults and documented present dangerousness. The court rejected any notion of strict liability or unlimited duty to all persons.