Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-6498 Civil GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT 01-6498 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND OLER. J. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., May 11, 2005:-- Plaintiffs, Gary W. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr., were police officers in the West Shore Regional Police Department. On November 18, 2000, they took Ryan Schorr into custody on a warrant issued pursuant to Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act. 1 At approximately 8:15 a.m., they delivered Schorr, without incident, to the Mental Health Unit of defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, where he was involuntarily committed. At approximately 9:05 a.m., County Control, based on a report from the Hospital that Schorr had eloped, placed the information on dispatch. At approximately 11 :20 a.m., Berresford and Hart went to Schorr's apartment to re-serve the Section 302 warrant. A confrontation ensued during which plaintiffs allege they were assaulted and severely injured by Schorr, and that in self-defense Hart shot and killed Schorr. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Holy Spirit Hospital seeking damages for the 150 P.S. S 7101 et seq. 01-6498 CIVIL TERM injuries they allege they sustained as a result of being assaulted by Schorr. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in which it maintains: I. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DUTY OF THE HOSPITAL GENERALLY RUNS TO PATIENTS AND THERE IS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP OR COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCE SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF ITS DUTIES TO THIRD PARTIES. This position is not legally correct. See Goryeb v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, 525 Pa. 70 (1990); Sherk v. County of Dauphin, 531 Pa. 515 (1992). Defendant's reliance on Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc., 720 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998), is misplaced. Emerich analyzed an issue of whether a mental health professional has a duty to warn a third party of a patient's threat to harm the third party, and if so, the scope of the duty. In the case sub judice, plaintiffs do not seek recovery on any allegation of a breach of a duty to warn. II. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TENDING TO ESTABLISH THE FLAGRANT, WILLFUL OR EGREGIOUS CONDUCT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH GROSS NEGLIGENCE. If this is a treatment case, as claimed by defendant, the record contains sufficient evidence to submit to a jury an issue of its willful misconduct or gross negligence. If this is not a treatment case there is sufficient evidence to submit plaintiffs' general negligence claim to a jury. See Fogg v. Paoli Memorial Hospital, 686 A.2d 1355 (Pa. Super. 1996); the special relationship applicable under -2- 01-6498 CIVIL TERM Restatement (Second) of Torts S 319. III. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE RYAN SCHORR'S INTENTIONAL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS AFTER HE ELOPED CONSTITUTE A SUPERSEDING AND INTERVENING CAUSE. This position is not legally correct. See Goryeb v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, 525 Pa. 70 (1990); Sherk v. County of Dauphin, 531 Pa. 515 (1992). IV. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE POLICE OFFICERS GENERALLY ASSUME THE RISK OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITY. This position is not legally correct. See Sherk v. County of Dauphin, 531 Pa. 515 (1992). ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of May, 2005, the motion of defendant for summary judgment, IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Mark K. Emery, Esquire For Plaintiffs Michael D. Pipa, Esquire F or Defendant :sal -3- GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT 01-6498 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND OLER. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of May, 2005, the motion of defendant for summary judgment, IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Mark K. Emery, Esquire For Plaintiffs Michael D. Pipa, Esquire F or Defendant :sal