Nasser v. Parker
1995 Va. LEXIS 39, 249 Va. 172, 455 S.E.2d 502 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A special relationship giving rise to a duty to control a third person's conduct and warn a potential victim only exists when the defendant "takes charge" of the third person, which requires a degree of control equivalent to custody. An ordinary doctor-patient or hospital-patient relationship, particularly involving voluntary admission, does not satisfy this "takes charge" requirement.
Facts:
- Angela Nasser Lemon had been in a relationship with George Edwards but attempted to terminate it.
- Edwards had a history of violent acts against women who rejected him.
- On December 5, 1990, Edwards held a gun to Lemon’s head and threatened to kill her, causing her to obtain an arrest warrant and go into hiding.
- Shortly thereafter, Edwards consulted his long-time psychiatrist, Dr. Charles E. Parker, who was aware of Edwards' violent history and the recent threat to Lemon.
- Dr. Parker arranged for Edwards to be admitted to Peninsula Psychiatric Hospital on a voluntary basis on December 10, 1990.
- Believing Edwards was hospitalized for a prolonged period, Lemon returned to her home.
- The day after his admission, Edwards left the hospital; neither Dr. Parker nor the hospital notified Lemon of his departure.
- On December 17, 1990, Edwards shot and killed Lemon in her home and then killed himself.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael J. Nasser, Sr., as administrator of Angela Nasser Lemon’s estate, filed a motion for judgment for wrongful death against Dr. Parker and the hospital corporations in a Virginia trial court.
- The defendants demurred to the original motion, arguing it failed to state a valid claim.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers, finding the plaintiff had not alleged the defendants 'took charge' of Edwards, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend.
- The plaintiff filed an amended motion for judgment, specifically alleging the defendants 'took charge' of Edwards.
- The defendants demurred again to the amended motion.
- The trial court sustained the second demurrers, ruling that the alleged facts did not constitute 'taking charge' as a matter of law, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, was awarded an appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a psychiatrist or psychiatric hospital 'take charge' of a voluntarily admitted patient, thereby creating a special relationship that imposes a duty to warn a specific, foreseeable victim of that patient's potential for violence upon his departure?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Carrico
No. A psychiatrist or psychiatric hospital does not 'take charge' of a patient who is admitted voluntarily, and thus no special relationship arises that imposes a duty to warn a potential victim. The court reasoned that under Virginia's interpretation of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a 'special relation' under § 315(a) requires that a defendant 'takes charge' of the third person as mandated by § 319. The court explicitly rejected the broader standard from Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, which held that a doctor-patient relationship alone could establish a special relation. Instead, 'taking charge' requires a high degree of control, akin to having custody over the person, which is not present when a patient is voluntarily admitted and free to leave.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Virginia’s narrow interpretation of the duty to protect third parties from the acts of another, creating a significant departure from the widely influential 'Tarasoff duty' adopted in other states. By requiring a plaintiff to prove a defendant had custodial control over the third party, the court severely limits the liability of mental health professionals for the violent acts of their patients, especially those who are not involuntarily committed. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult in Virginia to hold therapists or hospitals liable for failing to warn potential victims, as the 'takes charge' standard is a much higher bar to meet than the mere existence of a professional-patient relationship.
