Cappel v. Pierson
Decision Date | 27 January 1931 |
Docket Number | 3890 |
Citation | 15 La.App. 524,132 So. 391 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | CAPPEL v. PIERSON |
Appeal from the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides. Hon. R. C. Culpepper, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Marvin Cappel, individually and as tutrix against Dr Clarence Pierson.
There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
J. C Cappel and F. B. Cappel, of Alexandria, attorneys for plaintiff, appellant.
Overton & Hunter, of Alexandria, attorneys for defendant, appellee.
In this action plaintiff, Mrs. Marvin Cappel, individually and as natural tutrix of Marvin and Samuel Cappel, issue of her marriage with Dr. Marvin Cappel, seeks to obtain judgment against defendant, Dr. Clarence Pierson, superintendent of the insane asylum, known as the Central Louisiana State Hospital, for damages resulting from the death of Dr. Cappel on November 9, 1929, who was killed by E. B. Smith, who had been an inmate of the asylum.
Plaintiff in addition to the facts above stated, alleged in substance that said E. B. Smith had been adjudged insane on January 29, 1929, and committed to the hospital of which defendant was superintendent, from which he had escaped on March 16, 1929, and to which he was returned on November 8, 1929; that defendant had released said Smith on the morning of November 9, 1929, and that he, Smith, had killed Dr. Cappel on the afternoon of the same day; that a lunacy commission had found E. B. Smith was insane at the time he killed Dr. Cappel, and that he was not responsible for his actions, and that he was ordered to be confined in the ward of the Central Louisiana Hospital, allotted to the criminal insane.
Plaintiff further alleged that when Smith was returned to the hospital on the night of November 8, 1929, he was violently insane, and was placed in charge of two or more attendants who had great trouble in quieting and subduing him, and that defendant knew, or should have known of the condition of Smith.
Plaintiff also alleged that defendant in violation of his duties as superintendent of the hospital, and with wilful and criminal disregard of the rights, life and liberties of his fellow citizens, deliberately and maliciously permitted said E. B. Smith to have his liberty, when he knew that Smith was suffering with paranoia, which is recognized as an incurable mental disease, causing the sufferer to be extremely dangerous, with a persistent desire to take human life, and that the death of Dr. Marvin Cappel was due to the fault and negligence of defendant.
Defendant excepted that the petition failed to state a cause or right of action, which was sustained, and judgment rendered dismissing plaintiff's suit, from which she appeals.
In presenting the cause here it was stated in substance that the exception was based on the following contentions:
(1) That plaintiff failed to allege any facts showing that defendant was negligent;
(2) That the petition stated a cause of action against E. B. Smith, and in the absence of any allegations that defendant conspired with Smith, or was in any manner directly connected with the act of Smith in killing Dr. Cappel, defendant could not be held liable for any damages sustained by plaintiff resulting from the death;
(3) That the charge of negligence against defendant being that he as super-intendent of the asylum had released Smith when he knew Smith was insane, shows that defendant was acting within the line of his duties as the representative of the State, in releasing Smith and that defendant could not be held guilty of negligence, and liable for any damages resulting from the act of Smith after he had been released, or that the act of defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Christensen v. Epley
...Azcona v. Tibbs, 190 Cal.App.2d 425, 12 Cal.Rptr. 232 (1961); Green v. State, 91 So.2d 153 (La.App.1956); Cappel v. Pierson, 15 La.App. 524, 132 So. 391 (1931); Webb v. State, 91 So.2d 156 (La.App.1956); Geiger v. State, 242 So.2d 606 (La.App.1970); Walker v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Co......
-
Adden v. Middlebrooks
...directly whether it viewed the action as one against the defendant sheriff individually. The court did cite, however, Cappel v. Pierson, 15 La.App. 524, 132 So. 391 (1931), in which the Louisiana appellate court had affirmed a judgment in favor of the defendant in part on the ground that hi......
-
Doyle v. United States
...duty was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries. The leading Louisiana case concerning dangerous patients is Cappell v. Pierson, 15 La.App. 524, 132 So. 391 (2d Cir. 1931), which held that the negligent release of an apparently dangerous patient was not the proximate cause of the murde......
-
Frank v. Pitre
...1976); Geiger v. State of Louisiana, 242 So.2d 606 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1970). One further case is instructive. In Cappel v. Pierson, 15 La.App. 524, 132 So. 391 (2d Cir. 1931), plaintiff brought a wrongful death action against the superintendent of the Central Louisiana State Hospital after a......