King v. Smith
| Decision Date | 16 January 1989 |
| Citation | 539 So.2d 262 |
| Parties | Catherine KING, et al. v. Dr. Charles E. SMITH. 86-439. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Mitchell G. Lattof, Jr., of Lattof & Gardner, Mobile, for appellants.
Carroll H. Sullivan of Clark, Scott & Sullivan, Mobile, for appellee.
The questions presented by this appeal are summarized as follows: (1) Whether under the facts of this case Alabama law allows recovery against a psychiatrist whose negligent diagnosis and treatment of a patient results in the patient's killing himself and his two children, and (2) Whether under the facts of this case a psychiatrist who knows or should know that his patient poses a threat of danger to himself or to others has a duty to warn or take other action in view of that knowledge.
The suit arose out of the tragic deaths of David King and his two young daughters. King, a psychiatric outpatient, killed both of his daughters and himself while enrolled in an alcohol abuse treatment program administered by the defendant, Dr. Charles E. Smith, a psychiatrist. The mother of the children, Catherine King, and the administratrix of King's estate, Willie Betty King, mother of the decedent, brought this suit against the Mobile Mental Health Center and several other defendants, including Dr. Smith. They alleged that Dr. Smith misdiagnosed King's dangerous mental condition and, as a result, did not provide him with proper treatment and care for his condition, and that Dr. Smith's actions resulted ultimately in the murder/suicide, which plaintiffs say was reasonably foreseeable. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of all the defendants. 1
David King appears to have lived a normal and uneventful life until 1983. However, in mid-1983, he underwent a significant behavioral change. He became more violent and abusive and often threatened to kill himself and members of his family. In December 1983, a petition for involuntary commitment was filed by his mother, Willie Betty King. The commitment proceedings were instituted following a particularly violent episode in which David threatened to kill one of his daughters and fired a gun several times in the process.
As a result of the "probable cause" hearing held by the Mobile County probate judge, David was confined in the psychiatric ward of the University of South Alabama Medical Center for six days for a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Smith conducted the initial evaluation, which found that David suffered from alcohol abuse and mild mental impairment. More in-depth psychological testing was undertaken by other doctors at the facility, and they concurred with the initial evaluation made by Dr. Smith. The diagnosis of alcohol abuse was presented to the probate court, which dropped the commitment proceedings upon motion by counsel for Willie Betty King. Criminal assault charges stemming from the incident with his daughter were also dropped by David's mother at this time.
David began attending an alcohol abuse program supervised by Dr. Smith. His counseling sessions were conducted by Gerald Casson, a trained outpatient counselor at the facility. During this treatment, Dr. Smith prescribed Antabuse for David. Antabuse is a drug commonly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Ctr.
...Ctr., Inc. (Fla.App.1991), 590 So.2d 444, 445; Wagshall v. Wagshall (1989), 148 A.D.2d 445, 447, 538 N.Y.S.2d 597, 598-599; King v. Smith (Ala.1989), 539 So.2d 262; Currie v. United States (C.A.4, 1987), 836 F.2d 209, 213; Cooke v. Berlin (1987), 153 Ariz. 220, 224-225, 735 P.2d 830, 834-83......
-
Adams v. Board of Sedgwick County Com'Rs
...Currie v. United States, 836 F.2d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 1987); Hasenei v. United States, 541 F.Supp. 999, 1009 (D.Md.1982); King v. Smith, 539 So.2d 262, 264 (Ala.1989); Cooke v. Berlin, 153 Ariz. 220, 224-25, 735 P.2d 830 (Ct.App. 1987); Boynton v. Burglass, 590 So.2d 446, 448-49 (Fla.Dist.Ap......
-
83 Hawai'i 154, Lee v. Corregedore
..."a strict duty upon health care professionals to take extreme action whenever a patient expresses signs of depression"); King v. Smith, 539 So.2d 262, 264 (Ala.1989) (holding that, "in view of the outpatient character of their relationship," a psychiatrist and his patient did not have a "sp......
-
Mulhern v. Catholic Health Initiatives A/K/A Catholic Health Initiatives Iowa Corp.. D/B/A Mercy Franklin Ctr. And/Or Mercy Hosp. And/Or Mercy Psychiatric Serv.
...could be an important factor in determining whether a defendant had a duty or breached a duty of care toward a patient. King v. Smith, 539 So.2d 262, 264 (Ala.1989) (holding psychiatrist had no duty of care in light of the outpatient character of the relationship between the psychiatrist an......