DUNKLE V. FOOD SERVICE EAST 582 A.2d 1342 (Pa.Super. 1990) CASE BRIEF

DUNKLE V. FOOD SERVICE EAST

582 A.2d 1342 (Pa.Super. 1990)

NATURE OF THE CASE: The original defendants, grocery store and food service organization, challenged an order which granted summary judgment in favor of psychologist, counselor, and doctor (appellees), and dismissed the original defendants' complaint to join the appellees in a negligent death action brought against the original defendants because appellees owed no legal duty to protect the decedent from their patient's severe mental problems.

FACTS: Tindal had been receiving psychiatric care from Dr. Hylbert. Hylbert had diagnosed Tindal as having schizophreniform disorder. Tindal was taking medication called Navane to treat his illness. Hylbert instructed Tindal to discontinue regular use of the drug. After he stopped taking his medication, Tindal's behavior became 'nasty' and 'violent.' Hylbert re-prescribed the Navane. In December, 1984, Hylbert discharged Tindal and discontinued his medication, instructing him to take Navane on an as-needed basis. Tindal was still under treatment by Keith A. Berfield, a counselor at The Pennsylvania State University. In March, 1985, Tindal confessed to the Penn State police that he had been stealing property. The following day, Tindal and Eyer went to the Cannery to shop. They entered the men's room and Tindal strangled Eyer, believing her to be a Russian agent. Eyer, Tindal's live-in girlfriend, died one week after the attack. Steve Dunkle (P), administrator of the estate of Senie Eyer, instituted an action for damages against the original defendants alleging that the defendants were negligent in failing to maintain a safe place for business and in failing to stop Bruce Tindal from fatally choking Senie Eyer upon their premises. In June, 1987, the original defendants filed a writ of summons joining the additional defendants. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the additional defendants. Except for Hylbert and Tindal, the additional defendants filed preliminary objections, contending that the original defendants failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court found that it was necessary to depose Tindal before it could determine whether Eyer was a 'readily identifiable' victim of Tindal's attack. In the final months of 1989, all of the additional defendants filed their respective motions for summary judgment; They owed no duty to the decedent and hence, could not be held liable for her ensuing death. The trial court dismissed the original defendants' complaint to join. This appeal followed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner