92 Va. Cir. 224
Petersburg Cir. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff, an active-duty service member with PTSD, was voluntarily admitted to Poplar Springs Hospital (PSH) for inpatient psychiatric treatment in a specialized "military unit."
- PSH advertised PTSD expertise and security measures (video surveillance, 15-minute room checks); plaintiff’s treatment plan called for close monitoring and psychiatric sedation.
- Another inpatient, known to plaintiff and with documented mental-health issues, entered plaintiff’s room on October 29, 2013, and sexually assaulted her while staff allegedly failed to perform scheduled room checks or monitor video.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence, VCPA violations, and sought punitive damages; defendant demurred on multiple grounds and filed a plea in bar.
- Court considered briefs and oral argument and, applying the demurrer standard (accepting pleaded facts and reasonable inferences), addressed whether plaintiff had pleaded duties and causes of action sufficient to survive demurrer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a special relationship existed imposing a duty to control third-party conduct | PSH created and knew of vulnerability (sedation, PTSD, prior sexual trauma), advertised security and provided a military unit, and knew attacker’s issues — giving rise to a special relationship | No special relationship; general rule bars duty to control third parties absent special relationship (Nasser) | Overruled demurrer — pleadings sufficiently allege a special relationship (Delk analog) |
| Foreseeability of criminal assault (sufficiency for negligence) | Facts and reasonable inferences adequately establish negligence and foreseeability | Complaint fails to allege foreseeability of the criminal assault | Overruled demurrer as premature; facts plead negligence elements sufficiently |
| Whether claims sound in medical malpractice (preemption or exclusivity) | Plaintiff distinguishes facility/management/security omissions (tort) from medical treatment (malpractice) | No common-law duty to provide safe care; claims must be pursued under Medical Malpractice Act | Overruled demurrer — Alcoy distinguishes medical care vs. facility/security omissions; tort claims permissible |
| VCPA claim sufficiency and preemption by malpractice statute | Alleged misrepresentations about safety/security measures were factual and actionable under VCPA | VCPA preempted by Medical Malpractice Act and Va. Code §59.1-199; demurrer and plea in bar asserted | Plea in bar denied (procedural misplacement); demurrer overruled — complaint sufficiently alleges misrepresentations under VCPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox Cable Hampton Roads, 242 Va. 394 (establishes demurrer pleading standard accepting material facts and reasonable inferences)
- Ward's Equipment, Inc. v. New Holland North Am., 254 Va. 379 (demurrer does not admit legal conclusions)
- Glazebrook v. Board of Supervisors, 266 Va. 550 (demurrer tests legal sufficiency, not strength of proof)
- Nasser v. Parker, 249 Va. 349 (general rule: no duty to control third-party conduct absent special relationship)
- Delk v. Columbia, 259 Va. 125 (psychiatric hospital may owe special-relationship duty to protect vulnerable inpatients from other inpatients)
- Alcoy v. Valley Nursing Homes, Inc., 272 Va. 37 (distinguishes medical malpractice from facility/management/security torts)
- Lambert v. Downtown Garage, Inc., 262 Va. 707 (VCPA requires misrepresentation of existing fact)
- Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176 (procedural bar standards for pleas in bar)