Thomas SHERK and Susan Sherk, His Wife, Appellants, v. COUNTY OF DAUPHIN, Mental Health and Retardation Services, Harrisburg State Hospital and Linda Weigel, Administrator of the Estate of Mark E. Jordan, Appellees.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted May 27, 1992. Decided Sept. 18, 1992.
614 A.2d 226 | 531 Pa. 515
John M. Abel, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees.
LARSEN, Justice:
Appellants, Thomas Sherk and Susan Sherk, his wife, appeal from an opinion and order of the Commonwealth Court, 128 Pa.Cmwlth. 150, 562 A.2d 1025, which reversed an order of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County that overruled preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer raising the defense of sovereign immunity of appellee Harrisburg State Hospital. The Commonwealth Court remanded the case to the Dauphin County Common Pleas Court with directions to that court to sustain the preliminary objections of Harrisburg State Hospital and dismiss the Sherks’ complaint. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
At the outset we note that in reviewing the grant or denial of preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, we adhere to the following standard:
All material facts set forth in the Complaint as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom are admitted as true for [the purpose of this review.] The question present
ed by the demurrer is whether on the facts averred the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Where a doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, this doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it. Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., 530 Pa. 11, 15-17, 606 A.2d 444, 446 (1992), citing Kyle v. McNamara & Criste, 506 Pa. 631, 634, 487 A.2d 814, 816 (1985).
Pursuant to that standard, the record discloses that the allegations contained in the Sherks’ complaint filed against the County of Dauphin, Mental Health and Retardation Services, Harrisburg State Hospital and Lina Weigel, as Administrator of the Estate of Mark D. Jordan, which for purposes of this review we accept as true, aver that on June 14, 1986, appellant Thomas Sherk was employed as a police officer with the the police department of Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. On that date, Thomas Sherk was on duty and was dispatched to respond to and investigate a report of a suspicious person described in the report as a white male with a gun. Approximately one-half hour after embarking on the investigation assigned to him, officer Sherk encountered and arrested Mark A. Jordan (Jordan) who had a history of suffering from mental illness. While officer Sherk was attempting to control and subdue Jordan, a scuffle erupted during which Jordan gained possession of officer Sherk‘s weapon. Jordan fired a shot from that weapon wounding officer Sherk in the right thigh. Jordan then fled the scene taking officer Sherk‘s gun with him. Shortly thereafter, Jordan committed suicide by shooting himself with the gun he had taken from officer Sherk.
From October 12, 1985 until May 3, 1986, when he was released, Jordan had been a psychiatric patient in Harrisburg State Hospital.1 The Sherks’ complaint alleges that the appellee Harrisburg State Hospital acted recklessly, wantonly and negligently in caring for and in prematurely releasing Jordan. The Sherks’ complaint further seeks damages for the bodily
Appellee, Harrisburg State Hospital responded to the Sherks’ complaint for damages by filing preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer averring, inter alia: (a) that Harrisburg State Hospital is a Commonwealth party and is immune from suit; (b) that the Sherks’ complaint fails to aver any facts which brings their claim within a statutory exception to sovereign immunity; and (c) that sovereign immunity is not waived by the facts pleaded by the Sherks. Harrisburg State Hospital‘s objections in the nature of a demurrer concluded by asking for dismissal of the Sherks’ complaint. By order dated December 6, 1988, Harrisburg State Hospital‘s demurrer was denied by the trial court. Subsequently, the question of sovereign immunity was certified by the trial court as a controlling question of law and an appeal to the Commonwealth Court was filed by Harrisburg State Hospital. The Commonwealth Court reversed the order of the Dauphin County Common Pleas Court and remanded the case to that court with directions to sustain the preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer and dismiss the complaint. Upon petition filed by appellants Thomas and Susan Sherk, we granted allowance of appeal to consider the question of whether appellee Harrisburg State Hospital is shielded from liability in this case by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.2
The common law doctrine of sovereign immunity which provided that the Commonwealth was immune from liability for tortious acts unless the Legislature consented to suit was abolished by this Court in Mayle v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A.2d 709 (1978). The Legislature responded to our decision in Mayle by enacting the Act of
§ 2310. Sovereign immunity reaffirmed; specific waiver Pursuant to section 11 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is hereby declared to be the intent of the General Assembly that the Commonwealth, and its officials and employees acting within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy sovereign and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. When the General Assembly specifically waives sovereign immunity, a claim against the Commonwealth and its officials and employees shall be brought only in such manner and in such courts and in such cases as directed by the provisions of Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedure) unless otherwise specifically authorized by statute.
Chapter 85 of The Judicial Code,
Exceptions to sovereign immunity are provided for in Section 8522 (
Under well established precedent, if plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to demonstrate the mental condition of [the patient] warranted the duty asserted [by the plaintiff], the hospital would clearly be responsible for injury to the person or property of third parties where such injury resulted from a hospital‘s negligent failure to meet its responsibility. (citations omitted)
Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, 502 Pa. 241, 258, 465 A.2d 1231, 1240 (1983) (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by then Justice now Chief Justice Nix). The damages suffered by the Sherks would be recoverable under common law if they had been caused by a person who was not able to assert the defense of sovereign immunity. See Rhines v. Herzel, 481 Pa. 165, 392 A.2d 298 (1978); and Evanuik v. University of Pittsburgh, 234 Pa.Super. 287, 338 A.2d 636 (1975).
The appellants, Thomas and Susan Sherk, argue that the medical-professional liability exception to sovereign immunity (
(b) Act which may impose liability.—The following acts by a Commonwealth party may result in the imposition of liability on the Commonwealth and the defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised for damages caused by:
(2) Medical-professional liability.—Acts of health care employees of Commonwealth agency medical facilities or institutions or by a Commonwealth party who is a doctor, dentist, nurse or related health care personnel.
The Commonwealth Court, citing our opinions in Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351, 523 A.2d 1118 (1987) and, Chevalier v. City of Philadelphia, 516 Pa. 316, 532 A.2d 411 (1987), and its own opinion in Moore v. Department of Justice, 114 Pa.Commow. 56, 538 A.2d 111 (1988), concluded that “the criminal acts of a discharged mental patient did not constitute acts of the Commonwealth or its employees for which immunity is waived under the medical-professional exception.” The Commonwealth Court observed that “harm caused by third persons may not be imputed to a local agency or its employees“, and held that “since Sherk‘s injuries were caused by the criminal acts of a third party, Jordan, the Harrisburg [State] Hospital is insulated from all liability.” We disagree. None of these cases relied upon by the Commonwealth Court involved a psychiatric patient negligently cared for and recklessly and wantonly released into the community as is alleged in the case before us. Moreover, one of those cases, Moore v. Department of Justice, supra., by clear inference, recognizes that a state hospital, with the medical expertise to foresee that a mental patient who is prematurely released may harm and injure others, is subject to suit and liability for such harm and injury.
Moore, involved an injured plaintiff seeking damages of Commonwealth party defendants4 for injuries Moore sustained when he was shot five times by an inmate/prisoner of the state prison who had been granted a two-day home furlough, but who had failed to return when the two days had elapsed and was then reported as an escapee. Moore argued that his allegations that the Commonwealth party defendants had engaged in willful misconduct and were otherwise negli-
The other two cases, Mascaro and Chevalier, dealt with a consideration of governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act,
[T]he real estate exception [to the governmental immunity statute] can be applied only to those cases where it is alleged that the artificial condition or defect of the land itself causes the injury, not merely when it facilitates the injury by the acts of others, whose acts are outside the statute‘s scope of liability.
Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. at 363, 523 A.2d at 1124. The holding in Mascaro is specifically limited to the real property exception to governmental immunity which was before the court in that case. Additionally, in construing the language of section 8541, the majority in Mascaro stated:
Acts of others, however are specifically excluded in the general immunity section (
42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 ), and are nowhere discussed in the eight exceptions. On this basis alone, we must conclude that any harm that others cause may not be imputed to the local agency or its employees. (emphasis in original).
Id. 514 Pa. at 362, 523 A.2d at 1124. Thus, the court‘s interpretation of the governmental immunity statute before the court in Mascaro precludes imposing liability upon a governmental unit by imputing the negligence of a third party to the governmental unit or any of its employees. Crowell v. City of Philadelphia, 531 Pa. 400, 403, 613 A.2d 1178 (1992).
In Chevalier, the plaintiff was mugged by unknown assailants in a parking lot owned and operated by the City of Philadelphia. The plaintiffs alleged that the City‘s failure to
The City‘s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is properly granted because the harm caused by third persons may not be imputed to a local agency or its employees.
Chevalier v. City of Philadelphia, 516 Pa. at 319, 532 A.2d at 413. The court, in Chevalier, relied upon the interpretation adopted in Mascaro that section 8541 prohibits the imputing of a third party‘s negligence to a governmental unit or any of its employees.
Contrasting Mascaro and Chevalier with the instant case, it is the sovereign immunity statute,
Finally, the Commonwealth Court cited its opinion in Matter of Goryeb, 125 Pa.Commow. 271, 557 A.2d 822 (1989), as controlling precedent. In Goryeb, a Commonwealth party (Clarks Summit State Hospital) discharged a psychiatric patient who had been diagnosed as “severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment“, and who met the statutory criteria
We rejected the notion that Mascaro and Chevalier were dispositive of the issues raised by the complaint in Goryeb. Although we recognized the similarities between the Political Subdivision Tort Claim Act and the Sovereign Immunity Act, we declined to apply our narrow interpretations of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and the specific exceptions thereto in Mascaro and Chevalier to the Sovereign Immunity Act and the medical-professional liability exception under consideration in Goryeb. The late Justice McDermott, writing for the majority, noted that the issues in Mascaro and Chevalier involved the Political Subdivision Tort Claim Act alone, whereas the issues raised in plaintiffs’ complaint in Goryeb involved the interplay between the Sovereign Immunity Act and the
Section 114 of the Mental Health Procedures Act,
(a) In the absence of willful misconduct or gross negligence, a county administrator, a director of a facility, a physician, a peace officer or any other authorized person who participates in a decision that a person be examined or treated under this act, or that a person be discharged, or placed under partial hospitalization, outpatient care or leave of absence, or that the restraint upon such person be otherwise reduced, or a county administrator or other authorized person who denies an application for voluntary treatment or for emergency examination and treatment, shall not be civilly or criminally liable for such decision or for any of its consequences.
We held in Goryeb that the medical-professional liability exception to sovereign immunity,
When a Commonwealth party participates in a decision that a person be examined, treated or discharged pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures Act, such a party shall not be civilly or criminally liable for such decision or for any of its consequences except in the case of willful misconduct or gross negligence. Conversely, and most importantly to the instant case, a Commonwealth party participating in a decision to examine, treat or discharge a mentally ill patient within the purview of the Mental Health Procedures Act
who commits willful misconduct or gross negligence can be liable for such decision.
Goryeb v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, 525 Pa. 78, 575 A.2d at 548-549. Thus, a Commonwealth party who commits willful misconduct or gross negligence in participating in a decision to examine, treat or discharge a patient pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures Act shall be “liable for such decision or for any of its consequences.” We have further held that the language “any of its consequences” clearly indicates a recognition that discharging a mentally disabled patient, especially one who has been classified as a clear and present danger to himself and/or others constitutes a potential serious danger, not only to himself but to others. Id. In the present case, an alleged consequence of the reckless, wanton and negligent release of the patient Jordan was the injuries and damages suffered by officer Sherk.
Appellee, Harrisburg State Hospital argues that the rule of statutory construction pertaining to statutes in pari materia was misapplied in Goryeb and does not apply here for the reason that the Sovereign Immunity Act and the Mental Health Procedures Act are inconsistent with one another. The inconsistency advocated by the appellee hospital is that the Sovereign Immunity Act speaks of liability “for damages arising out of a negligent act” (
The appellee, Harrisburg State Hospital, invites us to overrule our recent decision in Goryeb v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, supra. and immunize it as a Commonwealth party from all liability for injuries and damages caused by willful misconduct and gross negligence in releasing a mental patient from institutional care. We decline the invitation.
To exculpate and/or immunize a party who, through gross negligence or willful misconduct, has unleashed into the community a person non compos mentis, who has been diagnosed to be a clear and present danger to himself or others, is neither consistent with the required in pari materia construction of the relevant statutes, nor public policy, nor good sense....”
Id. 525 Pa. 79, 575 A.2d at 549. Thus, we reaffirm that pursuant to the medical-professional liability exception to the Sovereign Immunity statute (
The order of the Commonwealth Court is reversed and the this case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CAPPY, J., files a concurring opinion.
NIX, C.J., concurs in the result.
ZAPPALA, J., files a dissenting opinion.
I concur in the result reached by those of my colleagues joining the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court.
I believe that the only issue to be addressed in this opinion is the question of whether the appellee is entitled to blanket sovereign immunity as the trial court found in sustaining appellee‘s preliminary objection. I agree that our recent decision in Goryeb v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, 525 Pa. 70, 575 A.2d 545 (1990), sets forth certain specific circumstances under which appellee could be found liable and, thus, controls the issue of immunity pursuant to the Sovereign Immunity Act,
ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting.
Although this Court‘s decision in Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351, 523 A.2d 1118 (1987) involved an interpretation of governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, it is instructive on the issue of whether the acts of third parties may impose liability upon a Commonwealth party by imputing the negligence of the third party to the Commonwealth party. Mascaro emphasized the importance of analyzing the precise language of the immunity statute itself in determining whether the legislative intent was to expose a governmental entity to liability. The statutory language is critical because exceptions to the rule of sovereign immunity must be narrowly interpreted given the expressed legislative intent to insulate Commonwealth parties from tort liability. See, Mascaro, 514 Pa. at 361, 523 A.2d at 1123.
The general immunity section of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act,
The general rule governing sovereign immunity is that immunity is not waived except as provided in the statute.
As in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, the sovereign immunity statute does not include any exception to the statute for the acts of others. The statute clearly limits the Commonwealth‘s liability solely to acts by a Commonwealth party. The medical-professional liability exception provides that the defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised to claims for damages caused by “[a]cts of health care employees of Commonwealth agency medical facilities or institutions or by a Commonwealth party who is a doctor, dentist, nurse or related health care personnel.”
The majority improperly imputes liability to the Commonwealth based upon the harm caused by a third person, rather than a Commonwealth party. I agree with the Commonwealth Court that the medical-professional liability exception was intended to impose liability on the Commonwealth only for injuries suffered by patients and does not extend to injuries inflicted upon others by those patients. The majority‘s expansive interpretation is at odds with our holding in