Residential drug and mental health treatment facilities do not always have a legal duty to prevent residents from harming themselves or others. Courts have ruled that just living at the facility is not enough to create a duty of care, and the facility may not be held liable for injuries caused by residents. Each case is decided based on the specific facts and circumstances. In a case called Metro Dade County v. Dubon, a homeless shelter was not held responsible for a resident stabbing another resident. The shelter had rules, but residents could still come and go as they pleased. This means the shelter didn’t have enough control over the residents to be responsible for the stabbing.
The plaintiff needs to pay attention to this and make sure to gather enough information to support their case. They should also consider if the cases mentioned fully cover the legal principles involved.
According to the Florida Supreme Court, a negligence claim in Florida requires showing that the defendant’s actions created a foreseeable risk of harming others. This means that a facility providing mental health treatment can be held responsible for negligence if it doesn’t properly enforce policies and someone gets hurt as a result. This sets a broad duty for treatment facilities to protect their residents and others from harm. In the case of White v. Whiddon, a teenager committed suicide while in the back of a sheriff’s patrol car. The parents sued the installer of the screen, the manufacturer of the screen, and the sheriff. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the installer, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The court found that the installer had a duty to the detainee and that their improper installation of the cage created a foreseeable risk of harm. As a result, they could be held responsible for the teenager’s death. In the case of Nova University, Inc. v. Wagner, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a residential treatment facility can be held responsible for the actions of its residents if it fails to exercise reasonable care. In a similar case, Garrison Retirement Home Corp. v. Hancock, a retirement home was held liable for injuries caused by a resident who was known to be dangerous. These cases show that treatment facilities have a duty to ensure the safety of their residents and others. The retirement home tried to stop a resident from driving by doing things like letting the air out of his tires and taking his keys, but the resident managed to drive anyway and hit someone. The court decided that the retirement home had a duty to prevent the resident from driving because they knew he was a danger. So even though they tried to stop him, they still had a duty to make sure he didn’t drive. In the case of Wagner, the defendant argued that they were only responsible for the safety of residents who were committed to their facility. However, the court ruled that they had a duty to control and care for residents with dangerous propensities, even if the residents were not locked up. It’s important to take responsibility for the care of others, especially when negligent actions could cause harm. The Restatement of the Law of Torts says that if someone takes charge of a person, they have a duty to take care of them. This duty can also come from offering help or services to someone. In a court case called Reidel v. Sheraton Bal Harbour Assoc. , a hotel was found responsible for the death of a diabetic woman because they provided her with a doctor who gave her bad medical advice. This shows that even if someone doesn’t have a duty to take care of a person, they can still be responsible if they offer help and do a bad job. The court ruled that a hotel had a duty to provide reasonable care once they took on the task of helping a woman. There are three legal theories that can lead to liability: a special relationship, taking charge of a person with known dangerous propensities, and the voluntary assumption of a duty. Residential facilities have a duty to ensure their residents are not injured, and those who are injured due to negligence can seek damages through a trial. It’s important to gather all the necessary information to show that the facility’s actions or inactions led to the injury. This applies to those recovering from alcohol and drug addictions, and Alcoholics Anonymous recommends hospitalization for those who are struggling with their addiction. If someone does something that could harm others, like giving a gun to someone who is drunk, they could be legally responsible for any harm that happens. This is because there is a general risk of harm when certain things are done, and the law says people have a duty to not be negligent and cause harm. It’s up to a jury to decide if someone is legally responsible for harm that happens. In these cases, the courts found that hospitals and law enforcement officers can be held responsible for the actions of people who harm themselves while in their care. This is because they have a duty to provide proper care and supervision for those in their custody or under their care. If they fail to do so, they can be found negligent and liable for any harm that occurs as a result. If someone takes care of another person and makes them more vulnerable to harm, they have a duty to take reasonable action to protect them. If someone creates a risk of harm to another person, they have a duty to prevent that harm. If someone’s actions make another person helpless and in danger of harm, they have a duty to protect them. If someone promises to do something for another person and it increases the risk of harm or they fail to be careful, they can be held responsible for any harm that comes from it. This has been seen in court cases such as Sanderson v. Eckerd Corp. and Union Park Memorial Chapel v. Hutt. Mark A. Sessums and Robert S. Swaine are lawyers at a firm in Florida. They specialize in complex lawsuits involving personal injury and wrongful death.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/halfway-houses-and-mental-health-treatment-facilitiesestablishing-duty-in-tort/
Leave a Reply