Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
2d 121
These appeals arise from a negligence action brought by Helen Semler against
Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C., Psychiatric Institute of America,
Professional Associates of the Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C., and
Ralph W. Wadeson, Jr., M.D.1 Jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship.
Mrs. Semler seeks recovery for the death of her daughter Natalia, who was
killed by John Steven Gilreath, a Virginia probationer who had been a patient at
the Institute. The original defendants filed a third party complaint against Paul
Folliard, Gilreath's probation officer, seeking indemnification or contribution
from him if they should be found liable. We will generally refer to the original
defendants and the third party defendant collectively as the appellants. The
district court, sitting without a jury, awarded the plaintiff $25,000 against the
psychiatrists and required Folliard to contribute one-half of this judgment. We
affirm.
* Gilreath had been indicted in Fairfax County, Virginia, for abducting a young
girl in October 1971. Pending his trial, he entered the Institute for psychiatric
treatment. His doctor, Ralph W. Wadeson, Jr., M.D., wrote Gilreath's attorney
that he thought Gilreath could benefit from continued treatment and that he did
not "consider him to be a danger to himself or others as long as he is in a
supervised, structured way of life such as furnished here at Psychiatric
Institute." In August 1972, after conferring with Doctor Wadeson, Judge
William Plummer of the state court sentenced Gilreath on his guilty plea to 20
years' imprisonment but suspended the sentence, conditioned on his continued
treatment and confinement at the Institute.
A few months later, upon the doctor's recommendation and the probation
officer's request, the state judge allowed Gilreath to visit his family for
Thanksgiving and Christmas. Subsequently, again on the recommendation of
the doctor, the judge allowed additional passes, and early in 1973 he authorized
the probation officer to grant weekend passes at his discretion.
The probation officer transmitted this recommendation to the state judge, who
approved it.
II
9
11
We will consider each of these elements separately. The first is whether the
appellants owed the public, including the decedent, Natalia Semler, any duty.
This is a question of law. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Bullock,
182 Va. 440, 29 S.E.2d 228, 230 (1944).
12
13
14
15
15
16
19
We hold, therefore, that the district court correctly concluded that the state
court's order imposed a duty on the appellants to protect the public by retaining
custody over Gilreath until he was released by court order.
III
20
21
The district judge, however, found that there was a significant difference
between day care and out-patient care. This finding is well documented by the
evidence. As a day care patient, Gilreath was under the supervision of the
Institute during the day. At night and on weekends he was supervised by his
parents. His medication, which was essential to his treatment, could be
carefully monitored, his condition readily observed, and, perhaps most
importantly, the resources of the Institute could assist and sustain him in time of
stress. In contrast, as an out-patient, Gilreath lived alone and attended only two
therapy sessions a week. No one effectively monitored his medication, nor was
he under constant observation. Moreover, he lacked the daily psychiatric
supervision which, as the doctor had emphasized, was available to him as a day
care patient. Thus, he did not have the resources or the environment of the
Institute to sustain him in times of mental stress. In the light of these important
considerations, we perceive no error in the district court's finding that the
appellants breached the duty imposed on them by the order of probation when
they failed to seek the trial judge's permission to transfer Gilreath to out-patient
status.
22
The district court also found that the doctor could not justifiably rely on the
probation officer's acquiescence in the transfer. The judge did nothing to clothe
the probation officer with apparent authority to approve such a transfer. The
officer never told the doctor that he was empowered to speak for the state trial
judge, nor did he report that the judge had approved. Similarly, the probation
officer could not rely on the doctor's judgment. He knew that his own authority
was limited to granting passes and that the state judge had reserved to himself
the authority to determine whether more significant changes of status should be
allowed.
23
The appellants emphasize that the district court found the evidence insufficient
to prove malpractice. This finding, however, does not exonerate them, for the
doctor's duty was not restricted to providing acceptable treatment for Gilreath.
On the contrary, it embraced, as we explained in Part II, a duty to comply with
the court order so the public would be protected. The district court found that
this duty was breached. Its finding is supported by the record and,
consequently, Rule 52(a) requires its acceptance.
IV
24
The last element of proof necessary to establish actionable negligence is, in the
words of Virginia's Supreme Court, a "consequent injury." Trimyer v. Norfolk
Tallow Co., 192 Va. 776, 780, 66 S.E.2d 441, 443 (1951). This raises the issue
of proximate cause, which the Virginia Court usually treats as a question of
fact. Standard Oil v. Williams, 202 Va. 362, 366, 117 S.E.2d 93, 95 (1960).
Addressing the issue in this manner, the district judge found, on the basis of
expert psychiatric testimony, that it was less likely that Gilreath would have
killed the plaintiff's daughter had he remained on day care. He also accepted as
"clear and convincing" the expert's testimony that the tragedy was foreseeable
if Gilreath were not kept on day care or closely confined. These subsidiary
findings sustain the district judge's ultimate finding that the breach of the court
order was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss. Cf. Hicks v. United States,
167 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 511 F.2d 407, 420-22 (1975). Moreover, as we noted in
Part II, the probation order imposed on the appellants the duty to protect the
public from assaults by Gilreath because this danger was reasonably
foreseeable when the order was entered. The breach of this duty, followed by
the foreseeable harm on which it was predicated, in itself demonstrates
proximate cause. Cf. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Green, 136 F.2d 88, 91 (4th Cir.
1943).
25
The appellants argue, however, that the evidence is insufficient to show that the
state trial judge would not have approved Gilreath's transfer to out-patient
status had a request been laid before him. There is no direct evidence on this
point. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to infer from the proven facts that the judge
would not have granted his permission. Gilreath had committed a serious crime,
he was sentenced to long imprisonment, and he had been confined only a
relatively short time at the Institute. Disclosure that Gilreath had initiated the
Ohio venture, in part because of financial pressures, and Ohio's rejection of him
as a probationer would have alerted the state judge to the problems his release
might engender. Furthermore, the judge allowed Gilreath to be placed on day
care status only after he had been assured in writing that the Institute would
provide daily psychiatric supervision. The absence of this supervision and the
other substantial differences between day care and out-patient status suggest the
likelihood of the court's declining to allow the transfer, at least without further
investigation.
26
The Institute argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Gilreath
killed Natalia Semler and, therefore, that the plaintiff showed no causal
connection between their conduct and the plaintiff's loss. We find no merit in
this contention.
27
It is true that no witnesses were called to prove the crime, but this is not
dispositive. The parties stipulated Gilreath had been convicted of the murder,
and his confession was admitted into evidence without objection as a part of the
probation officer's file. In accordance with the modern view, the court was free
to assign this evidence the weight it saw fit. See Federal Rule of Evidence
803(22); Redden and Saltzburg, Federal Rules of Evidence Manual 280 (1975);
Model Code of Evidence rule 521 (1942); McCormick, Evidence 738-41 (2d
The probation officer contends that he was improperly joined as a third party
defendant and that he is immune from liability because he was performing a
discretionary duty. We find no error in the district court's rejection of these
defenses.
29
Though the plaintiff and the probation officer are citizens of Virginia,
impleading the officer as a third party defendant under Rule 14(a) did not
require diversity of citizenship. Stemler v. Burke, 344 F.2d 393, 395 (6th Cir.
1965); J. Moore, 3 Federal Practice 14.25, 14.26 (2d ed. 1974).
30
31
Virginia has adopted the following definition of a ministerial act: ". . . one
which a person performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to, or the exercise
of, his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done." Dovel v.
Bertram, 184 Va. 19, 22, 34 S.E.2d 369, 370 (1945). Thus, it is apparent that
the probation officer's recommendation of treatment at the Institute and his
issuance of passes were discretionary rather than ministerial acts. However, the
harm to the Semler girl did not result from the officer's discharge of these
duties. The probation officer also was charged with the responsibility of laying
requests for change in Gilreath's status before the state judge so the latter could
grant or withhold approval. The district court properly ruled that this act was
ministerial. It simply involved the officer's obedience to the mandate of the
court order. He was obliged to see that Gilreath was not released from the type
of confinement approved by the judge without the permission of the judge.
This involved furnishing information to the judge and relaying the court's
decision to the doctor. We hold, therefore, that the district court properly ruled
that under Virginia law the probation officer was performing a ministerial act
and consequently was not entitled to immunity. We also conclude that the
evidence adequately supports the district court's finding that the officer's
negligence contributed to the appellee's loss.
32
The judgments on both the complaint and the third party complaint are
affirmed.
These defendants stipulated that if Dr. Wadeson, the treating physician, were
liable, they were jointly liable