Forde v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Dec 2, 1976 No. Civ. 46031Published

Before: Kaus

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Government Code section 856.2 provides public entities and employees with immunity from liability for injuries to patients confined for mental illness who escape, regardless of whether the patient's confinement was voluntary or involuntary.

Issues

Whether the immunity provided by Government Code section 856.2 for an escaping mental patient applies to a patient who is voluntarily confined.
Whether the immunity provided by Government Code section 856.2 prevails over liability theories based on the failure to provide adequate facilities under section 855.
Whether the exception to immunity in section 856.2, subdivision (b), applies to a failure to recapture an escaped patient.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The immunity conferred by section 856.2 applies whether the mental patient is voluntarily or involuntarily confined.”

“The substitution of ‘confined’ for ‘committed’ makes clear that the immunity covers all persons who are confined for mental illness or addiction, whether or not they are ‘committed.’”

“That the immunity of section 856.2 prevails over the liability created by section 855 was noted in Van Alstyne, California Government Tort Liability (Cont.Ed.Bar 1964) page 649.”

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

Plaintiff Michael Heniy Forde appeals from a summaiy judgment in favor of defendant County of Los Angeles and 11 individual defendants—physicians and a nurse employed by the County.

Facts

The undisputed facts are based on the statement appearing in plaintiff’s opening brief. Plaintiff was admitted to Los Angeles County Hospital on August 29, 1971, suffering an acute psychotic reaction. The admitting doctor, a defendant, decided that plaintiff was a danger to himself and others and that he was gravely disabled and possibly suicidal. Plaintiff was examined the next morning by a staff psychiatrist, another defendant, who noted defendant’s psychotic reaction. This psychiatrist later transferred plaintiff from the closed ward to which he was first admitted to an open ward where doors were usually kept unlocked. At this point, plaintiff’s commitment, originally involuntary, became voluntary.

[479]

On September 6, 1971, plaintiff was still a patient at county hospital. That day, Labor Day, plaintiff was permitted to go to a dance for the patients. At 11:40 a.m., it was noted that plaintiff had disappeared from the dance. A nurse, another defendant, reported to the nursing office that a patient had “eloped," called the security guard and described plaintiff. She notified a psychiatric resident, another defendant, who gave instructions that plaintiff was to be given an extended pass until the next morning.

Within a few hours after “eloping," plaintiff jumped off the Macy Street bridge, suffering the injuries which gave rise to this lawsuit.

Discussion

The trial court properly concluded that defendant county and the individual defendants were immune under Government Code, section 856.2, subdivision (a), which provides as relevant: “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for: ... (2) An injury to, or the wrongful death of an escaping or escaped person who has been confined for mental illness or addiction.”

Plaintiff’s contentions that this section does not apply are without merit.

Forde v. County of Los Angeles

AI Brief

KAUS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief