finding that the right to indemnification resides in the party who “without active fault on his own part, has been compelled, by reason of some legal obligation, to pay damages occasioned by the initial negligence of another, and for which he himself is only secondarily liable;” even a murderer who was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but who played an active role in the events that resulted in injury, could not recover legal damages
How later courts described this case
- finding that the right to indemnification resides in the party who “without active fault on his own part, has been compelled, by reason of some legal obligation, to pay damages occasioned by the initial negligence of another, and for which he himself is only secondarily liable;” even a murderer who was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but who played an active role in the events that resulted in injury, could not recover legal damages
- offering that DiNardo “alleges injuries which are not directly attributable to his criminal convictions, but instead may have been caused directly (or substantially) by [Appellees’] negligence, such as ‘severe emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of life’s pleasures’” (citation omitted)
- concurring and dissenting opinion by then Justice, now former Chief Justice Nix
- Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by then Justice now Chief Justice Nix
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring in part with and dissenting in part from the judgment of the court.
[2] I concur with the result announced today by Justice Flaherty in his Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court, permitting the Appellees’ case to proceed to the jury *267 on the issue of the hospital’s negligence resulting in damage claims for medical and psychiatric care, mental anguish, loss of employment and public humiliation. It is clear, as Justice Flaherty has stated, that in order to recover, the Appellees must prove that the hospital owed a duty to James, the hospital breached its duty, and that the breach of that duty is the legal cause of the injuries suffered by James and his parents. Dismissing the Appellees’ claims at this stage is premature, as reasonable men may differ as to whether the hospital owed a duty to James, and that the failure to honor such duty caused the Appellees’ injuries. Therefore, the Appellees must be given the opportunity to present whatever evidence they have to sustain their claims.
For the same reasons, I must respectfully dissent from Justice Flaherty’s Opinion in sustaining the preliminary objections to the Appellees’ claims for damages related to defending the criminal and civil actions. I disagree with Justice Flaherty’s characterization of this claim of the Appellees as a demand for indemnification, as I fail to see any difference between this claim and the remaining claims the majority is permitting to go to trial.
James was admitted by the hospital with the full knowledge of his propensity for setting fires. By admitting James with the knowledge of his condition, the hospital agreed to provide the necessary medical and psychiatric treatments. Furthermore, James was placed in the hospital because of his parents’ fear of potential harm to James or others as the result of his mental condition. It is not unreasonable or against public policy to impose upon the hospital the duty to supervise James so as to prevent harm either to himself or others. This the hospital failed to do, resulting in harm to both James and the patient sharing his room. Therefore, a jury could reasonably impose a duty upon the hospital which the hospital unreasonably breached.
The only remaining issue is whether the hospital’s negligence can be determined to be the legal cause of the Appellees’ injuries. As Justice Flaherty correctly states, the issue is whether the Appellant’s conduct is a substantial factor in causing the Appellees’ injuries. Hamil v. Bashline, *268 481 Pa. 256 , 392 A.2d 1280 (1978); See also, Justice Pomeroy’s opinion in Whitner v. Lojeski, 437 Pa. 448 , 263 A.2d 889 (1970). Section 433 of the Restatement of Torts 2d sets forth factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant’s condition is a substantial factor in producing the complained of injuries. One relevant consideration is the extent other factors have contributed to the defendant’s injuries. If the Appellees would have suffered their injuries notwithstanding the negligent conduct of the hospital, then the conduct of the hospital cannot be determined to have been a substantial factor in causing the said injuries. The hospital seems to argue that the Commonwealth or the decedent’s family, not the hospital, initiated proceedings against James for his actions. Therefore, either individually or together, the action of the Commonwealth and the decedent’s family was the substantial factor in causing the Appellees’ injuries. This position is untenable in that the actions of both the Commonwealth and the decedent’s family were the result of the initial tortious conduct of the hospital, and not a cause of the Appellees’ injuries. Without the hospital’s lack of supervision, James would not have killed his hospital roommate. Therefore, both civil and criminal proceedings would have been unnecessary.
Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Commonwealth Court.