Summary
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed dismissal of a medical professional negligence action arising from John Edward Hull’s suicide. The court held that West Virginia’s general rule barring negligence claims based on another person’s suicide applied because the alleged medical providers did not have custodial care, knowledge of a suicide risk, or a duty and opportunity to prevent the suicide. The court also rejected petitioners’ arguments concerning statutory prima facie negligence and consideration of materials outside the pleadings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether West Virginia's general rule barring negligence actions seeking damages for another person's suicide required dismissal of petitioners' medical negligence claims.
- Whether petitioners alleged facts bringing their claims within the narrow exception for defendants with custodial care, knowledge of the potential for suicide, and a duty to take measures to prevent it.
- Whether the circuit court improperly considered matters outside the pleadings when ruling on the motions to dismiss.
- Whether petitioners' statutory prima facie negligence theory avoided the rule barring claims based on suicide.
- Whether dismissal without additional discovery was proper under Rule 56(f).
Holdings
- West Virginia's general rule bars negligence actions seeking damages for another person's suicide because the deliberate and intentional act of suicide is ordinarily an intervening act that precludes imposing liability on the defendant. Petitioners' medical negligence claims were therefore properly dismissed.
- The narrow exception to the suicide bar did not apply because petitioners did not allege custodial care, knowledge of the potential for suicide, and failure to take appropriate preventive measures.
- Alleging a violation of a statute does not establish liability without proof that the violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; petitioners' statutory negligence theory did not avoid dismissal.
- The circuit court did not commit reversible error by considering the record presented, and dismissal without further discovery was proper because petitioners' Rule 56(f) affidavit did not identify material facts that could bring the case within the narrow suicide exception.
Key quotations
“negligence actions seeking damages for the suicide of another have generally been barred because the act of suicide is considered deliberate and intentional, and therefore, an intervening act that precludes a finding that the defendant is responsible” (4)
“Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo.” (3)
Factual background
John Edward Hull received treatment from Dr. Nasher and Neurology & Pain Center from August 2012 until April 28, 2014, and from Dr. Adkins and Bone and Joint at various times between April 2004 and August 2014. He died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound on January 7, 2016. His co-executrices alleged that respondents negligently treated his chronic pain and sleeplessness, prescribed controlled substances, failed to address his addiction or refer him for other treatment, and thereby caused his suicide. At the time of his death, respondents had not treated him for more than a year and had no custodial relationship with him.
Procedural history
Petitioners filed a Medical Professional Liability Act action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on May 21, 2018. Respondents moved to dismiss, with the Bone and Joint respondents alternatively seeking summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motions on October 18, 2018, concluding that West Virginia's general rule barring negligence claims based on another person's suicide applied and that no exception was established. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.