Dunkle v. Food Service East

582 A.2d 1342 (Pa.Super. 1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Tindal had been receiving psychiatric care from Dr. Hylbert. Hylbert had diagnosed Tindal as having schizophreniform disorder. Tindal was taking medication called Navane to treat his illness. Hylbert instructed Tindal to discontinue regular use of the drug. After he stopped taking his medication, Tindal's behavior became 'nasty' and 'violent.' Hylbert re-prescribed the Navane. In December 1984, Hylbert discharged Tindal and discontinued his medication, instructing him to take Navane on an as-needed basis. Tindal was still under treatment by Keith A. Berfield, a counselor at The Pennsylvania State University. In March 1985, Tindal confessed to the Penn State police that he had been stealing property. The following day, Tindal and Eyer went to the Cannery to shop. They entered the men's room, and Tindal strangled Eyer, believing her to be a Russian agent. Eyer, Tindal's live-in girlfriend, died one week after the attack. Steve Dunkle (P), administrator of the estate of Senie Eyer, instituted an action for damages against the original defendants alleging that the defendants were negligent in failing to maintain a safe place for business and in failing to stop Bruce Tindal from fatally choking Senie Eyer upon their premises. In June 1987, the original defendants filed a writ of summons joining the additional defendants. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the additional defendants. Except for Hylbert and Tindal, the additional defendants filed preliminary objections, contending that the original defendants failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court found that it was necessary to depose Tindal before it could determine whether Eyer was a 'readily identifiable' victim of Tindal's attack. In the final months of 1989, all of the additional defendants filed their respective motions for summary judgment; They owed no duty to the decedent and hence, could not be held liable for her ensuing death. The trial court dismissed the original defendants' complaint to join. This appeal followed.