{
  "id": 12130513,
  "name": "EDITH B. SUMBLIN v. CRAVEN COUNTY HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a Corporation; COASTAL NEURO-PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Corporation; ELLIS F. MUTHER and CLARENCE BALLENGER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sumblin v. Craven County Hospital Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1987-07-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 873SC77",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 358"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "205 S.E. 2d 345",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "348"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 623",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557140
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "626"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0623-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 S.E. 2d 839",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.C. App. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524438
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/81/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 264",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551647
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/15/0492-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N.C. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626234
      ],
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0337-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 484,
    "char_count": 8459,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.871,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.211083870627846e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43091025770228303
    },
    "sha256": "b39196b0db2a4d1a7d60343bf7c52ac3e6102650b001283c8cf4e48e98145c4d",
    "simhash": "1:c3f662bf3c173174",
    "word_count": 1309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:51.245722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin and COZORT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDITH B. SUMBLIN v. CRAVEN COUNTY HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a Corporation; COASTAL NEURO-PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Corporation; ELLIS F. MUTHER and CLARENCE BALLENGER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nPlaintiff, Edith Sumblin, brought this action against defendant, Craven County Hospital Corporation (the Hospital), alleging that the Hospital (1) falsely imprisoned her by transferring her to its psychiatric ward, and (2) negligently failed to protect her from assaults by another patient. The trial judge granted the Hospital\u2019s motion for summary judgment on both causes of action. Sum-blin appeals. We affirm as to the action for false imprisonment but reverse the trial judge\u2019s grant of the motion for summary judgment on the negligence action.\nI\nThe parties agreed to the following facts. Edith Sumblin was hospitalized at Craven County Hospital on 10 June 1983 at the direction and under the care of her private physicians, Doctors Ballenger and Muther. Dr. Ballenger is a neurologist, and Dr. Muther is a psychiatrist. On 11 June 1983, Dr. Ballenger instructed Sumblin\u2019s attending nurses to transfer her to the Hospital\u2019s Neuro-Psychiatric ward. The nurses complied. Sumblin was not permitted to leave the psychiatric ward until 13 June 1983.\nDuring her stay on the ward Sumblin was accosted by another patient known to her only as \u201cGerald.\u201d Sumblin alleged that \u201cGerald\u201d often attempted and sometimes succeeded in putting his hands underneath her gown and grabbing her legs and clothing. She said she protested against these molestations and complained to the nurses. She further alleged that the nurses did not respond promptly or adequately to her complaints. Sumblin alleged that she suffered emotional injury as a result of \u201cGerald\u2019s\u201d molestations.\nThe Hospital in their Answer maintained that the nurses responded timely and reasonably to Sumblin\u2019s complaints.\nII\nSumblin first contends that the trial judge erred in granting the Hospital\u2019s motion for summary judgment on her false imprisonment action. We disagree. False imprisonment is the involuntary and unlawful restraint of a person against her will without legal process. Strong\u2019s North Carolina Index, 3d Ed. False Imprisonment Sec. 1. Sumblin contends that she was unlawfully restrained by the Hospital\u2019s neuro-psychiatric personnel because the Hospital failed to comply with statutory guidelines for involuntary commitment.\nThe guidelines for involuntary commitment were provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 122 (1985) which was repealed in 1986 and replaced by N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 122C (1986). The old and new statutes essentially set out the same procedures for involuntary commitment. Assuming no emergency, commitment may be accomplished only after a magistrate or clerk of court issues an order to take custody. Such an order is based on a sworn affidavit by the party, which may be a physician, seeking commitment. In the instant case, Sumblin\u2019s private physician ordered her placed in the neuro-psychiatric ward. The physician was not an agent of the Hospital. It was the physician, if anyone, and not the nurses or hospital personnel who sought to involuntarily commit plaintiff. Thus the conduct of the hospital personnel was not unlawful in this case. Absent obvious negligence by the physician or danger to the patient, hospital personnel are obligated to follow the instructions of a treating physician. See Byrd v. Marion General Hospital et al., 202 N.C. 337, 162 S.E. 738 (1932). We find nothing in the complaint, affidavits or depositions to suggest that the physician\u2019s instructions were obviously negligent or dangerous to Sumblin. Summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, fail to establish a genuine issue as to any material fact. Johnston County Tuberculosis Ass'n, Inc. v. N.C. Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Ass\u2019n, Inc., 15 N.C. App. 492, 190 S.E. 2d 264 (1972). The Hospital did not unlawfully restrain Sumblin. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIll\nSumblin next contends that the trial judge erred in granting the Hospital\u2019s summary judgment motion on her negligence action. We agree. Sumblin alleged that she was repeatedly molested by \u201cGerald\u201d during her stay on the neuro-psychiatric ward. She stated that she complained to the nurses on 11 June but they did not help; instead, they advised her to give him a cigarette and told her he would not harm her. On 12 June Sumblin\u2019s daughters visited her. They testified on deposition that \u201cGerald\u201d sat at their mother\u2019s feet, followed her around the ward, and fondled and molested her during their visit. They complained to the nurses but the nurses told them that they could not manhandle the patients. \u201cGerald\u2019s\u201d assaultive behavior continued for several hours. Sumblin\u2019s daughters contended that the nurses responded only after they threatened to handle \u201cGerald\u201d themselves.\nThe Hospital contends that its personnel responded reasonably under the circumstances. The nurses\u2019 statements on deposition reflected a more thorough, ongoing attempt to insure that \u201cGerald\u201d did not harm Sumblin and that \u201cGerald\u201d himself was not harmed. Although the disagreement between the parties\u2019 versions of the events is obvious, the question whether the dispute reaches a material fact can only be resolved after we determine what standard of care should apply to hospital personnel in this case. The Hospital contends that the standard for health care providers should apply. It further argues that because Sumblin failed to offer an expert witness to establish a professional standard of care, she could not show that the Hospital performed negligently. We disagree. In Burns v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, 81 N.C. App. 556, 344 S.E. 2d 839 (1986), this Court stated that a hospital, much like the proprietor of any public facility, owes a duty to its invitees to protect the patient against foreseeable assaults by another patient. \u201cWhen the alleged breach does not involve the rendering or failure to render professional nursing or medical services requiring special skills, it is not necessary to establish the standard of due care prevailing among hospitals in like situations in order to develop a case of negligence.\u201d Norris v. Rowan Memorial Hospital, 21 N.C. App. 623, 626, 205 S.E. 2d 345, 348 (1974). Such is the case here. Sumblin alleged that she was assaulted by another patient. No special skill was required to protect her in this case. The trier of fact must decide whether hospital personnel acted as reasonably prudent persons under the circumstances.\nThe judgment is\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.\nJudges Martin and COZORT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BECTON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeffrey S. Miller for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Sumrell, Sugg & Carmichael by Fred M. Carmichael and Rudolph A. Ashton, III, for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDITH B. SUMBLIN v. CRAVEN COUNTY HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a Corporation; COASTAL NEURO-PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Corporation; ELLIS F. MUTHER and CLARENCE BALLENGER\nNo. 873SC77\n(Filed 7 July 1987)\n1. Insane Persons \u00a7 1; False Imprisonment \u00a7 2.1\u2014 defendant confined to psychiatric ward of hospital \u2014no false imprisonment\nThe trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs complaint for false imprisonment based on her contention that she was unlawfully restrained by defendant hospital\u2019s neuro-psychiatric personnel because defendant failed to comply with statutory guidelines for involuntary commitment, since plaintiffs private physician ordered her placed in the neuro-psychiatric ward; the physician was not an agent of defendant; it was the physician, if anyone, and not the nurses or hospital personnel who sought involuntarily to commit defendant; and absent obvious negligence by the physician or danger to the patient, neither of which was present here, defendant\u2019s personnel were obligated to follow the instructions of the treating physician.\n2. Hospitals \u00a7 3.2\u2014 one patient molested by another \u2014 standard of care among hospitals \u2014showing not required\nThe trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant hospital on plaintiffs negligence claim based on her contention that she was molested by a fellow patient, since the alleged breach of duty did not involve the failure to render professional nursing or medical services requiring special skills, and it was therefore not necessary for plaintiff to establish the standard of care prevailing among hospitals in like situations.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Herbert 0. Phillips, III, Judge. Order entered 22 September 1986 in Superior Court, CRAVEN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 June 1987.\nJeffrey S. Miller for plaintiff appellant.\nSumrell, Sugg & Carmichael by Fred M. Carmichael and Rudolph A. Ashton, III, for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 386,
  "last_page_order": 389
}