{
  "id": 8654937,
  "name": "W. A. BOLLINGER v. W. P. RADER et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bollinger v. Rader",
  "decision_date": "1909-12-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "383",
  "last_page": "386",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 N.C. 383"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 684",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661795
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0684-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N. C., 278",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656146
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/137/0278-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 383,
    "char_count": 7484,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0128559266128023e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7444505451862251
    },
    "sha256": "b86a0703552b0099f56f1f88178d0ea8d3d69d5427fec81439b1b6d5df7efe88",
    "simhash": "1:27362eaca6bbbb6c",
    "word_count": 1257
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. BOLLINGER v. W. P. RADER et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.,\nafter stating the facts: The defendants were public officers and were acting as such at the time that the said Lonnie Rader was discharged by them from further confinement in the said State Hospital. The statute (Revisal, sec. 4596) provides: \u201cAny three of the board of directors of any hospital . . . shall be a board to discharge or remove from' their hospital any person admitted as insane, when such person has become or is found to be of sane mind, or when such person is incurable and, in the opinion of the superintendent, his being at large will not be injurious to himself or dangerous to the community; or said board may permit such person to go to the county of his settlement, on probation, when, in the opinion of the said superintendent, it will not be injurious to himself or dangerous to the community, and said board may discharge or remove such person upon other sufficient cause appearing to them.\u201d\nThe defendants discharged Lonnie Rader under and pursuant to the said statute, and this discharge of Lonnie Rader is complained of as a negligent act on their part.\nWe need not discuss the other grounds of demurrer, which were ably and interestingly argued before us by counsel for both sides, for the first ground of the demurrer is conclusive. The statute under which tlm hospital was created, organized and now exists provides that \u201cNo director or superintendent of any State hospital shall be personally liable for any act or thing done under or in pursuance of any of the provisions of this chapter.\u201d Revisal, sec. 4560. The discharge was made under, and by virtue of the authority conferred by the above section (4596) of the Revisal.\nBut we will add that it does not seem to us that the discharge of Rader, on 5 March, even if negligently made, was the proximate cause of the death of the young girl, which occurred 13 September following. The allegation is in the nature of \"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.\u201d\nThe defendants could not, by the exercise of ordinary care and caution, have anticipated, foreseen or expected that the death of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate would follow as the natural result of their act in discharging Rader from the hospital.\nTheir erroneous or mistaken opinion or judgment \u2014 that Lonnie Rader was sane, or insane \u2014 that his being at large would not be injurious to him or 'dangerous to the community, or that there were other sufficient reasons why he-should be discharged- \u2014 \u2022 and their act in discharging him, did not cause her death. It may be that if they had kept- Rader confined in the State Hospital he might not have killed her; but it is equally true that if be bad never been born or bad never become insane be would not bave killed ber. Tbe discharge of Rader, bis absence from tbe hospital, bis presence in Catawba County, and bis presence at church on tbe day of tbe homicide, was a mere condition which accompanied, but did not cause, tbe injury. Like tbe presence of the freight in tbe depot at Lincolnton when the depot was accidentally destroyed by fire (Extinguisher Co. v. Railroad, 137 N. C., 278), or the lumber on tbe right of way of the railroad at Elk Park when the hotel was destroyed by fire (Bowers v. Railroad, 144 N. C., 684), the absence of Lonnie Rader from the hospital was a mere condition which 'accompanied, but did not cause, tbe injury.\nCounsel pertinently ask, is the absence of the policeman from his beat and this dereliction of duty on his part tbe cause of tbe burglary which happens in bis absence and which bis presence would bave prevented ? Is tbe act of the Governor, who pardons a criminal, tbe cause of tbe homicide which such criminal subsequently commits? Is tbe conduct of tbe judge or justice in declining to remove a prisoner tt> another jail for safe-keeping tbe cause of the death of tbe prisoner in tbe event be is banged by a mob ?\nThe judgment sustaining tbe demurrer is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Witherspoon & Witherspoon, A. A. Whitener and L. G. Caldt-well for plaintiff.",
      "W. D. Turner, W. A. Self and S. J. Ervin for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. BOLLINGER v. W. P. RADER et al.\n(Filed 1 December, 1909.)\n1. Insane Persons \u2014 Hospitals\u2014Directors and Superintendent \u2014 Discharge \u2014 Negligence\u2014Interpretation of Statutes.\nTbe directors and superintendent of a hospital for the insane acting under the provisions of Revisal, 4596, in discharging .or releasing a patient therefrom, cannot be held responsible in damages by the subsequent killing by such patient of another under a charge of negligence. Revisal, 4560.\n2. Same \u2014 Proximate Cause.\nThe act of an insane person\u00bb in killing another about six months after his discharge or release by three directors and the superintendent of a hospital for the insane under authority conferred by Revisal, 4596, was a mere condition arising from the discharge or release, which the directors and superintendent by the exercise of ordinary care and caution, could not have anticipated, foreseen or expected, and for which they could not be held responsible in damages as arising from negligence on their part.\nAppeal from Justice, J., May Term, 1909, of Catawba.\nThe complaint alleges that the defendants \u2014 one of whom is the superintendent and the other three directors of the State Hospital for the Insane, located at Morganton, North Carolina \u2014 negligently discharged one Lonnie Eader, an insane patient committed to said hospital, from confinement therein, and that six mouths later the said Rader, while insane, killed the plaintiff\u2019s intestate.\nThe defendants demurred, because the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these defendants, or either of them, individually or collectively:\n1. Because it appears from said complaint that defendant John McCampbell is superintendent of the State Hospital for the Insane, at Morganton, N. 0., and the defendants Sbuford, Davis and Amifield are members of the board of directors thereof; that said defendants, by virtue of their said offices, and acting within the scope and limits of authority conferred by law, discharged or released Lonnie W. Rader, a patient, from said hospital; that the said McCampbell and his co-defendants are, by section 4560 of the Revisal of 1905, exempted from all personal liability for the alleged acts and omissions complained of in plaintiff\u2019s complaint.\n2. That said John McCampbell and his co-defendants, as appears from said complaint, were acting in their official capacity in the discharge of duty imposed by law and in the exercise of a legal discretion vested in them, and are not liable to plaintiff for discharging said Lonnie W. Rader, of which the plaintiff complains.\n3. That said John McCampbell and his co-defendants, in doing the acts complained of in the plaintiff\u2019s complaint, were in the discharge of judicial duties and functions imposed by law, and were acting within the limits of their authority, and are therefore not liable to the plaintiff in this action on account thereof.\n4. That the allegations in said complaint, that said defendants, knowing that said Rader was dangerously insane and, notwithstanding said knowledge, negligently caused the said Rader to be discharged from said hospital, do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against said defendants or either of them.\n5. That there are not facts or alleged facts set forth in the complaint of plaintiff which could legally cause the damages claimed by him.\nHis Honor sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff appealed.\nWitherspoon & Witherspoon, A. A. Whitener and L. G. Caldt-well for plaintiff.\nW. D. Turner, W. A. Self and S. J. Ervin for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0383-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 430
}