Stepakoff v. Kantar

393 Mass. 836, 473 N.E.2d 1131 (1985)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Stepakoff v. Kantar

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
393 Mass. 836, 473 N.E.2d 1131 (1985)


Gerald Stepakoff had been seeing Dr. William G. Kantar (defendant), a licensed psychiatrist, for a little over a year before committing suicide. When Stepakoff began seeing Dr. Kantar, the doctor noted that Stepakoff was potentially suicidal. However, after getting to know Stepakoff, Dr. Kantar believed that Stepakoff’s defense mechanisms would prevent him from committing the act, and the two had a pact that Stepakoff would call Dr. Kantar if he was feeling suicidal. The weekend that Stepakoff committed suicide, his wife had asked him to be out of the house when she returned from a weekend trip. Stepakoff’s wife phoned Dr. Kantar to inform him of her request and to express concern for Stepakoff’s wellbeing. Dr. Kantar was on vacation. However, before his departure, Dr. Kantar provided Stepakoff with contact information for another psychiatrist, if needed, and agreed to contact Stepakoff nightly to discuss his mental condition. As evidenced by the doctor’s notes, Dr. Kantar worried that Stepakoff would not make it through the weekend and called an emergency meeting with Stepakoff and separately with the covering psychiatrist to discuss the need for involuntary hospitalization. Stepakoff assured both psychiatrists that he did not intend to commit suicide; however, Stepakoff committed suicide shortly after making those assurances. Stepakoff’s widow (plaintiff) sued Dr. Kantar in state district court for wrongful death, alleging that although he knew or should have known that Stepakoff was suicidal, Dr. Kantar negligently failed to prevent Stepakoff from committing suicide by having him involuntarily hospitalized. After hearing from two psychiatrists whose opinions differed on whether Dr. Kantar’s treatment of Stepakoff conformed with good medical practice and having been instructed regarding Dr. Kantar’s general malpractice duty, a jury found in favor of Dr. Kantar. Stepakoff’s widow appealed, arguing that the judge failed to instruct the jury on negligence. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the appeal on its own motion.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership