Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Turner v. Jordan

Supreme Court of Tennessee
957 S.W.2d 815 (1997)


Facts

Terry Williams, an inpatient at a psychiatric hospital, was diagnosed by Harold Jordan, M.D. (defendant) as a danger to himself and others. Dr. Jordan wrote in Williams’s medical records that Williams was aggressive, grandiose, intimidating, combative, and dangerous. Despite Dr. Jordan’s medical conclusions concerning Williams, Dr. Jordan did not medicate, restrain, or transfer Williams to another facility. Later, Williams violently attacked Emma Turner, a nurse working at the hospital. Turner and her husband (plaintiffs) sued Dr. Jordan, alleging medical negligence. Williams was not made a party to the lawsuit. Turner claimed that Dr. Jordan had breached his duty to use reasonable care in Williams’s treatment and that this breach proximately caused Turner’s injuries. At trial, witnesses’ testifying on behalf of Turner stated that Dr. Jordan’s actions fell below the standard of care. The trial court instructed the jury to consider Williams’s intentional conduct in determining Dr. Jordan’s comparative fault. The jury found Dr. Jordan 100 percent at fault and awarded Turner over $1.1 million in damages. The trial court agreed with the jury’s verdict but not with its allocation of fault. The trial court granted Dr. Jordan’s motion for a new trial. Turner appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.