Turner v. Jordan
Tennessee Supreme Court
957 S.W.2d 815 (1997)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
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
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.