Opinion ID: 2628954
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Durflinger

Text: In the first of the Kansas cases, Durflinger v. Artiles, 234 Kan. 484, 673 P.2d 86 (1983), a psychiatric patient fatally shot his mother and brother 1 week after his discharge from an involuntary commitment. Heirs brought a diversity action against the hospital and several psychiatrists in federal court. Because the theory of recovery had not been considered in a Kansas case, the federal court certified a question to this court: Would Kansas recognize a valid cause of action for a claim which grew out of a negligent release of an involuntarily institutionalized patient who had violent propensities, as distinguished from negligent failure to warn persons who might be injured by the patient as result of the release? This court answered the question yes. In doing so, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the duty arose from a special relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Rather, this court held that general rules of negligence and medical malpractice control and there is no reason to apply the concept of a special relationship and the resulting affirmative duty to take some special step to protect a third party or the public. Durflinger, 234 Kan. at 499, 673 P.2d 86.