The prevention of escape in psychiatric institutions. Strengthening the best efforts obligation
Vernet, Alain
The prevention of escape in psychiatric institutions. Strengthening the best efforts obligation - 2020.
36
Two recent legal judgments (October 2019), originating respectively from a judicial order (Court of Cassation) and from an administrative order (Administrative Court of Appeal, on referral after being set aside by the Council of State), have pronounced on the damages caused (in this case a homicide) or suffered (in this case a severe physical disability following a suicide attempt) by patients hospitalized in a public psychiatric hospital on the occasion of an escape from the facility. In one situation (judgment of the Court of Cassation), the patient's referring psychiatrist was convicted of manslaughter, that is to say that the hypothesis of a personal fault detachable from the service was supported, while in the other situation (judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal) the institution was ordered to compensate for the harm suffered by the patient resulting from the consequences of her attempted suicide on the occasion of her escape. In both cases, the discussions focused on whether or not the parties concerned respected compliance with the best efforts obligation, without ever explicitly invoking an obligation to achieve a particular result, even if the two appear to show a certain similarity.
The prevention of escape in psychiatric institutions. Strengthening the best efforts obligation - 2020.
36
Two recent legal judgments (October 2019), originating respectively from a judicial order (Court of Cassation) and from an administrative order (Administrative Court of Appeal, on referral after being set aside by the Council of State), have pronounced on the damages caused (in this case a homicide) or suffered (in this case a severe physical disability following a suicide attempt) by patients hospitalized in a public psychiatric hospital on the occasion of an escape from the facility. In one situation (judgment of the Court of Cassation), the patient's referring psychiatrist was convicted of manslaughter, that is to say that the hypothesis of a personal fault detachable from the service was supported, while in the other situation (judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal) the institution was ordered to compensate for the harm suffered by the patient resulting from the consequences of her attempted suicide on the occasion of her escape. In both cases, the discussions focused on whether or not the parties concerned respected compliance with the best efforts obligation, without ever explicitly invoking an obligation to achieve a particular result, even if the two appear to show a certain similarity.
Réseaux sociaux