## Facts

- Edgar Anicet, a 23-year-old man with lifelong severe mental illness and uncontrolled violent outbursts, was involuntarily committed under Florida’s Baker Act and housed in a ward for the lowest-functioning and most dangerous patients.
- Preston Gant worked at the hospital as a unit treatment specialist/attendant assigned to that ward; his duties included treating and controlling patients like Anicet, whose violent tendencies he knew.
- On January 15, 1988, while in a locked day room with other patients, Anicet threw a chair at another patient.
- Gant entered to calm Anicet and warned that continued behavior would result in isolation in a “quiet room.”
- As Gant began to leave, Anicet threw a heavy ashtray at Gant’s head; Gant was severely injured while twisting to avoid it.
- Gant received workers’ compensation for economic losses but sued Anicet in tort for assault and battery.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment on liability, the trial court granted summary judgment to Gant; a jury awarded damages and final judgment was entered for Gant.

## Issues

1. Whether a violently insane person, involuntarily confined in a secure mental institution, is liable for assault and battery against a paid attendant whose job is to manage and control such dangerous patients and who knows of the risk.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for Gant and directed entry of judgment for Anicet.
- It held that, on these facts, Anicet was not liable in tort to Gant for injuries caused by Anicet’s violent act.

## Legal Principles

- Although Florida generally holds insane persons liable for intentional and negligent torts, public policy may negate tort duty in a narrow setting.
- A confined, violently insane patient owes no tort duty to a professional attendant for injuries arising from the very risks the attendant is employed and paid to confront and control, when the attendant is aware of the patient’s dangerous propensities.
- The limitation is supported by an analogy to the fireman’s rule: persons hired to face particular inherent dangers ordinarily may not shift those inherent risks back to the source of the hazard through tort liability.
- The exception is fact-specific and does not eliminate general tort liability of mentally ill persons to members of the public or others not employed to manage the dangerous condition.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a narrow public-policy exception to the usual rule of tort liability for mentally ill actors, concluding that an involuntarily confined, violently insane patient is not liable for assaultive injuries inflicted on a paid attendant injured by dangers inherent in the attendant’s assigned duties.


Anicet v. Gant, 580 So. 2d 273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)