## Facts

- Matt Morgan, the adult son of Jerry and Marlene Morgan and brother of Marla Morgan, received outpatient mental-health treatment from Fairfield Family Counseling Center (FFCC) and affiliated clinicians for roughly a year.
- Matt’s functioning deteriorated over time, including behavioral problems at home that caused his parents to fear him.
- Matt previously received an external diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder and was prescribed antipsychotic medication; after improvement, he returned to Ohio and continued outpatient care at FFCC.
- According to later summaries, a consulting psychiatrist tapered Matt off medication and stopped monitoring him, while other FFCC professionals continued treatment.
- Matt’s mother warned FFCC that his condition was worsening, that he had placed a deposit on a gun, and requested initiation of involuntary hospitalization; FFCC concluded he was not a proper candidate for involuntary commitment.
- On July 25, 1991, during a family card game, Matt retrieved a gun, killed his parents, and seriously injured his sister.
- The estates of the deceased parents and the injured sister sued FFCC and individual mental-health professionals for negligence/malpractice based on alleged failure to assess, treat, and manage Matt’s dangerousness and to protect the family.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio law recognizes a duty for psychotherapists in an outpatient setting to protect third parties from a patient’s violent acts when the therapist knows or should know the patient poses a substantial risk of harm.
2. Whether R.C. 5122.34’s qualified immunity for good-faith failures to predict or warn bars recognition of a common-law duty to take affirmative steps to prevent outpatient violence.
3. Whether the outpatient psychotherapist–patient relationship is a “special relation” that can support a duty to control a patient’s conduct under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315, and what standard governs that duty.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals in part and remanded.
- The court held that, although there is generally no duty to control a third person’s conduct, a duty may arise when a “special relation” exists and the defendant has the ability to exercise control.
- The court held that R.C. 5122.34 does not preclude recognition of a common-law duty arising from a special outpatient psychotherapist–patient relationship.
- The court held that the outpatient psychotherapist–patient relationship constitutes a special relation that can justify a duty to protect against and/or control a patient’s violent propensities.
- The court held that when a psychotherapist knows or should know an outpatient represents a substantial risk of harm to others, the therapist must exercise the therapist’s best professional judgment to prevent such harm.
- The court limited its ruling to the existence and scope of duty, leaving breach, causation, and damages for determination on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in negligence is a legal question and commonly turns on foreseeability, but foreseeability does not by itself create a duty to control third-party conduct.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315, a defendant generally has no duty to control a third person to prevent harm to others absent a special relation with the third person or the potential victim.
- In the outpatient context, the psychotherapist–patient relationship may qualify as a special relation that supports a duty to take affirmative steps to protect others from a patient’s violence.
- R.C. 5122.34 provides qualified protection in specified failure-to-predict/failure-to-warn circumstances, but it does not categorically eliminate common-law duties to take reasonable preventive measures based on a special relation.
- The outpatient duty arises when the therapist knows or should know the patient presents a substantial risk of harm to others; the operative standard is the exercise of best professional judgment to prevent harm, not strict liability for a patient’s acts.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court recognized that outpatient psychotherapists can owe a common-law duty to take affirmative, professionally reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable violent harm to third parties when the therapist knows or should know the patient poses a substantial risk, and it remanded for further proceedings on breach and causation.


Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Ctr., 77 Ohio St. 3d 284, 673 N.E.2d 1311 (Ohio 1997)