Killeen v. State, 66 N.Y.2d 850 (1985)
The State owes a duty of reasonable care to patients in its institutions, commensurate with the patient’s capacity to provide for their own safety, but is not an insurer against all injuries, and certain risks are inherent in therapeutic programs designed to simulate normal living conditions.
Summary
Kevin Killeen, a severely retarded patient in a state mental hospital, was injured during a supervised therapy program when he accidentally overturned a pot of hot water. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the State liable. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that while the State owes a duty of reasonable care, it is not an insurer, and some risks are inherent in normalization programs. The court found that using a covered pot of boiling water in a demonstration was not negligence per se.
Facts
Kevin Killeen, a 23-year-old severely retarded man, was a patient at Kings Park Developmental Center. He participated in a “normalization program” designed to help patients live outside an institution. During a demonstration on preparing coffee and tea, Kevin accidentally overturned a covered pot of hot water, causing severe burns.
Procedural History
The Court of Claims dismissed Killeen’s claim against the State. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the State liable and remanding for damages assessment. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals from the judgment entered on remission.
Issue(s)
Whether the State breached its duty of reasonable care to a patient in a mental institution by using a covered pot of boiling water in a supervised therapy program, when the patient subsequently injured himself.
Holding
No, because while the State owes a duty of reasonable care to patients, it is not an insurer, and certain risks are inherent in therapeutic programs designed to simulate normal living conditions; the use of a covered pot of boiling water in a demonstration was not negligence per se.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the State’s duty to provide reasonable care to patients, citing Comiskey v. State of New York, 71 AD2d 699. However, the court emphasized that this duty does not make the State an insurer, nor does it require constant surveillance, referencing Hirsh v. State of New York, 8 NY2d 125, 127. The degree of care must be “commensurate with the patient’s capacity to provide for his or her own safety,” as established in Zophy v. State of New York, 27 AD2d 414, affd 22 NY2d 921.
The court found that normalization programs, intended to create a homelike setting, inherently involve risks. Using a covered pot of boiling water for a demonstration did not constitute negligence per se, especially considering the program’s therapeutic goals. The court cited Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 283, 285, supporting the idea that not all risks lead to liability.
The court emphasized that the decision to place Kevin in the normalization program was a medical judgment, for which the state cannot be held liable, citing Cameron v State of New York, 37 AD2d 46, affd 30 NY2d 596.
Because the Appellate Division’s reversal was based solely on the law, the Court of Appeals remitted the case to that court for factual review consistent with CPLR 5613.