Involuntary Civil Commitment

Abstract

Although courts routinely consider whether a criminal defendant's mental illness makes punishment unfair, the rules are very different for civil liability. When people with mental illness harm others, courts refuse to consider their mental states in determining civil liability. The justifications offered for this rule range from the difficulty of assessing the impact of mental illness on behavior to the desire to place the burden of loss on the person who caused the injury. Undeniably, though, mental disabilities are treated differently from physical impairments, and the law's resistance to change seems largely based on misunderstanding and prejudice against mental illness....

(Psychiatric Services 63:308–310, 2012; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.20120p308)

Abstract

The grounds for liability in cases of involuntary civil commitment have been broadened in recent years. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have been found liable for infringement of civil rights under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act and for failure to commit an individual who is subsequently involved in a tragedy. This article reviews recent developments in tort liability in involuntary civil commitment as well as the traditional areas of tort liability, including malpractice, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and abuse of process. The authors believe that even in this climate of expanded liability, mental health professionals who follow the letter and spirit of civil commitment laws will continue to enjoy the broad protections from liability afforded them in the past...

PMID: 3596501