Hospital cleared of liability in patient's death from 5th-floor fall, court rules

A claim seeking damages in the 200 million won ($143,473) range, alleging that a hospitalized patient fell to his death due to alleged negligence in monitoring by medical staff, has been dismissed by the court.

The court ruled that medical workers cannot monitor every movement and action of a patient.

The Gwangju High Court recently upheld the original (first-instance) ruling that the hospital bears no liability for damages in a 200 million won lawsuit filed by the bereaved family against the corporation operating an alcohol specialty hospital, dismissing all appeals.

The deceased patient was hospitalized at the hospital in March 2022 for alcohol dependence syndrome and moderate depression. He fell from the fifth floor of the ward and was transferred to a nearby university hospital, but died two days later from multiple injuries. It was confirmed that the patient fell through a window on the stair landing after returning to the ward following a walk on the day of the accident.

The bereaved family demanded 222,136,604 won in damages plus delayed interest, alleging the hospital medical staff violated their duty of care by failing to prevent the fall. They argued that despite the patient’s strong aversion to hospitalization and symptoms, including hallucinations and auditory delusions, making him a “patient at risk of impulsive acts such as jumping from windows,” the medical staff neglected proper supervision.

They also maintained that the medical staff not only failed to properly monitor the patient's walking routes or whether he returned to the ward, but also “did not control locations where suicide could be easily attempted.”

The court disagreed. Both the first-instance and appellate courts found that the medical staff was not negligent. The court stated that it was “difficult for the medical staff to anticipate that the patient would go beyond merely evading their supervision and control to actually harm himself.” The tribunal especially noted that it was “not only impossible but also inappropriate for the hospital to monitor every movement and action of a patient.”

“The duty of supervision borne by an alcohol specialty hospital or its medical staff is limited to preventing risks of harm to the patient themselves or others within the ‘living environment,’” the court noted. “The patient was assessed as having no issues with cognitive ability and no observed risk of suicide. A depression test two months before death also showed no thoughts of suicide.”

The court also cited the patient's consistent participation in hospital programs and harmonious interactions with other patients.

“No regulatory provisions were found requiring the number of staff to accompany patients during walks or manage their movement routes at alcohol treatment hospitals. It cannot be concluded that medical staff bear a duty of care to accompany patients or monitor all their movements,” it further noted. “The hospital had previously explained to the guardian the possibility of the patient wandering off during walks or outdoor activities and obtained consent.”

The court also rejected the claim that the hospital had neglected to implement fall prevention measures. The bereaved family argued that the window from which the patient fell was large enough for an adult male to pass through, yet lacked any safety devices, asserting that the hospital had “failed to install and maintain adequate safety measures, resulting in a defect in installation and maintenance.”

However, the court stated, “It is difficult to conclude that escape or fall prevention facilities must be installed even on windows at stairwell landings outside closed wards,” adding, “The window from which the patient fell does not pose a high risk of falling unless one steps on the handle installed on the wall to climb up. There is also no evidence that it violated the facility standards for an alcohol specialty hospital.”

Accordingly, the court dismissed all appeals, finding no grounds for the bereaved family's claims.