of law, unless one of the aforementioned exceptions applies. To infer otherwise from cases where this Court has been less than precise in applying the well-established analytical framework for suicide cases seriously undermines the doctrine of stare decisis as it applies to this particular line of jurisprudence. 31 250 Ga. App. 472 (552 SE2d 865) (2001). 32 188 Ga. App. 106 (372 SE2d 265) (1988). 33 See Purcell, 250 Ga. App. at 475 (1); Brandvain, 188 Ga. App. at 116 (3) (b). 34 Purcell, 250 Ga. App. at 475 (1). 35 Id. 36 See id. at 475-76 (2). 37 See Brandvain, 188 Ga. App. at 109-10. 38 See id. at 111. 39 See id. at 112 (2). 40 Id. at 112-13 (2). 41 Id. at 116 (3) (b) (punctuation omitted). 42 See id. 43 Cf. Bradley Ctr., Inc. v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199, 200-01 (1) (296 SE2d 693) (1982) (<HOLDING>); Peterson, 315 Ga. App. at 375-78 (3)
holding that a psychiatrist had no duty to detain a patient who killed himself and injured his wife because the patient was outside of the scope of the facilitys range of observation and control even when the psychiatrist agreed to treat the patient the patient had suicidal tendencies and the psychologist took the patient into custody but then later permitted him to leave holding that defendant medical center which allowed a patient who would likely cause bodily harm to his wife if he had the opportunity to leave the center for a weekend could be liable for the patients actions of killing his wife and her paramour during that weekend because inter alia when the course of treatment of a mental patient involves an exercise of control over him by a physician who knows or should know that the patient is likely to cause bodily harm to others an independent duty arises from that relationship and falls upon the physician to exercise that control with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient punctuation omitted emphasis supplied recognizing that the nature of the therapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty  to refrain from  causing emotional or mental harm to the patient holding that evidence that patient who had a history of not taking medication and who murdered husband during a period when she was off of her medication and delusional tends to confirm the likelihood of serious harm to patient or others holding that no physicianpatient relationship between doctor who gave informal opinion over telephone at request of treating physician and minor patient whose case was discussed and thus doctor did not owe duty of care to patient