Bradshaw v. Daniel
854 S.W.2d 865 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician's special relationship with a patient creates an affirmative duty to warn identifiable, non-patient third parties, such as immediate family members, of foreseeable risks of exposure to the source of the patient's non-contagious disease.
Facts:
- On July 19, 1986, Elmer Johns was hospitalized with symptoms including headaches, muscle aches, fever, and chills.
- Dr. Chalmers B. Daniel, Jr. began treating Elmer Johns and, on July 22, suspected Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, ordering the appropriate medication.
- Dr. Daniel was in communication with Elmer's wife, Genevieve Johns, during the treatment but never advised her that her husband might have Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever or warned her of the risks associated with it.
- Elmer Johns died on July 23, 1986; an autopsy later confirmed the cause of death was Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.
- A week after her husband's death, on August 1, 1986, Genevieve Johns was admitted to a different hospital with similar symptoms.
- Genevieve Johns died three days later, on August 4, 1986, from Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.
- A patient-physician relationship never existed between Dr. Daniel and Genevieve Johns.
- Family members of patients with Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever are at a higher risk of contracting the disease due to a 'clustering' phenomenon, which relates to shared exposure to infected ticks in the same environment.
Procedural Posture:
- William Jerome Bradshaw, Genevieve Johns' son, filed a negligence lawsuit against Dr. Daniel in a Tennessee trial court.
- The trial court denied Dr. Daniel's initial motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, both based on the argument that he owed no legal duty to Genevieve Johns.
- A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Bradshaw.
- The trial judge then granted Bradshaw's motion for a new trial on the grounds of inadequate damages and denied Dr. Daniel's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Dr. Daniel filed a second motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied but certified for an interlocutory appeal on the question of legal duty.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) accepted the appeal, reversed the trial court, and granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Daniel, finding no legal duty existed.
- Bradshaw, as the appellant, sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a physician have a legal duty to warn an identifiable, non-patient family member of the foreseeable risk of exposure to the source of a patient's non-contagious disease?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, J.
Yes, a physician has a legal duty to warn an identifiable, non-patient family member of the foreseeable risk of exposure to the source of a patient's non-contagious disease. The absence of a physician-patient relationship with the third party is not an absolute bar to a negligence claim. While the common law generally does not impose a duty to act affirmatively for another's protection (nonfeasance), an exception arises when a 'special relationship' exists between the defendant and either the person causing the danger or the person at risk. The physician-patient relationship is such a special relationship. The court found this case analogous to precedents where physicians have a duty to warn third parties about contagious diseases or where psychotherapists have a duty to warn potential victims of a patient's violent threats. Even though Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever is not contagious from person to person, the risk to an identifiable family member like Genevieve Johns was foreseeable due to the 'clustering' phenomenon of infected ticks in a shared environment. Therefore, policy considerations support imposing an affirmative duty on Dr. Daniel to warn her of the foreseeable risk.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of a physician's duty to third parties beyond the established contexts of contagious diseases or direct threats of violence. It establishes that a duty to warn can arise from foreseeable risks emanating from the source of a patient's illness, even if the illness itself is not directly transmissible. By focusing on the foreseeability of harm to identifiable third parties in close proximity to the patient's environment, the ruling broadens potential physician liability and underscores that the physician-patient 'special relationship' can be a basis for duties owed to the patient's immediate family.
Unlock the full brief for Bradshaw v. Daniel