Gregory v. Cott
331 P.3d 179, 59 Cal. 4th 996, 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The primary assumption of risk doctrine bars a professional in-home caregiver from recovering in tort for injuries caused by a patient's Alzheimer's disease-related conduct, as such risks are inherent in the caregiver's occupation.
Facts:
- Lorraine Cott, an 85-year-old woman, suffered from advanced Alzheimer's disease.
- Her husband, Bernard Cott, contracted with a home health care agency to provide professional care for Lorraine in their home.
- The agency assigned Carolyn Gregory, who was trained to care for Alzheimer's patients and knew they could be violent.
- Bernard Cott specifically warned Gregory that Lorraine was combative and known to bite, kick, scratch, and flail.
- Gregory's duties included supervising, bathing, dressing, and transporting Lorraine, along with some housekeeping.
- While Gregory was at the kitchen sink washing a large knife, Lorraine approached from behind, bumped into her, and reached toward the sink.
- In her attempt to restrain Lorraine, Gregory dropped the knife, which fell and struck her wrist, causing significant injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Carolyn Gregory filed a lawsuit against Bernard and Lorraine Cott in a California trial court, alleging negligence, premises liability, and battery.
- The trial court granted the Cotts' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
- Gregory, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeal.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The California Supreme Court granted review of the case.
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 the primary assumption of risk doctrine bar an in-home caregiver from suing an Alzheimer's patient for injuries caused by violent conduct that is a known symptom of the patient's disease?
Opinions:
Majority - Corrigan, J.
Yes. Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, an Alzheimer's patient owes no duty of care to a professional in-home caregiver for injuries resulting from the patient's disease-related symptoms. The court extended the principle of the 'firefighter's rule,' which holds that those hired to confront a specific hazard cannot sue for injuries caused by that same hazard. Here, Gregory was a professional hired to manage the risks inherent in caring for an Alzheimer's patient, including combative behavior. Therefore, the risk of injury from such behavior was central to her employment. Public policy also supports this conclusion, as imposing liability on families for in-home care would create a perverse incentive to institutionalize mentally disabled individuals, contrary to modern legislative and social preferences.
Concurring - Liu, J.
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees that Gregory's claims are barred because her injuries resulted from the very hazard she was hired to confront. However, it notes that the line between primary and secondary assumption of risk is thin in this context and that the result might be similar under either doctrine given the undisputed facts. The concurrence emphasizes that the tort system is an improper forum for ensuring adequate compensation for caregivers; instead, this is a broader public policy issue regarding worker safety, training, and compensation that is best addressed by the Legislature. The home health care agency, as a repeat player, is identified as the 'best cost avoider' and is better positioned than either the family or the caregiver to manage risks.
Dissenting - Rubin, J.
No. The primary assumption of risk doctrine should not be extended to in-home caregivers. The dissent argues that a private home is fundamentally different from an institutional setting like the one in Herrle, because the family retains extensive control over the environment and thus should also retain liability. It points out that Gregory's training was minimal and that violence is not inherent in caring for all Alzheimer's patients, making this situation better suited for analysis under secondary assumption of risk and comparative negligence. The dissent also contends that the public policy concern about encouraging institutionalization is speculative and should not be used to deny low-paid caregivers the right to recover for their injuries.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the occupational application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine, often called the 'firefighter's rule,' to include professional in-home caregivers for patients with Alzheimer's. By defining disease-related aggression as an inherent risk of the job, the court created a categorical 'no-duty' rule for families hiring such professionals. This ruling shifts the financial burden of such injuries from the patient's family (via tort liability) squarely onto the workers' compensation system. The case solidifies a policy preference for deinstitutionalization, using tort law to remove a potential financial barrier for families choosing in-home care over institutional placement for their relatives.
Unlock the full brief for Gregory v. Cott