Nally v. Grace Community Church

California Supreme Court
253 Cal. Rptr. 97, 47 Cal.3d 278, 763 P.2d 948 (1988)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Nontherapist counselors, including pastoral counselors, do not have a legal duty to refer potentially suicidal individuals to licensed mental health professionals, and the failure to do so does not give rise to a cause of action for negligence or 'clergyman malpractice.'

Facts:

Kenneth Nally, a young man with a history of depression, was a member of Grace Community Church and participated in their pastoral counseling programs.
The Church offered spiritual counseling through its pastors, none of whom were licensed psychotherapists, often teaching that the Bible contained solutions to personal problems.
In early 1979, Nally became despondent after a relationship breakup and received counseling from several pastors who were aware of his depressive state.
Nally attempted suicide by drug overdose in March 1979 and was hospitalized; physicians recommended psychiatric commitment, but Nally and his parents resisted this.
Upon release, Nally stayed with a pastor who encouraged him to see doctors but did not force involuntary commitment.
Shortly after moving back home and rejecting further professional psychiatric help, Nally committed suicide by gunshot in April 1979.

Procedural Posture:

Nally's parents filed a wrongful death action against the Church and four pastors in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Trial Court).
The Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment (Nally I).
The case returned to the Trial Court, where the judge granted a nonsuit (dismissal) after the plaintiffs presented their evidence, ruling the evidence was insufficient.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the nonsuit, holding that nontherapist counselors have a 'duty to refer' suicidal persons to professionals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do nontherapist pastoral counselors owe a legal duty to refer a suicidal counselee to a licensed mental health professional, such that failure to do so creates liability for negligence?

Opinions:

Majority - Lucas

No, the court held that nontherapist counselors do not have a duty to refer suicidal individuals to professionals. The court reasoned that a 'special relationship' creating a duty to prevent suicide has traditionally been limited to hospitals or institutions with custody over a patient. Extending this duty to voluntary, non-commercial counseling relationships would violate public policy by chilling informal support systems and deterring individuals from seeking help due to fear of involuntary commitment. Furthermore, the legislature specifically exempted clergy from licensing requirements applicable to therapists, indicating a legislative intent to keep pastoral counseling distinct from medical care. The court also affirmed the exclusion of a tape recording of a lecture given years later, citing it as irrelevant and prejudicial.

Concurrence - Kaufman

Yes, a minimal duty exists, but No, there is no liability in this specific case. The concurring justice argued that because the Church expressly held itself out as competent to treat severe psychological disorders, a minimal duty of care arose to advise Nally to seek medical help. However, the justice concurred with the judgment because the evidence showed the pastors actually did encourage Nally to continue seeing his doctors, and Nally was already under medical care; therefore, the pastors fulfilled their duty and did not cause his death.

Analysis:

This landmark decision effectively bars 'clergyman malpractice' suits in California, specifically regarding suicide prevention. By refusing to extend the duty of care found in medical malpractice cases to religious counselors, the court prioritized the protection of informal and religious counseling relationships over the imposition of professional standards on laypersons. The decision relies heavily on the distinction between professional medical treatment (which creates a special relationship of custody or control) and voluntary spiritual advice. It reflects a judicial reluctance to entangle the courts in evaluating the competency of religious instruction or to impose liability that might discourage 'Good Samaritan' behavior in the community.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"