Reisner v. Regents of the University of California
31 Cal. App. 4th 1195, 95 Daily Journal DAR 1221, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 518 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician owes a duty to warn a patient who has a communicable disease about its contagious nature and the necessary precautions to prevent its spread, and this duty extends to foreseeable, albeit unknown and unidentifiable, third parties who may be harmed by the patient's failure to take precautions.
Facts:
- On April 18, 1985, 12-year-old Jennifer Lawson underwent surgery at UCLA Medical Center, where her physician, Dr. Eric Fonklesrud, administered blood and plasma transfusions.
- The day after the surgery, Dr. Fonklesrud and UCLA learned that the blood given to Jennifer was contaminated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibodies.
- Neither Dr. Fonklesrud nor UCLA informed Jennifer or her parents about the contaminated blood, the possibility of developing AIDS, or precautionary measures to prevent the disease's spread for over five years.
- Approximately three years after the transfusion, Jennifer began dating Daniel Reisner and they became intimate.
- On March 7, 1990, Jennifer was diagnosed with AIDS, determined to be a result of the 1985 blood transfusion.
- Jennifer and her parents informed Daniel about Jennifer's AIDS diagnosis.
- Jennifer died one month after her diagnosis.
- Shortly after Jennifer's death, Daniel was informed that he was HIV positive.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Reisner sued Dr. Eric Fonklesrud and the Regents of the University of California for damages.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings regarding Daniel's original and first amended complaints, which was granted with leave to amend.
- Daniel filed a second amended complaint.
- Defendants again moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend, concluding that no duty was owed to an unidentifiable third party.
- Daniel appealed from the judgment entered thereafter.
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 owe a duty of care to an unknown and unidentifiable third party who contracts a communicable disease from the physician's patient, when the physician failed to warn the patient of the disease's contagious nature and the necessary precautions?
Opinions:
Majority - Vogel (Miriam A.), J.
Yes, a physician owes a duty of care to an unknown and unidentifiable third party who contracts a communicable disease from the physician's patient, when the physician failed to warn the patient of the disease's contagious nature and the necessary precautions. The court reversed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings, holding that the defendants' duty to Jennifer extended to Daniel under the principles established in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976). While Tarasoff involved an identifiable victim, the court emphasized that the duty includes warning "others likely to apprise the victim of the danger." In this case, warning Jennifer or her parents would have been sufficient to apprise Daniel. Citing Myers v. Quesenberry (1983), the court reiterated that liability is not conditioned on potential victims being readily identifiable if warning the patient is a reasonable step to take in the exercise of the standard of care, and it was plausible that a timely warning to Jennifer would have prevented Daniel's injury. The court further drew support from DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County (1990), highlighting the imperative for physicians to provide proper advice about preventing the spread of communicable diseases to safeguard the health of others. The court rejected arguments that imposing such a duty would adversely affect physician-patient relationships or lead to unlimited liability, stating that the duty is fulfilled by warning the patient and that traditional causation principles would limit liability to subsequent persons.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of a physician's duty to warn beyond specifically identifiable third parties, as established in Tarasoff, to encompass foreseeable but unidentifiable individuals, particularly in the context of highly contagious and deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS. It reinforces the physician's role in public health by mandating active measures to prevent disease transmission. The decision implies that a doctor's failure to properly counsel a patient about the contagious nature of their illness, and the precautions necessary to prevent its spread, can lead to liability for harm to third parties who subsequently contract the disease, even if those parties were not known to the physician. This ruling sets a precedent for increased physician accountability in managing communicable diseases and emphasizes the importance of patient education as a public health measure.
