Wise v. Superior Court
272 Cal. Rptr. 222, 1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 830, 222 Cal.App.3d 1008 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person generally has no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent them from causing physical harm to another, unless a special relationship exists that gives the person the ability to control the third party's conduct and makes the specific harm foreseeable.
Facts:
- John Southey Wise (decedent) had a long history of erratic behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, psychiatric treatment, and a criminal record.
- Wise lived with his wife, Rosemary Wise (petitioner), and kept an arsenal of weapons at their residence, including numerous pistols, rifles, and a machine gun.
- Wise's behavior included keeping wild animals, being reported for strange conduct by neighbors, and threatening to shoot a neighborhood cat.
- Due to Wise's increasingly unstable and antisocial behavior, Rosemary Wise left their shared home at least one week prior to the incident.
- After his wife left, John Southey Wise mounted a sniper attack from the roof of his home, severely injuring several passing motorists.
- Following the attack, Wise took his own life.
Procedural Posture:
- Ginger M. Myers and David Luchetti sued Rosemary Wise in California Superior Court (a trial court).
- Wise filed a demurrer to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer, which allowed the lawsuit to proceed against Wise.
- Wise then petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, asking it to order the trial court to reverse its ruling and sustain the demurrer.
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 spouse have a legal duty to control their partner or warn others of their partner's conduct when the spouse lacks the ability to control the partner's violent acts and the specific harm to the victims was not foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Boren, J.
No. A spouse does not have a legal duty to control their partner or warn others where there is no ability to control the partner's conduct and the specific harm is unforeseeable. Generally, there is no duty to control a third person's conduct absent a special relationship. A special relationship sufficient to create such a duty requires the ability to control the third party, which was not present here; marriage alone does not confer this ability. The complaint itself illustrates that the decedent's behavior was beyond anyone's control. Furthermore, no special relationship existed between the petitioner and the plaintiffs because the harm was not foreseeable; despite the decedent's bizarre behavior, his only specific violent threat was against a cat, and there were no facts to suggest his wife could have known he would engage in a sniper attack on motorists. Finally, a claim for negligent entrustment fails because there are no facts showing the petitioner actually gave the weapons to the decedent or facilitated his use of them.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to impose a duty on one person to control the conduct of another. The court strictly interpreted the 'special relationship' doctrine, emphasizing that the mere fact of marriage does not create a legal duty to control a spouse. It clarifies that both the ability to control and the foreseeability of the specific harm are essential elements, thereby preventing the expansion of tort liability to family members who may be powerless to prevent a relative's violent acts. This case serves as a strong precedent against holding individuals vicariously liable for the unforeseeable criminal acts of their spouses or cohabitants.
