Bradshaw v. Daniel

Supreme Court of Tennessee · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyPhysician liability to non-patientsdutynegligencephysician-patient relationshipnon-patient

Facts

Dr. Daniel treated Elmer Johns, who was hospitalized with symptoms that Dr. Daniel recognized could be caused by Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and he prescribed the drug of choice for that disease. Although Dr. Daniel communicated with Elmer's wife, Genevieve Johns, he did not warn her that Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever could be causing her husband's symptoms, did not advise her of the incubation period or symptoms, and did not tell her to seek immediate treatment if similar symptoms appeared. A week after her husband's death, Genevieve developed similar symptoms, was treated for Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and died of that disease. The plaintiff alleged that Dr. Daniel's failure to warn Genevieve of the risk of exposure to the source of the disease proximately caused her death.

Issue

Whether a physician owes a legal duty to warn a non-patient, specifically the patient's wife, of the risk of exposure to the source of the patient's non-contagious disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. More specifically, the question was whether the absence of a physician-patient relationship and the non-contagious nature of the disease precluded any duty as a matter of law.

Rule

The existence of a physician-patient relationship is sufficient to impose upon a physician an affirmative duty to warn identifiable third persons in the patient's immediate family against foreseeable risks emanating from the patient's illness. Under the facts of this case, a physician has a duty to warn the patient's wife of the risk of contracting Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever when the physician knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the patient was suffering from the disease.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Knoxville, Dr. Lena Ortiz treated Caleb Mercer after he arrived with symptoms strongly consistent with a mosquito-borne illness that is not spread person-to-person but is often acquired by multiple members of the same household from the same yard exposure. Caleb's wife, Nora Mercer, was present at the clinic and told Dr. Ortiz that she and Caleb had spent the weekend gardening together, but Dr. Ortiz said nothing about warning signs or the need for prompt treatment if Nora developed symptoms.

If Nora later becomes seriously ill from the same disease and sues Dr. Ortiz for negligence, which is the best argument that Dr. Ortiz owed her a legal duty?

Explanation. The majority held that a physician-patient relationship may be sufficient to impose an affirmative duty to warn identifiable third persons in the patient's immediate family against foreseeable risks emanating from the patient's illness. The absence of a physician-patient relationship with Nora does not defeat a common-law negligence claim, and the duty is not limited to person-to-person contagious disease if the risk to the family member is foreseeable.